Timeline for Moderation strike: Results of negotiations
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
40 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2023 at 13:33 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | @ColleenV That wasn't us or the CMs. The "Accepted Answer" resulted in a single flag delete - and we've been extra careful about deletions on both sides. We missed that, and will sort it out. Well would but there's no undelete button next to the post, and I'm confused to why. We're looking into it | |
| Aug 9, 2023 at 3:33 | comment | added | Makyen | @ColleenV I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing we've been talking about. I'm getting the feeling that you're talking about the "move comments to chat" feature that can be activated by moderators, or, under some conditions, users. That's not what you were linked to, nor what anyone else is talking about here with respect to the archive to which you were linked above. If you really believe it's better to have the comments just deleted, unless you track down an archive on archive.org, or elsewhere, then were not going to agree on this. | |
| Aug 9, 2023 at 1:35 | comment | added | ColleenV | @Makyen I assigned no motivations… it is a fact that the context is removed, the discoverability is destroyed and the ability to ping authors is lost when comments are put in a chat room. My objection is basically that people think they’re doing something useful by “archiving” to a chat room, but it’s a tremendous waste of time and resources. | |
| Aug 9, 2023 at 1:04 | comment | added | Levente | ColleenV and @Makyen, before the argument would deepen, I would like to offer my observations on the situation, that I penned in 2021. (Summary: it might not be broken, instead, it might be kept in this state to serve specific goals.) I believe, in reality, we are all on the same side of this tension. :) | |
| Aug 9, 2023 at 0:16 | comment | added | Makyen | @ColleenV Your most recent statement is ridiculous for these circumstances and for what Andreas detests AI hype was suggesting. That "archive" was created by users to maintain a record of comments regardless of main site deletion without the need for an independent archiving site to happen to store a copy of the page with the comment someone is interested in. There may be real issues with comment deletion, about which you might say much of the above, but that comment archive has none of the motivations which you ascribe to it. Categorically, it's not worse than just deleting. | |
| Aug 8, 2023 at 14:52 | comment | added | ColleenV | @AndreasdetestsAIhype Ripping away the context and shoving comments into chat to completely destroy their discoverability and prevent authors from getting responses to them is worse than deleting them. I have strong opinions on the brokenness of the current incarnation of the comment system and calling that an 'archive' pushed a button. Sorry about that. | |
| Aug 8, 2023 at 12:29 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body; added 19 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2023 at 12:04 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Clarifies which post I had meant.
|
| Aug 8, 2023 at 11:58 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 21 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2023 at 11:36 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2023 at 11:30 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Updates timeline + adds remark.
|
| Aug 8, 2023 at 6:58 | comment | added | Philippe StaffMod | Adding to your timeline: ColleenV's original suggestion comment was at Aug 3 at 12:38, and I added the official post banner to my answer at 2023-08-07 22:11:47Z. | |
| Aug 7, 2023 at 22:37 | comment | added | ColleenV | @AndreasdetestsAIhype That’s not an archive, that’s chat. I don’t do chat. | |
| Aug 7, 2023 at 22:32 | comment | added | Andreas condemns Israel | @ColleenV There’s a comment archive. | |
| Aug 7, 2023 at 14:57 | comment | added | ColleenV | It does seem a little weird that my comment is gone, but not Philippe's responses, but I wouldn't blame moderators if they wanted to be extra careful about removing staff comments under the circumstances. My comment got archived in one of the wayback machine snapshots for those that are curious, but honestly, I'm just happy there's an official statement. I try to avoid writing comments that would bother me if they were deleted after being addressed. | |
| Aug 7, 2023 at 13:48 | history | edited | Laurel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Poor ColleenV (again)
|
| Aug 7, 2023 at 12:47 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 244 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2023 at 12:33 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 140 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2023 at 12:19 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Adds timeline for clarification purposes.
|
| Aug 6, 2023 at 10:30 | comment | added | Levente | @DavidRoberts yes, credit to ColleenV's excellent thinking and mediation. Interestingly enough, comments are being deleted on the original post (perhaps having to do with them being deemed redundant, from some aspect?), so the only still published trace of ColleenV's mediation is Philippe's comments in response. | |
| Aug 6, 2023 at 9:29 | comment | added | David Roberts | Well, now there's an official answer here... | |
| Aug 5, 2023 at 13:50 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 33 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2023 at 13:46 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 33 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2023 at 17:34 | comment | added | Xander Henderson | @terdononstrike Possibly. As I said, I am somewhat on the fence, and I am not making my return to moderation contingent on SE posting something official, but I would still like to see an "official" statement from the company which is relatively easy to find and link to (as opposed to a comment---comments are ephemeral, after all, right?). In any event, I am not trying to convince you of anything---just explaining what I would like to see, as a matter of taste and opinion. | |
| Aug 4, 2023 at 16:34 | comment | added | terdon | @XanderHenderson I don't expect the company to keep its word anyway. I would love to be proven wrong, but I have no trust left. Given that philippe has endorsed it, albeit in a comment, I am personally happy with this. An official post would have been full of weasel words and would be written to make it easier for them to claim they never agreed. Think of the various non apologies we've had over the years or the "commitment" to the data dumps for the "foreseabke future". | |
| Aug 4, 2023 at 15:46 | comment | added | Xander Henderson | @terdononstrike I'm kind of on the fence about this. Yes, I trust Mithical. But lacking an official post from SE staff, it feels like there is a loophole for SE to say "Hey, we never agreed to this." Such an act would likely wreck SE (in that I see most of the moderators walking away after such a betrayal), so I don't think that SE would do this, but it would be nice to see something written by the company which feels more... binding? | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 12:32 | comment | added | ColleenV | @terdononstrike the post still could get some sort of "official post" tag or some sort of indication from the company that "yes, this indeed is what the company believes we agreed to". When there is a lack of trust and communication breakdowns, it's best to be redundantly explicit about everything. I trust that Mithical states accurately what he was told by the company's representatives. I even believe that the representatives thought what they stated was accurate. I don't trust that the company's upper management understands and fully supports these terms. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 9:48 | comment | added | terdon | I hear you, but I still disagree :) A company announcement, to me, would be meaningless since they have managed to completely erode my trust in them. I wouldn't trust it to accurately represent negotiations, and I wouldn't trust it to be honest. Frankly, I don't care what the company has to say anymore. I trust Mith, so this is the post I would have wanted to see and I'm glad this is how it went down. I also appreciate that Phlippe explicitly endorsed it, but I wouldn't have wanted it to come from the company. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 9:34 | comment | added | Levente | @terdononstrike 1.) "I trust Mithical far more than I trust company reps" — sure thing, but Mithical has no leverage over what the company actually does; the community representatives had leverage to steer and achieve an agreement, but that agreement is only as good as much it is implemented by the company. 2.) "this is the result of our negotiations" — true; but our question remains how much trust we can place in the longevity of these agreements. The company's published word is an indispensable ingredient in lending these agreements the desired amount of weight / percieved longevity. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 8:58 | comment | added | Levente | @terdononstrike I acknowledge and agree that logistically it was sensible to post this by a community member, as in, Mithical will be far more accurate in keeping tabs on the community's demands and will be in a better position to assess and evaluate the results from the perspective of a community member. But I wanted to raise awareness, that the company had not said (yet) the part that was expected from them, and I demonstrated that they were in a position where they should have recognized and preempted such doubts by offering to post this, or something similar, themselves. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 8:41 | comment | added | Gert Arnold | I do agree. It would have contributed more to What is needed for users to trust the Stack Exchange company?. Of course we trust our representatives 1000%, but we must feel we can trust the company. An official statement would have helped (a little). | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 8:31 | comment | added | terdon | I completely disagree with this. This message should come from a community member and not a company representative. I trust Mithical far more than I trust company reps, and this is the result of our negotiations so it makes perfect sense for it to be presented by our representative. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 6:46 | comment | added | curiousdannii | I agree there's value in how this was posted. But on the other hand, the CEO could have visited and posted too. Is this not worth his time? | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 6:42 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | To me, the fact that the message was posted by a community representative and featured by a company representative was a very strong indicator that it really was a joint statement from both sides of the negotiating table. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 3:18 | comment | added | Shog9 | Yeah, I've heard that argument too, @jamesdlin - from staff even. I don't buy it. Is their credibility hurting right now? Yeah, a bit, for sure! But... The 2nd best time to start rebuilding it is today... | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 3:15 | comment | added | jamesdlin | IMO a positive message from the people striking carries much more weight than a positive message from the people they're striking against. How much credibility would the corporate overlords have by saying, "The strike is over, go back to work"? | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 2:23 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 50 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2023 at 2:04 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2023 at 1:54 | history | edited | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Aug 3, 2023 at 1:48 | history | answered | Levente | CC BY-SA 4.0 |