Return to Answer

I find this statement to be a continuation of your inappropriate, perhaps even underhanded, approach to this matter and to relations with the SE community so far.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

This implies Ms. Cellio did something wrong (albeit inadvertently).

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This implies even more strongly that you stand by your claim that she had broken your Code of Conduct. I remind you, Ms. Chipps, of the highest-voted reply to your last post on this site: "Did you lie in claiming that Ms. Cellio broke the code of conduct?" You seem to be claiming you didn't. Well then, again, what did she do that broke the code?

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

This does not square with her termination on the spot as moderator - a termination you are still justifying and have not undone.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

And how will you compensate her for this damage? More importantly, what's to prevent you from acting in this "regrettable" manner against other users - even valued and respected contributors, to use your words - with whom you disagree?

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure ... there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked

In that case, then - please apply this policy and tell us why Ms. Ciello's moderator status was revoked.

Also note, that a "clearer process" does not help much when you can be sanctioned unilaterally without even the opportunity to rebut the charges against you.

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute.

And yet, you still stick by her termination as a moderator; and have not reinstated her. Why?

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

That would be a non-recognition of the mistakes that led you here. Any terminated moderator can apply for reinstatement.

Bottom line: You (= SE Inc.) seem to be "cutting your losses" w.r.t. the most legally vulnerable point, which is the slander in the media, while holding your position otherwise, and presenting all wrongdoing as an unfortunate conjunction of circumstances.

I find this statement to be a continuation of your (= SE inc's) inappropriate, underhanded, approach to this matter and to relations with the SE community so far.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

This implies Ms. Cellio did something wrong (albeit inadvertently).

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This implies even more strongly that you stand by your claim that she had broken your Code of Conduct. I remind you, Ms. Chipps, of the highest-voted reply to your last post on this site: "Did you lie in claiming that Ms. Cellio broke the code of conduct?" You seem to be claiming you didn't. Well then, again, what did she do that broke the code?

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

This does not square with her termination on the spot as moderator - a termination you are still justifying and have not undone.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

And how will you compensate her for this damage? More importantly, what's to prevent you from acting in this "regrettable" manner against other users - even valued and respected contributors, to use your words - with whom you disagree?

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure ... there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked

In that case, then - please apply this policy and tell us why Ms. Cellio's moderator status was revoked.

Also note, that a "clearer process" does not help much when you can be sanctioned unilaterally without even the opportunity to rebut the charges against you.

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute.

And yet, you still stick by her termination as a moderator; and have not reinstated her. Why?

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

That would be a non-recognition of the mistakes that led you here. Any terminated moderator can apply for reinstatement, after all.

Bottom line: You (= SE Inc.) seem to be "cutting your losses" w.r.t. the most legally vulnerable point, which is the slander in the media, while holding your position otherwise, and presenting all wrongdoing as an unfortunate conjunction of circumstances.

I find this statement to be a continuation of your inappropriate, perhaps even underhanded, approach to this matter and to relations with the SE community so far.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

This implies Ms. Cellio did something wrong (albeit inadvertently).

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This implies even more strongly that you stand by your claim that she had broken your Code of Conduct. I remind you, Ms. Chipps, of the highest-voted reply to your last post on this site: "Did you lie in claiming that Ms. Cellio broke the code of conduct?" You seem to be claiming you didn't. Well then, again, what did she do that broke the code?

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

This does not square with her termination on the spot as moderator - a termination you are still justifying and have not undone.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

And how will you compensate her for this damage? More importantly, what's to prevent you from acting in this "regrettable" manner against other users - even valued and respected contributors, to use your words - with whom you disagree?

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure ... there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked

In that case, then - please apply this policy and tell us why Ms. Ciello's moderator status was revoked.

Also note, that a "clearer process" does not help much when you can be sanctioned unilaterally without even the opportunity to rebut the charges against you.

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute.

And yet, you still stick by her termination as a moderator; and have not reinstated her. Why?

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

That would be a non-recognition of the mistakes that led you here. Any terminated moderator can apply for reinstatement.

I find this statement to be a continuation of your inappropriate, perhaps even underhanded, approach to this matter and to relations with the SE community so far.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

This implies Ms. Cellio did something wrong (albeit inadvertently).

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This implies even more strongly that you stand by your claim that she had broken your Code of Conduct. I remind you, Ms. Chipps, of the highest-voted reply to your last post on this site: "Did you lie in claiming that Ms. Cellio broke the code of conduct?" You seem to be claiming you didn't. Well then, again, what did she do that broke the code?

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

This does not square with her termination on the spot as moderator - a termination you are still justifying and have not undone.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

And how will you compensate her for this damage? More importantly, what's to prevent you from acting in this "regrettable" manner against other users - even valued and respected contributors, to use your words - with whom you disagree?

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure ... there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked

In that case, then - please apply this policy and tell us why Ms. Ciello's moderator status was revoked.

Also note, that a "clearer process" does not help much when you can be sanctioned unilaterally without even the opportunity to rebut the charges against you.

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute.

And yet, you still stick by her termination as a moderator; and have not reinstated her. Why?

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

That would be a non-recognition of the mistakes that led you here. Any terminated moderator can apply for reinstatement.

Bottom line: You (= SE Inc.) seem to be "cutting your losses" w.r.t. the most legally vulnerable point, which is the slander in the media, while holding your position otherwise, and presenting all wrongdoing as an unfortunate conjunction of circumstances.

I find this statement to be a continuation of your inappropriate, perhaps even underhanded, approach to this matter and to relations with the SE community so far.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

This implies Ms. Cellio did something wrong.

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This implies even more strongly that you stand by your claim that she had broken your Code of Conduct. I remind you, Ms. Chipps, of the highest-voted reply to your last post on this site: "Did you lie in claiming that Ms. Cellio broke the code of conduct?" You seem to be claiming you didn't. Well then, again, what did she do that broke the code?

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

This does not square with her termination on the spot as moderator - a termination you are still justifying and have not undone.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

And how will you compensate her for this damage? More importantly, what's to prevent you from acting in this "regrettable" manner against other users - even valued and respected contributors, to use your words - with whom you disagree?

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure ... there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked

In that case, then - please apply this policy and tell us why Ms. Ciello's moderator status was revoked.

Also note, that a "clearer process" does not help much when you can be sanctioned unilaterally without even the opportunity to rebut the charges against you.

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute.

And yet, you still stick by her termination as a moderator; and have not reinstated her. Why?

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

That would be a non-recognition of the mistakes that led you here. Any terminated moderator can apply for reinstatement.

I find this statement to be a continuation of your inappropriate, perhaps even underhanded, approach to this matter and to relations with the SE community so far.

We believe that Ms. Cellio was not acting with malicious intent.

This implies Ms. Cellio did something wrong (albeit inadvertently).

We believe she did not understand all of the nuances and full intent and meaning of our Code of Conduct and was confused about what actions it required and forbade.

This implies even more strongly that you stand by your claim that she had broken your Code of Conduct. I remind you, Ms. Chipps, of the highest-voted reply to your last post on this site: "Did you lie in claiming that Ms. Cellio broke the code of conduct?" You seem to be claiming you didn't. Well then, again, what did she do that broke the code?

We always valued Ms. Cellio’s contributions to the community and respect her intelligence, integrity, and professional writing skills.

This does not square with her termination on the spot as moderator - a termination you are still justifying and have not undone.

While our initial statement did not address her specifically, we regret that we used her name when responding to a reporter's follow-up. We regret any damage to Ms. Cellio's reputation and any other damage she may have suffered.

And how will you compensate her for this damage? More importantly, what's to prevent you from acting in this "regrettable" manner against other users - even valued and respected contributors, to use your words - with whom you disagree?

We have since updated some of our policies and processes to help ensure ... there is a clearer process anytime a moderator's status is revoked

In that case, then - please apply this policy and tell us why Ms. Ciello's moderator status was revoked.

Also note, that a "clearer process" does not help much when you can be sanctioned unilaterally without even the opportunity to rebut the charges against you.

We respect Ms. Cellio and believe she is a good person with much to offer and contribute.

And yet, you still stick by her termination as a moderator; and have not reinstated her. Why?

In recognition of the mistakes that led us here, we invited Ms. Cellio to apply for possible reinstatement on all six sites following our new reinstatement process.

That would be a non-recognition of the mistakes that led you here. Any terminated moderator can apply for reinstatement.