| > She made it clear in a post quoted by The Register that she refused to use the singular they in any circumstance, even when it was known that it was someone's preferred pronoun. So just fire her pre-emptively without warning because she might violate a policy that's not yet in place? > she was repeatedly asked to rethink her stance on this by other moderators, and repeatedly refused I don't know what transcript that refers to, but her account reads very different: https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/stack-... > I raised some issues with the formation of the policy and asked some questions, the vast majority of which were never answered. [..] > On Monday I received email from a different CM explaining why they were making the change and mis-stating some issues I had raised. Concerned that I had not made myself clear in my haste to respond quickly on Friday, I replied with some questions. This was an amicable exchange; I thought we were having a productive conversation. I was promised a reply by this past Friday. > Instead, I saw my diamond disappear before my eyes and briefly saw an announcement from a CM in TL that contained false allegations against me. When I tried to respond I was booted from the room. Around this time I received email firing me. This email did not cite anything I have done wrong; this was a pre-emptive move that runs counter to how SE tells moderators to treat users when considering suspensions. (Moderators suspend in response to behavior, not speculatively.) I agree that it wasn't a mistake though: a mistake is pressing the wrong button. This is just a shoddy way to treat people, and a shoddy way to not-apologize for it. > SO could have done a better job in terms of the process, timing, and communication Namely a.) not fire for precrime, b.) not ever c.) respond to questions as promised, rather than answering with a ban for no valid reason. |