Timeline for answer to What has happened to lead moderators to consider striking? by NoDataDumpNoContribution
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2023 at 12:25 | comment | added | Machavity Mod | @Trilarion The flag queue is pushing 2500 unhandled flags. The top flag handler for the last 7 days is Yaakov Ellis, whom you will notice is SE staff. He's handled roughly 200 flags in that time span. No, not all mods are officially on strike, but that doesn't mean we don't have solidarity. Nor has anyone attempted to pressure any mod still handling flags into stopping. If any mod wanted to, they could handle flags today. | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 8:15 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod | There is no support for the company's position within SO mods. We have mods who are actively striking, mods who support the principles of the strike but aren't actively striking for various reasons, and then mods who haven't logged into the site or are otherwise preoccupied with personal matters and thus haven't expressed an opinion. Claims like "nobody really knows" aren't helpful or accurate. Someone knows. | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 6:40 | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @Trilarion The most active SO mods are on strike or support the strike. Also my trust in mods is not directly connected with whether they are striking or not. Everyone can have their reason to do one thing or the other. I am also pretty sure that nobody is happy with how company handled AI policy. | |
| Jun 7, 2023 at 5:43 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @DalijaPrasnikar I completely understand where the trust comes from. Interestingly not all the mods are on strike. It may be that most of the mods who aren't striking are nevertheless supporting it but it could also be that there is still substantial support for the company within the mods. Nobody really knows. | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 12:36 | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @Trilarion When I said that I trust the mods, I am not basing my trust on information that I have available in this instance, because like you said I don't have all information. But mods are saying one thing, SE is saying something else. Based on information I had in previous cases and experience with the mods and SE, I trust the mods. Especially when there are multiple mods saying the same thing. I hope that clarifies what I meant. This is why it is called trust. | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 12:11 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @DalijaPrasnikar Sure. But you do not know all the information that is available to the mods and the company as the primary opponents in this dispute, so your trust or faith will not completely be based on actual information. I prefer to know all the details. This lack of knowledge is what I wanted to convey in the previous comment. | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 11:07 | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | @Trilarion I have faith in the moderators because I know them for years. It is not blind faith., it is informed decision based on their previous actions. | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 10:46 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @DalijaPrasnikar Yes, we do. What you describe is the very definition of choosing a bit blindly. You have faith in the moderators and have no faith in the company. I would actually not expect anything different from any meta user who is here for more than say a month. I'm just describing what happens. | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 10:41 | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | "We basically have to choose sides a bit blindly" No, we don't really. Moderators are community representatives, elected by community, trusted by community. If it comes by choosing which side I should trust, I will always trust what (multiple) moderators say, over to what company says. Also company has proven track record of withholding and skewing the truth, and moderators that are currently involved in the issue have never done that. Trusting moderators is really easy choice. | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 14:42 | comment | added | Ian Kemp - SO dead by AI greed | Effectively, SE Inc. is requiring moderators to prove a negative. That's not how ANYTHING works. | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 10:19 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @CodyGray-onstrike It's fine. You say what you feel is ok to say and leave the rest to whatever happens next. Yes, it's also frustrating for normal users but mostly means that it's difficult to really understand everything and therefore it's a mix of being affected but also only being an observer of a conflict that plays out partly in the dark. I hope you are continuing negotiating and I personally hope a middle ground will be found. That seems to be all I can say until a breakthrough of some sort is reached and published and then I can start commenting again. | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 8:38 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod | Regarding "false positives", we don't believe there were a significant number of false positives, and staff has yet to present us any cases where they disagreed with our handling of them. The argument they're making is, effectively, that there's no way to know for certain, so there's no way to handle them at all. That is not a position that can lead to compromise. It's not even a reasonable position. There are all sorts of things that can be done instead, but the whole point of the strike is to hopefully bring about negotiations and compromise. Of course there is middle ground. | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 8:37 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod | We don't feel comfortable revealing details about any of our potential proposals when we can't reveal details of the actual problems/concerns cited by staff, since all of those conversations happened in private, and we don't want to follow staff's lead in breaking trust. I know that's frustrating to the rest of y'all who can't read the private chat rooms, and I'm sorry. I already feel like I have been bordering very much on the edge of saying too much in comments and chat. I'm trying to strike a reasonable balance. I'm sorry if you think it isn't sufficiently persuasive. | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 6:32 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @CodyGray The public doesn't know much about the internal discussions including proposals by the mods how to go forward. We basically have to choose sides a bit blindly. Of course we choose the mods but it may be time to go forward and go public with the proposals. What I missed most from this question here was an alternative to either do it the old ways or do it the company's ways. I think there must be a way to minimize false positives for example. | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 3:41 | comment | added | Cody Gray Mod | We cannot compromise with staff when they won't even discuss it with us. A compromise is precisely what we've been seeking. We (SO mods) have proposed many different possible approaches, some of which we're 100% in favor of, and others of which we just see as a "lesser evil", but all of which we would accept in lieu of this harmful draconian policy. Staff has taken an absolutely hardline approach, refusing to even reconsider the policy as currently stated (which, I'll note, is still different in public than in private), and that's only on the one occasion they deigned to talk to us. | |
| Jun 4, 2023 at 19:13 | history | answered | NoDataDumpNoContribution | CC BY-SA 4.0 |