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.
Posts
I think it might be the latter as I don't think we want a situation where a member of a marginalized community shares a story of their lived reality and suddenly the onus is on everyone currently in the discussion to issue the same "We hear you, we see you" comment?
Thanks, MI. I appreciate the response.
You too, Zonugal!
That makes sense.
if someone is responding to you, wouldn't you prefer they are listening to you and not discounting your perspective. if someone is finding themself incapable of doing so, wouldn't you prefer they just don't respond?
How do you see that working?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
No, I am not. I am trying to understand what you are saying, and responding to what I believe you are. I do not enjoy the implications of acting in bad faith in this post. As such I will stop engaging as you requested.
Well now there are real rules and a code of conduct instead of stuff kludged together to make teenagers behave two decades ago.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
How does that work though people A & B are discussing a topic and person C feels that conversation is invalidating and disrespectful to their lived experiences?
It feels like person A & B simply ignoring / not engaging with C and continuing their discussion would fall afoul of Equity and Inclusion rule by not acknowledging that lived experience once it was presented.
But based on what you said here it feels like you're saying that A & B would - as long as its on topic in the thread / tags - it would be C's responsibility to ignore / disengage and let A & B continue their conversation if they aren't interested in having C's lived experience conversation.
That part I completely agree with, I’m just not sure how that affects the non-public nature of the infraction / ban process (and especially the appeals part of it) - at least as far as addressing the reservations brought up in this thread.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I think it's fine to not engage, under basically all circumstances.
What if, for the sake of a hypothetical, Persons A and B both had Person C on ignore (meaning they have no way of knowing they're even being addressed)?
If person C feels that persons A & B are saying things that are disrespectful to the point of running afoul of our rules and code, then they should report that and speak to a mod. But no one is ever owed a response from someone, imo.
I think a lot of the core values are about not just defining a bunch of rules, but about suggesting more healthy ways to participate in the community. I think A and B should pause to consider what C is saying, whether or not they choose to respond directly. I think everyone should try to look at things from other viewpoints and consider they may be wrong about something. And I think that we, as a community, can treat others in ways that suggest, in aggregate, that we are trying to be open-minded and inclusive in our interactions. Even though A and B should never be required to respond to C.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I have a dog with no nose.
How does he smell?
Terrible!
Sorry, you answered (or I asked?) the wrong question. My elaboration to Magell might explain better what I was asking?
Mechanically, how do the new rules and values address the "email an appeal" being nonpublic?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
That there is a process for appeals and you can guarantee someone who didn't issue the infraction will be looking at the appeal.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
I accept this degree of customization may be needlessly complex from a design perspective, which is fine. But in a perfect world, I think it would be nice to have the choice.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Private by default with the right to request public, perhaps?
I like solutions that have standardisations built in.
I feel like it’s worth adding that It is also possible to engage with, respect and validate, while still disagreeing with someone.
Hell, it’s possible to invalidate someone while agreeing with them too while we’re at it.
That’s just, idk imperfect human communication I don’t really have an example.
No, the admin subforums were specifically not part of the forum structure vote:
Provided it falls under an admin subforums (which makes sense to me), then it seems to me that it could be part of the ratification of the appeals process KD.
- I agree with this being a living document, however, as has been often quoted in these threads, what is temporary often has a tendency to become permanent. There has been talk about accepting feedback, but would it be worth capturing within the rules as a standard expectation that it'd be openly reviewed with community feedback on an annual basis, or something like that? Not just 'yeah if we need to', which can be a case where a lot of small annoyances don't seem worth bringing up but might, in aggregate, be causing unnecessary friction? A simple temperature check conversation, and if nothing pertinent comes up, then I guess we've landed basically where most of the members want us to be. Presumably something highly pertinent would be tabled and addressed before hand, I'm envisioning more middle ground/low tier issues that aren't ideal, but not spicy enough to actually drive them to the forefront.
- Pronouns: can we confirm that, as was stated as a goal, the pronoun field is clearly visible on both desktop and mobile versions of the forums? If this will be actionable, then the information should be clearly present on both versions of the platform. To make sure everyone is on the same page and treating one another respectfully, of course, but also to avoid needless or accidental friction. Out of potentially a thousand+ users with disparate interests, nobody will keep everyone clear in their heads at all times, especially if how a person chooses to present themselves changes to better reflect who they are. Edit: struck, I went looking and am glad to see it works on both.
- Obviously the appeal issue and potential for moderator removal are rather large dangling questions, but hopefully the conversations on the matter have helped advance those goals.
This feels like the sort of stuff that could be brought up & addressed at the quarterly/annual board meetings, no?
Especially if CoRe users are providing observations/critiques in the admin forum, so the board has items to bring up during said meeting.
I like all of these, but I don't think they belong in a rules document. It feels like a governance thing that addresses the rules as needed. The by laws determining what we need to do with the various documents. I am open to other interpretations here.
I know you put a strike through on the pronouns bit but I do want to address that briefly. I have zero complaints about how the pronoun field is implemented as of now. I wouldn't change a thing myself. If that isn't a ringing endorsement I don't know what is.
I'm sure it was easy enough, but there are enough things going on at all times, I thought it wise to be 101% certain.
There's always money in the banana stand.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
How do you reconcile asking people to trust the process when no such process was used with regards to the SE++ Palestine thread? You repeated the actions of the previous admin (the complaints about which you yourself made!) by making a unilateral decision with no warning and no "process" with which affected users could engage to reverse the outcome. What is the trust supposed to be built upon when given the same power you repeated the actions that you once decried?
I’m sure Zon has a response for you, and I’m not intending to speak for him, but as I was involved in this as well, I figure I can probably get most of the way to what I can imagine his answer would be and save everyone a little time.
The simple answer here is that at that time (which is several months ago at this point, mind you) there was no process. I think there were understandable reasons for what happened—which I’m not going to spend time relitigating now—but we probably agree that with the benefit of hindsight, the process of it could have been handled better. Of course, a lot of things that had gotten really bad over the last few years here could have been handled better. But I can at least admit where we made a misstep and commit to doing better going forward, and I’m confident Zon probably feels the same way. We’re imperfect, and went into an extremely difficult process with good intentions. We made some good decisions, and we made some mistakes — we’ll probably make more — but I don’t think you can accuse anyone on the TT of not learning important lessons along the way here.
To that end, if you’ve been paying attention at all, you’ll have seen that we’ve made every effort possible to make this whole thing a collaborative, equitable process for everyone to participate in and have their voice heard. We’ve committed to putting power over sweeping, community-impacting decisions into the hands of the community and their elected representatives, and we’ve gone so far as to not just promise that, but to write it into our bylaws at the foundation of this new company (still in process, of course, but chugging along).
Honestly, I don’t think Zon even needs to ask you to trust the process. 3 months ago? Sure. No one really knew for sure exactly how this ship was going to sail. But now? Most of the way there with the majority of the broad strokes already worked out? You can see the process happening in real time, and you can witness how much of it is being entrusted to this community. No faith is required for what you can see and touch yourself.
We had, I think, an amazingly diverse set of views on all the major happenings on the forum for the rules subcommittee. I have seen similar in the governance stuff as well. I know it sucks to have some things happen behind the scenes. I just want to offer that people are advocating hard for the best solution we can come to with the widest range of people.
Go to the New PM page (https://forums.penny-arcade.com/messages/add ) and type in the name of the person you want to send a message to--it should auto-complete in your options once you start typing.
Huh. This didn't work for me yesterday for some reason. Working as expected now.
I made the bad assumption it was a vanilla problem rather than user error on my part. My apologies
It's fair to criticize that, but we should also recognize the TT owned that mistake and now we have not only that experience to draw on but also better guidance on how to handle things better next time.