If someone was to put their name in for a position and later decide they actually don't want to do it, what is the latest they could withdraw from consideration without making a big mess?
I would say right up to the conclusion of the nomination period, really. Even shortly (as in a day or so) after that is of course doable, but for the sake of this process being executed smoothly I'd say let's try not to push that too much
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
As one of the seniormost members here, please do not nominate me for anything
Does not being able to hold multiples mean folks should only apply for one, since potentially ending up a winner in multiple fields could be an issue, or would that person simply choose the position they'd rather have and since we're doing STV (Stranglethorn Vale... I mean Single Transferable Vote) the next person in line for the role(s) they didn't want would get the nod?
ok scrap everything
we need to decide mods through a hardcore classic Strangethorn Vale run
if you can run from Duskwood to Booty Bay without getting ganked by Horde you get to be a mod
It's been a minute but I guess I can roll with a gank squad for old time's sake if we're restricting Mod-hood to Alliance only.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Maybe I'm a fool but I applied for mod. Just want to help out and that's the only one I feel any qualifications to do having been a mod for a bit a dog's age ago.
Thank you to all the potential cat wranglers. I’d apply for something if I thought I’d be a suitable fit for something, but am glad there are plenty of good folks to choose from for our future.
Board members have 3 year terms. Mods and executive officers are appointed without set term limits (but can, of course, be recalled through actions initiated by the board or the community)
Threw my hat in for a board position. I do not have the amount of time that moderation entails and big thanks to all you current (and future) rockstars who are amazing at keep this place on track!
Banning from the comfort of my ghillie suit half a mile away
+4
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
Just want to say: excellent turnout so far of folks throwing in for moderator positions and board seats. Very proud of all of y'all for stepping up to help serve this community. But please, keep it coming!
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
Does the corporation being based in Delaware have any implications for the board regarding disqualifying criteria? Residence, criminal background, being on the board of any other corporations, stuff like that?
Was just about to come clarify this, as a couple of people have asked.
All positions (including Board of Directors and Executive Officers) are open to non-US folks. There is no residency or citizenship requirement. And generally speaking, I can't imagine holding a board seat with any other company being a conflict of interest (on our side) for a board seat at Coin Return, as we're a community focused non-profit.
What if we are chairman of the board for Concerned Citizens Against Coin Return?
We've had some conversations this morning that I feel should be articulated here.
Full names are required to be part of the Board of Directors. This is legally required per the state of incorporation requirements.
Full names are not required for Executive Officer positions so long as the entity's income does not exceed $50,000 in a single tax year (this allows us to submit Form 990-N, which only requires the President's name, as opposed to Form 990, which requires all Board of Directors and Executive Officer names).
We don't expect the entity to get close to the $50,000 threshold unless things dramatically change. That would be roughly 3 times what we just did in our first blockbuster donation drive, every year.
Does the corporation being based in Delaware have any implications for the board regarding disqualifying criteria? Residence, criminal background, being on the board of any other corporations, stuff like that?
Was just about to come clarify this, as a couple of people have asked.
All positions (including Board of Directors and Executive Officers) are open to non-US folks. There is no residency or citizenship requirement. And generally speaking, I can't imagine holding a board seat with any other company being a conflict of interest (on our side) for a board seat at Coin Return, as we're a community focused non-profit.
What if we are chairman of the board for Concerned Citizens Against Coin Return?
We've had some conversations this morning that I feel should be articulated here.
Full names are required to be part of the Board of Directors. This is legally required per the state of incorporation requirements.
Full names are not required for Executive Officer positions so long as the entity's income does not exceed $50,000 in a single tax year (this allows us to submit Form 990-N, which only requires the President's name, as opposed to Form 990, which requires all Board of Directors and Executive Officer names).
We don't expect the entity to get close to the $50,000 threshold unless things dramatically change. That would be roughly 3 times what we just did in our first blockbuster donation drive, every year.
If we get a big donation, does that retroactively mean that the EO will need to make their name public?
I would download a car.
0
SolyspPreviously Kayne Red RobeRegistered Userregular
I would assume it would mean our filing for that fiscal year would be more involved which should give plenty of time to reorganize the EO if necessary to remove folks who aren't comfortable losing anonymity.
If the organization received a large enough donation to take us over that threshold, or if the threshold is changed by the IRS, then the EO would have to include their names on the next form 990 filed for tax purposes.
That said, we're discussing some potential strategies to mitigate that risk via the financial policy key decision (which is coming up next).
I have the time to be a moderator for sure, but frankly, i dont know if i'd be a good fit - I can be a: argumentative as shit, and b: pretty abrasive when my dander's up. Maybe the selfawareness counts for something?
As an update request - are there any positions that currently have less than three EoIs?
We're not announcing all the individuals who volunteer until the end, so as not to add an unfair advantage to early birds, but to give everyone a rough idea --
So far we have 11 Board member EOIs, 9 candidates for Executive Officer positions, and about 26 total potential Moderator candidates.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
Presumably it will shift with the reality of life and time commitments, but the moderator listing has a very vague time commitment expectation, is there a minimum expectation of availability that would be a helpful guideline?
Online for an hour per day? Two? On and off throughout a good chunk of most days?
I’m guessing it’s a flexible thing with all of the mods covering one another, but it seems like a good metric to have before volunteering for the role, lest one accidentally set themselves up for failure.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+1
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
I feel like intermittently online throughout most days is kind of the best way to approach it for mods, but it can be hard to put a number on that.
As an update request - are there any positions that currently have less than three EoIs?
We're not announcing all the individuals who volunteer until the end, so as not to add an unfair advantage to early birds, but to give everyone a rough idea --
So far we have 11 Board member EOIs, 9 candidates for Executive Officer positions, and about 26 total potential Moderator candidates.
I believe the board and EO's have stated numbers for positions, how many total mods do we think the new site will have?
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
A deeply pragmatic view of mod-ship is that you only need to be online when you need to be online. Some days that might be no time at all, other days that might be more like a couple hours. Theoretically that could just be handled by an on-call system even, but this is a volunteer position, that's out of the bounds of what we really want to be doing.
And I think that pragmatic view can also lead to problems in terms of like... if you're only around as a mod when you need to do something, you might stop seeming like a member of the community. That's where the mods as cops metaphor starts to creep back in. Ideally mods are seen as users first who occasionally have to put on their gloves to deal with something. And, in being that, are respected as users and as people first, and that lends their role as mod its own authority when they need to pick that up--this is a person you respect, a person who posts the same as you do, and they're making a call based on the rules that you both agreed to.
Of course, not every mod posts everywhere and reads everything, so the real answer is somewhere between those two poles. We have a reports system to enable that pragmatic side, the mod stepping in to deal with situations as they arise, but we should also have mods who are known to and active in the community. So strictly speaking, mod duties likely only take up a small part of your day, but I'd think it's good if mods are people who are intermittently active most days, to help with coverage and also just to be members of community.
As an update request - are there any positions that currently have less than three EoIs?
We're not announcing all the individuals who volunteer until the end, so as not to add an unfair advantage to early birds, but to give everyone a rough idea --
So far we have 11 Board member EOIs, 9 candidates for Executive Officer positions, and about 26 total potential Moderator candidates.
Omg these are amazing numbers! I’m so excited!!!
+1
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
As an update request - are there any positions that currently have less than three EoIs?
We're not announcing all the individuals who volunteer until the end, so as not to add an unfair advantage to early birds, but to give everyone a rough idea --
So far we have 11 Board member EOIs, 9 candidates for Executive Officer positions, and about 26 total potential Moderator candidates.
I believe the board and EO's have stated numbers for positions, how many total mods do we think the new site will have?
The governance proposal that covered that (which didn’t get much pushback) set a range of at least 9 and up to 11 moderators. This is definitely something that can be adjusted over time. But it felt like a reasonably strong staffing level to start with, and something we’d probably get enough volunteers to be able to manage easily enough.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
As an update request - are there any positions that currently have less than three EoIs?
We're not announcing all the individuals who volunteer until the end, so as not to add an unfair advantage to early birds, but to give everyone a rough idea --
So far we have 11 Board member EOIs, 9 candidates for Executive Officer positions, and about 26 total potential Moderator candidates.
I believe the board and EO's have stated numbers for positions, how many total mods do we think the new site will have?
I think this was in the most recent round of KDs, which said somewhere between 9-11 based on the availability and timeline mix of those appointed and ratified.
Also anyone who meets criteria for modship but isn’t selected at that point in time is eligible for future selection as and when needed.
I think the governance crew are working to incorporate the feedback from that thread, but I don’t think any feedback specifically spoke to the numbers, so I doubt they’d change.
A deeply pragmatic view of mod-ship is that you only need to be online when you need to be online. Some days that might be no time at all, other days that might be more like a couple hours. Theoretically that could just be handled by an on-call system even, but this is a volunteer position, that's out of the bounds of what we really want to be doing.
And I think that pragmatic view can also lead to problems in terms of like... if you're only around as a mod when you need to do something, you might stop seeming like a member of the community. That's where the mods as cops metaphor starts to creep back in. Ideally mods are seen as users first who occasionally have to put on their gloves to deal with something. And, in being that, are respected as users and as people first, and that lends their role as mod its own authority when they need to pick that up--this is a person you respect, a person who posts the same as you do, and they're making a call based on the rules that you both agreed to.
Of course, not every mod posts everywhere and reads everything, so the real answer is somewhere between those two poles. We have a reports system to enable that pragmatic side, the mod stepping in to deal with situations as they arise, but we should also have mods who are known to and active in the community. So strictly speaking, mod duties likely only take up a small part of your day, but I'd think it's good if mods are people who are intermittently active most days, to help with coverage and also just to be members of community.
This part is fairly important, too, because the best moderator in a given situation is going to be one who's familiar with the thread and the people inside of it. With only 11 mods and hundreds of threads, it's impossible to have every thread well-known by a moderator, but it does highlight the problem of having highly active mods with perfect global coverage, but none of them ever read media threads, for example. Obviously certain types of threads are more likely to generate heat (like, I don't think D&D's hesher thread has ever generated any problems in the decade+ it's been around, because those guys are delightful), and so we could ideally identify the most likely threads (or thread categories) to generate trouble, and then make sure at least one or two of the mods hang out in those areas, and probably be good.
But it's a definite consideration, and hopefully mod selection keeps that sort of calculus in mind.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Part of the question, from my perspective, is also about level setting expectations of what a mod failing to uphold their part of the commitment looks like. Moderators disappearing for months at a time has happened in the past, and seeing as we will strive to avoid repeating that experience, it seems like a reasonable thing to muse about.
And there may not be a set time either. Maybe it's more based on... vibes?
Surely we can agree that someone who is offline for 3 months isn't really doing the job. Expecting them to be online 24/7 is also unreasonable. Somewhere between the two we would find some kind of vague line to draw.
And yes, obviously, folks can go on vacation. Get dreadfully sick. Have a family emergency or crisis that requires their full attention, and maybe it takes a few days (or longer) to just send over a 'shit has gone sideways, I'll let y'all know when I can come back up for air' message to the mod team to account for being down a member (especially if it lands at a time where another mod or two is on vacation or otherwise indisposed in the short or medium term).
My interrogating this is basically an effort to make sure people understand what they'd be signing up for. Perhaps it'd be helpful to have some mods speak to their experiences over the years? Even respecting that CoRe is not going to be PA, someone who has moderated these 1-2k souls over the years might have some insight into a possible baseline level of experience, with the hopes that it'll be 'that, but better in every conceivable way' with the efforts to increase headcount and empower the team to act where necessary.
I'm not saying we should turn anyone off needlessly, but at the same time, volunteering without a concept of what folks are volunteering for (in terms of even vague expectations, short and long term) isn't setting them up for success.
Of course, this also depends on the userbase and how it is, along with the state of the world. If it's an absolute disaster dumpster fire all over (edit: more so than it currently is), and people are venting/lashing out accordingly, yeah, that might place more of a demand on the community than if that wasn't the case.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+1
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
naturally i went away right before you asked but "as needed" is basically like when a new position opens up, the board arranged the replacement. rule changed and stuff like that they'd handle as well. pretty much everything outside of their quarterly meeting would just be handled as it comes up. i don't expect being a board member would be a significant time commitment at any given time
for mods it depends how hot the activity is but it's not more than minutes a day of actually having to do things. most of the job is just talking with other mods how best to handle a given problem
Posts
I would say right up to the conclusion of the nomination period, really. Even shortly (as in a day or so) after that is of course doable, but for the sake of this process being executed smoothly I'd say let's try not to push that too much
It's been a minute but I guess I can roll with a gank squad for old time's sake if we're restricting Mod-hood to Alliance only.
Atomika for mod. Got it.
Phi Sigma Sigma
Sorry Amy, I already nominated you for everything, and moderator twice.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I'm in this picture
*jots down two names on the burn list*
Thanks to everyone who is volunteering and working on this wild project!
I suspect I know what your moderating style might be, SneakyAssassinPerson.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Looking into this.
Full names are required to be part of the Board of Directors. This is legally required per the state of incorporation requirements.
Full names are not required for Executive Officer positions so long as the entity's income does not exceed $50,000 in a single tax year (this allows us to submit Form 990-N, which only requires the President's name, as opposed to Form 990, which requires all Board of Directors and Executive Officer names).
We don't expect the entity to get close to the $50,000 threshold unless things dramatically change. That would be roughly 3 times what we just did in our first blockbuster donation drive, every year.
[various slurs]
If we get a big donation, does that retroactively mean that the EO will need to make their name public?
That said, we're discussing some potential strategies to mitigate that risk via the financial policy key decision (which is coming up next).
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
We're not announcing all the individuals who volunteer until the end, so as not to add an unfair advantage to early birds, but to give everyone a rough idea --
So far we have 11 Board member EOIs, 9 candidates for Executive Officer positions, and about 26 total potential Moderator candidates.
Online for an hour per day? Two? On and off throughout a good chunk of most days?
I’m guessing it’s a flexible thing with all of the mods covering one another, but it seems like a good metric to have before volunteering for the role, lest one accidentally set themselves up for failure.
I believe the board and EO's have stated numbers for positions, how many total mods do we think the new site will have?
And I think that pragmatic view can also lead to problems in terms of like... if you're only around as a mod when you need to do something, you might stop seeming like a member of the community. That's where the mods as cops metaphor starts to creep back in. Ideally mods are seen as users first who occasionally have to put on their gloves to deal with something. And, in being that, are respected as users and as people first, and that lends their role as mod its own authority when they need to pick that up--this is a person you respect, a person who posts the same as you do, and they're making a call based on the rules that you both agreed to.
Of course, not every mod posts everywhere and reads everything, so the real answer is somewhere between those two poles. We have a reports system to enable that pragmatic side, the mod stepping in to deal with situations as they arise, but we should also have mods who are known to and active in the community. So strictly speaking, mod duties likely only take up a small part of your day, but I'd think it's good if mods are people who are intermittently active most days, to help with coverage and also just to be members of community.
The governance proposal that covered that (which didn’t get much pushback) set a range of at least 9 and up to 11 moderators. This is definitely something that can be adjusted over time. But it felt like a reasonably strong staffing level to start with, and something we’d probably get enough volunteers to be able to manage easily enough.
I think this was in the most recent round of KDs, which said somewhere between 9-11 based on the availability and timeline mix of those appointed and ratified.
Also anyone who meets criteria for modship but isn’t selected at that point in time is eligible for future selection as and when needed.
I think the governance crew are working to incorporate the feedback from that thread, but I don’t think any feedback specifically spoke to the numbers, so I doubt they’d change.
Edit: linked! https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/46997067/#Comment_46997067
Edit2: goddammit MI’s post definitely wasn’t there when I started replying! Sorry!
This part is fairly important, too, because the best moderator in a given situation is going to be one who's familiar with the thread and the people inside of it. With only 11 mods and hundreds of threads, it's impossible to have every thread well-known by a moderator, but it does highlight the problem of having highly active mods with perfect global coverage, but none of them ever read media threads, for example. Obviously certain types of threads are more likely to generate heat (like, I don't think D&D's hesher thread has ever generated any problems in the decade+ it's been around, because those guys are delightful), and so we could ideally identify the most likely threads (or thread categories) to generate trouble, and then make sure at least one or two of the mods hang out in those areas, and probably be good.
But it's a definite consideration, and hopefully mod selection keeps that sort of calculus in mind.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
And there may not be a set time either. Maybe it's more based on... vibes?
Surely we can agree that someone who is offline for 3 months isn't really doing the job. Expecting them to be online 24/7 is also unreasonable. Somewhere between the two we would find some kind of vague line to draw.
And yes, obviously, folks can go on vacation. Get dreadfully sick. Have a family emergency or crisis that requires their full attention, and maybe it takes a few days (or longer) to just send over a 'shit has gone sideways, I'll let y'all know when I can come back up for air' message to the mod team to account for being down a member (especially if it lands at a time where another mod or two is on vacation or otherwise indisposed in the short or medium term).
My interrogating this is basically an effort to make sure people understand what they'd be signing up for. Perhaps it'd be helpful to have some mods speak to their experiences over the years? Even respecting that CoRe is not going to be PA, someone who has moderated these 1-2k souls over the years might have some insight into a possible baseline level of experience, with the hopes that it'll be 'that, but better in every conceivable way' with the efforts to increase headcount and empower the team to act where necessary.
I'm not saying we should turn anyone off needlessly, but at the same time, volunteering without a concept of what folks are volunteering for (in terms of even vague expectations, short and long term) isn't setting them up for success.
Of course, this also depends on the userbase and how it is, along with the state of the world. If it's an absolute disaster dumpster fire all over (edit: more so than it currently is), and people are venting/lashing out accordingly, yeah, that might place more of a demand on the community than if that wasn't the case.