Ex-Moderator Madara Uchiha's resignation notice was recently untagged as by a staff member, which removes it from the featured box on the related community's sidebar. This is rather early for a moderator resignation.

Per a recent answer from Juan M. on a question regarding the above event, it is now becoming standard practice for moderator resignations to be untagged from after only 24 hours.

This is a rather large step away from the usual practice of letting elected moderators decide how long moderator resignations, or questions in general, should be featured.

Juan went on to explain, with my emphasis on one point:

Lately, we have had an increase of resignation posts that have served to host combative and hurtful words to attack Stack employees, other mods, and teammates. We need to be mindful of this and limit the time the posts are featured.

We still value people posting these when they're stepping away from the team. We also value folks being able to say their goodbyes and we want to continue to feature these resignation posts. But we need to keep an eye on the length of time that these featured posts can be in the sidebar.

Why can't the hurtful material be moderated, as is usual practice? Is it too much to moderate?

I feel what Journeyman Geek♦ mentioned here is particularly impactful:

We watch out for, and remember our own. If we're restricting this due to fear, we're lost. We have lost.

Featured posts, as noted historically, should be a reflection of what the community at large feels requires attention. I feel that a moderator resignation, given their extensive contributions to the community, should be a part of that - for a time that their fellow elected moderators feel is appropriate. They're very important moments in a community's history.

For what other reasons are we limiting these announcements now? Are there no other options?

  • 5
    Related on MSO: meta.stackoverflow.com/q/392991/6380541. I'd especially ask for consideration of this comment on that question, and wait a bit to see what comes forward from there.
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 20:53
  • 2
    Juan has updated his answer, which now technically answers this one.
    – Spevacus
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 20:59
  • Shall I close this as a duplicate for you then?
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 21:01
  • 3
    @Tinkeringbell I'd greatly appreciate that. No need to light fires where they're unnecessary.
    – Spevacus
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 21:02
  • 2
    Seems you beat me to it. Nice :) Thank you. Having this in one place will make moderating it easier too.
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 21:06
  • 3
    This question was reopened without my own vote. I've updated it to be more specific.
    – Spevacus
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 23:59
  • 2
    @CodyGray This question was previous closed as a duplicate of that question, however it was reopened by other community members because (at least, I imagine) they wanted a more specific answer and/or to search for any sort of roundabout solutions.
    – Spevacus
    Commented Jan 17, 2020 at 1:37
  • 4
    We're all unhappy with the answer Juan provided. None of us can see how there is even an attempt to justify the "policy", nor can any of us accept the policy. However, I don't see how it does any good to open a second question about it. If we're going to get any of the answers we seek, we're going to get them there. It only makes it more difficult for the community to review and discuss if we spread discussion out amongst multiple questions. This is my thinking, at least. I don't see the two questions as being materially different; that's why I voted to close. Commented Jan 17, 2020 at 1:43
  • 1
    @CodyGray Thank you for clarifying. Originally, I was satisfied at this just being a signpost duplicate as proposed by Tinkeringbell... You're right, though. That question is starting to get answers branching off of it. Might as well keep it all there.
    – Spevacus
    Commented Jan 17, 2020 at 1:46

1 Answer 1


I will focus here with a heavily-paraphrased and augmented part of my answer in the other thread.

If the 24-hour limitation is driven solely by hurtful words and attacks, as per:

... we have had an increase of resignation posts that have served to host combative and hurtful words to attack Stack employees, other mods, and teammates. We need to be mindful of this and limit the time the posts are featured.

there is an existing concept to combat that: moderation. That is what any Stack Exchange community is built on: not just moderators have the power to fight with rude and offensive comments. We have users, who can and should flag posts and comments with personal attacks. We have moderators who handle those flags and give out suspensions when necessary. Locking the post and/or comments section is also a very viable option.

Now, if there are other unannounced reasons for a 24-hour limitation, I still think the chosen strategy is wrong (bordering with evil). I doubt that anything PR-related can be achieved by trying to artificially restrict the dissemination of information.

I do not see any other possibilities for the proposed ban. And none suggests that a 24-hour limitation is a good (and even meaningful) solution.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .