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.
VOTE NOW - Coin Return Values & Code of Conduct - open through December 27th
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
The response seems to be almost a consensus but the no votes should have a free and open reason to say why they went that way.
Also I'd say the timeline doesn't really give this sort of thing that much time to cook, and I think this got a fair amount of visibility and feedback for the time-frame we got.
This is important input. If you want to do it anonymously we can probably figure out a good way.
Ah, understandable. I don't need to know what happened in the past, it just raised a brow.
While they're not directly comparable cases, in the legislation/Congress example that was mentioned too, sometimes initially a bill has a lot of great things going for it, but then things poison pills get added that ultimately make someone who is a proponent of those great things vote against it. And in the public record and as ammunition against them in the future it's not "they voted no because these extra things were tacked on" it's, "they voted no."
It's not apples to apples here, but when we have greater and obviously harmful behaviours people shouldn't engage in at the fore, an identified "nay" here can really put somebody in a bad spot. Which is why I think at the very least a poll of this nature should be anonymous.
Yeah. For the record, I have always solicited and gladly accepted anonymous/PM'd feedback. There are a couple of things incorporated into this version of the document that came about that way, in fact. So if there's something you want to voice about the values of code of conduct, feel free to reach out. And if for some reason you hate my guts, then hit up one of the other members of the Transition Team directly who you feel more comfortable with and they'll bring it into the discussion for you. No hard feelings. Anyone who wants to be heard can be. Even if it's something that doesn't effect change immediately right now, it could be a consideration for when we do a review of our code of conduct or rules in the future.
Are our existing badgers moving over, hopefully maybe, somehow?
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
And it's not even that you can't disagree with a minority on the specific thing being discussed. It just means actually paying attention to what they say, and if you choose to respond to them, not being dismissive of their experiences as irrelevant.
It's a good thing to have in the CoC!
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I'll most likely vote yes, but before I do, I'd like to point out that this particular sentiment probably isn't the wording we want. I get the intent, but I say a lot of things here I wouldn't in person because anonymity is a feature. I'd prefer something more along the line of "treat each poster with dignity," or something similar that hits the same idea but sounds as grown up as the rest of the document.
I would agree that (9) Avoid saying anything to another member you would not say face-to-face. (1, 5, 6) is kinda meaningless and a weird point to add.
I've seen what people (not here, but in the world) will say to people's faces and it basically empowers assholes to say "well I'd say it in person too". And probably honestly mean or even have done it in their lived experience. We've all seen someone go off on a retail worker, and I don't think what those folks said should be an acceptable standard just because someone will scream in someone else's face.
Regardless, that sort of behavior is likely covered under other rules, and probably not necessary but it's not something that is a deal breaker at least to me.
I'd amend 9 to 'Wouldn't say to someone in a professional workplace without consequences' except for one different workspaces and then gets into some of the stuff we talk about is definitely NSFW in a mixed professional environment.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Well for sure, but it feels like it's either not meaningful or contradictory to any actual real life scenarios.
Like sure whatever it being there, it's not gonna make me vote against the rules (i'm already voting for them ofc) but it seems unnecessary.
You got to say something to communicate, even when you don't want to interrupt everyone else, and so don't want to say anything.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
I'm pretty sure this is more strict than the HR policy where I work.
You can dissent about anything you want except for minorities rights to exist.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
Are you concerned that you won't be able to disagree that apple pie is better than cherry pie?
What makes you think people won't be able to have a dissenting voice? What types of things are you thinking you'd dissent about?
(Also did you discuss this the previous few weeks when we were hashing out this whole thing as a community, out of curiosity? What did folks have to say then about your concerns?)
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
There really is no reason to worry about this, people are not going to jump down your throat unless you are being a shitheel, and individuals aren't allowed to rules lawyer you during a discussion anyway, only mods can enforce any of this, and they're going to be well trained as to what "accountability" means for them.
If you think any of this is draconian, I think the missing link here is that this all applies both ways: to the leadership, and to the users. Everyone has to adhere to these values.
I haven't been around very much in the last couple of months as my mom died. She actually passed away literally the day that it was announced that PA was ending the forums. So I've not been around much for many reasons. (note: not a woe is me I didn't get to contribute to the discussion, life happened, I wasn't here. It's fine. Family is more important than an internet community).
I have seen other online communities with the best intentions go south because those good intentions get applied to a point that people feel uncomfortable saying things that aren't the majority opinion. I'm not saying I 100% believe that will happen here. It probably won't. But we absolutely can have a situation where we try so hard to keep the bad things down that constructive, good discussion also suffers.
I'm not running away from the forums. I'll be one of the first people signing up to support the new forums monetarily. Don't think for a second that I'm someone trying to stir up things unnecessarily. I'm just wary of the pendulum swinging too far the other way.
So the neat thing is we have Values and if enforcement of the rules and/or CoC go against those Values then we have an enforcement problem.
There is a group working on governance that will provide a process for redress so that we can make sure we are not stuck in the situation of having bad rules being enforced badly by bad enforcers without recourse.