Return to Answer

I will bring a point not talked in other answers.

Is Stack Exchange Inc still interested in cooperating with the community? What is the vision for this relationship?

No, Stack Exchange has two points to solve at the minimum.

A. The handling of a situation not wanted by the site CMs are awful and chaotic. Stack Exchange needs to re-do its thinking when they act on elected moderators. They need a consensus from other moderators before unilaterally removing the moderator status from an elected moderator (unless, of-course, a hacked account or such violation).

Some people might tell me that Monica didn't wanted to abide to the new CoC, but that debate brings the point B of my post.

For reference, Stack Exchange already did abruptly change the moderator staff on the site I was a moderator on in the past, and it brought the same problem as today.

B. Stack Exchange should announce a new CoC on Meta or, if private, on the Moderator Stack Overflow Team's page. Why? If you announce it without a good written Meta post to explain the WHY, a long debate will occur, which was still happening yesterday, especially if you drop the bomb inside a chatroom full of moderators (70+). That chatroom is to talk about standard cross-site issues and to give our opinions on discussions. If you announce something there without a meta post and without EXAMPLES, people like me, and I guess Monica too, will believe it is an open discussion.

In Monica's situation, it seemed an argument between her and Sara Chipps, for which Sara offered up an awful answer there;

We understand there are some folks upset about this decision. We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately. When we can’t we must take action. This is always done based on what we believe is best for all SE users.

I rest my case there, but I still believe that it wasn't necessary to drop that bomb there. As a moderator, I never talked in the third person to a user. I always talked to the @ username.

I will bring a point not talked in other answers.

Is Stack Exchange Inc still interested in cooperating with the community? What is the vision for this relationship?

No, Stack Exchange has two points to solve at the minimum.

A. The handling of a situation not wanted by the site CMs is awful and chaotic. Stack Exchange needs to re-do its thinking when they act on elected moderators. They need a consensus from other moderators before unilaterally removing the moderator status from an elected moderator (unless, of course, there is a hacked account or such violation).

Some people might tell me that Monica didn't want to abide by the new CoC, but that debate brings me to point B of my post.

For reference, Stack Exchange already did abruptly change the moderator staff on the site I was a moderator on in the past, and it brought the same problem as today.

B. Stack Exchange should announce a new CoC on Meta or, if private, on the Moderator Stack Overflow Team's page. Why? If you announce it without a good written Meta post to explain the WHY, a long debate will occur, which was still happening yesterday, especially if you drop the bomb inside a chatroom full of moderators (70+). That chatroom is to talk about standard cross-site issues and to give our opinions on discussions. If you announce something there without a meta post and without EXAMPLES, people like me, and I guess Monica too, will believe it is an open discussion.

In Monica's situation, it seemed an argument between her and Sara Chipps, for which Sara offered up an awful answer there;

We understand there are some folks upset about this decision. We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately. When we can’t we must take action. This is always done based on what we believe is best for all SE users.

I rest my case there, but I still believe that it wasn't necessary to drop that bomb there. As a moderator, I never talked in the third person to a user. I always talked to the @ username.

I will bring a point not talked in other answers.

Is Stack Exchange Inc still interested in cooperating with the community? What is the vision for this relationship?

No, Stack Exchange has two points to solve at the minimum.

A. The handling of a situation not wanted by the site CMs are awful and chaotic. Stack Exchange needs to re-do its thinking when they act on elected moderators. They need a consensus from other moderators before unilaterally removing the moderator status from an elected moderator (unless, of-course, a hacked account or such violation).

Some people might tell me that Monica didn't wanted to abide to the new CoC, but that debate brings the point B of my post.

For reference, Stack Exchange already did abruptly change the moderator staff on the site I was a moderator on in the past, and it brought the same problem as today.

B. Stack Exchange should announce a new CoC on Meta or, if private, on the Moderator Stack Overflow Team's page. Why? If you announce it without a good written Meta post to explain the WHY, a long debate will occur, which was still happening yesterday, especially if you drop the bomb inside a chatroom full of moderators (70+). That chatroom is to talk about standard cross-site issues and to give our opinions on discussions. If you announce something there without a meta post and without EXAMPLES, people like me, and I guess Monica too, will believe it is an open discussion.

In Monica's situation, it seemed an argument between her and Sara Chipps, for which Sara offered up an awful answer there;

We understand there are some folks upset about this decision. We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately. When we can’t we must take action. This is always done based on what we believe is best for all SE users.

I rest my case there, but I still believe that it wasn't necessary to drop that bomb there. As a moderator, I never talked in the third sense to a user. I always talked to the @ username.

I will bring a point not talked in other answers.

Is Stack Exchange Inc still interested in cooperating with the community? What is the vision for this relationship?

No, Stack Exchange has two points to solve at the minimum.

A. The handling of a situation not wanted by the site CMs are awful and chaotic. Stack Exchange needs to re-do its thinking when they act on elected moderators. They need a consensus from other moderators before unilaterally removing the moderator status from an elected moderator (unless, of-course, a hacked account or such violation).

Some people might tell me that Monica didn't wanted to abide to the new CoC, but that debate brings the point B of my post.

For reference, Stack Exchange already did abruptly change the moderator staff on the site I was a moderator on in the past, and it brought the same problem as today.

B. Stack Exchange should announce a new CoC on Meta or, if private, on the Moderator Stack Overflow Team's page. Why? If you announce it without a good written Meta post to explain the WHY, a long debate will occur, which was still happening yesterday, especially if you drop the bomb inside a chatroom full of moderators (70+). That chatroom is to talk about standard cross-site issues and to give our opinions on discussions. If you announce something there without a meta post and without EXAMPLES, people like me, and I guess Monica too, will believe it is an open discussion.

In Monica's situation, it seemed an argument between her and Sara Chipps, for which Sara offered up an awful answer there;

We understand there are some folks upset about this decision. We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately. When we can’t we must take action. This is always done based on what we believe is best for all SE users.

I rest my case there, but I still believe that it wasn't necessary to drop that bomb there. As a moderator, I never talked in the third person to a user. I always talked to the @ username.

I will bring a point not talked in other answers.

Is Stack Exchange Inc still interested in cooperating with the community? What is the vision for this relationship?

No, Stack Exchange has two points to solve at the minimum.

A. The handling of a situation not wanted by the site CMs are awful and chaotic. Stack Exchange needs to re-do its thinking when they act on elected moderators. They need a consensus from other moderators before unilaterally remove the moderator status from an elected moderator (unless, of-course, a hacked account or such violation).

Some people might tell me that Monica didn't wanted to abide to the new CoC, but that debate brings the point B of my post.

For reference, Stack Exchange already did abruptly change the moderator staff on the site I was a moderator on in the past, and it brought the same problem as today.

B. Stack Exchange should announce a new CoC on Meta or, if private, on the Moderator Stack Overflow Team's page. Why? If you announce it without a good written Meta post to explain the WHY, a long debate will occur, which was still happening yesterday, especially if you drop the bomb inside a chatroom full of moderators (70+). That chatroom is to talk about standard cross-site issues and to give our opinions on discussions. If you announce something there without a meta post and without EXAMPLES, people like me, and I guess Monica too, will believe it is an open discussion.

In Monica's situation, it seemed an argument between her and Sara Chipps, for which Sara offered up an awful answer there;

We understand there are some folks upset about this decision. We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately. When we can’t we must take action. This is always done based on what we believe is best for all SE users.

I rest my case there, but I still believe that it wasn't necessary to drop that bomb there. As a moderator, I never talked in the third sense to a user. I always talked to the @ username.

I will bring a point not talked in other answers.

Is Stack Exchange Inc still interested in cooperating with the community? What is the vision for this relationship?

No, Stack Exchange has two points to solve at the minimum.

A. The handling of a situation not wanted by the site CMs are awful and chaotic. Stack Exchange needs to re-do its thinking when they act on elected moderators. They need a consensus from other moderators before unilaterally removing the moderator status from an elected moderator (unless, of-course, a hacked account or such violation).

Some people might tell me that Monica didn't wanted to abide to the new CoC, but that debate brings the point B of my post.

For reference, Stack Exchange already did abruptly change the moderator staff on the site I was a moderator on in the past, and it brought the same problem as today.

B. Stack Exchange should announce a new CoC on Meta or, if private, on the Moderator Stack Overflow Team's page. Why? If you announce it without a good written Meta post to explain the WHY, a long debate will occur, which was still happening yesterday, especially if you drop the bomb inside a chatroom full of moderators (70+). That chatroom is to talk about standard cross-site issues and to give our opinions on discussions. If you announce something there without a meta post and without EXAMPLES, people like me, and I guess Monica too, will believe it is an open discussion.

In Monica's situation, it seemed an argument between her and Sara Chipps, for which Sara offered up an awful answer there;

We understand there are some folks upset about this decision. We aren’t going to share specifics out of respect for all individuals involved but this is a site reaching millions of people and we have to do what we believe fosters a spirit of inclusion and respect. When a moderator violates that, we will always do our best to resolve it with them privately. When we can’t we must take action. This is always done based on what we believe is best for all SE users.

I rest my case there, but I still believe that it wasn't necessary to drop that bomb there. As a moderator, I never talked in the third sense to a user. I always talked to the @ username.