Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • 71
    Your summation of each letter is overly simplistic. The "Lavender" letter focuses on the systematic inequality of the treatment of LGBTQ+ folk (especially when they are victimized) on Stack Exchange, and that Stack Exchange has an obligation to address that issue as a result of their commitment to the users. The other letter focuses on collaboration, communication, procedure, and trust between the company and the moderators (and the community as a whole). These letters do not compete.
    – rolfl
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 2:07
  • 10
    This is a great point: "Why aren't mods given formal training for dealing with common stressful situations that are part of their job description?" Thanks for that.
    – aparente001
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 3:31
  • 48
    On footnote 1: The website was made for the other letter, and I don't think the person who made it even knew at the time that the "lavender letter" existed. When they became aware of the "lavender letter" they offered to host it as well, and did it impressively quickly. I don't think it's in any way fair to complain about "the invisibility of the lavender letter" there.
    – Gareth McCaughan
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 3:42
  • 16
    The front page letter says "We want you to deliver on that promise to trust us, support us, and to give us agency, accountability, and autonomy. Ultimately, we want to feel that we are safe to disagree with Stack Exchange, even on matters of major policy." However, I'd like to point out that a couple of the moderators who resigned recently have publicly made transphobic remarks — one of them specifically citing "moderator agency" in his resignation statement. I think that the the right approach is neither to give moderators full agency nor to blindly rely on a CoC with some simplistic rules.
    – 200_success
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 4:09
  • 19
    @200_success Even in talking about my stance on the issue of gender language I've been careful to separate that from the issue of agency in regard to moderator duties. My resignation post explains why I've separated those issues. I've never suggested blindly giving full agency; I know SE has never been a fully free platform (nor should it be). I've acknowledged that it works best with limits in place and been willing to abide by those limits. Please consider that your accusations are a poor representation / interpretation of the views of people who disagree with you.
    – Caleb
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 6:28
  • 5
    a while ago I studied data provided in SE features change log (details here). Per my reading of this data, things indeed were much better in 2013-2014 compared to 2016-2018, and I can see how some may feel like in the past there was kind of a golden age
    – gnat
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 11:08
  • 38
    I agree with about half of the answer but the other half seems to be an unwarranted attack on the front-page letter. The two accounts are not in conflict. What you call a “golden age” (which is very much an exaggeration of what the letter says) came before the time that the lavender later focuses on. When I started being a moderator in 2011, I didn't always agree with management but I felt they had my back. By 2018 I didn't really feel like they had my back anymore, though it wasn't until Monica's firing that I felt I should be watching for their knife in my back.
    – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil'
    Commented Oct 7, 2019 at 12:04
  • 13
    As one of the major drafters of the lavender letter, some notes: the reason the lavender letter isn't visible from the main page of dearstackexchange.com is because it wasn't originally going to be written, until I complained (along with others) about the LGBT+ issues not being addressed. ArtOfCode then quickly put the draft up on the website, and for that I am exceedingly grateful. I personally signed both letters, because I do agree with some of the major points expressed in the main letter (the improper handling of Monica's situation being one) but I do understand and to some extent agree
    – auden
    Commented Oct 8, 2019 at 6:13
  • 7
    [cont.] with your points. I believe that the issues in the lavender letter have been swept under the rug for far too long. Obviously not all agree. Even the lavender letter was rewritten in several parts to be more broadly agreeable.
    – auden
    Commented Oct 8, 2019 at 6:13
  • 7
    The apparent irreconcilability may be in how you're framing things. e.g., it wasn't that there was a Utopian golden age. There have always been certain problems for which we have yet to find a solution. But certain major current issues were unintended consequences of attempted solutions to other problems. The objective isn't really a return to the old status quo, but a return to the lack of these newer problems, perhaps by finding alternate solutions to what created these problems. Solutions still need to be found for some of the older problems that never went away.
    – fixer1234
    Commented Oct 9, 2019 at 20:52