I don't recall anyone saying he shouldn't be allowed to run. Saying he would be well advised to drop out or saying they don't think he should be voted for isn't the same.
There were definitely some posts suggestive of that. At least early on in the other discussion, anyway.
I think holding Gereg's blowup against Tef is unfair, frankly
Tef already posted with regards to their limited involvement in Gereg's selection and MI confirmed it. I don't think "a person I worked with on documents decided to self-immolate to lose an internet argument" is something I'd hold against them
I do feel Tef has done well in recent months to step back and take on a more neutral voice in general, and their understanding of community building and aspiration to grow the place speaks well to their character and desire to improve our community
I understand if with the broad candidate field that others may not rank them as highly due to their own views and interactions but that's the name of the game with STV
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
this post legit made me close the thread, but then i got really frustrated about it so i came back just to say i think you should really analyze what you're trying to do with a post like this and why it is you're doing that.
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef? The Australian who didn't vote and said people would have a problem with him for being a self-proclaimed communist, that Tef?
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Sometimes I read a post that makes me feel physical pain
I haven't been able to read all of the two threads concerning this, so I apologize if this was brought up, but the question of whether or not ElJeffe should be permitted to run is moot - the question should be if he deserves banning from the CoRe forums or not. No one should be able to prevent the candidacy of a member. If the person shouldn't be allowed to run, then they shouldn't be a member at all.
I don't really have a history with Jeffe specifically, even though I basically live in the D&D [chat] thread. I knew former mods were able to still view the mod forum, but it was something that I didn't care about to the point that I literally never thought about it until today. I get why people don't like it, and I agree that in the new forum it shouldn't be permitted. I agree that posting in the mod forum about a report that may involve your own posts is inappropriate. But that's also moot moving forward because CoRe shouldn't permit that anyway.
I also think that the way the TT handled it was inappropriate as well, but I get what they intended wasn't quite what they had written (The message to him should have been framed as, instead of a choice, an expectation that ElJeffe would address this as part of his candidacy and then let ElJeffe decide without any kind of coercion what he would do).
So I hope the election outcome serves as the resolution, but I suppose time will tell.
I don't think that the bolded bit is moot in the context of this discussion about suitability for governance roles. Even if we're being exceedingly generous, it's evidence of poor judgement, and general obliviousness of the impact of one's actions. That absolutely bears on whether somebody is a good candidate to be in some sort of decision making position.
I agree that it's not grounds to just kick him out of the race, but it's totally appropriate that it's open for discussion and influences the result of the election.
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Oh fuck off
Sorry a trans person objects to someone supporting the election of the most obviously viciously bigoted candidate in a long while.
I'm not in any way exaggerating. This wasn't "I'm not voting".
oh good yes let's turn this into yet another bad-faith politics thread where all anyone cares about is moral superiority, not like things can get any worse in here
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef? The Australian who didn't vote and said people would have a problem with him for being a self-proclaimed communist, that Tef?
I think the funniest thing in this thread is that every time someone edits out all the @'s in the question they're responding to, they still manage to leave Tynic. It's like you all want to make sure she knows how you're responding.
I want to thank @Sir Fabulous for volunteering to make a spread sheet of all candidate responses because that's going to help me a fair bit with candidates, I'm not too familiar with. Plus, also seeing what people have to say on issues brought up, even if I do interact with them regularly, given not all of the issues are going to come up regularly.
Now I have a specific question in mind, I'm hoping getting it presented will hopefully head off some drama.
CoRe's success will largely fall upon how well moderation is handled and that has been a perennial complaint on the PA forums. We've also had the blowup over the access that former mods have had to the moderation forums. Finally, we need to account for the fact that getting good mods means they need adequate support and that starts with training. With that in mind, what role do you see former moderators serving when onboarding new moderators and when should their access to the moderation forums end?
Bonus question: in a similar note, how do you feel admin transition should playout in regard to the access an outgoing admin has and for how long they should have such access?
I ask this because it seems like some of the issue is that people weren't aware of what access people retained when stepping down from authority positions and setting a clear public record on how that will be handled, seems like a solid way to avoid some problems in the future.
I think the biggest issue with the mod forum access kerfuffle was a lack of clearly stated expectations and clearly defined roles. Whatever system we have in the new place, it needs to be clearly spelled out so the community cannot be caught off guard by revelations about how things actually work.
In particular, I think there is value in overlap in moderation, as older mods have a lot of insights they can impart to younger mods. If it's always one or two mods together with 8 people who have been around awhile, it's probably not a big deal. If it's 8 new mods and 2 elders, it gets dicier. There's definitely a learning curve.
I think maybe a decent system would one where a moderator who is in good attending has the option to hang around as a mod emeritus of sorts for a defined period. They would not perform normal moderation duties, but they would be there to advise in situations where new moderators might be unsure of what to do in a situation. After the period is over, the old moderator steps down and becomes a regular user with regular user permissions.
I definitely feel that having overlap in positions of moderation and management is a good idea, to help with transition, as long as everyone is on the same page.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
+1
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
I think if any one user is blowing up not one but two threads with their old drama, it's extremely telling they should just stay a regular user.
I don't even care about them anymore. Let's talk about the other 18 people? I appreciate people saying impressions about the other users.
oh good yes let's turn this into yet another bad-faith politics thread where all anyone cares about is moral superiority, not like things can get any worse in here
Are people not allowed to have bad opinions about a candidate who isn't ElJeffe in your view?
+2
ManOHokutoKnight of the Bloody FistRegistered Userregular
It’s not Tef’s fault Trump won, the Democrats did that on their own
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef? The Australian who didn't vote and said people would have a problem with him for being a self-proclaimed communist, that Tef?
I've been doing a lot of of phone posting because of the realities of being Stuck at Work, but now that I have access to an actual keyboard, I figure I should share my board picks and my reasons.
Hope it goes without saying that I reserve the right to change my mind, and I've tried to be as impartial with these picks as I can be. Also, if I fucked up anybody's pronouns, I'm sorry, yell at me and I will fix it while feeling an appropriate degree of remorse.
Top Five Candidates (ATM):
Fishman has always been someone whose perspective I've valued greatly, and I respect him a hell of a lot. He's one of the kindest, most thoughtful posters I've ever encountered on the Forums, and I think his history on the boards has firmly cemented him as one of the people whose perspective and thoughts carry a lot of weight in a discussion. I think we'd be lucky to have him on the CoRe Board for those reasons... and because anyone who can do a full XCOM LP pulling recruits from our sorry and bedraggled ranks clearly has a lot of management experience we could stand to benefit from.
Tef's tenure as a member of the Transition Team has led some people to conclude that it might be better not to include him as a member of the Board, and while I understand that perspective, I think we would benefit immensely from letting him continue his efforts in a more permanent role in our new home. This board means a lot to me, and at times, the transition process has seemed daunting and frustrating, even as someone outside the Transition Team. But Tef's thoughtfulness and consideration in trying to build a better forum for all of us to enjoy, while helping to ego check the occasional crashout (mostly mine), has been an immense comfort, and greatly appreciated. If folks don't vote Tef into the board, I can understand some of the reasons why, but I think we'd be doing a disservice to ourselves.
tynic is here because when the robot uprising inevitably occurs, she will be the only one who can put in a good word for us. More importantly, I've come to view her as someone with an incisive and calculated view of problems, and I think that's a valuable perspective that the Board can benefit from. She's also smart, funny, and has offered views into this transition process that I have found both profound and deeply comforting. I'm glad she's offered her time and insight to the Board... and, again, the robot uprising thing is a non-zero factor.
Raijin Quickfoot should already be a shoo-in based on the fantastic work he's done organizing Secret Saints for all these years. I really regret that I haven't had the time / energy / financial security to contribute to it more, but his work keeping this vital tent pole of our community and exercise in solidarity going all this time is genuinely laudable, and I would hope that level of kindness and concern for our fellow community members would be a valued asset to the Board... even if it means we have to appoint a Steve to its ranks.
DrZiplock and I met for the first time a good long time ago at one of the first PAXes I attended, and while we may not run in the same circles as much anymore, I have always considered him a good dude and a valued member of these boards. I think his professional CV speaks for itself in terms of his ability to contribute practical decision making skills to the Board, and I've appreciated his input on the questions brought up in this thread.
And while they aren't currently in my Top Five picks - though, again, I reserve the right to change my mind - I would also strongly advocate for spono, amateurhour, Solysp, Fencingsax, Initiatefailure and Kelor. I hope y'all will understand if I keep this section brief, but just know that if y'all do end up on the Board, I would be extremely satisfied with that outcome, and I'd carry forward into CoRe with a lot of enthusiasm and hope for the future.
oh good yes let's turn this into yet another bad-faith politics thread where all anyone cares about is moral superiority, not like things can get any worse in here
Are people not allowed to have bad opinions about a candidate who isn't ElJeffe in your view?
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef? The Australian who didn't vote and said people would have a problem with him for being a self-proclaimed communist, that Tef?
It doesn't make a material difference to the people who die because of the canidate he wanted to win that he wanted it for accelerationist reasons.
That is an error of judgement at a level I don't want a board canidate to have.
I'm probably not going to vote for Tef, but this is a really uncharitable read on that post.
No, it isn't. "Force the Dems into the wilderness" "mitigate the effects of Trump". He wanted a Trump win. You can argue he wanted a hobbled Trump who had to deal with a hostile Congress but he wanted Trump.
As a result of the canidate he supported I don't expect to survive the next four years.
I think holding Gereg's blowup against Tef is unfair, frankly
Tef already posted with regards to their limited involvement in Gereg's selection and MI confirmed it. I don't think "a person I worked with on documents decided to self-immolate to lose an internet argument" is something I'd hold against them
I do feel Tef has done well in recent months to step back and take on a more neutral voice in general, and their understanding of community building and aspiration to grow the place speaks well to their character and desire to improve our community
I understand if with the broad candidate field that others may not rank them as highly due to their own views and interactions but that's the name of the game with STV
It seems almost a certainty that we are going to have an initial board that contains people with potentially wildly varied opinions. It will be important for this group to have a good working relationship and set aside differences once the rubber hits the road.
Do you feel that, as a board member, you would be willing to set aside any professional or personal differences you might have with the other members of the board, no matter who might make it in, in order to work towards bettering this community?
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
At this point I am willing to state that if you were an active participant with any of the D&D politics threads you probably shouldn't be running for anything (board/mod/etc) because good lord everyone involved is the most tiring people imaginable.
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
+5
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
I gotta say the whole taking advantage of the forum switch to completely ignore rules and common decency vibe we got here is pretty disheartening.
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef? The Australian who didn't vote and said people would have a problem with him for being a self-proclaimed communist, that Tef?
It doesn't make a material difference to the people who die because of the canidate he wanted to win that he wanted it for accelerationist reasons.
That is an error of judgement at a level I don't want a board canidate to have.
That is not supporting Trump no matter how you look at it. That is having a strategy for when/if Trump was elected. Completely different things.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
I think holding Gereg's blowup against Tef is unfair, frankly
Tef already posted with regards to their limited involvement in Gereg's selection and MI confirmed it. I don't think "a person I worked with on documents decided to self-immolate to lose an internet argument" is something I'd hold against them
I do feel Tef has done well in recent months to step back and take on a more neutral voice in general, and their understanding of community building and aspiration to grow the place speaks well to their character and desire to improve our community
I understand if with the broad candidate field that others may not rank them as highly due to their own views and interactions but that's the name of the game with STV
I don't really understand the qualm here. It read to me as Tef saying that Zag's statement wasn't accurate. My charitable read is that Zag may be underselling what the other members of Governance did during that time as there are several members? I suppose Tef could respond if he wants to clarify.
@Hahnsoo1 So Phoenix-D just gets to accuse someone of being a bigot for absolutely no justifiable reason and keep posting in this thread? That's the standard we're setting for this discussion?
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef? The Australian who didn't vote and said people would have a problem with him for being a self-proclaimed communist, that Tef?
It doesn't make a material difference to the people who die because of the canidate he wanted to win that he wanted it for accelerationist reasons.
That is an error of judgement at a level I don't want a board canidate to have.
That is not supporting Trump no matter how you look at it. That is having a strategy for when/if Trump was elected. Completely different things.
"you’re going to attempt to break the back of the corrupt gerontocracy that is the dem establishment, the time is now."
"Force the dems out into the wilderness now"
And in a follow up post
"’s expressly not an accelerationist. It’s about sending a clear message to the executive that their policy positions will not deliver them victories, ,"
I think holding Gereg's blowup against Tef is unfair, frankly
Tef already posted with regards to their limited involvement in Gereg's selection and MI confirmed it. I don't think "a person I worked with on documents decided to self-immolate to lose an internet argument" is something I'd hold against them
I do feel Tef has done well in recent months to step back and take on a more neutral voice in general, and their understanding of community building and aspiration to grow the place speaks well to their character and desire to improve our community
I understand if with the broad candidate field that others may not rank them as highly due to their own views and interactions but that's the name of the game with STV
I don't really understand the qualm here. It read to me as Tef saying that Zag's statement wasn't accurate. My charitable read is that Zag may be underselling what the other members of Governance did during that time as there are several members? I suppose Tef could respond if he wants to clarify.
This is my read on it as well; as part of the back and forth, Gereg basically said "I was doing a ton of work and you did nothing, you suck" and Zag said "I was the only one doing work, you suck", and Tef jumped in to say that was factually untrue since other members of the committee were doing work. That was neither supporting the fight as a whole nor the blowup that happened after that, just jumping in to ensure the governance committee didn't catch strays.
Tef for me is my number one pic, I think he is the best candidate for the board out of everybody on the forums
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Tef? The Australian who didn't vote and said people would have a problem with him for being a self-proclaimed communist, that Tef?
It doesn't make a material difference to the people who die because of the canidate he wanted to win that he wanted it for accelerationist reasons.
That is an error of judgement at a level I don't want a board canidate to have.
I'm probably not going to vote for Tef, but this is a really uncharitable read on that post.
No, it isn't. "Force the Dems into the wilderness" "mitigate the effects of Trump". He wanted a Trump win. You can argue he wanted a hobbled Trump who had to deal with a hostile Congress but he wanted Trump.
As a result of the canidate he supported I don't expect to survive the next four years.
I read that as the current leadership is not going to fight the republicans. Our only hope is newblood\new leadership.
Once again, probably not going to vote for Tef, and I don't see eye to eye with him on a lot of things, but this specific criticism doesn't feel like its made out of whole cloth.
Posts
Nobody can say he can't run, so that's a non starter, like who would even make that call?
There were definitely some posts suggestive of that. At least early on in the other discussion, anyway.
Tef already posted with regards to their limited involvement in Gereg's selection and MI confirmed it. I don't think "a person I worked with on documents decided to self-immolate to lose an internet argument" is something I'd hold against them
I do feel Tef has done well in recent months to step back and take on a more neutral voice in general, and their understanding of community building and aspiration to grow the place speaks well to their character and desire to improve our community
I understand if with the broad candidate field that others may not rank them as highly due to their own views and interactions but that's the name of the game with STV
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
I don't think someone who supported Trump winning the Presidency should be on the board. And Tef was explicitly arguing for just that because he felt the Dems needed to be "punished".
Oh fuck off
this post legit made me close the thread, but then i got really frustrated about it so i came back just to say i think you should really analyze what you're trying to do with a post like this and why it is you're doing that.
Tef? The Australian who didn't vote and said people would have a problem with him for being a self-proclaimed communist, that Tef?
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
Sometimes I read a post that makes me feel physical pain
This is one of them
I don't think that the bolded bit is moot in the context of this discussion about suitability for governance roles. Even if we're being exceedingly generous, it's evidence of poor judgement, and general obliviousness of the impact of one's actions. That absolutely bears on whether somebody is a good candidate to be in some sort of decision making position.
I agree that it's not grounds to just kick him out of the race, but it's totally appropriate that it's open for discussion and influences the result of the election.
Sorry a trans person objects to someone supporting the election of the most obviously viciously bigoted candidate in a long while.
I'm not in any way exaggerating. This wasn't "I'm not voting".
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
Yes. He supported Trump winning.
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/46469752#Comment_46469752
"After Trump, us" kinda of shit.
It doesn't make a material difference to the people who die because of the canidate he wanted to win that he wanted it for accelerationist reasons.
That is an error of judgement at a level I don't want a board canidate to have.
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
I think the biggest issue with the mod forum access kerfuffle was a lack of clearly stated expectations and clearly defined roles. Whatever system we have in the new place, it needs to be clearly spelled out so the community cannot be caught off guard by revelations about how things actually work.
In particular, I think there is value in overlap in moderation, as older mods have a lot of insights they can impart to younger mods. If it's always one or two mods together with 8 people who have been around awhile, it's probably not a big deal. If it's 8 new mods and 2 elders, it gets dicier. There's definitely a learning curve.
I think maybe a decent system would one where a moderator who is in good attending has the option to hang around as a mod emeritus of sorts for a defined period. They would not perform normal moderation duties, but they would be there to advise in situations where new moderators might be unsure of what to do in a situation. After the period is over, the old moderator steps down and becomes a regular user with regular user permissions.
I definitely feel that having overlap in positions of moderation and management is a good idea, to help with transition, as long as everyone is on the same page.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I don't even care about them anymore. Let's talk about the other 18 people? I appreciate people saying impressions about the other users.
Are people not allowed to have bad opinions about a candidate who isn't ElJeffe in your view?
I'm probably not going to vote for Tef, but this is a really uncharitable read on that post.
Hope it goes without saying that I reserve the right to change my mind, and I've tried to be as impartial with these picks as I can be. Also, if I fucked up anybody's pronouns, I'm sorry, yell at me and I will fix it while feeling an appropriate degree of remorse.
Top Five Candidates (ATM):
Fishman has always been someone whose perspective I've valued greatly, and I respect him a hell of a lot. He's one of the kindest, most thoughtful posters I've ever encountered on the Forums, and I think his history on the boards has firmly cemented him as one of the people whose perspective and thoughts carry a lot of weight in a discussion. I think we'd be lucky to have him on the CoRe Board for those reasons... and because anyone who can do a full XCOM LP pulling recruits from our sorry and bedraggled ranks clearly has a lot of management experience we could stand to benefit from.
Tef's tenure as a member of the Transition Team has led some people to conclude that it might be better not to include him as a member of the Board, and while I understand that perspective, I think we would benefit immensely from letting him continue his efforts in a more permanent role in our new home. This board means a lot to me, and at times, the transition process has seemed daunting and frustrating, even as someone outside the Transition Team. But Tef's thoughtfulness and consideration in trying to build a better forum for all of us to enjoy, while helping to ego check the occasional crashout (mostly mine), has been an immense comfort, and greatly appreciated. If folks don't vote Tef into the board, I can understand some of the reasons why, but I think we'd be doing a disservice to ourselves.
tynic is here because when the robot uprising inevitably occurs, she will be the only one who can put in a good word for us. More importantly, I've come to view her as someone with an incisive and calculated view of problems, and I think that's a valuable perspective that the Board can benefit from. She's also smart, funny, and has offered views into this transition process that I have found both profound and deeply comforting. I'm glad she's offered her time and insight to the Board... and, again, the robot uprising thing is a non-zero factor.
Raijin Quickfoot should already be a shoo-in based on the fantastic work he's done organizing Secret Saints for all these years. I really regret that I haven't had the time / energy / financial security to contribute to it more, but his work keeping this vital tent pole of our community and exercise in solidarity going all this time is genuinely laudable, and I would hope that level of kindness and concern for our fellow community members would be a valued asset to the Board... even if it means we have to appoint a Steve to its ranks.
DrZiplock and I met for the first time a good long time ago at one of the first PAXes I attended, and while we may not run in the same circles as much anymore, I have always considered him a good dude and a valued member of these boards. I think his professional CV speaks for itself in terms of his ability to contribute practical decision making skills to the Board, and I've appreciated his input on the questions brought up in this thread.
And while they aren't currently in my Top Five picks - though, again, I reserve the right to change my mind - I would also strongly advocate for spono, amateurhour, Solysp, Fencingsax, Initiatefailure and Kelor. I hope y'all will understand if I keep this section brief, but just know that if y'all do end up on the Board, I would be extremely satisfied with that outcome, and I'd carry forward into CoRe with a lot of enthusiasm and hope for the future.
yup that's what I said, you nailed it
No, it isn't. "Force the Dems into the wilderness" "mitigate the effects of Trump". He wanted a Trump win. You can argue he wanted a hobbled Trump who had to deal with a hostile Congress but he wanted Trump.
As a result of the canidate he supported I don't expect to survive the next four years.
To be clear, it was this post in particular, where he was backing up gereg's accusation about zag's work on the committee that I was referencing: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/47056683/#Comment_47056683
@spono
@Tef
@amateurhour
@Fishman
@kime
@Kelor
@Solysp
@Disco11
@Inquisitor77
@Moridin889
@Infidel
@ahava
@Fencingsax
@DrZiplock
@Richy
@Raijin Quickfoot
@initiatefailure
It seems almost a certainty that we are going to have an initial board that contains people with potentially wildly varied opinions. It will be important for this group to have a good working relationship and set aside differences once the rubber hits the road.
Do you feel that, as a board member, you would be willing to set aside any professional or personal differences you might have with the other members of the board, no matter who might make it in, in order to work towards bettering this community?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
That is not supporting Trump no matter how you look at it. That is having a strategy for when/if Trump was elected. Completely different things.
I don't really understand the qualm here. It read to me as Tef saying that Zag's statement wasn't accurate. My charitable read is that Zag may be underselling what the other members of Governance did during that time as there are several members? I suppose Tef could respond if he wants to clarify.
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
@Hahnsoo1 So Phoenix-D just gets to accuse someone of being a bigot for absolutely no justifiable reason and keep posting in this thread? That's the standard we're setting for this discussion?
"Force the dems out into the wilderness now"
And in a follow up post
"’s expressly not an accelerationist. It’s about sending a clear message to the executive that their policy positions will not deliver them victories, ,"
So yes. It is.
This is my read on it as well; as part of the back and forth, Gereg basically said "I was doing a ton of work and you did nothing, you suck" and Zag said "I was the only one doing work, you suck", and Tef jumped in to say that was factually untrue since other members of the committee were doing work. That was neither supporting the fight as a whole nor the blowup that happened after that, just jumping in to ensure the governance committee didn't catch strays.
I read that as the current leadership is not going to fight the republicans. Our only hope is newblood\new leadership.
Once again, probably not going to vote for Tef, and I don't see eye to eye with him on a lot of things, but this specific criticism doesn't feel like its made out of whole cloth.
What were you hoping to be Lord of