Timeline for Firing mods and forced relicensing: is Stack Exchange still interested in cooperating with the community?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 2, 2019 at 5:51 | history | suggested | Gryphon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected grammar
|
| Oct 2, 2019 at 5:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 2, 2019 at 5:51 | |||||
| Oct 1, 2019 at 14:15 | history | edited | yagmoth555 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| S Oct 1, 2019 at 12:10 | history | suggested | Senior Wrangler | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor grammar fix.
|
| Oct 1, 2019 at 11:59 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 1, 2019 at 12:10 | |||||
| Sep 30, 2019 at 15:39 | comment | added | ColleenV | What concerns me is that staff are making announcements in a chat room which many mods don’t frequent instead of a coherent written one using the newsletter. I haven’t been in that room for months because it’s a Petri dish for drama. Monica’s views on that particular topic are well-known, so it seems to me that she was, at worst, set up, and at best collateral damage from extremely unprofessional handling of a sensitive topic. The underlying problem that hurts all of us is SE’s haphazard approach to a topic that should be treated more seriously and thoughtfully. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 15:19 | comment | added | This_is_NOT_a_forum | Perhaps expand "CM"? Though it is officially community manager, it may be confused with community moderator (though that does not official exist, only moderator). | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 15:17 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Second iteration.
|
| Sep 30, 2019 at 15:11 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dax90QyXgI&t=18m25s> <http://stackoverflow.com/legal/trademark-guidance> (the last section)]. [(its = possessive, it's = "it is" or "it has". See for example <http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Its-and-It%27s>.)]
|
| Sep 30, 2019 at 14:30 | history | edited | yagmoth555 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2019 at 14:06 | comment | added | yagmoth555 | @Luuklag Check the comments, sorry I should have linked to the comments, but a lot of members were angry, as the moderator was elected to do that job, it was in his nomination text. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 14:04 | comment | added | Luuklag | I just read you referenced post, and from that I get a totally different story. If the moderator in question there had replied to comments from the company instead of continuing what they were doing there wouldn't have been a problem. So for me its perfectly understandable their rights were revoked. | |
| S Sep 30, 2019 at 14:02 | history | edited | Robert Columbia | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improve grammar
|
| S Sep 30, 2019 at 14:02 | history | suggested | Neo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor grammar update for clarification.
|
| Sep 30, 2019 at 13:51 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Sep 30, 2019 at 14:02 | |||||
| Sep 30, 2019 at 13:45 | history | answered | yagmoth555 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |