Not sure why you are always posting the same regurgitated answer to the legitimate concerns here.

There is clearly a big issue with the way SO handles moderation, which many people complain about and why these SO threads always get so much attention.

Also its now very clear that the current status quo isnt working since the site is in a death spiral now.

If the “goal” doesnt work, you have to change and fix the “goal” and not force people to “understand” it.

Frankly you are posting here in the same way the usual SO mod acts.

I was also once a contributor, but I have the same opinions about the harsh rules and points system.

> Not sure why you are always posting the same regurgitated answer to the legitimate concerns here.

I have more reach here than blogging about it, unfortunately.

But, ironically, it also helps illustrate the point about duplicate questions.

> If the “goal” doesnt work, you have to change and fix the “goal” and not force people to “understand” it.

No, that's literally the opposite of how communities work. There is no "force"; there are only conditions on having your contributions welcomed. Having your question closed on Stack Overflow is no more "force" than having your PR rejected on GitHub. You aren't the one who gets to decide whether the goal is "working", because the site is not there to provide you a service of asking questions, any more than Wikipedia is there to provide you a service of sharing opinions on real-world phenomena.

There's no reason that the Stack Overflow community should give, or ever have given, a damn about "the site being in a death spiral". Because that is an assessment based on popularity. Popular != good; more importantly, valuing popularity is about valuing the ability of the site to make money for its owners, but none of the people curating it see a dime of that. They (myself included) are really only intrinsically motivated to create the thing.

The thing is demonstrably useful. Just not in the mode of interaction that people wanted from it.

The meta site constantly gets people conspiracy theorizing about this. Often they end up asserting things about the reputation system that are the exact opposite of how it actually works. For example, you can gain a maximum of 1000 reputation, ever, from editing posts, and it only applies to people whose edits require approval. The unilateral edits are being done by someone who sees zero incentive beyond the edited text appearing for others. They're done because of a sincere belief that a world where third parties see the edited text is better than a world where third parties see the original text.

> Frankly you are posting here in the same way the usual SO mod acts.

You're talking about people who, in almost every case, as an objective matter of fact, are not moderators. The overwhelming majority of "moderation actions" of every stripe are done by the community, except for the few that actually require a moderator (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/432658).