+1, particularly for “I dropped out of the site”—I never left main, but I definitely did leave meta as a result of these issues.

Specifics would be helpful. I'm not going to defend every two-year-old community fight; my main goal here is to say we've been trying to make changes and would like to know how we're doing now. What process issues seem to be going poorly on Meta in the last year? Because here's a problem we have around these kinds of meta discussions - we have a lot of folks that have some grudge from something that happened years ago. We can't do anything about that, we can only change how things happen going forward. We're open to suggestions on that.

Other than that, I think you may be reading too much into my trademark short answers on Meta. I get that some people like to write huge 5-paragraph essays on everything. I prefer the TL;DR version and I think it's more accessible to casual site users. So I'll just answer a meta q with 2 sentences rather than a big formatted wall of text. Some people think that's me being grumpy; it's just me being efficient. Looking at the other meta Q's we've both been on (besides that piracy one), I just see short answers not hostility, but I can see how it could be interpreted that way.

Data wise - we have plenty of meta Qs. Looking at the stats, March 2017 is the second highest number of meta Qs since graduation, only eclipsed by April 2014. Only 3 of them were posted by SSD and I, including this one. (I know KRyan deleted his answer but I figured since it was in favor of yours the stat might be of interest.) They have been less contentious metas than in some time periods, but I tend to think that's a feature :-)

I've been vocal about brusqueness and roughshod from mods in the past, and I've seen marked improvement over the last year. I do think we still need work on cultivating our meta community atmosphere, but I suspect that's equally about us coming to meta with a chip on our shoulders and/or the everlasting "I know what I'm talking about why can't you understand" problem on the part of everyone. I suspect having a third active mod with a different perspective will help, too.

That's good to hear. As I said, we can't change the past but we're trying to change the present.

As to the OP - feel free and flag things you think are patently offensive, it's why we have multiple mods. On occassion I've deleted/edited/talked with SSD about flags on his stuff too. Now, usually, we see flags like this (not from you, in general) on plain moderator directives like "don't answer in comments" or whatnot - those for sure we ignore and it makes us worry that person's going to be making trouble - just discriminate between being told something you don't like in "mod voice" and something actually rude/offensive.

Hmm? I didn't think I did... Do you mean here in this Q? Or are you just punking me into doing Ctrl-F "butt" over and over?

@mxyzplk not in this Q, but in the top-voted and accepted answer of one of the most-linked meta questions we have. No need to CTRL-F, the site's got its own search that will find it.

So once in 2011 and once in 2014? I'll take that under advisement, but I would strongly suggest people flag/comment/edit stuff they think is improper at the time. It feels a little funny to me to dig through old things and objecting now instead of doing the normal site things about it at the normal time.

@mxyzplk Unfortunately those times weren't normal. I know with issues of language & tone, "flag a mod's behaviour like anybody else's" felt to me like a dead end conversation-stopper back then (it's better now!). Changing the present includes acting to mitigate the continuing effects of the past--like dealing w/stuff which should've been changed long ago but wasn't b/c users despaired of flags being acted on. (& we all know a lot of that language was in comments which we can't search effectively, so it's harder to document & mitigate the full extent now we're more comfortable addressing it.)

@mxyzplk yes, one in 2014, on the fifth-most-viewed meta we have. I'll speak from experience and say it's easy for someone to come new to the site, be pointed to that post early on, and "flip the bit" on you. It probably took me a solid year to unflip it. That diamond carries a lot of visibility, man. [Off to edit now.]

(Actually, these are the top five meta. Sorry, everyone. But enjoy the turtle!)

@mxyzplk For the record, my objection is much less about your diction and much more about the trivialization of users and issues, and combative discourse in response to criticism.

Yeah, “terse,” “brusque,” “roughshod,” and the like do not even begin to describe the problems I have objected to. The dismissal of concerns and the continuation of excuses merely suggests to me that, despite claims to the contrary, things haven’t actually gotten better—seems to me that it is more as though dissent simply gave up, as I did. But the dismissal and excuses continue, and ownership, responsiblity, and (gasp) apology are nowhere to be found, so I suppose I will once again be avoiding meta.

@KRyan There's a fine line between engaging in an attempt to improve things, and engaging only by flinging metaphorical feces while declaiming that there's no point in engaging. This is the latter. Can you think of how to say the same thing, but while putting it forward constructively, actionably?

@SevenSidedDie The actions I would hope to see from moderators is 1. an admission of flagrantly-inappropriate behavior, particularly from mxyzplk, 2. an admission of the limited scope of diamond-moderator authority, and that the moderation team has in the past greatly exceeded those limits by unilaterally dictating site policy in the absence of or even in contradiction of consensus, 3. actual, sincere apologies to the community and the members of it who have been denigrated or dismissed, and 4. concrete indications of how these things will not happen in the future. Or stepping down.

@KRyan I think there are a lot of specific and intense terms, and assumptions of shared understandings, that muddy that action plan. All it takes is cocking an eyebrow at things like “greatly” and “flagrantly” (“Obvious and offensive, blatant, scandalous”), or serious doubt about a shared understanding of what “limited scope” is specifically meant in practical terms, for someone to be unwilling to “sign” that “contract”, so to speak. With great demands comes the need of great accuracy and precision? I don't mean that you have no legit complaints, but inflating them disincentivises engaging.

@SevenSidedDie Sincerely, your invitation to engage is tempting. I really would like to come to a mutually-acceptable resolution. But engaging, in the past, has brought me nothing but misery, and I’m not seeing a lot of reason to think now would be any different. And that’s on me, too, no doubt; I know well that I am particularly ill-suited to championing my cause, which is reconciliation, as unlikely as I’m sure I’ve made that seem. So, as was intended by the initial comment, I am explicitly disengaging, for now at least. If nothing else, thedarkwanderer seems a far better champion than I.

(And @thedarkwanderer, my sincerest apologies if I have misconstrued your position, tarnished your cause, or put you on the spot here. I will delete any comments here you’d like.)

@KRyan If nothing else then, at least thank you for the sentiment in that last. It's reassuring to confirm reconciliation is the object. It does sometimes seem like a pound of flesh is the object, but reading that, the sincerity is really clear and is something I can keep in mind. Thank you. That's probably a good mutual foundation to start with in any future attempt.

@KRyan It's a little putting me on the spot, but somebody's gotta do it and I don't mind too much. I wouldn't delete the comments. For the record, I am not looking for the moderators (mxyzplk or otherwise) to step down, and I would not have used the words 'flagrantly', 'greatly', etc in describing what I want or what I think happened, though I that's principally because doing so dismisses the apparent internal experience of the moderator team and I'm uncomfortable doing that + that sounds bad rather than actually not feeling that way. In any case, I'll try to make a meta specific to this.

Hey guys, this comment thread is getting out of hand. Like I asked in my question, please respect the format. Add answers with issues you have, don't just tack them on to the top answer. Maybe move concerns with my word choice to the answer about my word choice. Maybe start an answer demanding mod apologies/resignations. But you're covering up all the other answers with this...

In fact, everything post "butthurt" isn't super relevant to "meta process problems" and should probably be moved to chat and turned into its own answers for the community to discuss individually. (I won't do it because then MOD ABUSE but whatever.)

@mxyzplk Comments removed.

@KorvinStarmast Thanks man.

@thedarkwanderer I must confess, I was hoping to see you nominate yourself for moderator. I think you would do a fine job (not that we’re lacking in fine nominees, but still, yours was a name that came to mind first when I saw the election announcement).

@KRyan Thanks! That means a lot to me ^^ I actually have been considering it, but I do think doppelgreener is the best person for the job of the candidates (whether I'm in or not), cause 39/40 points is insane. I'll try and finish writing up a nomination post and question answer post, though :)

@thedarkwanderer I agree, doppelgreener is someone I have long wished to see as a moderator. Still, though, I would like to see your pitch, would like the opportunity to vote for you.

I may be getting here late, but I thought discussion in Meta comments was okay? And @mxyzplk The tone and aggressive sarcasm in that comment is exactly the kind of thing people are talking about, I assume.