Timeline for Abrupt change in moderation staff?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 2015 at 19:23 | comment | added | David V | @MarkHenderson The taking away of mod powers temporarily isn't the core issue here. The first thing Shog said about the situation was that "One of them decided to step down, and asked for his moderator status to be removed. The other decided something else and didn't ask anyone anything." So right out of the gate it sounds way worse than what was going on and puts up a wall between him and the community implying wrong doing from the outset. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 8:10 | comment | added | Rob Moir | @MarkHenderson I absolutely agree - but extreme actions call for extreme justification in both directions | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:30 | comment | added | MadHatter | If force majeure is to be used, there must be some repercussion when it's used wrongly. In this case, I (for one) don't find that the hypothesis (HN was running around smashing windows) has been proven. On the contrary, I've seen quite a lot of good argument that he was engaging in business that was (a) usual for him, (b) in line with his election platform. And as a side question, am I by any chance right in thinking that Shog9 is a paid employee? | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 6:05 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | @MadHatter For this scenario, I disagree. Shog9 basically sits at the top of the pyramid of community members in terms of responsibility, and it's his responsibility to limit the perceived damage. When you think someone is running around smashing all the windows without permission, you don't politely ask them to stop and hope that they will. You take away their hammer until you can get the full story. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 5:57 | comment | added | MadHatter | @MarkHenderson one does indeed act that way, in a company. But this isn't a company; it's a community. When you aren't in a top-down, I-pay-your-wages scenario, but are instead trying to do something good on the shoulders of volunteers, best practice is different. | |
| Apr 12, 2015 at 19:11 | comment | added | Håkan Lindqvist | @MarkHenderson My impression is that a lot of the drama comes from the offensive statements that Shog9 made (indicating there is likely a personal element to his actions), not over temporarily removing moderator privileges while investigating what is happening. | |
| Apr 12, 2015 at 9:43 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | , and myself for that matter, to be dealt with quietly. | |
| Apr 12, 2015 at 9:43 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | @Iain Stack Exchange have their protocols that need to be followed, and I don't think that the action of removing someones powers whilst their actions are being investigated is too strong. After all, if you're going to fire someone, you don't tell them before hand. You take away their access card in case they go and fuck shit up. That's just common sense. The only reason this drama came out was because Hopeless requested that it be aired. The only reason that happened was because someone noticed that mod diamonds were missing. I'm sure that Shog and everyone at SE would have preferred it | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 21:37 | comment | added | user9517 | Very perceptive. Josh could easily have contacted the n00b via chat super-ping and asked him to stop whilst things were investigated. That he didn't and chose a much more precipitous method speaks volumes. It was clearly designed to cause all the drama. The rest is history. | |
| Apr 11, 2015 at 18:41 | history | answered | David V | CC BY-SA 3.0 |