Having problems registering on Coin Return? Please email support@coin-return.org, and include your PA username and PIN.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
Coin Return Values & Code of Conduct - Proposal - Open for Feedback until Dec. 13th
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
sometimes people have Twitter blocked, or the link you drop is paywalled or requires an account. there was also the frequent problem of someone linking tweets from a person they consider an authority on a subject (which maybe they are within your social media bubble), but no one else has even heard of. it just wastes everyone's time and you end up having to explain the link anyway
if you want to just drop a dril tweet in chat or a meme in the Star Trek thread, no one has any issue with something like that
I mean, is this true? Because it's not the impression I'm getting from @jmcdonald currently, they seem to want things to be labeled in those instances as well.
this is how the D&D rule works currently
basically if the link is something like news or information relevant to a discussion, provide context
if it's a shitpost, shitpost
don't shitpost in the strictly on topic threads
To your example, I think if you're in an on-topic thread and this happens once every half-dozen pages, that's cool. If this happens a few times per page, that's problematic. Consider that in a situation like that, that little exchange is probably only relevant or fun for two or three people, and everyone else is just skipping past it to get to stuff they actually want to read.
I think it is very likely that a pared-back "read the room" norm and common expectations about which threads are more focused and which threads are more chat-thread-y will be sufficient, and we don't really need to over-engineer the rules around it. With the caveat that if even ostensibly on-topic threads do tend to devolve into that sort of conversation, that it should be addressed more explicitly.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
And, moreover, to address the rule as it was posted in D&D and the statement about it being "Twitter-only":
I think D&D has organically come to a "consensus" that this applies to all undifferentiated sources from social media in discussion threads. X is the prime example, but I'd say that's also expanded to Youtube and anything being presented through shorteners and anonymizers.
The ultimate reasoning is this: For better or worse, many forumers find D&D to be their most trusted source for information, news, and discussion about current events and issues. (You can make your own judgments about how wise that is.) Given that baseline: If the audience can't tell who the source of a link providing (supposed!) information of some journalistic value is, or why anyone should care about what they say, there is a real, tangible, proven-by-multiple-examples-and-instances risk of introducing misinformation from randos or propaganda from state actors into current-events or political threads.
You don't get a lot of people saying 'I'm not clicking that, you Philistine' when someone drops a link to a major newspaper or online periodical, because the link (usually) self-identifies its credentials. It is specifically when the link can't be credentialed that the rule becomes strictly necessary, but it's easier to just contextualize all "relevant" links.
Conversely, of course the stakes are lower if you're posting your guitar tab video or favorite cooking show recipe. There, it's still kind to provide context (alt-text ability would also be nice) but it is not going to cause someone to panic or fall prey to misinformation. Unless it's Rush.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
I promise that this particular issue will get some consideration and we’ll be able to talk it out more if y’all think there’s more to be said when we get to discussing forum rules and how per thread rules and etiquette are handled. But that’s a (probably) next week thing after we solidify our foundation here.
Probably so. I mean, we may have some slightly different expectations of people compared to PA’s rules (some broader, some more specific), but generally speaking, if you’ve managed to not be an asshole for 20 years and can abide by some general guidelines about being decent to each other and good community members, I don’t think anything being asked of people should be difficult at all.
I was going to make a joke that asking this question was, in fact, against the new rules that you missed in subsection 9, paragraph A, and you could expect your infraction to hit within 5-10 business days.
But that would be in poor taste. So I'll just tell you about the joke and that doesn't count as saying the joke, right?
I'd have laughed!
and sadly awaited my punishment
I just really like that we're deliberately saying these things "out loud"
This is who we are
This is important to us
This is how we want to be remembered
Fight the fuckin power etc et al
Shitposting it’s important to us
I can’t remember what I was talking about
I want to thank you all for your feedback, suggestions, questions, and discussions. There were some valuable points made that will get incorporated into our values and code of conduct, but I was also heartened that there was relatively broad agreement on all the most important parts. This document was written up with a huge amount of help of several members of the community (thank you all again, you know who you are and what you did), and based heavily on the feedback we had already seen in other threads about the kind of community you all want us to be. I'm glad it seems like we hit it pretty close to a bullseye here, and I look forward to getting the same level of feedback and community discussion on our rules and several other major decisions we'll be making over the next couple of months.
I'll present a (hopefully) final revision of this document in a new thread in the next few days for a community vote to officially ratify our Values and Code of Conduct so we can move on to those other major decisions (like working on our Forum Rules) with a proper guiding document as our foundation. Keep an eye out.