No, not for me.

Houseman has done well in articulating why the issue is not realistically resolved, but I would posit that it's even technically not resolved.

Why?

Because based on what I have observed, the "technical" exclusions to compelled speech are in direct opposition to the actions taken against Monica. If what the new FAQ specifies is indeed what is expected of users, then Monica did not violate those expectations.

So, given the reasons Monica was dismissed, if those reasons are still considered valid, it necessarily means that our speech is compelled on this matter.

I would like to add some background on my experience, as well.

I have been silent publicly about many of the recent issues, as it has been highly stressful for me just to participate in the moderator chatroom discussion. But I would like you to know that I have been very thorough in my familiarization with this situation, having been following the discussion on pronouns for over a year and reading transcripts for discussions going even further back. Additionally, I am an ally to the Lavender community and a vocal proponent of preferred personal pronouns, even outside of Stack Exchange.

To be fully transparent, many moderators will agree with me when I say that I have not been a vocal advocate for Monica with regards to her dismissal, and at times I've been a vocal opponent for lack of a better word. I have not worked closely with her to develop any sort of fondness or friendship. I am not giving this answer because I'm yet another user that wants Monica reinstated. And I'm not doing this because I'm tied up with emotions. I'm writing this explanation, because I want you to believe and trust me when I say that there is a severe logic issue when you try to reconcile SE's actions with SE's words.

We have evidence, in the form of Monica's punishment, that compelled speech is a requirement and asking for clarification on that front is also punishable (despite the FAQs statement). I know that not all the evidence is available to all parties, and that I don't even have all the evidence, merely more than non-moderators. But the evidence I do have is sufficient.

Additionally, I have seen early drafts of the FAQ, and offered input into revisions of the FAQ as well as the preceding announcements and even the actual CoC update. What I have seen, in my opinion, is the staff at SE struggle to word these documents in a way that maintains their condemnations of Monica while also giving users the (illusionary) ability to disengage. This opinion is one that I can't point to clear evidence on, unfortunately, which is why I've asked for your trust. When moderators have asked for wording to be clarified to try to make sense of how Monica was dismissed versus what the policy says, there has been:

• Avoiding the question by saying they don't want to keep making it about Monica
• Offering comments in chat (or on meta posts) that seem to answer concerns, but then never editing them into posts and thereby giving them legitimacy
• Evolved their language use in documentation drafts and the FAQ that, effectively, hide the conflict between what they're saying Monica did wrong and what they now say is right. In some ways I feel guilty about this, for my pointed questions to staff about how a particular wording makes sense considering what actually happened

I think certain employees at SE realize that there is a logical issue with speech requirements they have laid out, and how following that logic would be incongruous with realities such as the existence of religious and non-English stacks. When moderators called out these issues in drafts, they ended up being additional FAQ entries that avoid the underlying problem. I think the underlying problem with the confusion around compelled speech and what we are allowed to not say or must say stems from the impossibility of balancing what they say they want to accomplish, who they want to offer exceptions to so that whole stacks don't die, and maintaining the stance that Monica's actions would not considered OK under the current rules. They wanted to draw a hard line in the sand, but they have dusted over the parts of the line after realizing how large the line needed to be.

So no, the compelled speech problem is not resolved. I feel at risk as a moderator. I feel at risk as a user. I am confused by the rules and the claims of how issues and violations will be handled. And while I have no issues with the particular speech I would be compelled to use, I do not believe that if I felt otherwise that I would not summarily be subjected to the new moderator removal process.