30
$\begingroup$

I regret to have to inform you that Stack Exchange (SE) has removed my moderator status today.

I had been an elected moderator on Chemistry for four years and a pro tempore moderator on another site for more than five years based on the old moderator agreement without any problems. Now SE thinks that’s not enough, and they want more. Two weeks ago, they have cancelled the old moderator agreement.

All moderators have been asked to accept a new moderator “agreement”. However, there are multiple problems with this new version, which make it unacceptable for me to sign it.

Some other moderators have told me that they don’t know why SE wants a new so-called agreement and that they haven’t read it. They have just clicked it since one is not offered a choice, and such things are not legally binding anyway. I, however, take my public statements a bit more seriously even if they carry no meaning.

Since I have not signed the so-called agreement, SE has now removed my moderator status.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The giant kerfluffle just about a year ago is the 'why', but there response has not been overly appropriate. Sorry to hear it. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Oct 23 at 17:47
  • 17
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for all the hard work you put into the sites, and thank you for being an exemplar for all of us! I don't know how much my gratitude is worth, but I hope you take some solace in the fact that you've impacted the lives of random strangers online and they might be thinking about this Faded Giant (A.K.A. Loong) person on the other side of the world. I hope you'll still be around? $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Oct 23 at 19:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry to hear that. Seems unimportant (after the fact) but it would be interesting to know what it is about that agreement that you dislike. It looks like they are just covering their butts but otherwise not being particularly demanding. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Oct 24 at 19:58
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @BuckThorn From my point of view, the most important problems with the new moderator “agreement” are as follows (by order of appearance in the new version, which is not necessarily the order of importance): $\endgroup$ – user7951 Oct 25 at 9:02
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ 1. The new version is not an “agreement”, it is a one-sided demand. I actually had an established agreement with SE for more than five years, but now SE decided that they want more. They cannot expect that I would like such additional claims if they are presented like this; in fact, I instinctively hate the changes, no matter how small. $\endgroup$ – user7951 Oct 25 at 9:02
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ 2. The Code of Conduct is now placed on a higher level in the hierarchy of statues than the legal Terms of Service –which is clearly wrong. $\endgroup$ – user7951 Oct 25 at 9:02
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ 3. The linked Code of Conduct is still the hotly debated unfinished draft of October 2019, which was pushed out in the context of the Monica debacle. Monica did not violate this Code of Conduct, not only because it was created after she was fired; however, if you sign this thing, it might look like you agree with the people who have fired Monica. $\endgroup$ – user7951 Oct 25 at 9:03
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ 4. You have to sign in advance that you will “abide by all other officially announced moderator and user policies” that will be released in the future. Of course, I will not give such a carte blanche to these people in advance, especially considering that many of their meta announcements in the past have been really terrible. $\endgroup$ – user7951 Oct 25 at 9:03
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ 5. You have to promise that you “will accept additional guidance given by members of the Stack Exchange, Inc. Community Team and Senior Leadership Team, whether in response to questions, concerns or discussions regarding existing network-wide policies.” I had downvoted or flagged so many of their meta posts in the past, so that I cannot honestly promise that I would accept any guidance given by these people. $\endgroup$ – user7951 Oct 25 at 9:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comments. $\endgroup$ – Buck Thorn Oct 25 at 9:32
10
$\begingroup$

There is no answer to this other than pure outrage.

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

From The Tavern chat:

"The way the announcement reads, even after its most recent edit, is that if a newly elected moderator (or one who has had 60 days) doesn't accept the new agreement: they'll be asked to, other mods on the site will be consulted to see if an election should be held (again), an election might be held and they'll be replaced - failing all the above they'll have 10K-tools (like me on a few sites) and a diamond; but no PII access." - Jul 9 2020

After posting, no one said my interpretation was incorrect.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There was a period of about two weeks with “a diamond, but no PII access”, which actually meant no access to any useful moderator tools at all – I couldn’t even see the list of flags. $\endgroup$ – user7951 Oct 25 at 7:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Also note that this was never really about “PII access” since “access to potentially personally-identifying information” was already well covered by the old moderator agreement. $\endgroup$ – user7951 Oct 25 at 8:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, the way it reads and the results aren't the same. It was the UI changes to permit people who hadn't signed to have minimal usability; such a Feature Request was low on the list until it received a lot of upvotes requesting its implementation. -- As for your second comment without the new agreement PII access is withdrawn. -- Thirdly, since (as per the comment in chat) everyone else signed SE was prepared to go one mod short here. --- It's somewhat similar to your ISP/Power Company/Cellular Provider writing to say we are changing our terms; agree or go to the competition. Many quit. $\endgroup$ – Rob Oct 25 at 8:31

You must log in to answer this question.