Return to Answer

I'm not saying any of this is easy or that the People of Stack Exchange can't be a difficult bunch to deal with – they can – but that's of what you get when you rely on volunteers.

I'm not saying any of this is easy or that the People of Stack Exchange can't be a difficult bunch to deal with – they can – but that's kind of what you get when you rely on volunteers.

In comparison, this feels like ... bland marketing-speak. I get that community management is hard, but by being bland and generic you're not really engaging with anything substantial and nothing ever gets hashed out.

I'm not saying any of this is easy or that the People of Stack Exchange can't be a difficult bunch to deal with – they can – but that's of what you get when you rely on volunteers.

In comparison, this feels like ... bland marketing-speak. I get that community management is hard, but by being bland and generic you're not really engaging with anything substantial and nothing ever gets hashed out.

It's not really about the "ChatGPT policy" or whether or not these tools are good or bad per se, it's about a mismatch between "we're all in this together and let's decide together what the best course of action is" vs. "we decided, end of discussion" (crudely put).

It's not really about the "ChatGPT policy" or whether or not these tools are good or bad per se, it's about a mismatch between "we're all in this together and let's decide together what the best course of action is" vs. "we decided, end of discussion" (crudely put). Moderators are volunteering their time and in return it's understood they have some say in policy. You can't "just" order people like they're employees, so you need to spend time and effort convincing people you're right. This is work, but still cheaper than paying people to moderate the site. And sure, in the end Stack Overflow Inc. has the final say and that's fine, but if you're not even spending the effort...