Having problems registering on Coin Return? Please email support@coin-return.org, and include your PA username and PIN.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
Board Candidate Q&A
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
@tynic
@spono
@Tef
@amateurhour
@ElJeffe
@Fishman
@kime
@Kelor
@Solysp
@Inquisitor77
@Moridin889
@Infidel
@ahava
@Fencingsax
@DrZiplock
@Richy
@Raijin Quickfoot
@Initiatefailure
Will you expect CoRe moderators to:
A. judge everyone based on their CoRe conduct alone.
B. take into account conduct and reputation from the PAF.
New Forums, Clean Slate.
Same.
Right now, there is a flood of people changing their names because for so long it wasn't possible for most. Some people are breathing a sigh of relief as they can finally have the name they want, or divorce themselves of a name with which they have negative connotations. Some people are enamored of the shiny new toy. Both of these are legitimate. But also... yeah, I keep seeing names I don't recognize who have clearly been here for years and thinking, "Who the hell are you?"
CoRe offers users a panoply of options for communicating things to others, in their profiles, in the little avatar box that probably has a technical name I don't know, in their sigs, and so on. I think it's good to encourage folks to use those options to communicate who they are so as to alleviate confusion. I don't think I would want to require that they do so, however. Even if you allow plentiful exceptions for folks who might legitimately need the anonymity of an undisclosed name change, I don't think we should place the board or mod staff in the position of having to adjudicate every possible reason. For the same reason means testing can be a well-meaning practice that winds up hurting people and costing more overall, I think requiring people to have a good enough reason to hide their name change will inevitably result in some people being forced to disclose information that causes them harm, and creates more work for staff just to alleviate a bit of confusion here and there. Especially as I'm pretty sure the name changes will trickle off as people settle into their new names and the novelty wears off.
But I do agree that, if you're going to change your name just because you think it would be fun to have a different one, the courteous thing to do is make your old identity clear for a bit.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
just to make sure we're all on the same page from a current policy perspective, infractions here apply to CoRe as well and vice versa during this period where both places exist
e: *new infractions
I'll opt to answer this version, as I think my response will sort of address my read of his question as well.
Moderating in general is a challenge, because nothing occurs in a vacuum. It's important not to punish people presently for past behavior, but also their past behavior is important to consider in evaluating intent. If someone says something that you're not sure is an innocently poor choice of words or a deliberate slight, but they have a long and storied history of being a jagweed, it's reasonable to assume they probably meant it as a slight. Most of us have been around for a long time, and many of us have reputations. I think it's important to consider those factors when making a judgement call.
So as regards moving to CoRe, I like the idea of giving everyone a clean slate. People can change, but only if you give them a chance to do so. In Bojack Horseman, Diane makes a point about how there aren't good people or bad people, there are just people. About how anyone, at any time, can make the conscious decision to be good or bad. I see this partly as a warning - the best person in the world can still decide to do something awful, and their past goodness shouldn't excuse that. But I see it mostly as a reason to give people the benefit of the doubt, to an extent - an utter fuckass can, at any time, try to be better, but they won't succeed if we don't let them. I like to think that a lot of people moving to CoRe, many with non-spotless pasts, will see this transition as an opportunity to be better. And I think we should encourage that by not jumping to conclusions. If they want to leave their pasts behind, we should let them.
But that we can forgive the past doesn't mean we have to forget the past. If someone acted like a fucko on PAF and they continue to act like a fucko on CoRe, we shouldn't use kid gloves.
edit: In light of Chanus's post above, let me clarify that I'm referring to past behavior that occurred pre-CoRe. Clearly someone shouldn't be able to currently act with impunity on PAF and expect it to not transfer over to CoRe.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Thank you to the community for a fantastic array of questions, and thank you to the candidates for slogging through so many of them. You've all done an incredibly admirable job responding to your community, and that alone fills me with optimism for all of your devotion to this community should you win a seat. It goes without saying, I think, that in future elections we'll likely run this Q&A process better using the lessons we learned here, and we wouldn't have learned anything if not for everyone participating, so thank you, all of you.
One request we had was for the ability to followup on answers the candidates give to the remaining questions they might answer after the deadline. We'll go ahead and say that FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS ONLY will still be allowed for another 24 hours, until NOON (EDT) tomorrow, Saturday, April 5th. Candidates, I hope this doesn't put too much extra burden on you. Questioners, because we're hitting the weekend and nearing the finish line, please understand that you may not get answers to all last-minute followups. Everyone will do their best, I'm sure, but lets afford a little grace to our candidates who have been so diligent in this so far.
Thanks again. Great work, everyone.
With regards to infraction and ban history, I expect that we have a clean slate as originally intended. Bans in effect are not being lifted, but I would expect there will be a small surge of appeals as banned users recent and old come knocking. Those ones will inherently be judged based on pre-CoRe history since that's where they came from, the only alternative is to wipe the bans completely as well and I do not think that automatic pardon is in the interests of the community.
Moderation will be chosen based on their ability to enforce the rules, which include the will of the people codified and also the process for which moderation is expected to follow. We need moderators that provide coverage of hours and are responsive, and we should strive to make the job as straight-forward as possible. I think the history of moderation on PAF has really lost its way and look forward to the reset, merging/reorg, and new codes and principles.
There seems to be a bit of confusion around where liability rests between board and executive, so I'll point out that very critically It Depends. The executive is entrusted with power to be, well, the executive that runs day to day. A board has an obligation of due diligence that their assigned officers are kept in check, but this of course does not prevent the president or other executives from malfeasance, incompetence, or illegal activity. Due diligence is basically being able to "show your work" so that liability for such things does not become a personal liability of the board members.
Therefore, who handles a legal issue, and who is liable, will always depend on the matter at hand.
@Gnizmo
I actually had a follow up thought to this last night, which was we should consider drafting some rules or clarifications regarding impersonation.
I'm not sure if unique names are enforced on Coin Return, but even if they aren't, the ability to change names may make this problematic (say one person changes their name to a spooky variant for October), where someone could take over the vacated name. To an extent, it's probably covered in part by the trolling or harassment sections, but name change is kind of a novelty to the community and comes with a bunch of new behaviours that we should probably spend some time considering what is unacceptable and make it more explicit.
I'd want to wait for a bit until the dust settles to see the extent to which it might be a problem in the long term, but it's something to keep an eye out for.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
If you have malicious intent, then a) I assume that it will bear out in your actions, and so you will still run afoul, and 2) Mods know who is who, even with name changes, and so you will still have a record.
Yes. I have been involved in several community trusts and associations of similar structure (sports clubs, school trusts, etc.) that operate somewhat similarly, so I was familiar with the likely duty (note: I have not served in an elected/appointed position myself, but am well known within them and know how it works).
I'm sorry, what private information? <*sounds of shredder running in next room*>
As a government employee with access to highly privileged personal information, I have relatively firm opinions on data access, handling, and sharing. Coupled with my own views on the protection of the vulnerable and sense of responsibility for the well-being of the community if placed in a position of stewardship, I do not feel that this is something I would acquiesce to without exhausting alternative options.
I would not want to implement this as a strict policy, no.
Partly, I'll note, that at present I believe previous names are available under a user's profile on XF (I haven't actually spent much time over here, as I've been in this thread all week), so at present there's a technical implementation in place.
However, for me a bigger issue is that while I concur that it can be irritating to not know who someone is, anonymity can be used as an online tool to protect vulnerable populations or individuals from persecution or harassment.
To that end, it may be possible that in future even the technical name history is discussed for removal or hiding.
Should that be proposed, we should consider the positives and negatives of such an action, and who and how might be empowered to use it. Can you do it to yourself, or is it by mod request? Can mods still see your old names if they are hidden to basic users?
At present I think we're fine for this without needing a policy, and I wouldn't support one.
I do, however, agree that if you don't have a particular reason to anonymise your association to a previous name, it would be good etiquette to include that somewhere in your user info.
I'm going to use @enc0re's interpretation, as there's been no followup clarification from tinwhiskers.
New rules, new slate. That's how I see it.
I think it would really depend on why they changed the name.
I don't think i would set a hard and fast rule, but would certainly like to push to make the practice part of a polite society, so to speak, as a custom.
There are any myriad reasons for people to want to change their names from what they've been for over a decade. We're different people now. A whole bunch of us have grown and changed from who we were. It's kind of inevitable that folks will want to update.
For myself, my original name was lonelyahava. it was a portmanteau of 2 of my online roleplay characters. Eventually it just came to embody me through the times of my life when I was desperately lonely, but still full of love.
but that hasn't been the case for over 15 years now. so, when the opportunity came, I change my name to what folks here have been calling me anyways, Ahava. the Hebrew word for Love. And even in that, I tried to keep my avatar consistent. both in representing me, but also because making/finding a new one is hard and this one works well enough.
Long winded way of saying, basically, it depends. I won't advocate for people being required to reveal who they are if they have genuine reasons to hide, or to just change how they want to be seen. But if the name change is all for funsies, I don't think having a community culture of letting folks know who you were before is a bad thing.
That said, we've all known each other long enough that there are a few folks you can recognize simply from their posting style.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I am struggling to parse exactly what you are asking here.
are you asking how we feel about a hypothetical situation in which someone is being targetted by one or more individuals in a concentrated smear campaign to make them appear as persona non grata shortly before the changeover? And how we feel about that?
Or is there another question in there that I'm missing?
@tinwhiskers
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I would expect CoRe moderators to judge things based on CoRe. And the rules that are in use there.
That being said and set up as the ideal, we are all still human. And try as hard as we might to create a clean slate on paper, people have memories and have inherit biases that have been gained over years. I think it will be vitally important for moderators to be able to compartmentalize those memories and biases from actions on CoRe, but again, we're human. That might not always be possible.
Which is why we have redundancies and check ins and appeals processes in place. It's why I would expect a moderator to have the self awareness to say "hey, fellow moderator who is also online right now, I don't think I have the objectivity needed to handle this situation, can you step in?"
We cannot collectively rewrite all of our knowledge of each other just because the background changes and the system actually works. That's asking for mere humans to be superhuman.
But we can expect each other to try and do better and try to recognize our own biases and know when we hit our objective limit.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
If you think I've accidentally skipped your question, please @ me, and I'll try to get to it in amongst other commitments over the weekend. And, obviously, there's still an open period for follow-ups and clarifications.
I think there are two parts of this: what do I want to see in a mod, and what do I want to see in the complete selection of mods?
A given mod needs to have a thick skin, be cool under pressure, and be capable of communicating to people - especially with people who are primed to be angry at them - politely. Note that this doesn't mean willing to tolerate abuse, but more on that later. They also - and this is important - must be willing to enforce rules that they may not personally agree with, and against people who are their friends. This doesn't mean that if a rule is passed saying you must use slurs in all communications, a moderator should be happy to enforce it. But there might be rules that seem trivial to them - a rule against discussing ROMs, or against posting the entire contents of an article in lieu of just linking and posting a snippet. As a community, we decided on the rules and values that would govern our behavior, and it's imperative that every mod work to enforce those rules and values fairly, but also consistently. A rule that isn't consistently enforced isn't actually a rule, it's just a bludgeon wielded against those the mods dislike. Further, it's not the job of any one mod to unilaterally decide which rules aren't important. They should be willing to use their judgement in how the rule is enforced (and most times, a simple reminder that a rule exists is probably sufficient), but not in whether the rule in enforced. If a rule is straight-up garbo, there's a process for making changes, and we need to use it.
As to the complete selection of mods? We need diversity in all areas. We need people from all different time zones. We need people with different interests who like to frequent different threads. We need people with different life experiences. We need people who identify with different subgroups on the forum. There is no longer an SE or a D&D, but the merging of those groups doesn't mean that we stop having people who identify with one group or the other, and successfully forming one united community will mean having people that a former SE poster or a former D&D poster trust to look out for them. A poster might react differently to the same words and same actions from someone they know and trust versus someone they've never interacted with. And they might react more positively to the actions of even a moderator they don't know at all if they know that there's someone on the team they do know who understands them and has their interests at heart. This will be less important as time goes on and the community gets used to the new status quo, but I feel in the beginning it's going to be an important consideration.
Harassment of anyone here is a zero-tolerance issue for me. Nobody deserves that; we're all people worthy of respect and decency. The situation with mods is a little trickier, because a lot of interactions with moderators are going to involve people a little salty that they just got dinged or told to behave. If the mods are treating the users with respect, this will hopefully be minimized, but still - moderators should be willing to overlook a little curtness or grumpiness. As a moderator, I found that responding to grumpiness with courtesy could go a long way in defusing a situation. That said, there is a difference between grumpiness and hostility, harassment, or abuse, and those things will absolutely not be tolerated, either in public or in PMs. Beyond just the simple injustice of a moderator being forced to accept abuse, I've seen first hand the chilling effect it has on the willingness of folks to be moderators when there's a sense that they won't be protected by management, and it's vitally important we have a bumper crop of folks willing to do the job. The more people willing to be moderators, the better the odds that we're getting the absolute best team.
It would depend on what "not meshing with the new style" entails. If it's just some growing pains, and is a legitimate issue of a moderator not performing their duties in the best way, the first step would be to try to instruct the moderator on what might be done to better meet the needs of the community. Are they not fairly and consistently enforcing rules? Are they absent? These are things that a willing mod can fix, and they should be given the chance to try. If the problems persist, and they either can't or won't do the job they're tasked with, they would likely need to be removed. (Within reason - if a mod has a lifestyle change that affects their availability, for example, that's the sort of thing that could be worked around.)
Of course, it's important to realize that just because a moderator is generating some complaints, it's not necessarily because the moderator is doing anything wrong. Especially in the next few months, as new rules get enforced more consistently, and as the culture undergoes the inevitable shift, some users will probably be unhappy with some of the moderators. This shouldn't be read as proof the moderators are in the wrong. Issues would be handled on a case by case basis.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I think any system of accountability has pros and cons. By way of analogy, we throw terms like "democracy" around like it is some kind of coherent thing, but the reality is that there are very different forms of government which are all generally called "democracies" which have significant differences in their execution and structure. A direct democracy may in principle seem like the right approach wherever possible, but history is rife with examples where that is actually not true, and in many cases good-governance best practices often explicitly state that certain offices and responsibilities should generally be excluded or attenuated from the need to be elected by the public. A modern, local example of this for me is the system of California County Sheriffs, who due to a confluence of factors are ostensibly democratically elected but in current practice are essentially rulers of their own personal fiefdoms, accountable to almost no one. Contrast this with the UK system, where the Prime Minister is selected by Parliament and has no term limit. And while the UK is far from perfect, whether it is definitively, objectively better or worse than any other exercised form of democracy is up for debate.
Without getting too philosophical or too into the weeds, my answer to this question will very much echo the answers I've given to other questions - I care more about specific instances and situations than the broad theory. I don't see a significant issue with the structure of Coin Return's governance given the scope of ownership in question. In the case of the Presidency in particular, our primary role is to elect one who ensures that things are running smoothly, and to ensure that all officers and mods are behaving in accordance with the rules and the will of the community at large. If there are breaches of trust, legal issues, fraud/waste/etc., or similar abuses of power, then it falls on the board to remedy the situation via their power to remove and appoint new officers. The only way a President can start running Coin Return like some kind of dictatorship is if the majority of the board allows them to do so, which indicates they either have the support of the community or that the community as a whole is massively dysfunctional.
Long term, there are really only two ways to change this: (1) select moderators who do not have said blind spots and empower them to act accordingly, (2) provide training and feedback to any moderators who do have those blind spots such that they are no longer blind to those issues. To that end, I would first place a high priority on selecting moderators from diverse perspectives who can speak directly to the issues at hand. Furthermore, I would encourage proactive forms of mentorship and training, particularly guided by our DEI officer but also the President and moderator community-at-large, on an ongoing basis to ensure that whenever specific incidents involving these blind spots occur, a clear retrospective with outcomes and action items are identified, so that they can be used as case studies to inform future moderation activities. My hope is that such a feedback process is in place more broadly, but would especially be leveraged in cases where we feel we have weaknesses, have failed in the past, or can do significantly better in. I would also consider making these examples more broadly communicated to the community in some way, such that we can all collectively learn to appreciate and identify when these instances occur, what drives them, and how we can prevent them from happening in the future (or, at minimum, report them ASAP when they see it happening).
If as a board member I am finding that a particular moderator is not behaving in accordance with our Values, or is unable or unwilling to adjust their moderation to follow the established best practices even after a suitable amount of time and feedback has been provided, then I would follow the official process to remove that moderator from their duties. In the interim, my hope would be that other moderators would be able to step in to fill whatever void is being left by that moderator's inaction until such time that they can be replaced. However, I do want to be clear that we should expect that different moderators will have different skillsets and different perspectives. If we are expecting perfection from our moderators then that is not a standard that can be met.
I also pledge to be open and willing to take in feedback from all community members on anything, particularly for these identified issues, and to take next steps where appropriate.
I can't think of any particularly egregious arguments I've gotten into with people where they would feel the need to single me out in particular, but I wouldn't be surprised if over the many, many years that at some point I haven't rubbed someone the wrong way. In those cases, I would welcome any personal dialogue that might help to put those issues to bed. Otherwise, I would ask for their grace and consideration as to whether they think, after all I have said and done up to this point, they feel I am a suitable candidate for the board. If not, then that's OK by me and I appreciate their time.
Outside of the board election, I would hate to think that someone carries enough of a grudge that my mere existence makes their lives angrier or more negative in some small way. If there is something I can do to alleviate that, regardless of this election, I encourage you to reach out to me.
I don't think that this is going to be a widespread issue, and I would prefer to think better of our community that people would even attempt to try this. At any rate, people will be evaluated based on their behavior on Coin Return, not based on any old beef or history they might have on the Penny Arcade Forums. It's going to be hard to ban someone for being a racist if they aren't exhibiting racist behavior on Coin Return. If you observe that this is actually happening at Coin Return then I would welcome any evidence and feedback to that point (as I would for any member issues and concerns).
A. Yes
B. No
I expect moderators to perform their responsibilities without personal bias or prejudice. I expect them to hold all Coin Return members to the same standards of behavior, whether they are a migrating member from the Penny Arcade Forums or a brand-new member. If moderator candidates are unable or unwilling to do this, and instead hold different members to different standards based on their behavior on the PAF, then I would not consider them for the role.
I would not.
I was an early beta participant in Coin Return and seriously considered changing my username. I decided against it, but that doesn't mean I don't think other people shouldn't be able to do so, or that they shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to start over with a clean slate should they desire.
Related to this: During development of Coin Return it was proposed that users have some kind of unique identifier that would allow people to maintain a coherent representation of each user regardless of their displayed moniker. Think something like your @handle vs. your displayed name on (shudder) Twitter. I was in favor of something like this, and will continue to be in favor of something like this, as an added feature to Coin Return until it is actually able to be implemented. But that's not the same thing as carrying over your username from PA.
Which other candidate would you endorse?
There are many I think would be fabulous as a Board member. But just to pick one, then I'd go with ahava. She is an almost unerringly accurate moral compass who will make sure that members of the Board are doing the right thing. She's open to new perspectives and tries to keep other people's experiences in mind always. A lot of the things that we as a community have decided are our Values are things ahava would bring to the Board.
What is more important? The letter of the law or the spirit of the law?
Both matter. Spirit maybe gets a minor advantage for me, because we made these. These are what we're wanting to happen. They aren't supposed to trick or bind us, but to support us. I don't really have patience for someone trying to rules lawyer themselves out of an infraction or something. But if there is a big disconnect between the letter of the law and what we intended it to be, we should fix that when we can. We don't want people to be misled, either, because we just didn't write what we meant or it was ambiguous.
You receive pushback for an action you're convinced is correct. How do you determine if the feedback has merit?
I mean... feedback always has value and always has merit. Knowing how others see what you and what you've done matters. In the end, you may not end up changing anything based on what was said, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't valuable.
But to talk about feedback a bit more: the big thing is just communication. Make sure you fully understand their position. If what you did (or your reasoning) was unclear or misunderstood, explain things to the feedback-giver. Just because you may not change the action you took, doesn't mean that you may have explained it well, and so consider if you should elaborate publicly too. Depending on the specifics, maybe sync up with other Board members/moderators and make sure y'all are on the same page.
Is there an interaction on Penny Arcade you are proud of?
I'm a big fan of some of the older gaming stuff I was a part of that formed here. In particular, there was this old Starcraft 2 tournament that we organized and put on here to raise money for charities, and that was a bunch of fun and for a good cause and everything! I actually found an old article about it, which links to one of the old Rumble in the Bronze forum threads! Although most of the links are dead there.
But still, that was a good time.
I also used to play in an amateur Heroes of the Storm league (Nexus Gaming Series, which is still going on even though I no longer play), and we formed our team from PA forum members!
"Right now, the position of President is appointed by the Board with no input from the community.
Is this appropriate, or should we aim for something more democratic?"
That was basically the cheat's question, I think, which I answered here: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/47062059/#Comment_47062059
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
How neutral should thread titles be for political, potentially serious topics?
This isn't just on the board, but the whole community to decide. Personally, funny titles for serious topics..well, people can often find gallows humor to be something that helps them get through situations. Myself included. However, it should never be at the expense of another person or group of people.
On candidates whose election could cause posters to leave the forums.
Everyone here is mostly kinda sorta adults. The decisions that they make on if they stay or go is up to them as are their reasons for doing so.
How would you handle a a hypothetical scenario of a mod that ends up not meshing with the new style? This is brought to the board by several individuals, but not a crushing wave of reports.
Teachable moments are awesome when everyone is trying to get their feet under them in a new place. What worked? What didn't? Why to both of those? And then if it's really something that is not surmountable then it's time to look at next steps and what those mean.
What, if anything, are the problems the forum currently has?
What, if anything, has gone wrong during the transition?
People love beating a dead horse and resurfacing past grievances in a way that is not at all constructive to moving forward.
I think we all agree that this QA and process could have been done smoother, but that's something that we get to take away into the next time this happens. Also, I think that there needed to be a lot more education on what the board's responsibilities will be vs the mods. Many of the questions asked are better posed to a mod team and not a board...but that's just nitpicky on my part.
Thoughts on identity politics?
Meh. If that's where you find your people and find your sense of self, that's awesome and I support you. However, I think people are, and should be, more complex than a single note.
How do you expect to promote unification and bringing the community together? Do you have any initiatives, policies, or actions mind?
By doing what's possible to not let it tear itself apart. The first few months will be interesting, to say the least. There is an odd amount of baggage that people have - some justified and some not at all. If we're planting a new flag in a new third space then it all needs to come together. Direct promotion? I'd hope that practicing what I preach and what the forum has chosen as a new rule set begins to be something that takes hold within the community. And none yet, no.
On the appropriateness of "From the River to the Sea"
This one needs context, sorry. This is gnarly on all levels and I'm sorry.
Can you describe a lapse in judgement you have had in the past?
On the forums? I engaged with a clear troll in an unbecoming way and picked up my first and only infaction. Off the forums? Not your business.
How involved should the Board be in moderation? Should there be a firewall between mods and the Board?
We shouldn't be involved in the day to day at all. The mods need to be trusted to do their thing. We're here for oversight, legal reasons, and general guidance. If we can't trust them or them trust us then this isn't going to work. I think the only real firewall should be that we, board members, don't get to post in the mod forums. However, I feel that we should be able to read them. This is simple because if, as the nature of these questions have all eluded to, the members of the community are asking us to help out then we have to be able to know the temperature and temperament of both the community and the mods at a glance. How things are going, where there might be conflict between the two, where things should be praised and raised...etc. But we shouldn't comment directly on mod actions either on the mod forums or the boards. That's for discussions outside of those spaces. Ideally we'll never have to be punitive in anyway, but can be more of a resource.
What is more important? The letter of the law or the spirit of the law?
Equal.
What would you do if a Permabanned user requested to join CoRe?
Nothing unless a mod brings it to us. But if that does happen then there are some questions to ask and I'm not opposed to a trial period. All of this depends on the reasons for banning, as well. This is another super context driven question.
What unites us as a community? Is there any poster in particular you believe exemplifies our community?
Too many posters to name. But what brings us all together is that we're all geeks for something. Sports? Go for it. Art? Talk with other artists? Food? I'd like to swap recipes. The list goes on and on. What defines us all is that we're geeks...people who hold a dear and fierce passion for something and like to share it with other like minded folks.
You receive pushback for an action you're convinced is correct. How do you determine if the feedback has merit?
Anyone who has ever worked for me will tell you that I will give them as much time as possible to make their case on a topic, but at the end of the day I need to make a decision and then the consequences of that decision falls on my head and not theirs. Any determination of merit in the feedback needs to be weighed against my own reasons for the decision. Did something new come to light? Did I miss a point that I shouldn't have? Or do I know something that they don't? Am I trusted to help lead? Etc.
Who are some forumers you would consider to be big influences on you?
Many names that don't walk these halls much anymore, but some that still do. Tynic, Usagi, Rankenphile, Bogey, CrackedLens, Nogs, Mully, Beavo, and on and on.
In the future, how should bans be handled (permanent/temporary)?
Both...and by the mod team. Severity and context is again the deciding factor.
What charities should the community support?
Nobody is going to force anyone to support anything. Something like this has to be community member driven, not Board or Mod driven. You all want to support Child's Play? Go for it. You all want to try and raise money for King Street Cats in Alexandria, VA....I'd be honored to kick in.
However, we cannot let this become a place of, hm, self-fulfillment via donations. We have all heard and/or know of instances where one forumer helped out another and I love it. I love it so much. But this isn't a place for self-promotion to a financial end. There are a lot more details I can get into on this one.
There has been a history of a lack of response toward gendered and sexual violence on PA. How will you ensure that this is not repeated on CoRe?
This is directly something that is the responsibility of the Mod Team and not the Board. We play a role here by making sure the mod team is up to scratch and listening to the community if there are people that feel that it isn't being addressed enough.
Should we try to reach out to community members we have lost and invite them to CoRe?
Nope, not really. If they left they left, if they want to come back and are in good standing, then they are very much welcome back. Outreach can happen on a personal level if you've got some friends that headed off, but there shouldn't be an official outreach.
It's confusing to know who's who on the forums as some people have changed names. Should there be a policy requiring users to put their old names in their signatures?
Nope.
Do you think that people view the transition as the opportunity to ban other forumers over 'forum beef'?
At some point if you're the one who keeps on bringing up the beef, then you are the one in the wrong.
Ok...that's me getting the entire spreadsheet to green (though I didn't cut and paste these into there).
Look, as a whole, I think the level of direct interest that the community has taken in asking Board candidates is amazing. So good and such a positive way to get the new home rolling. I will say that a lot of what is being asked falls with the mod team. Boards of businesses/organizations don't often get involved in the day to day. It's not their purpose. They're there to help to tend the forest, the folks on the ground are looking at the trees. The mods have done a great job so far in managing a challenging situation, so if I were wearing a hat I'd tip it.
This is new ground for all parties involved and well, yea....see you all over in Coin Return.
How neutral should thread titles be for political, potentially serious topics?
The more serious the topic, the less jokey the title should be.
On candidates whose election could cause posters to leave the forums.
That’s up to you. I’m sticking around to try and make sure the place survives and thrives. If you think you can help, then stay here with us.
Are you willing to work with parts of the forum you disagree with?
Yes. I’m used to my narrow view of the forums in SE++ and very rarely venture beyond that. The new forum structure will help me naturally branch out.
How would you handle a formal legal request by an outside entity?
Gather the facts, confer with the other board members, and contact our own legal representation if necessary.
What do you look for in a mod?
Honesty and integrity.
How do you plan on dealing with harassment of mods?
Need to see the context to know for sure. Gut reaction that harassment is not OK, but criticism is.
How would you handle a a hypothetical scenario of a mod that ends up not meshing with the new style? This is brought to the board by several individuals, but not a crushing wave of reports.
Talk to the mod, find out if they’re willing to take the criticism to heart. See how that shakes out. Try again if complaints keep coming. Try getting one of the other mods that has the respect of the mod in question to weigh in. Find new or additional mods if the problem persists.
Many of you have stated that this community is important to you and that you would work to preserve and improve it. What does this really look like, in your view? What does “the good of the community” mean to you?
To me it means letting the mods do their job and making sure we have good mods. The good of the community is making sure this is a place that everyone can feel welcome.
What, if anything, are the problems the forum currently has? What, if anything, has gone wrong during the transition?
Infighting between a vocal minority of posters in SE and D&D would be one of the louder problems. Stagnation of conversation would be another. Reshuffling the forum layout should help immensely on both fronts. The seemingly infinite power of the transition team during the transition could have been handled better. This was on a tight timeline, and the people willing to do the work stepped up and did their best, for which I am truly grateful. On future “big changes” we should be more transparent with the community on what we’re doing and why we have the authority to do so.
Thoughts on identity politics?
What does that even mean?
Which other candidate would you endorse?
Solysp
Can you describe a lapse in judgement you have had in the past?
Like the rest of us, I have been guilty of jumping to the worst conclusions about people from time to time. I try to catch myself before responding, but I’m only human.
How involved should the Board be in moderation? Should there be a firewall between mods and the Board?
The board should not be mods. They should have read-only access to the mod forum in order to get the whole picture in the event of a dispute.
What is more important? The letter of the law or the spirit of the law?
The spirit, but it’s important to get the letter correct now since we’re the ones writing the laws for ourselves. It will be hard for future board directors to know what the spirit is/was years from now if the letter of the law isn’t reflective of what the spirit is today.
Right now, the position of President is appointed by the Board with no input from the community. Is this appropriate, or should we aim for something more democratic?
I agree with what’s already been written by the other board members on this topic.
There has been a history of a lack of response toward gendered and sexual violence on PA. How will you ensure that this is not repeated on CoRe?
Zero tolerance for anything clearly directed at an individual, though that is rare (I hope). We’ve never had a board before, so hopefully with its creation the board will be a new and useful avenue for people who have been ignored by the mods.
To the best of your knowledge, have your actions ever directly led to another forumer quitting the forum? If so, would you change your past actions to prevent this?
No.
Should we try to reach out to community members we have lost and invite them to CoRe?
No. I think anyone who left didn’t do so in a vacuum. People have a right to their own reasons for leaving and whether or not to share those. Sometimes it’s not an active decision and people just drift away. If you are personal friends with someone and want to show them our cool new shiny forum, then by all means let them know about it. I don’t think a full blown community outreach campaign is appropriate.
It's confusing to know who's who on the forums as some people have changed names. Should there be a policy requiring users to put their old names in their signatures?
No.
Do you think that people view the transition as the opportunity to ban other forumers over 'forum beef'?
No.
Who is your favorite power ranger?
Leonardo
Trick question, the correct answer is the Yellow Lion.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!