I will be leaving as a moderator

Question

I will be leaving as a moderator as soon as SE-the-company reacts to my request.

The immediate reason for this decision is a network-wide discussion; see this MSE thread for context. But for several years now I have been unhappy with SE-the-network for sites around the humanities. Low quality content tends to hang around because of misguided ideas around freedom of speech. In my view, The voting system is often no longer able to distinguish good content, and the quality of this site, as well as other sites in the humanities like Biblical Hermeneutics (which has been hijacked by a very particular strand of christianity), has decreased over the past years. It is therefore less and less interesting to participate on these sites.

Good thing for you guys is that because of this I have practically been inactive for a long time now, and therefore you will not really see any difference because of this.

Thank you for your support, in particular to the other (ex-)moderators, and farewell.

Answer 1

Since you asked, I'll explain why SE's reaction (see the timeline) does not lead me to request reinstatement. If anything, the new Code of Conduct (CoC) has reaffirmed this decision.

SE, Inc. has now let us know how the CoC changes with respect to so-called preferred pronouns (i.e. he, she, they, etc., and esp. how this relates to LGBTQ+ folks who go by non-traditional pronouns). In the new CoC the following stands out:

Prefer gender-neutral language when uncertain.

This is good (I already did this by using singular they).

Use stated pronouns (when known).

As a linguist I can tell you that this does not make any sense. They are essentially widening the category of "pronoun" to "anything goes", including "attack-helicopter" or "Your grace". Pronouns are grammatical items — one person cannot for xirself decide what is grammatical and what is lexical, since language is community-built.

The response to this is:

If people are requesting things in bad faith, you are welcome to escalate to mods and mods can contact us CMs when in doubt too.

But it is quite clear that "bad faith" cannot be discerned objectively. SE seems to have missed the whole discussion around the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Furthermore, it seems that SE has its priorities completely out of order. I am all for doing near-whatever is necessary for minorities to feel comfortable. It all the more baffles me that there are instances of moderators making comments along the lines of "you're male, female, or confused" which go completely ignored by the community team, while those who simply avoid the pronoun minefield are fired during their religious holiday.

For these reasons, I would find myself unable to handle flags regarding this and will not be requesting my diamond back. I am still pondering if I can abide by the new CoC or should remove my account altogether.

Answer 2

Limiting my comments to just here, it was a pleasure working with you and the other moderators on trying to get something functional here.

The battle was/is ... constantly uphill. And the hill is Sysphean and primarily thankless.

Answer 3

I haven't been around much in the past few years but it's a bit sad to come back and see we still have a lot of the same issues that you allude to. Philosophy certainly is a bit trickier to fit with this format compared to other disciplines because of its nature. The "specific question => specific answer" format works for math, programming, etc., but it's not so simple here unless this is only to be a history of philosophy website.

Anyways, thanks for putting in the effort you did. Best of luck moving forward! :)

Answer 4

I noticed yesterday the new Code of Conduct FAQ (CoC): Official FAQ on gender pronouns and Code of Conduct changes

This appears to be relevant to Keelan's reason to resign since he also mentioned this post: Firing mods and forced relicensing: is Stack Exchange still interested in cooperating with the community? That post mentions Monica Cellio's post on Judaism Meta Stack Exchange: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5193

There may be problems with this new CoC. For example, consider this FAQ question:

Q2: What does the Code of Conduct say about gender pronouns?

The Code of Conduct has two direct references to gender pronouns:

1. “Use stated pronouns (when known).”
2. “Prefer gender-neutral language when uncertain.”

We’re asking everyone to do two things. First, if you do know someone’s pronouns (e.g. because they told you), then use them as you normally would use any pronoun. Second, if you don’t know someone’s pronouns, use gender-neutral language rather than making an assumption.

This does not allow one the option to use gender-neutral pronouns, such as "OP", if one knows the poster's preference.

Another CoC question is the following:

Q11: If I’m uncomfortable with a particular pronoun, can I just avoid using it?

We are asking everyone to use all stated pronouns as you would naturally write. Explicitly avoiding using someone’s pronouns because you are uncomfortable is a way of refusing to recognize their identity and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

This makes it explicit that one is not allowed to "avoid using someone's pronouns" by using a gender-neutral reference.

I generally use gender-neutral references, such as "OP" or the singular "they". I am also not politically interested in this issue. As a regular member, an option for me is to simply ignore responding to such posts. Also I haven't seen any challenging issue related to gender pronouns so far on this site.

However, I can see how a moderator would be placed in a compromising position in the future when responding to flags based on posts designed to test the moderator's compliance with this policy. I can see why Keelan would want to resign because of that.

---

Normally, I do not down vote. Since this question on Meta Stack Exchange is effectively a vote on this CoC, I down voted it and gave this reason in a comment:

I downvoted because of Q11 and Q2. People need to have the option to use gender-neutral pronouns, or "OP", whenever they wish and in any circumstances. This should be made explicit. Otherwise this policy is itself a form of harassment. As I read it, the policy is hostile and unwelcoming. That needs to be corrected.

I encourage people to review this update to the CoC on Meta Stack Exchange and vote.

Answer 5

It is sad to hear that you are leaving. Although we have quite a different background, I always had the feeling we have like ideas about how StackExchange in general and this site in particular are supposed to work like.

I think it is quite common that huge communities have their golden times and gradually fall prey to the usual change of times. Users leave due to real-life and the persons who fill the gaps are first different, then less. That's how it's always been in any community I've been active in.

What I do not get is what is happening with StackExchange Inc. They kind of betray the founding values of this network in exchange for traffic. Problem is, that is not how this kind of network works. We need the experts, since without them, there not only is a loss of quality in questions and answers, the content generally becomes more ideosyncratic and repetetive. And experts are not exactly appealed by "mass compatible" content. I will give some imput regarding that in the other thread...

As of now, all there is left is thanking you for the great service you did this community. It's been a pleasure to have you had as a co-moderator.