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
edit: Just for the record, I'm not voting. I haven't posted here enough in the last fifteen years to really have an actual say, but I have done community management and run my own small forum community and wanted to give my feedback as someone with that experience.
If you feel like your dissent about cherry pie* is being stifled or whatever because someone is getting emotional about stuff like IDK, denial of their right to exist, there's always the option of ducking out of that discussion and reframing your opinion in another less fraught arena at a later date. So far as I am aware few or no societal policy decisions are made in this forum, so there's not really any cost to to deferring your perspective for a bit.
*This is figurative cherry pie. Please do not @ me if you love and/or hate that specific confection.
This is because the values as listed are not defined. What does "connectedness" mean? Is that even a value? Is the feeling of connectedness more important than the dormant freedom from association? I want the right to block as many people as I want. I'm inferring what "connectedness" means here, because again it's undefined, but it implies that we value interaction more than concord.
Also, considering how many people have self-banned, I would also like to add Privacy to the Safety value, insofar as either of those words have meaning in a public-facing forum nowadays.
Next, I want an actual definition of harassment. I would also like to extend the "no harassment" shield onto the forums themselves. I've seen enough dogpiling and constant hounding across threads (which I consider harassment) to know that Forum Beefs will remain as we transition. I want someone like spool (sorry to single you out) to be able to post without half the forum listing every decades-old grievance they've ever had with him. If we really want safety, self-expression, accountability, and equity, then mods should be willing to visibly police popular people just as much as the unpopular and the cringe among us. The Code of Conduct theoretically covers that, but just like Equal Rights legislation explicitly lists protected classes, I would feel better if it explicated that meta-modding and dogpiling/harassment of any sort will be punished, even if a poster is popular and comments something widely agreed to.
Either that or officially establish that we are allowed to block as many people as we want. Have 'freedom from association' in the core values-- integrate that into "Connectedness" or get rid of that value altogether.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
The fact that this sort of thing is omitted is one of the reasons why I strongly approve of the code of conduct in its current form.
Being early doesn't make you better or more correct in your opinions about it. Be better.
EDIT: And I'll clarify that I'm not referencing any one particular person; this has been come up more than once already in this and the prior thread. Public voting is public, with all that entails.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Everyone is entitled to a vote.
But also, there's a reason the process goes "let's all talk about this for a while" and then into "ok, with everyone's feedback let's try to take a vote here". Sometime coming in at this last step with some fundamental questions is not going to get the same response as someone doing it in the first step, and that is appropriate.. Otherwise, tbh, this will never be completed because a few folks are always going to straggle in late.
No one should be insulted for this of course. And as has been mentioned, these Values/etc are expected to grow and change over time. But for right now, for this first version? Yeah it's too late to be coming in with the assumption we're gonna redo this for any change that isn't quite important.
Your vote matters equally! Your concerns that maybe the specific wording in clause <x> is perhaps slightly too vague, and what if we passed out a bit differently like <x with minor changes> instead, etc? That doesn't matter as much right now, no
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
We started with way too many values and started folding them into each other, reducing it down to 5-6, which is standard best practice for a document of this type.
No value is allowed to supersede another value. Connectedness cannot result in preventing you from blocking users, because that contravenes safety, another value.
Privacy was folded into safety, because, again, its the same value in the end. Anything that contravenes privacy also contravenes safety.
No value can counteract any other. No value is more important than any other.
Values interact. If you are looking at them alone, I'm sorry to say you have misunderstood them, and, indeed, this entire document. Which I'm going to put down to a miscommunication on our part, as so far I have seen nothing, no point, no objection, that the values can't cover.
edit:
This is the original draft list, which was distilled from the principles in the current rules thread, with some others added.
Community-led
Communication
Accessible
Discourse
Privacy
Artistry
Fairness
Safety
Empathy
Accountability
Adaptability
After this was distilled down by folding redundant values into each other to make the current ones, empathy was added by the TT team.
Can you really say that connectedness without safety, equity and empathy is a real connection between people?
Is it safe and equitable to allow literally all forms of self-expression without any accountability?
And so on.
Normally they just make the place, slap the rules down, and that's it. That's all you get.
I feel for you if you missed out, but, sadly, you missed out. It's a consequence of limited time. We cannot keep arguing about this ad infinitum, there's a lot more to do.
But don't worry, this document here? This document already has written into it that changes can be made later. The one that everyone has agreed to is not the iron hand of the law for all time, or anything like it.
And there will be plenty of time to hash out whatever you want to hash out.
These statements all contradict one another. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "supersede", "contravene", and "counteract". These statements are saying that Safety is more important/prioritized than Connectedness.
I don't think I've misunderstood the document. I think I have a different interpretation of the document. I don't think any value's definition can be considered "self-evident", even within the context of other values (and saying that a value is both self-evident and reliant on / modified by other contextual values seems circular). The text stands alone. If you have to explain to me both whether and how the values are supposed to interact, then do that in the opening to the Values.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
You'll find an example of how the values interact in the principles directly below them. Those numbers are the values. You can see from there how multiple values interacted to generate each principle.
Essentially they all push and pull on each other, so if you Reductio ad absurdum one of them, the others will pull it back from that extreme. There was an attempt to explain this in the introduction in general, but I'll grant that perhaps an example would have been better. But I didn't want people bogged down with details and was afraid they'd focus on that one example.
No value can be absolute in a society. There is free Speech, but you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. There is an attempt to explain how the various values interact, compliment, and limit each other. There will always be an edgecase, and I'm sure the rules will be amended and changed as time goes on, just like any other place with rules and laws. But if this is a list of things that are important to our community, I feel pretty good about it. It's not perfect, but it's very thoughtful.
...
I don't think this is true.
I've been in situations where it's been safety vs privacy.
And I'm not sure what it means if privacy is not a value then.
Would it just mean we're happy to breach privacy to keep users safe?
Privacy is important, but we're still gonna track IP addresses in an attempt to increase safety.
Safety is important but you don't have to include your full government name to sign up
Privacy is important, but if you're stalking/harassing another user we're gonna tell folks why you were banned.
Ultimately, it sounds like the choice will be to prioritize safety over privacy in such cases where privacy is genuinely not as important as safety and where such priorities will meaningfully help.
cursededit - kinda like how when you fly United, Service is their passion but Safety is their priority
So privacy was folded into safety because the spirit of the issue, that we don't dox, harrass, go after people in real life, that peoples thoughts here don't end up attached to their real name by anyones actions, that we don't pry and try to find out as that could put people at risk, all of that gets covered.
Weird edge cases are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of an internet forum, and so we are not having privacy as a sole value as that puts too much focus on it over other things.
We had to agonise a lot over which values we kept and which we folded in or let go, which ones we made explicit and which ones we had to have be implicit. Privacy was one of the implicit ones, inside safety. I can't really see any genuine reasonable issue involving privacy on an internet forum that another combination of value plus safety can't cover. If you would like privacy to be absolute, well, that isn't going to happen. We are, as tox said, going to be tracking IP addresses.
I also want to point out that these are all fairly bog standard values you will get in a lot of companies, community organisations, governments, local governments, in their values, coc or strategic plans. I actually looked at several local councils public facing documentation to help guide my approach.
Selling indulgences, a fine tradition (and revenue model)...
I think they collectively have earned the benefit of the doubt.
Drez you're confusing this with Assimov's 3rd law of robotic sex
"I like big boot-sectors and I cannot lie"?
Any input is going to be seriously considered.
As of the closing bell, our vote totals are as follows:
Yea: 427 (96.39%)
Nay: 16 (3.61%)
The ratification vote PASSES.
The Values and Code of Conduct as presented here, dated December 18th, have been accepted as the official initial version for Coin Return.
Thank you to everyone who turned out and voted. Your voices are appreciated and heard. Please stay tuned for future discussions and votes regarding Forum Rules and other governance decisions in the coming weeks and months.