<p>The thing that SO, Inc. cares most about is that it has something of a unique online community: people who generally behave themselves.</p>
<p>Moderators play a key role in maintaining that. Stepping down or threatening to step down isn't a good solution, because</p>
<ul>
<li>good moderators can be replaced with worse ones;</li>
<li>purging SO of rebellious elements seems like something an malevolent organization would seek to do and volunteering to be removed is cooperation with that goal;</li>
<li>making SO, Inc. fire you is much more uncomfortable for SO, Inc because instead of the community being upset that one moderator, Monica, was fired, the community will be be upset that dozens of moderators were fired.</li>
</ul>
<p>Instead, my suggestion is a</p>
<h1>moderator &amp; user strike</h1>
<p>Stop doing moderator tasks until SO Inc takes your grievances seriously and commits to making positive changes. Moderators are an enormous source of free value for SO, Inc. That value evaporates without moderators doing their level best.</p>
<p>Users can support the strike by doing the same: don’t vote, don’t flag, don’t answer, don’t participate. Make it clear that you're withdrawing your participation explicitly as a result of SO, Inc.'s indifference and opacity.</p>
<p>You don't have to have Glen_b's statistical acumen to grasp that only a small number of individuals on Stats.SE and all of SO do most of the work that keeps the sites useful. The reason we have answers, closure queues and flags is to make the site function smoothly. If the dedicated cadre at the core of every site walks away, SO will break. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsoEf8Yqe3I" rel="nofollow noreferrer">They have the plant, but we have the power.</a></p>
