I've been a moderator for a few years, but now I'm not really active neither as a member of CrossValidated, nor as a moderator, so I'm not the best candidate for the role anymore. That's the first reason.

The second reason is that I don't like where StackExchange is heading. Moderators resigned in the past because of, lightly speaking, strange StackExchange's politics, but I decided to stay, because I saw the value in the site and the community, regardless of it. But then, there was the controversial policy about AI generated content, and now the OpenAI partnership.

I see that as a response to using their content for training the "AI" chatbots, users are vandalizing their questions and answers (you cannot delete them it they were upvoted), in the response moderators are reverting the changes--this is what they should do as moderators, but I'm not comfortable with that. It's too much for me. Site like this is created by the community and should be governed by the community, but as a community we have only a limited impact on where it is heading.

  • 24
    $\begingroup$ I want to thank you very warmly for your tremendous service over the years. You've helped mightily to make this a better place. I don't want to make this a detailed discussion about the directions SE is taking, but do agree in registering serious concerns. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Commented May 7 at 11:52
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Many thanks from me too. You have been a tremendous moderator. I hope you continue to use the platform, as I have also benefited greatly from your answers too $\endgroup$ Commented May 9 at 9:58
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ And from me. It's been a pleasure to work alongside you in the moderator team & I'm sorry to see you go, though I understand the reasons. $\endgroup$ Commented May 10 at 7:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry to see you go. All the best. $\endgroup$
    – Sycorax Mod
    Commented May 14 at 15:53

2 Answers 2


Expanding on Nick Cox's sentiments, let me express my gratitude, and I am sure I would speak for all, for your service over the years moderating as well as building a strong repository of quality and comprehensive answers, mostly on topics related to machine learning.

I appreciate your decision is partly based on not compromising with your principles and values and most conspicuously the ethos the SE was created on: Site like this is created by the community and should be governed by the community; it's sad that you have been compelled by the recent developments to take a step like this, but at the end of the day, it's only you who would have the right to hang up the boots.

Again as Nick mentioned, this might not be the proper column to delve into the criticism of the policies to be enacted by the company. Rather, it should be the place where the community would celebrate a brilliant user and their contribution. With that, I hope, you may continue your visit and contribute with answers. Best wishes.


Yet another reason for me to be Carl instead of using my real name. AI bots know who Carl is on Cross Validated, but not who I am. Moreover, they have respect for "Carl" but some of my opinions are not allowed on StackExchange, in particular those that do not agree with controlling the masses with inappropriate panic regarding climate and epidemics, which is the beginnings of a world wide police state. I have seen Communism first hand, it's ugly. I have also considered not contributing to Cross Validated because of that, as my tolerance for authoritarianism is low.

I will miss your moderation, Tim. I deeply share and respect the position you are taking. I would suggest that we continue posting opinions that StackExchange feels it has to delete, until those doing the deletions become demoralized, and refuse to delete them. That is how the Soviet Union collapsed, not with guns, or violence, but by changing minds until no true believers were left. So it is with any morally bankrupt political philosophy; it becomes it's own most savage critic.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Bravo!!! You sound like Solzhenitsyn - a very high compliment in my book. $\endgroup$ Commented May 8 at 14:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AdrianKeister The response to this post is interesting. +5/-5 at the moment. What amazes me is how easy it is to control people with "panic-speak." I would guess that without statistical training the minuses would outnumber the pluses. The AstroZenica jab is now off the market because of clot formation, and we, geologically speaking, are in an interglacial period of the Holocene having a cold, dry climate with low carbon dioxide. We are at risk because of unsubstantiated ideas promoted by rabid ideologues with vested interests. With time, more people will understand this. $\endgroup$
    – Carl
    Commented May 9 at 2:52
  • $\begingroup$ Less Solzhenitsyn, and more the lady in doorway from "Gates of Heaven". $\endgroup$
    – dipetkov
    Commented May 9 at 12:44
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ It is... interesting... to decry panic-speak in the context of a post about "the beginnings of a world wide police state" :) $\endgroup$ Commented May 9 at 14:32
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @alanocallaghan Police states function predicated upon fear of reprisal. Panic-speak incites acute fear. What's interesting about that? Compliance by lies, intimidation, censorship, and a good deal of false bravado, nothing new in that. $\endgroup$
    – Carl
    Commented May 9 at 19:27
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ I fear you missed my point by quite a wide margin. To put it more plainly, I find your post to be irrelevant, ahistorical, fear-mongering, grandiose, but mostly, incredibly ironic $\endgroup$ Commented May 9 at 19:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @alanocallaghan I'm glad you liked it. $\endgroup$
    – Carl
    Commented May 9 at 19:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .