Skip to main content
Commonmark migration
Source Link

Update 6.11.19:

#Update 6.11.19: (Related update, 30.10.19)

 

For those of you who either don't pay attention or missed it, someone leaked info about a future change announced on the internal moderator team. It was initially posted here on the network, but currently lives on through the internet archive and Reddit (r/stackoverflow).

 

While I'm not going to link it directly (or mention any details aside the existence of a leak, because I'd like to keep this answer alive), I believe this change would've been received about as badly as some of the other major changes in the current environment. Presented later, it might've been fine, but presenting it without resolving the existing issues is basically pouring gasoline next to a spreading fire, thinking "it won't come here!"

 

The change is likely to spark another controversy, and once again risk the targeting of another underrepresented group in tech. SE's intentions are good, but once again, the execution is (would've been, technically) awful.

 

The CoC update - intended to protect LGBTQ users - sparked events that made it less safe for us. SE was once the safest place on the internet, and I really liked it because it wasn't a safe space. It was a place where different beliefs, opinions, and not to forget identities could live together - differences aside. At least on technical sites (samples from SO, SU, AU, vi.SE), but also meta (samples from MSO and MSE).

 

Unfortunately, the CoC change brought out the worst aspects of people because it turned into a complete mess of multiple problems that were bundled up into a massive ball of frustration and anger. Off the top of my head, Monica's removal (central aspect), the problems Aza mentions, the (at one point) "future, mysterious, unannounced CoC change", as well as ads, and the underlaying frustration caused by a lack of communication, and for many at least core users, frustration with old, unscaled systems, the change of the SO front page to what can only be described as a paywall for people who aren't users, and probably more I've left out. Throwing more onto this pile of crap isn't in anyone's best interest at the moment.

 

Moreover, SE isn't responsive and I'm starting to doubt many of their statements. There are still a few staff members that interact with the community in an outright exemplary way - and I need to mention this because, in spite of a lot of things being crap at the moment, not all the people are awful. This is speculation, but I believe some form of management order is messing up a lot of the communication.

 

But to the point: Shog and Yaakov are the employees I'm talking about. Yaakov is taking point on the post notice rollout - a rather major change in a heated climate, but it's still handled fantastically. Shog generally has an ability to calm down heat, at least in my experience. Additionally, posts involving Shog (notably the 3 close vote experiment) rarely gets ignored. The research results were delayed, but when people asked about a status, they actually got answers. It's not like with the deadlocked open letter situation, in which it appears SE is ignoring the letters, mainly because the person involved (Sara) is unresponsive. There's been multiple requests on a status, all of which have been ignored.

 

I'm not trying to hang out Sara here, but on another post where she was involved (in all fairness, along with Tim Post - but a recent comment has made me doubt whether he actively ignored comments or not. The comment is completely unrelated, but it established some trust), concerns were ignored. For those who aren't aware, this is the question, well, specifically change I'm talking about.

 

We can only speculate why this happens. Automatically blaming management isn't a good idea, nor is it constructive, but when there's a clear difference in responsiveness depending on which employee, I do get suspicious.

 

My weirdly phrased point: On the 30th, I decided leave within the next two weeks. I'm still here for the next week, because the network has become a slight addiction I need to manage. The reasons for that are mine alone, and I won't discuss these.

 

I've tried being nice, I've tried being provocative, I've tried expressing frustration, and I've helped create pressure - none of these things have worked so far, and I'm getting tired of it. The only thing that can turn the situation around is SE, but I currently have no belief they'll take the situation under control.

Note: Since this answer was posted, things have taken a different direction. Feedback from moderators on the CoC got ignored, communication is still broken, lots of critical posts go unacknowledged, a tweet from the director of public Q&A caused further drama, communication between Monica and the company has allegedly broken down, and the situation has overall gotten significantly more heated. To top this off, a shortage of moderators let the worst people continue because things simply cannot be handled fast enough. This isn't the moderators' fault - the problem lies in fewer mods and an ever-increasing stream of content.

 

I still stand by what I've said in this post, but the situation didn't go the way I expected. This is also why I added this note. The CoC release was handled about as horribly as the problems leading up to this situation, which has caused significantly more hate and toxicity, not just against LGBTQ, but against users in general. The apology seems pretty pointless now, because they did the exact same thing again with no regard for consequences, and without thinking about all the people on the other end of their actions.

 

It's time for this to end, and it appears that the only way to get you (Stack Overflow, Inc) to listen is by applying pressure. I'll be continuing my strike until I see real, good-faith attempts to resolve this situation, as well as attempts to restore communication between users/mods and the company, preferably before the community gets damaged beyond recovery.

 

And I'm going to say it a last time; you still have a chance of recovery, but you need to start taking action. If something is delayed and you know it is, say so publicly. And try to listen to people suggesting alternatives to improve the CoC further - you can still refine the details to allow users to survive if they make mistakes, make it technically possible for mods to enforce, and let users help without losing the intent behind the change. We want to help you, so please talk to us before everything starts collapsing. Until you do, people will continue to be angry, and either intentionally or without knowing it in a pure venting mode hurt real people. Regardless of who the CoC update aimed to help, it doesn't help anyone when the community turns on itself.

 

Old answer:

#Update 6.11.19: (Related update, 30.10.19)

 

For those of you who either don't pay attention or missed it, someone leaked info about a future change announced on the internal moderator team. It was initially posted here on the network, but currently lives on through the internet archive and Reddit (r/stackoverflow).

 

While I'm not going to link it directly (or mention any details aside the existence of a leak, because I'd like to keep this answer alive), I believe this change would've been received about as badly as some of the other major changes in the current environment. Presented later, it might've been fine, but presenting it without resolving the existing issues is basically pouring gasoline next to a spreading fire, thinking "it won't come here!"

 

The change is likely to spark another controversy, and once again risk the targeting of another underrepresented group in tech. SE's intentions are good, but once again, the execution is (would've been, technically) awful.

 

The CoC update - intended to protect LGBTQ users - sparked events that made it less safe for us. SE was once the safest place on the internet, and I really liked it because it wasn't a safe space. It was a place where different beliefs, opinions, and not to forget identities could live together - differences aside. At least on technical sites (samples from SO, SU, AU, vi.SE), but also meta (samples from MSO and MSE).

 

Unfortunately, the CoC change brought out the worst aspects of people because it turned into a complete mess of multiple problems that were bundled up into a massive ball of frustration and anger. Off the top of my head, Monica's removal (central aspect), the problems Aza mentions, the (at one point) "future, mysterious, unannounced CoC change", as well as ads, and the underlaying frustration caused by a lack of communication, and for many at least core users, frustration with old, unscaled systems, the change of the SO front page to what can only be described as a paywall for people who aren't users, and probably more I've left out. Throwing more onto this pile of crap isn't in anyone's best interest at the moment.

 

Moreover, SE isn't responsive and I'm starting to doubt many of their statements. There are still a few staff members that interact with the community in an outright exemplary way - and I need to mention this because, in spite of a lot of things being crap at the moment, not all the people are awful. This is speculation, but I believe some form of management order is messing up a lot of the communication.

 

But to the point: Shog and Yaakov are the employees I'm talking about. Yaakov is taking point on the post notice rollout - a rather major change in a heated climate, but it's still handled fantastically. Shog generally has an ability to calm down heat, at least in my experience. Additionally, posts involving Shog (notably the 3 close vote experiment) rarely gets ignored. The research results were delayed, but when people asked about a status, they actually got answers. It's not like with the deadlocked open letter situation, in which it appears SE is ignoring the letters, mainly because the person involved (Sara) is unresponsive. There's been multiple requests on a status, all of which have been ignored.

 

I'm not trying to hang out Sara here, but on another post where she was involved (in all fairness, along with Tim Post - but a recent comment has made me doubt whether he actively ignored comments or not. The comment is completely unrelated, but it established some trust), concerns were ignored. For those who aren't aware, this is the question, well, specifically change I'm talking about.

 

We can only speculate why this happens. Automatically blaming management isn't a good idea, nor is it constructive, but when there's a clear difference in responsiveness depending on which employee, I do get suspicious.

 

My weirdly phrased point: On the 30th, I decided leave within the next two weeks. I'm still here for the next week, because the network has become a slight addiction I need to manage. The reasons for that are mine alone, and I won't discuss these.

 

I've tried being nice, I've tried being provocative, I've tried expressing frustration, and I've helped create pressure - none of these things have worked so far, and I'm getting tired of it. The only thing that can turn the situation around is SE, but I currently have no belief they'll take the situation under control.

Note: Since this answer was posted, things have taken a different direction. Feedback from moderators on the CoC got ignored, communication is still broken, lots of critical posts go unacknowledged, a tweet from the director of public Q&A caused further drama, communication between Monica and the company has allegedly broken down, and the situation has overall gotten significantly more heated. To top this off, a shortage of moderators let the worst people continue because things simply cannot be handled fast enough. This isn't the moderators' fault - the problem lies in fewer mods and an ever-increasing stream of content.

 

I still stand by what I've said in this post, but the situation didn't go the way I expected. This is also why I added this note. The CoC release was handled about as horribly as the problems leading up to this situation, which has caused significantly more hate and toxicity, not just against LGBTQ, but against users in general. The apology seems pretty pointless now, because they did the exact same thing again with no regard for consequences, and without thinking about all the people on the other end of their actions.

 

It's time for this to end, and it appears that the only way to get you (Stack Overflow, Inc) to listen is by applying pressure. I'll be continuing my strike until I see real, good-faith attempts to resolve this situation, as well as attempts to restore communication between users/mods and the company, preferably before the community gets damaged beyond recovery.

 

And I'm going to say it a last time; you still have a chance of recovery, but you need to start taking action. If something is delayed and you know it is, say so publicly. And try to listen to people suggesting alternatives to improve the CoC further - you can still refine the details to allow users to survive if they make mistakes, make it technically possible for mods to enforce, and let users help without losing the intent behind the change. We want to help you, so please talk to us before everything starts collapsing. Until you do, people will continue to be angry, and either intentionally or without knowing it in a pure venting mode hurt real people. Regardless of who the CoC update aimed to help, it doesn't help anyone when the community turns on itself.

 

Old answer:

Update 6.11.19:

(Related update, 30.10.19)

For those of you who either don't pay attention or missed it, someone leaked info about a future change announced on the internal moderator team. It was initially posted here on the network, but currently lives on through the internet archive and Reddit (r/stackoverflow).

While I'm not going to link it directly (or mention any details aside the existence of a leak, because I'd like to keep this answer alive), I believe this change would've been received about as badly as some of the other major changes in the current environment. Presented later, it might've been fine, but presenting it without resolving the existing issues is basically pouring gasoline next to a spreading fire, thinking "it won't come here!"

The change is likely to spark another controversy, and once again risk the targeting of another underrepresented group in tech. SE's intentions are good, but once again, the execution is (would've been, technically) awful.

The CoC update - intended to protect LGBTQ users - sparked events that made it less safe for us. SE was once the safest place on the internet, and I really liked it because it wasn't a safe space. It was a place where different beliefs, opinions, and not to forget identities could live together - differences aside. At least on technical sites (samples from SO, SU, AU, vi.SE), but also meta (samples from MSO and MSE).

Unfortunately, the CoC change brought out the worst aspects of people because it turned into a complete mess of multiple problems that were bundled up into a massive ball of frustration and anger. Off the top of my head, Monica's removal (central aspect), the problems Aza mentions, the (at one point) "future, mysterious, unannounced CoC change", as well as ads, and the underlaying frustration caused by a lack of communication, and for many at least core users, frustration with old, unscaled systems, the change of the SO front page to what can only be described as a paywall for people who aren't users, and probably more I've left out. Throwing more onto this pile of crap isn't in anyone's best interest at the moment.

Moreover, SE isn't responsive and I'm starting to doubt many of their statements. There are still a few staff members that interact with the community in an outright exemplary way - and I need to mention this because, in spite of a lot of things being crap at the moment, not all the people are awful. This is speculation, but I believe some form of management order is messing up a lot of the communication.

But to the point: Shog and Yaakov are the employees I'm talking about. Yaakov is taking point on the post notice rollout - a rather major change in a heated climate, but it's still handled fantastically. Shog generally has an ability to calm down heat, at least in my experience. Additionally, posts involving Shog (notably the 3 close vote experiment) rarely gets ignored. The research results were delayed, but when people asked about a status, they actually got answers. It's not like with the deadlocked open letter situation, in which it appears SE is ignoring the letters, mainly because the person involved (Sara) is unresponsive. There's been multiple requests on a status, all of which have been ignored.

I'm not trying to hang out Sara here, but on another post where she was involved (in all fairness, along with Tim Post - but a recent comment has made me doubt whether he actively ignored comments or not. The comment is completely unrelated, but it established some trust), concerns were ignored. For those who aren't aware, this is the question, well, specifically change I'm talking about.

We can only speculate why this happens. Automatically blaming management isn't a good idea, nor is it constructive, but when there's a clear difference in responsiveness depending on which employee, I do get suspicious.

My weirdly phrased point: On the 30th, I decided leave within the next two weeks. I'm still here for the next week, because the network has become a slight addiction I need to manage. The reasons for that are mine alone, and I won't discuss these.

I've tried being nice, I've tried being provocative, I've tried expressing frustration, and I've helped create pressure - none of these things have worked so far, and I'm getting tired of it. The only thing that can turn the situation around is SE, but I currently have no belief they'll take the situation under control.

Note: Since this answer was posted, things have taken a different direction. Feedback from moderators on the CoC got ignored, communication is still broken, lots of critical posts go unacknowledged, a tweet from the director of public Q&A caused further drama, communication between Monica and the company has allegedly broken down, and the situation has overall gotten significantly more heated. To top this off, a shortage of moderators let the worst people continue because things simply cannot be handled fast enough. This isn't the moderators' fault - the problem lies in fewer mods and an ever-increasing stream of content.

I still stand by what I've said in this post, but the situation didn't go the way I expected. This is also why I added this note. The CoC release was handled about as horribly as the problems leading up to this situation, which has caused significantly more hate and toxicity, not just against LGBTQ, but against users in general. The apology seems pretty pointless now, because they did the exact same thing again with no regard for consequences, and without thinking about all the people on the other end of their actions.

It's time for this to end, and it appears that the only way to get you (Stack Overflow, Inc) to listen is by applying pressure. I'll be continuing my strike until I see real, good-faith attempts to resolve this situation, as well as attempts to restore communication between users/mods and the company, preferably before the community gets damaged beyond recovery.

And I'm going to say it a last time; you still have a chance of recovery, but you need to start taking action. If something is delayed and you know it is, say so publicly. And try to listen to people suggesting alternatives to improve the CoC further - you can still refine the details to allow users to survive if they make mistakes, make it technically possible for mods to enforce, and let users help without losing the intent behind the change. We want to help you, so please talk to us before everything starts collapsing. Until you do, people will continue to be angry, and either intentionally or without knowing it in a pure venting mode hurt real people. Regardless of who the CoC update aimed to help, it doesn't help anyone when the community turns on itself.

Old answer:

Rollback to Revision 6
Source Link

#Update 2010-06-6.11.19: (Related update, 2019-30.10-30.19)

#Update 2010-06-11: (Related update, 2019-10-30)

#Update 6.11.19: (Related update, 30.10.19)

ISO dates are just that: clear and precise, no chance of getting them wrong
Source Link
GhostCat
  • 38.3k
  • 18
  • 112
  • 207

#Update 6.2010-06-11.19: (Related update, 30.2019-10.19-30)

#Update 6.11.19: (Related update, 30.10.19)

#Update 2010-06-11: (Related update, 2019-10-30)

Loading
added 4811 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
I really need to sleep more - thanks Thomas
Source Link
Loading
added 240 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
added 2411 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
Source Link
Loading