-66

Elected Moderators generally control the Meta content that is featured on their sites (with the exception of Meta Stack Exchange, due to the network-wide reach of posts featured there) through the usage of the tag, but Community Managers may step in to unfeature or feature things too. What are the guidelines around that?

Return to FAQ Index

  • 7
    Is this 1-day-only featuring of moderator resignation still an active policy? – Anton Menshov Feb 10 at 23:12
  • 15
    @AntonMenshov No. This replaces it entirely. – Cesar M Feb 10 at 23:12
  • 5
    Yet another situation: this post is not visible on the main page due to downvotes; however, I would not make it featured, since it simply deserves regular visibility. – Anton Menshov Feb 10 at 23:52
  • 1
    I don't see how this question is unclear. To the close voter, if you disagree with this post, casting a close vote as "needs detail" isn't the right way to express it. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Feb 11 at 0:03
  • 11
    What incident prompted this FAQ's creation? – Mark Amery Feb 11 at 0:06
  • 2
    @MarkAmery see this question and discussion – Anton Menshov Feb 11 at 0:07
  • 1
    Will the first draft, so to speak, be now deleted as the newer guideline replaces it? – Mari-Lou A Feb 11 at 9:56
  • 2
    Just when I start to feel like the Community is coming out the other side of this mess, corporate sets things on fire. Meta seemed, finally, to be returning to a level of normalcy. This will move things in the wrong direction. – Scott Seidman Feb 11 at 16:26
  • 4
    So the existing procedure to create new FAQ questions was ignored again? – rgettman Feb 11 at 21:13
  • "Deleting this as is standard for FAQs" Hardly "standard". There is longstanding precedent for FAQs to have an array of answers posted. There is far less precedent for pre-annointed FAQs that accept no answers other than the single one provided by staff. – jscs Feb 11 at 23:11
  • 5
    Downvoting this as in my standards for this kind of behavior. Sadly, unless some more exposition is given, this only feel a generic way to cover up and reduce visibility of post that can do bad advertising for the company. Tried to engage in discussion, but it was shut down, so expressing disagreement with votes is the only option left. – BlueSoul Feb 12 at 8:37
-74

CMs will work with moderators to remove problematic content if there is a concern about a specific post. The guidance is as follows:

  1. Do not feature posts singling out users by username (or real name) without their express consent. Take special care with question titles. Posts that are about or name someone and don't have that person's prior consent will be unfeatured by Mods, or CMs when the Mods do not.

  2. Posts that are or become overly antagonistic, or that draw out disruptive behavior or discussion will be reviewed to see if the cause of concern can be removed. If not, the post will be unfeatured by Mods or CMs.

In either case CMs will work with Moderators first before unfeaturing and should it be necessary to get a post removed from the featured list sooner than it would naturally age out of the cache, moderators can request help from the CMs to do so.

This policy was implemented after two rounds of feedback with the moderator team. The prior rule that moderator resignation posts could only be featured for 24 hours has been rescinded.

  • 81
    As outlined multiple times behind closed doors: That SE considers it necessary to state this policy shows a lack of trust in the moderators that were elected to keep their communities clean and in accordance with the CoC (or back before that was a thing "be nice"). The guidance here outlines cases that clearly violate the CoC (and "be nice"). This guidance strongly implies moderators would feature content that goes against one of the core tenets of the network. At this point it's just sad. – Vogel612's Shadow Feb 10 at 22:34
  • 10
    How are elections handled, and specifically election results? By necessity those name specific users. – Andy Feb 10 at 22:41
  • 29
    Point 1 is kinda broader than what was originally stated. Considering one or more moderators have to make the decision, and at least in theory, they're trusted to make these decisions, and in some of these cases, those individuals might have chosen, or have been forced into leaving... this seems impractical. Point 2 seems to be something we'd be expected to/need to handle anyway as part of our duties as mods. – Journeyman Geek Feb 10 at 22:43
  • 21
    I really don't think obfuscating the issue by making these rules overly generic is useful. This is about the policy change regarding moderator resignation posts, which are certainly about specific users, and as alleged by SE are likely to attract negative behaviour. What exactly changes now compared to the previous edict by SE on removing them after 24 hours? I can't tell if this is an improvement or not, the new policy is rather vague and fuzzy and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. – Mad Scientist Feb 10 at 22:51
  • 9
    What constitutes as consent in this case? – user400654 Feb 10 at 22:57
  • 47
    And as already alluded in a comment, you're essentially calling the MSE and MSO mods incompetent or malicious. Overly antagonistic or disruptive content is exactly the kind of stuff that moderators deal with and remove. – Mad Scientist Feb 10 at 22:58
  • 10
    If I post a question on Meta where my name is in the title, is this enough for a consent? Do I need to fill out a permission slip agreeing for my post to be featured? – Dharman Feb 10 at 23:01
  • 42
    Unfortunately since Monica was sacked it's been hard to trust that the community's assessment of what a "disruptive discussion" is agrees with that of the company. – Andras Deak Feb 10 at 23:15
  • 40
    @CesarM If you trust the MSO and MSE mods, this whole thing wouldn't be necessary. So the existence of this new rule alone implies that SE doesn't trust them. – Mad Scientist Feb 10 at 23:43
  • 25
    I want to echo @JourneymanGeek here. This is incredibly broad. There are plenty of reasons to call out a person, and some of them are good. A person's public user name is not private and shouldn't be a problem in a post, title or otherwise. Point 2 is exactly what the job of a moderator is. – Thomas Owens Feb 11 at 0:10
  • 12
    What counts as a post "singling out" or being "about" a user? Are Meta posts about specific questions, answers, or actions (all of which are necessarily by some user) now forbidden from being featured? Or only posts about patterns of behaviour? Without any examples, I don't really grasp of what this is supposed to forbid. – Mark Amery Feb 11 at 0:13
  • 22
    Worth pointing out here that #1 isn't really new, nor limited to "featured" posts: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289909/… it does need the nuance that animuson provides in that linked post however: a call-out and a naming are very different things! Some sites note people in community milestones; others memorialize those who have died... These are delicate situations for many reasons and demand commiserate delicacy in how they are treated. – Shog9 Feb 11 at 1:02
  • 14
    My good-faith assumption here is that the more narrow meaning was intended, and this is simply a matter of careless wording, @D.W. - surely no one would wish a blanket prohibition on "thanks for all your hard work, <list of people who earned 100K>". But you are correct in that the current wording does not allow this - hopefully it can be tightened up post haste! – Shog9 Feb 11 at 1:23
  • 20
    Can you please let me know if you have obtained consent from all the users whose names and avatars you are currently featuring on your home page and in the reputation leagues? If you have not obtained express consent from these users, then you seem to be in violation of your own policy. Why does the policy for featuring questions on Meta not apply to Stack Exchange's own home page? – Cody Gray Feb 11 at 2:54
  • 23
    Simple honesty would be greatly preferable here. "We will toggle [featured] on posts at our discretion." (full stop). Could even throw in a "We reserve the right to..." I suppose. The second point is equivalent to that, in reality. – jscs Feb 11 at 3:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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