We've talked about giving people the ability to voluntarily set their accounts into hiatus when the take a break from the forums.
The KD articles also set thresholds for most meaningful moderator actions in the KDs where having say 2 or 3 out of 9 moderators away or on vacation basically means moderator action requires a unanimous decision from the moderators that are present. Even though we now have methods of replacing a moderator or admin who suddenly goes dark and ghosts for an extended period of time, those processes won't be immediate and could result in weeks or months of waiting for processes to play out.
Would it be possible to add a field / flag where moderators that are on vacation or taking an extended break or had a kid / family thing / illness can set (or maybe automatically set after X days without a login) their moderator status to 'temporarily inactive' and adding an item to the KDs where inactive moderators absence doesn't count against quorum / majority voting requirements?
This seems like it would be beneficial to the community as a whole in that the moderation team will still be able to act if we run into situations we've seen in the past where folks just up and ghost (or have life going on). It would also I think be a benefit to CoRe moderators knowing that they can take a vacation and unplug from the forums if they need to without feeling stress or pressure to be present and checking in constantly.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
i do believe the idea was tossed around that mods should also use the hiatus feature for medium-length absences like a week to a few weeks
and if long-term absences are needed perhaps standing aside as we really want to avoid the "seven mods but really only two" problem
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
i do believe the idea was tossed around that mods should also use the hiatus feature for medium-length absences like a week to a few weeks
and if long-term absences are needed perhaps standing aside as we really want to avoid the "seven mods but really only two" problem
Doesn't the hiatus feature completely lock you out of the forums while it's on? I feel like even if I'm on vacation or whatever I might still want to check in for little bits of time, I just might not know exactly when those bits of time will be.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
i do believe the idea was tossed around that mods should also use the hiatus feature for medium-length absences like a week to a few weeks
and if long-term absences are needed perhaps standing aside as we really want to avoid the "seven mods but really only two" problem
Doesn't the hiatus feature completely lock you out of the forums while it's on? I feel like even if I'm on vacation or whatever I might still want to check in for little bits of time, I just might not know exactly when those bits of time will be.
i know it did at first but i think Delz was working on a way to make it either do that or allow you to turn it on/off as needed
Do we as general users need that information, though? It feels weird to demand that kind of info from a volunteer.
If someone wants to go on vacation and lets their colleagues know, that seems like it should be good enough.
Didge on
+12
SolyspPreviously Kayne Red RobeRegistered Userregular
I would hope we establish a big enough mod pool that vacations aren't an issue but we may want to set out at what point we start looking for more moderators
+1
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
I would hope we establish a big enough mod pool that vacations aren't an issue but we may want to set out at what point we start looking for more moderators
as written currently it's mandatory once the current staff drops below nine
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
SolyspPreviously Kayne Red RobeRegistered Userregular
I would hope we establish a big enough mod pool that vacations aren't an issue but we may want to set out at what point we start looking for more moderators
as written currently it's mandatory once the current staff drops below nine
Probably should spell out how long someone can be incommunicado before it triggers their replacement too yeah?
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
I would hope we establish a big enough mod pool that vacations aren't an issue but we may want to set out at what point we start looking for more moderators
as written currently it's mandatory once the current staff drops below nine
Probably should spell out how long someone can be incommunicado before it triggers their replacement too yeah?
that is part of a future KD concerning mod removal/replacement but the current idea is less a hard and fast time limit and instead a sort of regular check in with all mods to gauge how things are going, how willing they are to continue, etc. not a performance evaluation, just more of a catch up chat kind of thing. if someone is feeling burned out they can step away or the Board can decide they aren't acknowledging their burnout and vote for removal
this has been suggested as anything from monthly to annually but not ironed out precisely yet. being completely out of touch for that check in would be cause for removal
(this would be separate from instances where mod behavior necessitates removal or something like that, just to be clear)
e: corrected it's not a future KD, it's just a process being discussed. i am jet lagged
Chanus on
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
So, a few people have asked again about the level of exposure they'd be subjecting themselves to for roles that require them to disclose their full name. I'm going to re-share the details on that I posted in one of the governance threads last month:
Essentially, all members of the Board of Directors, plus at least one Executive Officer (the President, in all likelihood, although it could, technically, be any of the EOs) must have their names listed on the Delaware Annual Report for the company.
Technically the information on this document is public record, however, after talking to our registered agent in Delaware (and then also confirming myself by trying to look it up), it turns out that there are a couple of hurdles to anyone looking that information up.
First, it costs $20 to get that report digitally from the state website. But notably, the state does not provide the actual form with Director names on the digital version that anyone can request fairly easily.
In order to get a copy of the actual form that includes the Director names, a person needs to submit a lengthy request with the state which requires them to know the corporation name and our state filing number (not impossible to find, but not something that would normally be widely shared outside of the Directors/Officers), pay somewhere between $50 and $100 (the fee schedule is kind of unclear, tbh), and wait at least a couple of weeks for a hard copy to be mailed out.
Now, I'm certainly not going to tell someone who is extremely concerned for their privacy what's worth being concerned about or not, but in practical terms I think it's safe to say that your personal info will be reasonably hard to find unless someone is truly going all out to track you down -- definitely all but impossible for someone to simply stumble across.
And for one last wrinkle, Delaware does not require reporting changes to the Board of Directors. The only time the names of the Directors have to be reported is once per year when the annual tax report is filed and it just has to include the directors as of the date of the filing. And on that particular form, it does not require an SSN, photo ID, or anything of that sort. So if, for any reason, you have second thoughts about being included, you can always resign the day before the report is filed and there would be no evidence you were ever there.
I would also add that I would also expect anyone with direct access to our bank accounts to be willing to share their real identity with the Board (although that wouldn't need to appear on public documents) just for the sake of trust, and to give the company an avenue for recourse in the event of malfeasance. This would likely apply to the President and Treasurer, at least.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
+4
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
If folks have qualms about putting themselves on paper, I'll go ahead and throw my name in the mix for the Board given I have the relative privilege of not giving a shit about that kind of risk. Others might reasonably fear some kind of exposure or personal attack, so I don't mind serving as a sort of "shield" in that regard if it helps to keep the lights on.
I would hope we establish a big enough mod pool that vacations aren't an issue but we may want to set out at what point we start looking for more moderators
But what about the mandatory mod hot tub retreat in the mountains?
I would hope we establish a big enough mod pool that vacations aren't an issue but we may want to set out at what point we start looking for more moderators
But what about the mandatory mod hot tub retreat in the mountains?
Unclear referrant issue. It’s not a mandatory retreat for mods featuring hot tubs; it’s a hot-tub-featuring retreat for mandatory mods.
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
Reminder: nomination period closes at 10pm EST tonight (in about 7.5 hours).
I'm beginning the process of messaging each board member candidate now so keep an eye on your PMs. You'll have a chance to revise or finalize your public statement, and we need each of you to confirm you're still in.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
+1
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
Okay, the spam block / rate limiter was a pain in the ass, but not as bad as I feared.
As of right now everyone who has completed the EOI for a board member seat has been PMed. If you do not have a PM from me and you completed an EOI, please reach out directly ASAP in case you were missed or your EOI never went through.
Otherwise, please respond accordingly to the PM by the date/time requested.
And of course, there's still 6.5 hours left for anyone to get in before the buzzer. The door is not shut yet!
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
An excerpt from the board application PM I was provided:
Several candidates have asked what is expected of this statement since this is our first time doing this and it's difficult to gauge expectations. We think each candidate should write whatever they feel best shows what they represent, but we can give you some rough figures on how most of these statements have worked out: The average word count for these statements is 226 words. All but 6 statements fall in the 150-300 word range. If yours does not fall close to these numbers, don't feel obligated to make any changes unless you feel you need to in order to better express yourself.
If you do decide to make any changes, please respond with your updated statement NO LATER THAN 10pm (EST) ON SUNDAY MARCH 30th.
If you would like to leave your statement as-is, please also confirm by the same deadline.
If we do not hear back from you by the deadline, we will consider your application withdrawn. You will receive a confirmation reply back from us -- if you do not, please reach out again to ensure your response was received.
I am not a fan of the emphasized part as this is exactly the kind of thing I've seen Republicans do to attempt to purge voter rolls. Please, please reconsider auto-rejection of the nominations.
An excerpt from the board application PM I was provided:
Several candidates have asked what is expected of this statement since this is our first time doing this and it's difficult to gauge expectations. We think each candidate should write whatever they feel best shows what they represent, but we can give you some rough figures on how most of these statements have worked out: The average word count for these statements is 226 words. All but 6 statements fall in the 150-300 word range. If yours does not fall close to these numbers, don't feel obligated to make any changes unless you feel you need to in order to better express yourself.
If you do decide to make any changes, please respond with your updated statement NO LATER THAN 10pm (EST) ON SUNDAY MARCH 30th.
If you would like to leave your statement as-is, please also confirm by the same deadline.
If we do not hear back from you by the deadline, we will consider your application withdrawn. You will receive a confirmation reply back from us -- if you do not, please reach out again to ensure your response was received.
I am not a fan of the emphasized part as this is exactly the kind of thing I've seen Republicans do to attempt to purge voter rolls. Please, please reconsider auto-rejection of the nominations.
I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here, and I think comparison to Republican tactics is unnecessarily heating things up. I am not saying you are wrong to ask for the change. Just trying to note how we can keep things a bit more level headed before it explodes.
That said we are under a nasty time crunch here. I wouldn't be against people being put up still. I imagine it is because they don't want to risk putting people into a position where their names will be on legal documents without a lot of consent. I dunno how to balance all of that exactly. I do want to point out there are legitimate concerns here though so we can discuss them and solve them as a community.
+1
ToxI kill threadsDilige, et quod vis facRegistered Userregular
Yeah probably shouldn't reject folks that have made any sort of statement that can be used, but I think my honest opinion is it depends on scale. If it's like a couple dozen folks? Yeah put em all up. If we're talking several dozen or more? That's a fair trimming, since Board members are expected to be available on short notice and this particular round of nominees are ideally at least keeping an eye on this subforum as best they can
maybe the real panopticon was the friends we made along the way
At this point, I would want to assume anyone wanting to drop out because of their feelings on the risks would be actively taking the initiative to do so.
I do not like the idea of automatically dropping someone who didn't respond to a PM over the weekend especially, but I also don't see the point of that step after a month to consider and proactively apply.
If there needs to be one more point of confirmation then we should only require people to actively accept the roles when they win or by the end of voting maybe? they both seem about the same, but the first only requires winners to confirm themselves.
An excerpt from the board application PM I was provided:
Several candidates have asked what is expected of this statement since this is our first time doing this and it's difficult to gauge expectations. We think each candidate should write whatever they feel best shows what they represent, but we can give you some rough figures on how most of these statements have worked out: The average word count for these statements is 226 words. All but 6 statements fall in the 150-300 word range. If yours does not fall close to these numbers, don't feel obligated to make any changes unless you feel you need to in order to better express yourself.
If you do decide to make any changes, please respond with your updated statement NO LATER THAN 10pm (EST) ON SUNDAY MARCH 30th.
If you would like to leave your statement as-is, please also confirm by the same deadline.
If we do not hear back from you by the deadline, we will consider your application withdrawn. You will receive a confirmation reply back from us -- if you do not, please reach out again to ensure your response was received.
I am not a fan of the emphasized part as this is exactly the kind of thing I've seen Republicans do to attempt to purge voter rolls. Please, please reconsider auto-rejection of the nominations.
I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here, and I think comparison to Republican tactics is unnecessarily heating things up. I am not saying you are wrong to ask for the change. Just trying to note how we can keep things a bit more level headed before it explodes.
That said we are under a nasty time crunch here. I wouldn't be against people being put up still. I imagine it is because they don't want to risk putting people into a position where their names will be on legal documents without a lot of consent. I dunno how to balance all of that exactly. I do want to point out there are legitimate concerns here though so we can discuss them and solve them as a community.
They literally consented to this in the original application
An excerpt from the board application PM I was provided:
Several candidates have asked what is expected of this statement since this is our first time doing this and it's difficult to gauge expectations. We think each candidate should write whatever they feel best shows what they represent, but we can give you some rough figures on how most of these statements have worked out: The average word count for these statements is 226 words. All but 6 statements fall in the 150-300 word range. If yours does not fall close to these numbers, don't feel obligated to make any changes unless you feel you need to in order to better express yourself.
If you do decide to make any changes, please respond with your updated statement NO LATER THAN 10pm (EST) ON SUNDAY MARCH 30th.
If you would like to leave your statement as-is, please also confirm by the same deadline.
If we do not hear back from you by the deadline, we will consider your application withdrawn. You will receive a confirmation reply back from us -- if you do not, please reach out again to ensure your response was received.
I am not a fan of the emphasized part as this is exactly the kind of thing I've seen Republicans do to attempt to purge voter rolls. Please, please reconsider auto-rejection of the nominations.
I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here, and I think comparison to Republican tactics is unnecessarily heating things up. I am not saying you are wrong to ask for the change. Just trying to note how we can keep things a bit more level headed before it explodes.
That said we are under a nasty time crunch here. I wouldn't be against people being put up still. I imagine it is because they don't want to risk putting people into a position where their names will be on legal documents without a lot of consent. I dunno how to balance all of that exactly. I do want to point out there are legitimate concerns here though so we can discuss them and solve them as a community.
They literally consented to this in the original application
Which is why I said a lot of consent. It is the same reason people check in a lot during a process that leaves someone in a vulnerable position. I am ok with a system that double checks for consent at various points in the process. The timeline sucks but so does ours in general. I am not saying we shouldn't change it. I am saying there are decent reasons to give people an easy opt out.
0
ToxI kill threadsDilige, et quod vis facRegistered Userregular
But honestly if there's anybody who's active on the forums over the weekend, gets the PM, and doesn't respond? I'd almost like to know about that, as a voter, because it would (if only somewhat!) reduce my confidence in that person's willingness to engage.
But given a choice I think I'd prefer someone a bit slower to act than someone who has an immediate and inflammatory reaction
maybe the real panopticon was the friends we made along the way
An excerpt from the board application PM I was provided:
Several candidates have asked what is expected of this statement since this is our first time doing this and it's difficult to gauge expectations. We think each candidate should write whatever they feel best shows what they represent, but we can give you some rough figures on how most of these statements have worked out: The average word count for these statements is 226 words. All but 6 statements fall in the 150-300 word range. If yours does not fall close to these numbers, don't feel obligated to make any changes unless you feel you need to in order to better express yourself.
If you do decide to make any changes, please respond with your updated statement NO LATER THAN 10pm (EST) ON SUNDAY MARCH 30th.
If you would like to leave your statement as-is, please also confirm by the same deadline.
If we do not hear back from you by the deadline, we will consider your application withdrawn. You will receive a confirmation reply back from us -- if you do not, please reach out again to ensure your response was received.
I am not a fan of the emphasized part as this is exactly the kind of thing I've seen Republicans do to attempt to purge voter rolls. Please, please reconsider auto-rejection of the nominations.
I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here, and I think comparison to Republican tactics is unnecessarily heating things up. I am not saying you are wrong to ask for the change. Just trying to note how we can keep things a bit more level headed before it explodes.
That said we are under a nasty time crunch here. I wouldn't be against people being put up still. I imagine it is because they don't want to risk putting people into a position where their names will be on legal documents without a lot of consent. I dunno how to balance all of that exactly. I do want to point out there are legitimate concerns here though so we can discuss them and solve them as a community.
They literally consented to this in the original application
Which is why I said a lot of consent. It is the same reason people check in a lot during a process that leaves someone in a vulnerable position. I am ok with a system that double checks for consent at various points in the process. The timeline sucks but so does ours in general. I am not saying we shouldn't change it. I am saying there are decent reasons to give people an easy opt out.
In this case let folks who opted in by applying opt out verbally. Not by automatically opting them out if they are not on during some of the weekend or on vacation or dealing with a new born or one of a thousand life events that causes someone not check PMs for a couple days.
Don't have automatic disqualification by not being here for a specific PM at a specific day.
Hell I miss pms when I am on because of how my brain works.
All I think the ask is, let folks who opted in, stay opted in till they say otherwise.
An excerpt from the board application PM I was provided:
Several candidates have asked what is expected of this statement since this is our first time doing this and it's difficult to gauge expectations. We think each candidate should write whatever they feel best shows what they represent, but we can give you some rough figures on how most of these statements have worked out: The average word count for these statements is 226 words. All but 6 statements fall in the 150-300 word range. If yours does not fall close to these numbers, don't feel obligated to make any changes unless you feel you need to in order to better express yourself.
If you do decide to make any changes, please respond with your updated statement NO LATER THAN 10pm (EST) ON SUNDAY MARCH 30th.
If you would like to leave your statement as-is, please also confirm by the same deadline.
If we do not hear back from you by the deadline, we will consider your application withdrawn. You will receive a confirmation reply back from us -- if you do not, please reach out again to ensure your response was received.
I am not a fan of the emphasized part as this is exactly the kind of thing I've seen Republicans do to attempt to purge voter rolls. Please, please reconsider auto-rejection of the nominations.
I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here, and I think comparison to Republican tactics is unnecessarily heating things up. I am not saying you are wrong to ask for the change. Just trying to note how we can keep things a bit more level headed before it explodes.
That said we are under a nasty time crunch here. I wouldn't be against people being put up still. I imagine it is because they don't want to risk putting people into a position where their names will be on legal documents without a lot of consent. I dunno how to balance all of that exactly. I do want to point out there are legitimate concerns here though so we can discuss them and solve them as a community.
They literally consented to this in the original application
Which is why I said a lot of consent. It is the same reason people check in a lot during a process that leaves someone in a vulnerable position. I am ok with a system that double checks for consent at various points in the process. The timeline sucks but so does ours in general. I am not saying we shouldn't change it. I am saying there are decent reasons to give people an easy opt out.
In this case let folks who opted in by applying opt out verbally. Not by automatically opting them out if they are not on during some of the weekend or on vacation or dealing with a new born or one of a thousand life events that causes someone not check PMs for a couple days.
Don't have automatic disqualification by not being here for a specific PM at a specific day.
Hell I miss pms when I am on because of how my brain works.
All I think the ask is, let folks who opted in, stay opted in till they say otherwise.
Oh I am not trying to say we shouldn't change it. Just offering considerations for what the fix could look like. If we want to collectively solve a problem we should get all the info we can for solving it.
An excerpt from the board application PM I was provided:
Several candidates have asked what is expected of this statement since this is our first time doing this and it's difficult to gauge expectations. We think each candidate should write whatever they feel best shows what they represent, but we can give you some rough figures on how most of these statements have worked out: The average word count for these statements is 226 words. All but 6 statements fall in the 150-300 word range. If yours does not fall close to these numbers, don't feel obligated to make any changes unless you feel you need to in order to better express yourself.
If you do decide to make any changes, please respond with your updated statement NO LATER THAN 10pm (EST) ON SUNDAY MARCH 30th.
If you would like to leave your statement as-is, please also confirm by the same deadline.
If we do not hear back from you by the deadline, we will consider your application withdrawn. You will receive a confirmation reply back from us -- if you do not, please reach out again to ensure your response was received.
I am not a fan of the emphasized part as this is exactly the kind of thing I've seen Republicans do to attempt to purge voter rolls. Please, please reconsider auto-rejection of the nominations.
I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here, and I think comparison to Republican tactics is unnecessarily heating things up. I am not saying you are wrong to ask for the change. Just trying to note how we can keep things a bit more level headed before it explodes.
That said we are under a nasty time crunch here. I wouldn't be against people being put up still. I imagine it is because they don't want to risk putting people into a position where their names will be on legal documents without a lot of consent. I dunno how to balance all of that exactly. I do want to point out there are legitimate concerns here though so we can discuss them and solve them as a community.
They literally consented to this in the original application
Which is why I said a lot of consent. It is the same reason people check in a lot during a process that leaves someone in a vulnerable position. I am ok with a system that double checks for consent at various points in the process. The timeline sucks but so does ours in general. I am not saying we shouldn't change it. I am saying there are decent reasons to give people an easy opt out.
In this case let folks who opted in by applying opt out verbally. Not by automatically opting them out if they are not on during some of the weekend or on vacation or dealing with a new born or one of a thousand life events that causes someone not check PMs for a couple days.
Don't have automatic disqualification by not being here for a specific PM at a specific day.
Hell I miss pms when I am on because of how my brain works.
All I think the ask is, let folks who opted in, stay opted in till they say otherwise.
Oh I am not trying to say we shouldn't change it. Just offering considerations for what the fix could look like. If we want to collectively solve a problem we should get all the info we can for solving it.
Sounds good.
In this case it is best to stick with the original timeline. All applications are due tonight. If folks want to be generous folks have till Sunday night to edit their blurbs if they wish with the new info on length. And then we go with the election as planned. Also during this time or at any point someone can choose to opt out of the process by actively rescinding their candidacy.
Its just a revert to the original plan/statement. And we can move forward without hurting any time lines.
If this was known about before this afternoon when it was mentioned, it is a needless point of friction to not have given people a heads up to prepare.
If it was decided earlier this afternoon, some further context on why a barrier (of any sort) was determined to be necessary at the last minute.
Just because we all drop 2000 character shitposts about crappy RPGs from the 90’s doesn’t mean we can just assume everyone will have the time and/or headspace to do it on short notice.
What if someone is on vacation? Working the majority of the weekend? Doesn’t notice until it’s too late?
A barrier, even a minor one, should have been communicated with substantially more warning, as would be conducive to our expressed values.
Based on MI’s statement earlier in the thread that someone could feasibly be removed with like a day left from the votes being tallied, I don’t see why we need to be on that tight a timeline.
Being listed without a “hi, this is who I am and how I want to serve the community” may not be a good way to gain votes, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pressing need to be at 101% readiness either.
And, regarding timeliness, I would consider that more a facet of being a mod.
If the board are expected to respond on short notice for anything on a regular basis, I’d figure that was a failure state for CoRe.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
If this was known about before this afternoon when it was mentioned, it is a needless point of friction to not have given people a heads up to prepare.
If it was decided earlier this afternoon, some further context on why a barrier (of any sort) was determined to be necessary at the last minute.
Just because we all drop 2000 character shitposts about crappy RPGs from the 90’s doesn’t mean we can just assume everyone will have the time and/or headspace to do it on short notice.
What if someone is on vacation? Working the majority of the weekend? Doesn’t notice until it’s too late?
A barrier, even a minor one, should have been communicated with substantially more warning, as would be conducive to our expressed values.
Based on MI’s statement earlier in the thread that someone could feasibly be removed with like a day left from the votes being tallied, I don’t see why we need to be on that tight a timeline.
Being listed without a “hi, this is who I am and how I want to serve the community” may not be a good way to gain votes, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pressing need to be at 101% readiness either.
And, regarding timeliness, I would consider that more a facet of being a mod.
If the board are expected to respond on short notice for anything on a regular basis, I’d figure that was a failure state for CoRe.
The board absolutely are and need to be. The board is responsible for legal things that can come in at whatever hour and definitely have tight deadlines like this. That isn't to say everyone has to be on call all the time. Things can be easily managed. A board member doesn't always need to be available, but the board broadly does.
If this was known about before this afternoon when it was mentioned, it is a needless point of friction to not have given people a heads up to prepare.
If it was decided earlier this afternoon, some further context on why a barrier (of any sort) was determined to be necessary at the last minute.
Just because we all drop 2000 character shitposts about crappy RPGs from the 90’s doesn’t mean we can just assume everyone will have the time and/or headspace to do it on short notice.
What if someone is on vacation? Working the majority of the weekend? Doesn’t notice until it’s too late?
A barrier, even a minor one, should have been communicated with substantially more warning, as would be conducive to our expressed values.
Based on MI’s statement earlier in the thread that someone could feasibly be removed with like a day left from the votes being tallied, I don’t see why we need to be on that tight a timeline.
Being listed without a “hi, this is who I am and how I want to serve the community” may not be a good way to gain votes, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pressing need to be at 101% readiness either.
And, regarding timeliness, I would consider that more a facet of being a mod.
If the board are expected to respond on short notice for anything on a regular basis, I’d figure that was a failure state for CoRe.
The board absolutely are and need to be. The board is responsible for legal things that can come in at whatever hour and definitely have tight deadlines like this. That isn't to say everyone has to be on call all the time. Things can be easily managed. A board member doesn't always need to be available, but the board broadly does.
And this requirement is effectively asking the entire board (final selected members and rejected applicants alike) to be on ~60 hours notice or be removed from their seat.
Yes, someone should be “on call” at all times in case law enforcement comes knocking.
But not everyone everywhere all at once, which is what this is effectively asking of the dozens of applicants.
People who are pointedly not on the board yet.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
If this was known about before this afternoon when it was mentioned, it is a needless point of friction to not have given people a heads up to prepare.
If it was decided earlier this afternoon, some further context on why a barrier (of any sort) was determined to be necessary at the last minute.
Just because we all drop 2000 character shitposts about crappy RPGs from the 90’s doesn’t mean we can just assume everyone will have the time and/or headspace to do it on short notice.
What if someone is on vacation? Working the majority of the weekend? Doesn’t notice until it’s too late?
A barrier, even a minor one, should have been communicated with substantially more warning, as would be conducive to our expressed values.
Based on MI’s statement earlier in the thread that someone could feasibly be removed with like a day left from the votes being tallied, I don’t see why we need to be on that tight a timeline.
Being listed without a “hi, this is who I am and how I want to serve the community” may not be a good way to gain votes, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pressing need to be at 101% readiness either.
And, regarding timeliness, I would consider that more a facet of being a mod.
If the board are expected to respond on short notice for anything on a regular basis, I’d figure that was a failure state for CoRe.
The board absolutely are and need to be. The board is responsible for legal things that can come in at whatever hour and definitely have tight deadlines like this. That isn't to say everyone has to be on call all the time. Things can be easily managed. A board member doesn't always need to be available, but the board broadly does.
And this requirement is effectively asking the entire board (final selected members and rejected applicants alike) to be on ~60 hours notice or be removed from their seat.
Yes, someone should be “on call” at all times in case law enforcement comes knocking.
But not everyone everywhere all at once, which is what this is effectively asking of the dozens of applicants.
People who are pointedly not on the board yet.
Yes I agree. I was pointing out that have the board broadly on call was expected.
Now, if someone on the TT could answer the other questions, that would be lovely.
Edit: that is to say, I’m glad we agree not everyone needs to be on call at all times.
That does not answer WHY a barrier was implemented at the last minute, and if it was known about prior to today, why that wasn’t shared openly in advance.
And if it was decided and implemented today, also Why?
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Personally, the board of director roles are not meant to be absent community members. If you're completely unable to check the forums for a weekend, and give a simple "yes" or "no" response via PM, then should you run for the board?
+5
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
I think it's strange that people wouldn't expect something to happen at the close of the nomination window.
Posts
The KD articles also set thresholds for most meaningful moderator actions in the KDs where having say 2 or 3 out of 9 moderators away or on vacation basically means moderator action requires a unanimous decision from the moderators that are present. Even though we now have methods of replacing a moderator or admin who suddenly goes dark and ghosts for an extended period of time, those processes won't be immediate and could result in weeks or months of waiting for processes to play out.
Would it be possible to add a field / flag where moderators that are on vacation or taking an extended break or had a kid / family thing / illness can set (or maybe automatically set after X days without a login) their moderator status to 'temporarily inactive' and adding an item to the KDs where inactive moderators absence doesn't count against quorum / majority voting requirements?
This seems like it would be beneficial to the community as a whole in that the moderation team will still be able to act if we run into situations we've seen in the past where folks just up and ghost (or have life going on). It would also I think be a benefit to CoRe moderators knowing that they can take a vacation and unplug from the forums if they need to without feeling stress or pressure to be present and checking in constantly.
and if long-term absences are needed perhaps standing aside as we really want to avoid the "seven mods but really only two" problem
Doesn't the hiatus feature completely lock you out of the forums while it's on? I feel like even if I'm on vacation or whatever I might still want to check in for little bits of time, I just might not know exactly when those bits of time will be.
i know it did at first but i think Delz was working on a way to make it either do that or allow you to turn it on/off as needed
i think the idea is more a way for the broader userbase to know someone isn't available
If someone wants to go on vacation and lets their colleagues know, that seems like it should be good enough.
as written currently it's mandatory once the current staff drops below nine
Probably should spell out how long someone can be incommunicado before it triggers their replacement too yeah?
that is part of a future KD concerning mod removal/replacement but the current idea is less a hard and fast time limit and instead a sort of regular check in with all mods to gauge how things are going, how willing they are to continue, etc. not a performance evaluation, just more of a catch up chat kind of thing. if someone is feeling burned out they can step away or the Board can decide they aren't acknowledging their burnout and vote for removal
this has been suggested as anything from monthly to annually but not ironed out precisely yet. being completely out of touch for that check in would be cause for removal
(this would be separate from instances where mod behavior necessitates removal or something like that, just to be clear)
e: corrected it's not a future KD, it's just a process being discussed. i am jet lagged
I would also add that I would also expect anyone with direct access to our bank accounts to be willing to share their real identity with the Board (although that wouldn't need to appear on public documents) just for the sake of trust, and to give the company an avenue for recourse in the event of malfeasance. This would likely apply to the President and Treasurer, at least.
But what about the mandatory mod hot tub retreat in the mountains?
Unclear referrant issue. It’s not a mandatory retreat for mods featuring hot tubs; it’s a hot-tub-featuring retreat for mandatory mods.
And since they’re all volunteers …
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
I'm beginning the process of messaging each board member candidate now so keep an eye on your PMs. You'll have a chance to revise or finalize your public statement, and we need each of you to confirm you're still in.
As of right now everyone who has completed the EOI for a board member seat has been PMed. If you do not have a PM from me and you completed an EOI, please reach out directly ASAP in case you were missed or your EOI never went through.
Otherwise, please respond accordingly to the PM by the date/time requested.
And of course, there's still 6.5 hours left for anyone to get in before the buzzer. The door is not shut yet!
I am not a fan of the emphasized part as this is exactly the kind of thing I've seen Republicans do to attempt to purge voter rolls. Please, please reconsider auto-rejection of the nominations.
If someone applied and didn't explicitly opt out put them up for their position.
Worst case they lose.
I don't think there is anything nefarious going on here, and I think comparison to Republican tactics is unnecessarily heating things up. I am not saying you are wrong to ask for the change. Just trying to note how we can keep things a bit more level headed before it explodes.
That said we are under a nasty time crunch here. I wouldn't be against people being put up still. I imagine it is because they don't want to risk putting people into a position where their names will be on legal documents without a lot of consent. I dunno how to balance all of that exactly. I do want to point out there are legitimate concerns here though so we can discuss them and solve them as a community.
I do not like the idea of automatically dropping someone who didn't respond to a PM over the weekend especially, but I also don't see the point of that step after a month to consider and proactively apply.
If there needs to be one more point of confirmation then we should only require people to actively accept the roles when they win or by the end of voting maybe? they both seem about the same, but the first only requires winners to confirm themselves.
They literally consented to this in the original application
But they already put their hat in the ring.
Which is why I said a lot of consent. It is the same reason people check in a lot during a process that leaves someone in a vulnerable position. I am ok with a system that double checks for consent at various points in the process. The timeline sucks but so does ours in general. I am not saying we shouldn't change it. I am saying there are decent reasons to give people an easy opt out.
But given a choice I think I'd prefer someone a bit slower to act than someone who has an immediate and inflammatory reaction
In this case let folks who opted in by applying opt out verbally. Not by automatically opting them out if they are not on during some of the weekend or on vacation or dealing with a new born or one of a thousand life events that causes someone not check PMs for a couple days.
Don't have automatic disqualification by not being here for a specific PM at a specific day.
Hell I miss pms when I am on because of how my brain works.
All I think the ask is, let folks who opted in, stay opted in till they say otherwise.
Oh I am not trying to say we shouldn't change it. Just offering considerations for what the fix could look like. If we want to collectively solve a problem we should get all the info we can for solving it.
Sounds good.
In this case it is best to stick with the original timeline. All applications are due tonight. If folks want to be generous folks have till Sunday night to edit their blurbs if they wish with the new info on length. And then we go with the election as planned. Also during this time or at any point someone can choose to opt out of the process by actively rescinding their candidacy.
Its just a revert to the original plan/statement. And we can move forward without hurting any time lines.
If it was decided earlier this afternoon, some further context on why a barrier (of any sort) was determined to be necessary at the last minute.
Just because we all drop 2000 character shitposts about crappy RPGs from the 90’s doesn’t mean we can just assume everyone will have the time and/or headspace to do it on short notice.
What if someone is on vacation? Working the majority of the weekend? Doesn’t notice until it’s too late?
A barrier, even a minor one, should have been communicated with substantially more warning, as would be conducive to our expressed values.
Based on MI’s statement earlier in the thread that someone could feasibly be removed with like a day left from the votes being tallied, I don’t see why we need to be on that tight a timeline.
Being listed without a “hi, this is who I am and how I want to serve the community” may not be a good way to gain votes, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a pressing need to be at 101% readiness either.
And, regarding timeliness, I would consider that more a facet of being a mod.
If the board are expected to respond on short notice for anything on a regular basis, I’d figure that was a failure state for CoRe.
The board absolutely are and need to be. The board is responsible for legal things that can come in at whatever hour and definitely have tight deadlines like this. That isn't to say everyone has to be on call all the time. Things can be easily managed. A board member doesn't always need to be available, but the board broadly does.
And this requirement is effectively asking the entire board (final selected members and rejected applicants alike) to be on ~60 hours notice or be removed from their seat.
Yes, someone should be “on call” at all times in case law enforcement comes knocking.
But not everyone everywhere all at once, which is what this is effectively asking of the dozens of applicants.
People who are pointedly not on the board yet.
Yes I agree. I was pointing out that have the board broadly on call was expected.
Now, if someone on the TT could answer the other questions, that would be lovely.
Edit: that is to say, I’m glad we agree not everyone needs to be on call at all times.
That does not answer WHY a barrier was implemented at the last minute, and if it was known about prior to today, why that wasn’t shared openly in advance.
And if it was decided and implemented today, also Why?
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]