So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
There's more then one candidate there who could be considered "polarizing" by the metrics being used. And the idea of ElJeffe being "polarizing" is itself entirely a product of cliques and schisms on the board. Because it's really mostly a small group of people very mad at a random poster.
If this is supposed to be a democratic process, then let the actual voters decide.
In my case, it has a lot more to do with a very not-random poster and their (IMO) history of professional misconduct and abuse of power, which they continue to not acknowledge while seeking another position of authority.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
Who, other than ElJeffe, do you view as a polarizing candidate.
0
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
FF8 is my favorite game and everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. (Persona 4 Golden is a close second, see the av )
Favorite movie fluctuates. Probably most consistently Spirited Away or Mulan (the animated one, obviously)
I know this is controversial, but I played Chrono Cross before Chrono Trigger, so I like that more. I'm sorry don't mob me . I recognize that Trigger is a fabulous game, almost timeless in both gameplay and graphics and such (still! I just played it again a couple months ago!). But it's hard to surpass your first, you know?
Kime you may have created enemies elsewhere but... FF8 is my favorite game ever and I also go Cross > Trigger.
So you actually just got the secret answers correct.
Hell i also have a framed Spirited Away picture on my living room wall haha.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
Who, other than ElJeffe, do you view as a polarizing candidate.
I don't think that's helpful or productive. If we have questions or concerns we should just ask them in the thread.
We're working on an authentication system. It's still being finalized, but we expect it will utilize the registry of users who have set CoRe PINs as our "voter registry".
If you have already set a PIN for CoRe, you're good. If you have not, please do so right now to be ahead of the game and ready to vote when this is finished. Please note that voting will not use your PIN you set here, we're just using the list of accounts that have set PINs as our valid voter registery.
I spent all afternoon yesterday at a sugarshack and the rest of the day hand-drawing a uniform badge for my daughter's ComicCon cosplay. And that's the one day you guys picked to have a schism without me?
Seriously though, what the goose happened yesterday?
Hey @richy I don’t really know you and your rotary club experience I feel is directly relevant to running a place like this so you are at least on my radar as a candidate, but I do have a pretty big question for you.
You mention being involved in a national AI association. Are you willing to give more detail on that organization and your role in it?
Given the number of artists on this forum and how contentious the topic is I feel it is very important to know your history with it.
@rhylith
The association is the Canadian Artificial Intelligence Association. We're a smaller organization, mainly responsible for organizing the annual Canadian AI conference, giving out AI-related awards to students, and occasionally answering questions from the media and government agencies about AI (when they remember to ask us). We do not fund research, we don't have the funds for that.
I think what you're really asking is where I fall on the "training data vs. creator rights" debate. And I'm squarely on the creator rights side. I am currently working on a research program to train a local-knowledge LLM, and the first thing we're doing is setting up a data-sharing agreement and contacting the right holders of the data we want to explain what we're doing, what we plan to do with their data, and ask their permission (with signature) to use their data (and if they refuse, well though luck for us, but so far everyone I've contacted has been very receptive and positive). When I teach about LLM in my class, one of the issues I cover, in addition to technical issues, is the violation of copyrights by OpenAI and Meta to collect their datasets. And on a personal note, my girlfriend is an artist working towards her first exhibit, so I have a personal stake in protecting creators. Every time she signs up for a new online service professionally, I read the license agreements closely with her to make sure she's not signing off more than she intends to.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
if this is true you should bring it up, and I mean that sincerely
this isn't some ha-ha joke vote, people have given an extremely large amount of money to run the new place and the people we're voting for will have a hand in how that money is spent. so like, help us make an informed decision. I think elJeffe is an extremely bad candidate who shouldn't come within a thousand feet of anything approaching a leadership role in the new forum, and if you feel the same way about other candidates you owe it to us to say so. I'm not aware of any "polarization" around other candidates so please, honestly and truly, you should let us know if you think others are unfit
We're working on an authentication system. It's still being finalized, but we expect it will utilize the registry of users who have set CoRe PINs as our "voter registry".
If you have already set a PIN for CoRe, you're good. If you have not, please do so right now to be ahead of the game and ready to vote when this is finished. Please note that voting will not use your PIN you set here, we're just using the list of accounts that have set PINs as our valid voter registery.
I voted before this step was added. Does my PINless vote still count or do I need to register a PIN and vote again?
It sucks, but the only way to ensure security at this point (which is the goal) will be to restart the vote from scratch, meaning anyone who has voted will need to re-vote using our authentication system. We cut off voting with only 30 or so votes cast, I believe, so hopefully the impact is minimal, and I apologize for the extra work.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
We're working on an authentication system. It's still being finalized, but we expect it will utilize the registry of users who have set CoRe PINs as our "voter registry".
If you have already set a PIN for CoRe, you're good. If you have not, please do so right now to be ahead of the game and ready to vote when this is finished. Please note that voting will not use your PIN you set here, we're just using the list of accounts that have set PINs as our valid voter registery.
I voted before this step was added. Does my PINless vote still count or do I need to register a PIN and vote again?
It sucks, but the only way to ensure security at this point (which is the goal) will be to restart the vote from scratch, meaning anyone who has voted will need to re-vote using our authentication system. We cut off voting with only 30 or so votes cast, I believe, so hopefully the impact is minimal, and I apologize for the extra work.
We're working on an authentication system. It's still being finalized, but we expect it will utilize the registry of users who have set CoRe PINs as our "voter registry".
If you have already set a PIN for CoRe, you're good. If you have not, please do so right now to be ahead of the game and ready to vote when this is finished. Please note that voting will not use your PIN you set here, we're just using the list of accounts that have set PINs as our valid voter registery.
I voted before this step was added. Does my PINless vote still count or do I need to register a PIN and vote again?
It sucks, but the only way to ensure security at this point (which is the goal) will be to restart the vote from scratch, meaning anyone who has voted will need to re-vote using our authentication system. We cut off voting with only 30 or so votes cast, I believe, so hopefully the impact is minimal, and I apologize for the extra work.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
I think this is (probably) all true, but not in the way you (probably) mean.
As We Say In D&D, "It's Always Projection."
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
We're working on an authentication system. It's still being finalized, but we expect it will utilize the registry of users who have set CoRe PINs as our "voter registry".
If you have already set a PIN for CoRe, you're good. If you have not, please do so right now to be ahead of the game and ready to vote when this is finished. Please note that voting will not use your PIN you set here, we're just using the list of accounts that have set PINs as our valid voter registery.
I voted before this step was added. Does my PINless vote still count or do I need to register a PIN and vote again?
It sucks, but the only way to ensure security at this point (which is the goal) will be to restart the vote from scratch, meaning anyone who has voted will need to re-vote using our authentication system. We cut off voting with only 30 or so votes cast, I believe, so hopefully the impact is minimal, and I apologize for the extra work.
We're working on an authentication system. It's still being finalized, but we expect it will utilize the registry of users who have set CoRe PINs as our "voter registry".
If you have already set a PIN for CoRe, you're good. If you have not, please do so right now to be ahead of the game and ready to vote when this is finished. Please note that voting will not use your PIN you set here, we're just using the list of accounts that have set PINs as our valid voter registery.
I voted before this step was added. Does my PINless vote still count or do I need to register a PIN and vote again?
It sucks, but the only way to ensure security at this point (which is the goal) will be to restart the vote from scratch, meaning anyone who has voted will need to re-vote using our authentication system. We cut off voting with only 30 or so votes cast, I believe, so hopefully the impact is minimal, and I apologize for the extra work.
Are we safe to re-vote now?
Voting has not reopened yet, setting that up is still in process
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
Not really, Jeffe did that himself in the other thread. It's not "forum beef" it's people relaying their bad experiences with somebody we're voting to put in charge of 18k dollars.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
My forum experience is not your own. I didn't put in for any positions because I don't currently have the bandwidth to do the work that is needed to internalize other forum experiences well enough to do the job to my satisfaction. I would appreciate knowing if there are serious concerns to be had about candidates while I'm vetting them and if you have serious concerns it's folly to assume I and members like me know what they are.
I can assure you that I am my own person and not merely following loud voices and if I feel like others concerns have merit I will factor them into my voting decisions.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
if this is true you should bring it up, and I mean that sincerely
this isn't some ha-ha joke vote, people have given an extremely large amount of money to run the new place and the people we're voting for will have a hand in how that money is spent. so like, help us make an informed decision. I think elJeffe is an extremely bad candidate who shouldn't come within a thousand feet of anything approaching a leadership role in the new forum, and if you feel the same way about other candidates you owe it to us to say so. I'm not aware of any "polarization" around other candidates so please, honestly and truly, you should let us know if you think others are unfit
I, quite frankly, don’t owe you anything.
I was disappointed to see a few names of people who nominated themselves for the board after what I would consider to be some severe lapses in judgement and behavior. Others are asking questions of all the candidates and I don’t wish to turn this thread into one where I hurl accusations and insults at people under the guise of saying I’m just trying to do what’s best for the new forum.
What I’ll do is vote for the candidates I feel will do a good job and not vote for the ones I feel would be poor choices.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
Hold on a sec here.
If there are other candidates who are polarizing to a similar extent then I actually think you HAVE to tell us why. It would be like not telling me the person I’m about to vote for is a transphobe or a billionaire or a serial killer.
I want to know who I’m voting for, even and ESPECIALLY based on the views of someone who has interacted with them in a space I don’t occupy. That is CRUCIAL and I actually feel EVERYONE should feel this way.
The experiences of people who aren’t you can and SHOULD factor into decisions like this one. Writing off or not caring about what people in other spaces think is pretty much how the world got to where it is now. Maybe we can practice doing something different in THIS community?
So like, exactly what you said about not only listening to the loudest voices in the room… TELL US who you’re talking about and why! Please!
Everyone who is putting their hand up for elected office should know they are going to be held to a higher standard. If someone is not on the up and up, I want to know about it - and they should be okay with me knowing about it - before I cast my vote.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
oh my god this is the most childish insular shit
if you think other candidates are bad say who they are and why they're bad and I'm more than happy to not vote for them
we have explained in exhaustive detail why we think elJeffe's behavior, up to and including his choices not even 24 hours ago, makes him unfit to hold any kind of leadership position. if you feel the same way about other candidates, please, I'm begging you, share those thoughts. this shit matters.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
I question what is accomplished with vague innuendo and whispers of conspiracy. I reject the notion that this is a forum beef issue. It is a question of which candidates can best unite a forum during a fragile and fractious time. If there are polarizing aspects we NEED to know. If it is a small group then that will be borne out in the voting. If it isn't that will too.
I am hoping we can talk about actual issues rather than create an air of fear, paranoia, and conspiracy where none exists.
I am explicitly not relitigating the forum beefs here. If you think there are no other polarizing figures on the list, cool you do you.
I'm not relitigating anything.
If you think there are problems with candidates other than ElJeffe, I would love to hear it.
Or was it your only goal to stir shit and spread innuendo?
None of this helps the process. If you have concerns about a candidate ask the candidate not the voters.
If the voters are the ones with the concerns about the candidates, I want to know what those concerns are so that I even know what questions to ask which candidate!
Since the board will have the power to potentially reshape the Values, Rules and KD's, I ask all candidates if there's anything with the current suite of rules and guidelines that you disagree with, and if so, why you disagree with it.
Additionally would you be willing to put forth the proposal to change them, and what you would change them to.
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
I am explicitly not relitigating the forum beefs here. If you think there are no other polarizing figures on the list, cool you do you.
I'm not relitigating anything.
If you think there are problems with candidates other than ElJeffe, I would love to hear it.
Or was it your only goal to stir shit and spread innuendo?
We're literally been told not to talk about this whole subject on the first page.
And this entire chain began with shit-stirring and innuendo based on the subject we were told not to talk about.
You were told not to be inflammatory in your questions
If people want to discuss publicly why they believe candidates are unfit for the role, they are welcome to do so, I would just request that you try to do so in an even and neutral manner and not turn it into an argument
+3
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
There's an accusation against ElJeffe that he abused his privileges and accessed information he had no business accessing.
If any of the other candidates have done something similar, it is of extreme importance that it be made known so that the voters can make an informed decision.
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
if this is true you should bring it up, and I mean that sincerely
this isn't some ha-ha joke vote, people have given an extremely large amount of money to run the new place and the people we're voting for will have a hand in how that money is spent. so like, help us make an informed decision. I think elJeffe is an extremely bad candidate who shouldn't come within a thousand feet of anything approaching a leadership role in the new forum, and if you feel the same way about other candidates you owe it to us to say so. I'm not aware of any "polarization" around other candidates so please, honestly and truly, you should let us know if you think others are unfit
I, quite frankly, don’t owe you anything.
I was disappointed to see a few names of people who nominated themselves for the board after what I would consider to be some severe lapses in judgement and behavior. Others are asking questions of all the candidates and I don’t wish to turn this thread into one where I hurl accusations and insults at people under the guise of saying I’m just trying to do what’s best for the new forum.
What I’ll do is vote for the candidates I feel will do a good job and not vote for the ones I feel would be poor choices.
okay so you think there are multiple polarizing candidates but nobody knows who you're talking about and you're not willing to say anything to clarify. really great contribution, thanks
So I'm trying to find a delicate way to ask this because I really don't want to spark a big fight over it, but I simply don't know the answer myself: who among this list has enough controversy surrounding them in the community that it would cause a huge stink if they won and might cause some to leave the forums? I hope there are at least 5 qualified people for whom that isn't true. I think it's important that the outcome of this election is not super inflammatory and doesn't risk splintering the community.
I'd say for sure ElJeffe is one example just by virtue of what happened yesterday. Are there others that people in the community vehemently oppose? Can we maybe just touch on the reason why without fighting over the specifics right now?
I think that's fair.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if someone you absolutely hate gets on the board, they are ultimately one voice among many. Five board members plus four executives plus ten-ish mods means that any one person has their impact diluted, such that if you trust the other folks, that one person shouldn't be a deal breaker.
It's very possible that there will be people who leave because of what they see as a poor board choice, and that's unfortunate. There will be people who leave because the vibe of the new place is weird, or because change is hard, or because PA was a habit and CoRe had yet to become one. Each person who doesn't make the transition is a loss. I hope the number is as small as possible. And I also hope that everyone realizes that none of the decisions made now are permanent or immutable. Board positions are temporary for a reason.
I would also strongly suspect that the way STV works, it is extremely likely IMO that multiple polarizing candidates from different sides of the schism will gain a seat.
there is only one candidate that is "polarizing" and it has nothing to do with "different sides of the schism" whatever that means. this was explained many, many times in the locked thread and the fact that you keep leaning on this completely untrue framing really sucks
This is not true
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
oh my god this is the most childish insular shit
if you think other candidates are bad say who they are and why they're bad and I'm more than happy to not vote for them
we have explained in exhaustive detail why we think elJeffe's behavior, up to and including his choices not even 24 hours ago, makes him unfit to hold any kind of leadership position. if you feel the same way about other candidates, please, I'm begging you, share those thoughts. this shit matters.
No, it's literally just following the mods telling us not to relitigate this issue. If the mods would like us to reopen the discussion, we can. Cause everything you are complaining about is a huge fucking lie. So continually repeating the lies and demanding we discuss it doesn't really work.
I'd like to hear candidates say something about if where and how they think things have gone wrong either in the forum in general or in this transition. Are you unhappy with the way this community has been shaped? Do you think there was too much democracy in the transition to core?
Guys if you think somebody is a very bad candidate and/or deeply polarizing, please say who and why (politely). This is not the time to be walking on egg shells while making veiled jabs. If your mortal enemy wins the vote because nobody said their name and they wrote a nice blurb, you won't have any right to complain about it. Most of the people here are simply ignorant of these grievances.
I am explicitly not relitigating the forum beefs here. If you think there are no other polarizing figures on the list, cool you do you.
I'm not relitigating anything.
If you think there are problems with candidates other than ElJeffe, I would love to hear it.
Or was it your only goal to stir shit and spread innuendo?
None of this helps the process. If you have concerns about a candidate ask the candidate not the voters.
If the voters are the ones with the concerns about the candidates, I want to know what those concerns are so that I even know what questions to ask which candidate!
Ending a post accusing someone of only wanting to spread shit and innuendo does not seem to be voicing a concern about candidates.
If i can ask, why does someone's concerns directly shape yours? If you don't know what to ask someone to determine their suitability for an elected position then possibly you shouldn't be voting.
Posts
In my case, it has a lot more to do with a very not-random poster and their (IMO) history of professional misconduct and abuse of power, which they continue to not acknowledge while seeking another position of authority.
Who, other than ElJeffe, do you view as a polarizing candidate.
CoRe to become the fourth Canadian territory!
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
Octopath Traveler - MY BLADE IS UNBENDING
Kime you may have created enemies elsewhere but... FF8 is my favorite game ever and I also go Cross > Trigger.
So you actually just got the secret answers correct.
Hell i also have a framed Spirited Away picture on my living room wall haha.
We're clearly the only ones who can be trusted to run things at this point.
I don't think that's helpful or productive. If we have questions or concerns we should just ask them in the thread.
Please help my sick dog
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Thank you! Good response and good info.
if this is true you should bring it up, and I mean that sincerely
this isn't some ha-ha joke vote, people have given an extremely large amount of money to run the new place and the people we're voting for will have a hand in how that money is spent. so like, help us make an informed decision. I think elJeffe is an extremely bad candidate who shouldn't come within a thousand feet of anything approaching a leadership role in the new forum, and if you feel the same way about other candidates you owe it to us to say so. I'm not aware of any "polarization" around other candidates so please, honestly and truly, you should let us know if you think others are unfit
I'm not relitigating anything.
If you think there are problems with candidates other than ElJeffe, I would love to hear it.
Or was it your only goal to stir shit and spread innuendo?
It sucks, but the only way to ensure security at this point (which is the goal) will be to restart the vote from scratch, meaning anyone who has voted will need to re-vote using our authentication system. We cut off voting with only 30 or so votes cast, I believe, so hopefully the impact is minimal, and I apologize for the extra work.
Yeah just want to add to this. The notion that there's only one polarizing candidate is completely ridiculous.
Please, do not give into listening to only the loudest voices in the room. Just because a lot of people are making a big ruckus about hating a potential candidate, it does not mean what they are saying is actually true.
It just means there's a concerted effort from one side to label a candidate they see as an opponent in a negative light. There are people trying to downplay historical forum beefs they have with candidates, while also actively prosecuting those forum beefs with their posts.
It turns out these things happen when you have a politics subforum and a bunch of people dreaming of how to win elections -- welp, this is the one, and with all of the propaganda any good election should contain in 2025 (sadly).
Are we safe to re-vote now?
I think this is (probably) all true, but not in the way you (probably) mean.
As We Say In D&D, "It's Always Projection."
Voting has not reopened yet, setting that up is still in process
Not really, Jeffe did that himself in the other thread. It's not "forum beef" it's people relaying their bad experiences with somebody we're voting to put in charge of 18k dollars.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
My forum experience is not your own. I didn't put in for any positions because I don't currently have the bandwidth to do the work that is needed to internalize other forum experiences well enough to do the job to my satisfaction. I would appreciate knowing if there are serious concerns to be had about candidates while I'm vetting them and if you have serious concerns it's folly to assume I and members like me know what they are.
I can assure you that I am my own person and not merely following loud voices and if I feel like others concerns have merit I will factor them into my voting decisions.
I, quite frankly, don’t owe you anything.
I was disappointed to see a few names of people who nominated themselves for the board after what I would consider to be some severe lapses in judgement and behavior. Others are asking questions of all the candidates and I don’t wish to turn this thread into one where I hurl accusations and insults at people under the guise of saying I’m just trying to do what’s best for the new forum.
What I’ll do is vote for the candidates I feel will do a good job and not vote for the ones I feel would be poor choices.
If there are other candidates who are polarizing to a similar extent then I actually think you HAVE to tell us why. It would be like not telling me the person I’m about to vote for is a transphobe or a billionaire or a serial killer.
I want to know who I’m voting for, even and ESPECIALLY based on the views of someone who has interacted with them in a space I don’t occupy. That is CRUCIAL and I actually feel EVERYONE should feel this way.
The experiences of people who aren’t you can and SHOULD factor into decisions like this one. Writing off or not caring about what people in other spaces think is pretty much how the world got to where it is now. Maybe we can practice doing something different in THIS community?
So like, exactly what you said about not only listening to the loudest voices in the room… TELL US who you’re talking about and why! Please!
Everyone who is putting their hand up for elected office should know they are going to be held to a higher standard. If someone is not on the up and up, I want to know about it - and they should be okay with me knowing about it - before I cast my vote.
None of this helps the process. If you have concerns about a candidate ask the candidate not the voters.
Please help my sick dog
Please stop meta-modding.
We're literally been told not to talk about this whole subject on the first page.
And this entire chain began with shit-stirring and innuendo based on the subject we were told not to talk about.
oh my god this is the most childish insular shit
if you think other candidates are bad say who they are and why they're bad and I'm more than happy to not vote for them
we have explained in exhaustive detail why we think elJeffe's behavior, up to and including his choices not even 24 hours ago, makes him unfit to hold any kind of leadership position. if you feel the same way about other candidates, please, I'm begging you, share those thoughts. this shit matters.
I question what is accomplished with vague innuendo and whispers of conspiracy. I reject the notion that this is a forum beef issue. It is a question of which candidates can best unite a forum during a fragile and fractious time. If there are polarizing aspects we NEED to know. If it is a small group then that will be borne out in the voting. If it isn't that will too.
I am hoping we can talk about actual issues rather than create an air of fear, paranoia, and conspiracy where none exists.
If the voters are the ones with the concerns about the candidates, I want to know what those concerns are so that I even know what questions to ask which candidate!
Candidates, please tell me about your lapses in judgement and why they are bad enough that I shouldn't vote for you.
Additionally would you be willing to put forth the proposal to change them, and what you would change them to.
You were told not to be inflammatory in your questions
If people want to discuss publicly why they believe candidates are unfit for the role, they are welcome to do so, I would just request that you try to do so in an even and neutral manner and not turn it into an argument
If any of the other candidates have done something similar, it is of extreme importance that it be made known so that the voters can make an informed decision.
okay so you think there are multiple polarizing candidates but nobody knows who you're talking about and you're not willing to say anything to clarify. really great contribution, thanks
No, it's literally just following the mods telling us not to relitigate this issue. If the mods would like us to reopen the discussion, we can. Cause everything you are complaining about is a huge fucking lie. So continually repeating the lies and demanding we discuss it doesn't really work.
Ending a post accusing someone of only wanting to spread shit and innuendo does not seem to be voicing a concern about candidates.
If i can ask, why does someone's concerns directly shape yours? If you don't know what to ask someone to determine their suitability for an elected position then possibly you shouldn't be voting.
Please help my sick dog