-3

In the post Update: an agreement with Monica Cellio, we were informed that Stack Exchange has made an agreement with Monica, that she can apply for reinstatement according to the new terms.

How can Stack Overflow Inc. fire a mod and, after acknowledging that they made a mistake, invite her to apply for reinstatement?

Firing a mod, updating terms, and inviting them to apply for reinstatement according to the new terms seems quite unfair.

The most fundamental concept about Stack Overflow Inc. is the community. This is not the right way to fire a mod. We should handle things a a community and decisions should be up to the members of the community.

Stack Overflow Inc. ought to give Monica her status back, if she desires!

UPDATE: Well it seems like the community is not the basic concept of Stack Overflow Inc. anymore, but rather getting a ton of new users, in order for site owners to earn money through advertising.

Stack Overflow Inc. was much better when things was handled as a community. Hopefully they will return to the old way of doing things one day!

  • 16
    We have to accept something. An agreement has been reached. The question you link to was probably part of that agreement. Although it is not 100% clear it is a legal agreement (i.e. extinguishes Monica's action towards SE), in my personal experience, agreements like these are final -- there is nothing to discuss anymore and no progress to be made afterwards. Monica has not been reinstated. She does not want to go through the reinstatement process. This is it. There will be no change. She's gone as a moderator on our platform, and we have to live with that, not complain over it forever. – Frédéric Hamidi Dec 23 '19 at 20:05
  • 4
    So, what exactly do you want out of this post? What's in here that can't be, or isn't discussed in the "Update" post? – Cerbrus Dec 23 '19 at 22:14
18

The most fundamental concept about SE is, community. This is not the right way to fire a mod. We should handle things a a community and decisions should be up to the members of the community.

I don't think it is anymore. They seem to have changed their marketing strategies.

Stack Overflow Inc. seems to be in pressure for monetizing the site, and attract as many new users to subscribe and clicks they can get for any advertising companies at their sites.

The communities to built quality based FAQ like repositories of questions and answers was an initial concept, but didn't work out well for potential investors over time it seems.

The communities trying to hold quality standards up (regardless of coming from elected site moderators or higher rep community members) were blamed to be toxic and unfriendly by just doing that. That's not a really good PR to attract new investors or advertisement customers.

Though that somehow conflicts with the need for a community to keep the whole thing running at an acceptable quality level and responsiveness.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    It’s sad to see that SE goes in this direction, but there is not really much to do about it :( – user569408 Dec 23 '19 at 20:49
  • @Jdrupal Well, there were some fundamental things going on to restructure the company, but these weren't communicated to the community well. And of course the community isn't able to do much about that. – πάντα ῥεῖ Dec 23 '19 at 20:56
16

If the firing was rushed and unfair, as it appears SE now admits it was, why can't the re-instatement ALSO be rushed and non-procedural?

It even matches holiday-wise! You "shipped on Friday" (demodded her) right before HER high holy days, and now you can RESTORE her right before (presumably) yours!

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    Haha yes, that would totally be fair! – user569408 Dec 23 '19 at 21:34
13

I feel like this comment encapsulates the circumstance quite nicely.

We have to accept something. An agreement has been reached. The question you link to was probably part of that agreement. Although it is not 100% clear it is a legal agreement (i.e. extinguishes Monica's action towards SE), in my personal experience, agreements like these are final -- there is nothing to discuss anymore and no progress to be made afterwards. Monica has not been reinstated. She does not want to go through the reinstatement process. This is it. There will be no change. She's gone as a moderator on our platform, and we have to live with that, not complain over it forever.

Irrespective of how you may feel about it...Stack Exchange Inc. sets the policies for how moderators are brought back into the fold. If a former moderator doesn't want to go through that process, then there's nothing to debate or discuss.

I don't disagree that the circumstances which led to Monica's specific departure were questionable at best. However, it's still the case that, at the end of the day, Stack Exchange Inc. sets the rules.

| improve this answer | |
  • Eh...we should disambiguate this a bit, @Jdrupal. There are no community elected moderators on MSE, and Monica and a handful of others were privileged enough to become moderators without being actual employees. The community can absolutely decide who should be a moderator, but they're still beholden to the terms and conditions set by SE as part of the moderator agreement, and in that view, SE has veto power. – Makoto Dec 23 '19 at 22:32
  • Up until October, this has posed little issue. Now, the problem is that we can't filter through the noise of the people demanding that Monica bypass the new policies through people just legitimately disagreeing with the moderator agreement. – Makoto Dec 23 '19 at 22:34