Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

49
  • 263
    Well said. Sadly, I doubt the company will say a peep on this, on the advice of their corporate legal team. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 3:28
  • 104
    Given the unwarranted nature of making a press release about a community moderator without having first followed the appropriate steps for removal of said moderator, and the completely unwarranted step of publicly using the moderator's real name in that press release, I would suspect that the lawyers will be advising that SE make a retraction in order to minimise their exposure in the event that they are sued. Having attempted to make good SE's negative remarks about Monica prior to any suit against them being filed by her would go a long way to reduce their chances of being found liable. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 3:36
  • 81
    @aparente001, well... Monica has claimed mental distress, as well as harassment from some of those who have read the press release, amongst other things. I am not a lawyer... but I believe that these are actionable wrongs that SE has committed against her, should she choose to file suit against them. Still, even if they issue a retraction, harm has still been caused, so if they do issue a retraction, it had better be sooner rather than later. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 4:01
  • 52
    @aparente001, actually, my reading of US law is that under certain circumstances, the plaintiff need make very little effort to successfully bring a suit of defamation - consider en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defamation_per_se. If this case meets any of the criteria, and Monica chooses to sue... SE's chances aren't too good, IMO... Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 4:19
  • 157
    "Clearly one party here is lying" - No, it's also possible that there's a misunderstanding and both parties believe they are correct. Maybe SE staff gave warnings but were never explicit enough for Monica to realize that's what they were. I still think that SE handled this in about the worst way they could and refused to even consider that Monica may have not perceived things the same way, but I find this answer to be needlessly antagonistic. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 13:10
  • 290
    @DavidK: You realize virtually all the evidence available is stacked (hah..) against SE? Like (a) those who were in the Teacher's Lounge dispute SE's account, (b) Monica is not oblivious and she's pretty damn sure, (c) her entire character and past history also back her up, and (d) SE has refused to back up its accusations or even respond, to name a few. Yeah, it's not physically impossible that there's a misunderstanding—and do note that I asked it as a question —but if you feel both sides sound similarly credible.. you've got to be kidding me. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 14:01
  • 23
    @DavidK IANAL, but I've always seen courts using the reasonable person test. (I've done Jury Duty.) Would a reasonable person conclude this was just a simple "misunderstanding" or would a reasonable person reach a different and more likely conclusion? It's not about whether something is or isn't possible, even in principle; it's about whether something has been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. For ex: Is it possible for a tornado to go through a junkyard and produce a working space shuttle? Sure, there's an infinitesimally small but non-zero chance. Is it likely? Not at all. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 18:48
  • 138
    I'm with Mehrdad here. I simply won't trust or respect SO, Inc in general and Sara Chipps in particular until something definitive is said about Monica's case. While the apology is a positive step there is definitely an element of pro forma in it. To me it is not a resolution of this crisis. Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 20:07
  • 48
    Part of the problem is these statements beeing out there, uncontradicted, is continued and unneeded harm against a real person that has not only not been rectified, but it looks like no rectification is forthcoming. Commented Oct 8, 2019 at 8:26
  • 24
    how ironic would it be that Monica find someone to help her pro-bono on law.stackexchange.com Commented Oct 8, 2019 at 18:24
  • 92
    It’s much easier for me to trust and believe someone who has been effectively communicating and moderating for ages, and harder for me to trust people who copy and paste non-apologies that insult my intelligence on several stacks. Basically, we know Monica. We’ve seen Monica post and moderate and chat in several contexts and that’s why we trust Monica. When Sara Chipps started posting, I had to click on the profile link to have any idea of the context, and in a “Monica-said/SO-said” situation, I’m going to believe Monica. Commented Oct 9, 2019 at 17:05
  • 138
    SE has yet to tell me what specific things I said (presumably in TL on Sep 18 during the CoC-change discussion) were violations of the current CoC. I found the leaked transcript, reread everything I said (those leaks contain everything I said that day, and for that matter that week), and I still can't see it on my own. (Plus there's the question about those alleged warnings/requests from CMs.) Commented Oct 10, 2019 at 1:58
  • 78
    @Mehrdad if they hadn't libeled me, I'd probably have walked away by know and let the bullies win. But reinstatement is a necessary first step toward clearing my name, here in the land of "guilty until proven innocent", so here we are. If they'd shown some restraint and acted in accordance with what they say, things would likely be very different now. Commented Oct 13, 2019 at 17:57
  • 68
    @Mehrdad I've been publicly smeared, including being listed on some "modern villains" site (!) and being discussed on hate sites. It's disgusting. A lot more needs to happen to clear my name, but a first step is reinstating me, which has the effect of reversing SE's action. Commented Oct 15, 2019 at 3:03
  • 46
    There's a "real-life villains" wiki (serial killers, mass murderers etc.). Someone had created an entry on Monica, that has now been deleted. But when google searching, you find remnants: ... "is a Moderator that had to be removed as she violated the Code of Conduct. She misgendered people and this is not okay. Also we're notified to..." More can't be found, but it's indeed scary and shows how the lies spread about Monica are perceived outside of SE (i. e. as the truth). Commented Oct 15, 2019 at 12:43