7

tl;dr version: The Stack Exchange Moderator Agreement, in addition to the obligations placed on community moderators, includes eight obligations that Stack Exchange the company specifically agrees to comply with. What is supposed to happen if the company violates or is alleged to have violated these terms of the agreement that it made with the moderators?

The Question:

By now, our Moderator Agreement is well-known and sets out basic rules that all moderators must follow. Formal processes exist to investigate, and, if necessary, punish, violations of the agreement by moderators.

It occurred to me recently that, in addition to obligations placed on moderators, the agreement also specifies eight rules that Stack Exchange the company must follow (listed under "Stack Exchange, Inc. agrees that it will:").

What exactly happens or is supposed to happen if the company violates the agreement or is alleged to have done so? For example, point iii in the list of Stack Exchange's obligations is:

iii. Allow you to resign your position for any reason without penalty or repercussions. As a volunteer, Stack Exchange, Inc. respects your time and will release you from duty should you ask.

As an example, suppose a highly active moderator decides to turn in their diamond. An employee at Stack Exchange who is having a bad day receives the moderator's resignation notice and issues them a network-wide suspension as retaliation. The company has violated the moderator agreement and the affected now-former moderator calls them out.

What actually happens at this point? Is there a formal process to remove the offending employee(s)? Does the affected moderator or ex-moderator receive some sort of payment or benefit?

I know that "the affected moderator might be able to sue, consult a lawyer" could be an answer, but I am more asking about internal network policies and processes rather than legal rights or what a civil judge or court would rule.

This does not personally impact me at this time and is not inspired by any current (2022) events. My reason for asking is curiosity about the process and the apparent lack of discussion of this side of the agreement.

Discussion:

In response to Erik A, this question excludes the existence of, feasibility of, likelihood of success of, or likely payoff of legal remedies such as suing the company or reporting them to a regulatory agency. It covers only internal processes (such as grievances or internal charges) between the affected moderator(s) or former moderator(s) and the company and/or within the company itself.

Whether or not Stack Exchange the company actually has violated, is violating, or intends to violate the Moderator Agreement is out of scope. Just like the moderator removal and reinstatement processes cover "what if" scenarios, I am asking about "what if" scenarios that would come into play if or when the company (for whatever reason) violates the agreement or is alleged (with evidence) to have done so.

Examples of possible company behavior that (if committed) would likely constitute a violation of the Moderator Agreement include:

  • Commenting to the media about a specific moderator's actions without the moderator's explicit permission (ii).
  • Suspending a former moderator in retaliation for resigning their diamond (iii).
  • Refusing to remove the diamond of a moderator that has turned in a resignation (iii).
  • Terminating the "Stack Gives Back" program (iv).
  • Announcing changes to the Moderator Agreement less than sixty days before the deadline for all moderators to agree to them (vi).
Improve this question
7
  • 3
    This is a strange question imo. If anything like this happens, it will likely depend highly on the exacts. Companies nearly never have a predetermined plan for employees violating their own policies and agreements, unless they're truly gigantic. The moderator side of things is different, since mods are publicly elected volunteers, so a formal public process makes more sense. The case-by-case there might lead to distrust, as the company could remove a well respected elected individual in a vague process (speaking in hypotheticals, of course). Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 14:23
  • Oh, and regarding a legal procedure, if there's no additional harm, likely the most you could do is sue for damages because of contract breach, and if the only damage is suspension from this platform, I expect that would be a terrible move (IANAL ofc) Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 14:27
  • 2
    @ErikA that's one of the reasons I want to exclude legal remedies such as lawsuits. I'm asking only about what happens between the moderator and the company and/or inside the company if the affected moderator wants to pursue an internal grievance on the grounds that the company violated its agreement with the moderator. Is this a complete and utter policy vacuum or is there some kind of process in place to handle such grievances? Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 14:28
  • 12
    I think you've chosen a bad example. The particular repercussion you've chosen can be undone in a heartbeat with no harm done. A more useful example would be if the person having a bad day refused to remove the diamond saying "the site needs you" or otherwise ignored the request and wouldn't help the (trying to be former) mod, or if they posted a "FormerMod is out of here and I for one am glad to see them back of them" kind of post Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 14:36
  • 5
    If policies or processes exist to handle allegations that SE has violated the moderator agreement, what policies or processes exist to handle allegations that SE has violated the policies or processes that exist to handle allegations that SE has violated the moderator agreement? Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 15:19
  • 9
    I actually think this is a valid question - both internally and externally. Folks are not infallible, and whether its an emotional decision, or a long simmering grudge, sometimes they do the wrong thing. Its useful to consider the internal processes about potential issues Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 16:00
  • 2
    @JourneymanGeek thanks. It's tempting sometimes to consider that anyone breaking a rule did so with comic book supervillain level evil, but in reality the vast amount of misbehavior can be better attributed to combinations of emotions and circumstances. Saying "Our employee Susan Smith was somewhat new and hadn't paid enough attention during her training on the Moderator Agreement to know not to commit [violation], which she did, so we've suspended her without pay for two weeks" doesn't fully excuse behavior, but it puts it into context and helps us understand how SE holds itself accountable. Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 16:32

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

A process is now in development for determining if Stack Exchange, Inc. violated the Mod Agreement. An initial process was agreed upon during strike negotiations:

In the event that Stack Exchange, Inc. is found to have violated the Moderator Agreement, Stack Exchange, Inc. must:

  • Retract and nullify any actions taken or comments made during the course of the violation; and
  • Issue a public apology to Meta Stack Exchange detailing the violation made.

In order to establish that such a violation took place, a consensus must be reached by a certain number of Stack Exchange network moderators. The numbers that we are working with at the moment were initially proposed by a moderator, not by the company, and haven't been finalized. The numbers will be discussed on the Mod Team before being finalized. The placeholder numbers are:

  • a minimum of 20% of Stack Exchange network moderators must vote on if a violation was committed
  • a minimum of 90% of moderators voting must vote that a violation was committed

At the time of writing, there are 541 network moderators. These percentages would require there to be a minimum of 108 moderators voting, with at least 97 of those agreeing that a violation took place.
These percentages may be adjusted during the feedback and review period for changes to the Moderator Agreement.
(myself, "Moderation strike: Results of negotiations")

The specific percentages for this process have not yet been determined and are under discussion.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.