Timeline for Why were the Code of Conduct changes received so negatively, and what can / could have been done to change that?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2019 at 11:23 | comment | added | einpoklum | The CoC legitimizes unilateral sudden-death sanctions against users - on moderators' initiatives or based on denunciations - with absolutely no process for users to challenge or appeal claims/sanctions against them. | |
| Oct 13, 2019 at 10:34 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | @einpoklum No, I really don't know what you mean? | |
| Oct 13, 2019 at 8:35 | comment | added | einpoklum | The thing is, even the original CoC was created in a town with lots of liquor stores and no baseball stadium close-by. If you know what I mean. | |
| Oct 12, 2019 at 4:07 | comment | added | 200_success | I think that most people are fine with being asked to try to use more gender-inclusive language. But when a moderator whom many people respect as a reasonable person gets fired, people see this as a zero-tolerance policy backed by a nuclear bomb. In those circumstances, of course people are going to ask a lot of questions about exactly where the line-that-must-not-be-crossed is, by inventing a lot of farfetched hypothetical scenarios. Any statements by the staff to assure us that we'll be fine if we just write normally are going to be viewed skeptically. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 15:12 | comment | added | ohmu | @Raedwald Bullying has already been done by SE. See that catalyst of this downward spiral: Stack Overflow Inc., sinat chinam, and the goat for Azazel | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 11:23 | comment | added | Нет войне | @Raedwald Honestly, I'm just giving my impression of things that have actually been said and done that I've become aware of over the past 24 hours. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 11:21 | comment | added | Raedwald | "until it's used as a tool to shut down discussion and bully and denigrate those who try to engage in that discussion" you are assuming it will be used to "bully and denigrate". Only assuming. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 10:58 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Absolutely -- and on top of that, there's the complete lack of any other more nuanced tool. Help pages, cultural mediation, an informative ad campaign... In Italy we even have a word for this attitude: "Americanata". | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 10:09 | comment | added | Нет войне | @user568458 agree totally. From where I'm sitting there has been the completely unnecessary creation of forced 'battle lines'. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 10:00 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | I can understand how, in the context of current American politics, one American in an office might see another using, say, "they" to refer to someone who, two days ago, used "he", and think "You're one of those people who rejects people's identities and probably also supports taking away rights such as being able to serve in the military!". But it doesn't make sense to roll that assumption out over an international site, where most users are basically anonymous, and where many users are non-native English speakers. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 9:47 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | To me it feels like we're being dragged into largely-American "culture wars". In much of the world, there isn't the same level of toxic, polarised conflict over whether people who are different to the majority should have basic rights and respect. I just want to politely and respectfully answer people's questions, without some US staff analysing my language to make assumptions about which "side" I'm on. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:37 | comment | added | user205515 |
This. The assumption of bad faith has seemed pervasive throughout this whole episode. It's explicit in the FAQ answer to Q11: Explicitly avoiding using someone’s pronouns because you are uncomfortable is a way of refusing to recognize their identity
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:22 | history | answered | Нет войне | CC BY-SA 4.0 |