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. @tynic
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 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. @tynic
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 will say this, transparency is key. I’m not sure how long admin or mods should retain access yet. That’s something I’d have to think about some more and it be something that’s on a case by case basis.
But I will 100% be sure the community is aware of who is and isn’t given access. No surprises.
I’d like to see an overlap if possible. If one mod is leaving we can institute a new mod before they leave so they can be eased into the position. I’m not going to force other mods to train a new mod but I feel if we have the right people, that won’t be a problem.
0
ahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
this might need a few posts to get all my answers in but i did my best to answer every question from the batsignals I saw
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.
Bonus Question First:
Former mods, former admins, and former board members shouldn't have access to any of the tools/resources that they had when they were active. If you have left with ill will, you don't get those toys and tools. If you have left on great terms, then thank you for your service and now your watch has ended...others will take it from here.
With that in mind, I would advocate for a transition period where institutional knowledge can be passed over so that there isn't a loss there. Also, staggering replacements is always good so there is old blood and new blood working together.
Training is key, and this is going to be on the job training in a live fire kinda way. It's not an ideal for people to get their feet under them. We still have a number of experienced mods who are able to help show the ropes, as well as all the developers of CoRe to show how all the tools play together.
1) What specific concerns do you have (with the KDs, Core Values, transition in general, for non-exclusive example) as we open CoRe up and what specific steps will you be taking to address them?
I feel like I do not have any specific concerns. I have vague worries and anxiety, but a lot of that is hard to separate from my overall general worry and anxiety that is just part of life. If there were anything in particular that I could point to, it would be the overall feeling that all of this is being over-engineered to the point of ridiculous. But that is what the community has wanted and what the overall decision process has been, so my opinion on how this has taken too long and been too complicated is just that, my opinion and I have gone along with the majority.
2) Things are likely to be busy and chaotic for a while, what do you feel like your first 3 months after taking office should entail? Knowing that time is fickle with plans, what would be your outline for the rest of the year after that?
Should or will? What I think my time in the office Should entail is choosing valuable, professional, and acceptable moderators for the forums, setting up good workable guidelines for the moderators to do their volunteer jobs, and then letting go. Being available should any fires appear, but overall trusting the people we hand authority to’s ability to actuall weild that authority with some autonomy. What Will the first months entail? Likely trying to maintain calm and working relationships with other board members while putting out fires and dealing with people trying to game a new system to demand retribution for things that were meant to have been forgotten. Hopefully, the community is much more towards what I think the first months Should Be and not what I think they Will Be.
3) How have you contributed to the transition process? Whether this is being on the TT or involved in a committee helping draft or participating in public discussions or any other measure you took to participate. Would you do anything differently if given the chance?
I have been in many conversations and discussions with Transition Team members, though not on the forums as I feel things get too clogged down with drama and conversations are easy to get lost.
4) How will you square posting as a Board Member versus posting a member just maeking post? Do you have any concerns about potentially being baited into misconduct or something actionable?
I intend to post as myself the majority of the time. However if I am to post as a Board Member due to whatever absolute breakdown of the chain of command that would require me to do so, then it would be made obvious which “Voice” I am using. I do not intend to post as a Board Member without the knowledge and consensus of my fellow Board Members. We are a team who are working for the best for the community, not individuals running our own fiefdoms. If any situation arises requiring a Board Member to post in our capacity as a Board Member, and that happens to be myself at the time, then I will do with that as my role, not as a person, but as a spokesvoice for an entity. It is entirely separate ‘personalities’ if you like.
5) Do you see CoRe having a route of growth or is it just running out the clock? What does CoRe have working in it's favor for growing and what is working against it and what, if any, actions will you take to address these challenges?
It is hard to really predict growth/loss at these times. Everything around us is changing at rapid speeds. Do I wish for CoRe to grow? Sure. Would I like to be able to have a welcoming, safe space to be able to offer a home and comfort to more people on the Wilds of the Internet at this time? A place to help foster the character growth and personal learning that we all experienced through our decades+ on Penny Arcade Forums? Yes. Am I a better person than I was when I joined? Yes. Do I want to provide a place for others to find and also have that kind of growth? Definitely. Am I sure on how to achieve that in this current day and age, with this current state of the world and the Internet? No, not quite. But I try to live my life to a motto that I heard somewhere, “Be the person you needed as a child”. We have the opportunity here to create a space that is open, welcoming, kind, and fostering growth and understanding. In a world that is actively growing more hostile every day.
6) There are times I have attempted to raise concerns in PA, even in the last 24 hours and also inside this very thread, and have felt blown off. How do you reach out to members like me to actually make us feel heard and like we matter as members of a community rather than obstacles to be dealt with, and how would you extend that to Members who are far more jaded and feel that loudly public blowups are the only way to get noticed about legitimate concerns?
My first reply would be to direct you to the Moderators, as this is their position. In my opinion they should be your first point of contact. Through private means if you are not getting any interaction in a thread. Especially in a fast moving thread where things are getting heated, it is often easy to miss people trying to ask and be polite in the middle of a tornado. Private direct communication is the best first method. If it were me who was feeling unheard or unseen in a fast thread, I would take myself to PMs with at least two moderators to discuss things. I would send a message but accept that if things are going that fast and that hard, it might be a while before my question can be seen. If after whatever time period passes and you feel that you have not been seen/heard/listened to, then I would approach at least two board members. Lay out what the issue was, what your thoughts were, and how you feel overlooked. At that point it would be on the board to check in with not only you, but with the Moderators you tried communicating with. And from there, ideally, as a group we would be able to have a discussion about things and hopefully resolve, or at least respond to, your queries. But in my opinion, Board Members should absolutely not be a First line response to Community Members.
7) I hate that I have to ask something like this, but should the government of a State pass a law that binds The Coin Return Society in such a way that directly contravenes the core values as adopted what would you do?
This is a tricky item to answer because it is such a nebulous question. And my Neurodivergent brain has a hard time with straight Yes/No questions at the best of times. I would take whatever steps I could to protect our community members. And absolutely insist on the Board engaging the assistance of qualified legal counsel to facilitate that. However, without knowing an exact scenario and without knowing the particular local laws, etc, it would be difficult for me to give an answer beyond “do what I can to protect the people under my charge, and primarily contact a lawyer to assist in doing that”
What time zone are you situated in and what are your general hours of being "active" on the forums?
I am in New Zealand, currently GMT + 13, although that is changing to GMT +12 this weekend. My active times on the forums spread from about 10am my time to about 10pm my time during Tuesday – Friday. I am also available over the weekend, but with less consistency as I have family commitments and on Mondays I am available in the afternoons my time due to friend commitments.
1. When was the last time you changed your stance on a previously-held position based on new information? How often does it happen?
I change my mind often on my positions based on new information. That’s what a person is meant to do. We are meant to take in new information, use it to adjust our current views, and then adjust from there. It is a constant thing.
2. How difficult do you find it to apologize to someone when you feel aggrieved? Do you require a cooling off period where you need to disengage to reach that point?
This is a complicated question. Am I justified in feeling aggrieved? If I am the one with the grievance, why am I apologizing to the person that hurt me? Are they also apologizing to me? Have they acknowledged the hurt they caused me, or are they denying my right to feel hurt? As for a cooling off period, yes. Of course I do. I’m human. Emotions don’t turn on and off like a light switch. How much of a cooling off period is required depends entirely on the hurt given. Do I hold a grudge? Yes. Can I work through and past it? Yes. Will it take time? Yes. How much time? Depends on the situation, the hurt caused and felt, and whether I feel that my own feelings in the situation were considered. If I am simply expected to ‘be the better person’ without having my hurt and injuries even acknowledged as being valid, it could take some time.
3. How much does your general stress level vary from week to week? Are there outside stressors that could prevent you from participating in board activities?
I’m a parent of an undiagnosed neurodivergent child who is rapidly, all too rapidly for my liking, approaching puberty. There is some stress there. However I am semi-retired at this point. Will there be stress in my life? Of course there will be. It’s stress. It’s life. Could they prevent me from participating in Board Activities? Well, sure they could. Or they might not. But It would be my duty as a Board Member to communicate that clearly to the other members of the board and do my best to find ways to work through the issues that arise, as they arise. That’s what responsibility requires.
4. Have you at any point during the transition process considered not moving forward to CR? What was the crux of the issue, and has it been resolved to your satisfaction?
Of course I have. There have been instances where I have questioned whether or not it is time to find another community or simply accept the loss of this one. Anybody who says that they haven’t considered just not moving over might just be lying to themselves. There is no real crux of the issue, as it has been a blend of me trying to decide if I am simply too old for this, or if I want to deal with politics of people on an internet forum in an age when people feel it is their primary goal to be as nasty to others as possible. Has it been resolved? No. Not completely. But again, a lot of that is within my own head. I have made a decision to continue over to Coin Return at this time. Should I find in the future that it is simply not what I was hoping for it to become, or that I am feeling uncomfortable or unsafe for any reason, I will make that decision then and will go through the processes chosen to leave.
5. What is more important to you: finding consensus with people you disagree with or holding fast to your convictions?
This answer will depend on what exactly the situation is. I can come to consensus on many things, like pizza toppings etc. I have convictions that I will hold fast to and consensus be damned. But without having a specific case in front of me, I cannot actually give a specific answer. Context is crucial for these kinds of statements and answers.
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited March 31
ElJeffe yes. 1) I'll listen to anyone's opinion earnestly, even if I disagree with it and 2) The Board should be varied somewhat in opinions so that we're not just rubber stamping forms or turning back into PA's closed system.
amateurhour on
are YOU on the beer list?
+3
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Some general questions for the board candidates, on what have been some serious firecracker topics.
-your feelings on generative ai, and protection of artists.
-your feelings on the Palestinian genocide.
-your feelings on support of minority & LGBT posters, given the PA forums history of driving such people away
-your feelings on people playing politeness politics while antagonizing other users
-your feelings on pizza toppings
To be clear, this is explicitly aimed at the Board candidates here. I know these are contentious topics, I'd rather folks who aren't in the running for the board refrain from debating or answering them. (Please, things are on fire enough for the mods already)
Re: AI
As someone who lives in Silicon Valley and has had to deal firsthand with the "AI revolution" I am incredibly skeptical of the type of Generative AI everyone is freaking out over, particularly in the corporate and startup space. The technology is barely understood by the people who build it, and not understood at all by the people funding and pushing for it.
From an ethical standpoint I have serious issues with the sheer amount of capital, hardware, and energy that has been thrown into Generative AI towards clearly-inappropriate use cases, to the detriment of incredibly socially-valuable, highly-appropriate use cases, such as protein identification and design. In addition, I think it is blatantly obvious and documented that the current leaders in the Generative AI space have ignored existing copyright and intellectual patent laws to build their AIs without fear of reprisal or regulatory punishment. Generative AI using any human-generated content without legal approval and, where appropriate, compensation is a clear violation. At minimum, the lack of attribution and "black box" nature of the technology should give people pause as to what it is actually doing, and whether it is simply regurgitating, via overwrought autocomplete, someone else's work.
I do believe there is a time and place for Generative AI to be used as a tool. Much like, by way of analogy, you might consider Photoshop to be the tool of an artist, or spellcheck to be the tool of a writer. But currently, the way it is haphazardly and aimlessly applied to any and all problems is a glaring indictment of our quasi-capitalist system, another salvo in the long line of dumb shit that we've done in the ~decade or so to make things worse for everyone without clear benefits to the vast majority of people (see also: cryptocurrencies & NFTs).
Re: Palestinian genocide
I believe Israel is perpetuating genocide against Palestinians. I believe this is an intentional policy by the Israeli government, supported by the Israeli people (to the extent that those who oppose it have not been successful, and the rest are either complicit or sit idly by and let it happen). I believe that there has been a half-century-long intentional policy by the Israeli government and its right-wing supporters to conflate Israeli policies with anti-Semitism in order to silence what would otherwise be appropriate and ethical opposition to their pro-conflict, pro-genocide approach. In the context of American politics, I view Israel's support as primarily being provided via evangelicals who believe that a war in the Middle East is a necessary condition to the Rapture, alongside conventional conservative views which see a "democratic" state which - more importantly - buys American arms, to be an overall Good Thing (or if not a Good Thing, then a Necessary Thing to maintain American hegemony).
Re: Minorities & LGBTQ+
As a minority myself, I believe very strongly in the rights of minorities, the disenfranchised, and LGBTQ+ folks to live their lives as they see fit without fear of discrimination, harassment, or abuse.
Re: Politeness Politics
As mentioned in other responses, I would prefer a concrete example of this to provide feedback upon, rather than vague generalities. It's almost certain that this question means different things to different people. More broadly speaking, the only things I will say at this point is that politeness and decorum do, in fact, matter, but that they also are not a shield that should protect you if you are trolling or harassing other users.
Re: Pizza Toppings
I prefer magherita, pepperoni & red onion, and occasionally a good mushroom vegan pizza with a squeeze of lemon.
As a general principle, people who like olives on pizza are provably terrible human beings who have poor taste not just in pizza toppings, but all other aspects of their lives.
As an admittedly less active forum member (I lurk basically every day, but don't post that much), I don't really know that many of the candidates to currently make what I would consider an informed decision. I also want to try and not let my own perception of forumers I do know of potentially tarnish my impression of ones I do not. In that regard, I have one question which I feel would help me get a better idea of ones interpretation and commitment to our stated community goals, namely respecting and protecting our marginalized members.
I do not want @ anybody, because this is a question for any candidate who wishes to answer.
What are your thoughts on the term "identity politics" and how it is used? I am mostly concerned with its use on the forums, but feel free to talk about other spaces you've seen it if you feel it helps with an answer.
And for clarification, I am not specifically defining "identity politics" because I want to gauge how potential respondents see it themselves. It's possible that an individual's definition of the term might make them an unsuitable choice for me before even addressing its usage.
The term "identity politics" means different things to different people. I don't particularly care for the phrase because it generally acts as a slogan or watchword to indicate something else, often as a distraction to a real, underlying issue or situation.
There is an obvious intuitive concept which is that people who have had similar experiences or characteristics to your own, particularly those you heavily identify with, may be easier to empathize with or may share similar values or opinions. But that's a general trend, like older people tending to have higher rates of dementia. It's not an actual thing you can grapple with other than as an academic exercise - in which case, unless you are a pollster or sociologist, you are well out of your depth to define and analyze the term appropriately.
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.
The "simple" part of my answer is that trust was harmed. Part of what we are doing no matter the mod panel is establishing a new system that has rebuilding that trust as a goal. I would always advocate for transparency but especially so in the case where we hope to regain that trust. I think a clear definition of access and role and expectations being visible is already an improvement. I think moderation being more evenly seen across the boards will reduce tensions already. I do think the handoff to new mods is going to be super critical especially the first one but even just as we cycle people in and out over time. It's something I would definitely think about more, but I've experienced a few set ups that could be a fit to what we do. One group I work with has "outgoing president" as a role. They're not board, they don't vote. They are just the former president acting as a resource for getting the new one up to speed and a source of advice. Similarly a thing that maybe can't be planned for is overlap, but If someone knows they'd like to step down and is willing to they could be an invaluable guide to a new person getting up to speed. Another org I've engaged with has a "spokes of a wheel" kind of system for training where all the current spokes teach their piece of expertise to the new person and by the end you have someone who is trained on everything without requiring one person to dedicate all of their time. There's certainly options, but ultimately I agree that the longer we can maintain unbroken knowledge chains, the stronger the system will be.
to the bonus, I don't think time is as important as clarity. Do people know this person still has that access or is acting in that role? So much of our pain has been leaders doing/not doing things in secret, just because PACorp didn't have to answer to us. But a board/exec/mods that is empowered by us actually does have to answer to us
initiatefailure on
0
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
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?
Well, I don’t have any personal differences with anyone on the list so there’s no concern there. As far as working with people with differing opinions…I’m always going to err on the side of the forumers and forums. I will fight for my opinions but I’m reasonable.
+2
ahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
As directly as possible, what is a quality of yours that would make you a poor board member, and how did you reconcile with yourself that it wasn't a disqualification for serving on the Board?
I have an instinct to avoid conflict at first. I will try to wait out a situation until it cools enough for actual conversation to happen, instead of immediate reaction. This may not be the most desirable thing for this fast paced internet where everything is Instant Gratification. I do not, however, feel that waiting for calm before speaking because screaming is scary is disqualifying. I actually think it is a rather important trait to have. Not everything can or should be solved in the instant it is brought up, not everything can or should be Instant Gratification. Being deliberate is not a vice.
What are you most excited for about moving to a community lead model vs what we have had in the recent past?
I have no real answer for this. I have no experience with a community lead model and so can’t explain how it will be better or worse or equivalent to what we have now. It will be an adventure and something different to occupy my time with. Other than that, not knowing what to expect, we’ll see.
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?
I am a big believer in ‘Institutional Memory’, and not just the Season 7 West Wing episode. There is a chance that people who get selected to be Mods on Coin Return will have little recent, if any, experience with moderating a forum and community of this size. As such I feel that having access to previous moderators who have that experience is crucial. What that will look like in practical terms, I do not fully know. Whether it’s a separate channel or private messaging system set up to ask for advice or support, or if it’s something more formal within the structure of Xenforo, I don’t know. I do not even know that former Moderators will need to have access to Moderation forums in order to be available to provide advice.
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?
A lot of this will depend on who gets elected. But I would say as soon as the elected Board gets a feel for how levers and buttons work, which button goes where, and where the tea kettle is, then anybody not in power should not be able to access the tea kettle. They have moved out of the flat, so to speak, they don’t need to eat the biscuits in the cupboard. Ideally, I would say that once the Board is elected and Mods selected there would be a fortnight to a month of handover time, as would be normal to expect in any job doing things correctly, and then the locks changed.
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?
Yes. I am capable of being a professional adult in a professional setting. I have in the past worked well with people who believed I should have died in the concentration camps and they told me so to my face. I didn’t associate with them during social events at work, or outside of work. But I am capable of communicating with people who either hate me or I hate them, or even have a vague dislike and distrust of in a strictly professional manner.
Two questions for you fine folks if you don't mind:
- given the reorg involves a full restructuring, we're going to have a whole lot of people who identified with spaces that will no longer exist. How do you expect to promote unification and bringing the community together? Do you have any initiatives or policy thoughts in mind?
- do you have any thoughts on what specific actions you will take to build out our community? Do you have thoughts on crafting a new culture, creating a welcoming space for new posters, or finding ways to promote the forum to bring in posters who are not being introduced to it by existing ones?
I definitely want to foster some better conversations in movie and tv threads. There's a lot of static in them that I think could be ironed out, but I don't have anything concrete in mind just yet.
I do want to build the community. Me being who I am, am not great at that unless you want a bunch of people from a TN farmer's market joining the forum (you don't). I would say like some charity drives or twitch streams with some of our more popular online members would be cool to bring in new blood or raise awareness to the world that Forums can still survive for us olds.
(joke answer) I will get my "farming" and "slice of life" tags reinstated on my farm thread on CR and everyone will flock to that first
are YOU on the beer list?
0
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
First, I do want to say Thank You for stepping up for the community (and the rest of the candidates too! I do appreciate folks willing to put it out there for this community - even if I disagree with a few of them).
I do have some hesitation though.
There are members of this community that are very much 1) against the genocide in Palestine, 2) against the illegal expansion settlements and violence in the west bank, but have also indicated (at least as I understand them right now) that the controversial "River to the Sea" slogan makes them feel less safe and unwelcome in this community because of the historical usage in previous decades being a call to genocide (for both sides!) - Especially when there are plenty of other crisp, clear and most importantly less divisive ways to show support for Palestine ("Free Palestine!", "Stop the Fascist!", "No Genocide!", "Palestinian-Israeli Peace Now!", etc),
Why do you feel qualified to shepherd a reasonably diverse community when specifically using terminology/slogans that is divisive while there are plenty of good alternatives to achieve the same message?
(specifically, Raijin - you used it in an answer in this very thread, and Kelor you own both the thread in SE++ AND the new thread on the CoRe forums where you've placed this in the title)
For the rest of the candidates, what are your thoughts on how to handle occurrences of one part of the community using a slogan (for whatever issue) that specifically hurts another part of the community when there are less divisive/harmful alternatives?
0
ahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Question for everyone, there's been an effort over the last year or two to basically ban posting of Twitter embeds on the forums. What are your thoughts on this, are you for or against it? Please explain your reasoning.
I would personally prefer Twitter screenshots if it’s absolutely necessary to provide anything from Twitter. I do not use the site, I have not used it in over 14 years. I will not click on twitter links to ‘read more’ as I do not wish to have my single digit added to any engagement of a platform run by a white supremacist billionaire. I do not know the full technical jargon behind what an embed does with regards to engagement, ad revenue, etc so I cannot and will not pretend to know what I am talking about with that. But if the only way to get your point across is to post a twitter link without any further context or commentary of your own, then your point is kind of irrelevant. If you are using a twitter link to back up your argument, but the only source you can find is Twitter, then maybe find a better source. If you are posting the Twitter link because “hahaha, this is so funny and I need everybody to see this perfect joke”, then a Screenshot of said perfect joke should be just as acceptable and able to convey the absolutely hilarity of the situation. No linking or embed needed to show a photo of a cute cat in bread.
why, in your estimation, would any of the voters possibly view you as a piece of shit? what do you think you are contributing to this? what do you think you have no control over? how will you adjust how you interact accordingly going forward as a member of the board, literally holding people's money in your hands?
I’m a Jew who believes in the existence of a state of Israel, although not this current state as it is presently. Pretty sure that disqualifies me for about half of the people here, nuance be damned. I have no control over the fact that I am ethnically Jewish and have a deep spiritual and religious tie to being Jewish and a deep pride in my identity. I have no control that there are people who do not understand, either through malice or ignorance, the difference between being a Jew, being a Zionist, and being a supporter of the current state of Israel’s government and actions. I have no control over people refusing to listen to nuance, or even to acknowledge that nuance exists. How will I adjust? I am who I am. But unless someone decides they want to use my identity against me in some way, I see no reason why it would come into play. And if I somehow end up anywhere near controlling other people’s money, something has gone wrong. I am not the Treasurer. I am not a Financial Officer. I should be having no interaction in financial anything with anybody’s money.
-your feelings on generative ai, and protection of artists.
Artists are key to the function and growth of society. I like that I can take a nebulous concept of a character in my head and get a generated rendering of it better than anything I could do on my own or afford to pay somebody else to do for me. But it is not something I would use for anything outside of my own amusement.
-your feelings on the Palestinian genocide.
Fuck Netanyahu. Fuck Hamas. The latter has continually made my life as a Jewish woman in the diaspora a tenuously safe thing. The former has made my life as a Jewish woman in the diaspora a definitely unsafe existence. There are no good answers, there is no good in any of this and there is very little ‘less bad’.
-your feelings on support of minority & LGBT posters, given the PA forums history of driving such people away
I am a minority. I am LGBTQ+. PA Forums are among the safest online that I have felt as a member of those communities in a long time. Until recently. And that is even within the LGBTQ community here driving away people that fit under the umbrella. I have distinct memories of gay men and even trans forumers being explicitly told they were not welcome or not enough because they held different views or different social statuses.
-your feelings on people playing politeness politics while antagonizing other users
Outright aggressive bullying has no place in a community. Any community. Words that we use and choose to use matter. Subtle microaggressive bullying also has no place in a community. Asking a person who is disagreeing with me to speak to me in tones and words that are not the same tone and words as an emotionally abusive partner is not ‘politeness politics’ as it is asking for some common ground and decency.
-your feelings on pizza toppings
I tend to go for just cheese pizza. Mushroom and green pepper also acceptable. I do not like the texture of onions, so a standard ‘veggie’ option is out for me. And almost any ‘meat’ type pizza will contain some form of pork. Cheese is the easiest option.
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 idea that outgoing moderators (I assume we're talking about the ones that are retiring in good standing) can help out and offer advice to current mods is great. I don't know if the rules currently support that, maybe not, and if that's the case, so be it. But in any other field this would be considered a really valuable opportunity, and I don't see any reason why this is different. Even here on the PA forums, it seems like it was the case that multiple mods appreciated the input of ex-mods, from what has been said.
I guess just to be honest, trying to say "ex-mods can only access the moderation forum for 4 months!" just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Best I can tell, there's not really any good examples of that being a problem, nor any real indication it was ever going to be. So like... whatevs? But in the end, that should be something the community has agreement and understanding on. It's not something that I feel strongly enough that I'm going to argue excessively for it or anything, but since you're asking my own opinion on it, there ya go
I feel like the admin stuff is similar. If you have an admin who's just retiring and they've been a good community member, letting them be able to be a mentor-figure to the incoming admin is just a good practice. Again, something that would be invaluable in many fields like this.
Folks don't pay attention to all the inner workings of stuff, and things like this generally don't need an announcement. So, I see why people missed it on PA, and so it should be codified in the rules (or similar) for reference on CoRe. But even then, you'll have folks who didn't know about it. Just, something to keep in mind if we do end up going down this route
I don't think this is really something the board gets to decide, though, so just my own thoughts.
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?
Yes, although I definitely have preferences on who I'd hope to work with
- given the reorg involves a full restructuring, we're going to have a whole lot of people who identified with spaces that will no longer exist. How do you expect to promote unification and bringing the community together? Do you have any initiatives or policy thoughts in mind?
In all honesty, I expect people will find ways, despite the best efforts of any team, to self-select back into their chosen families. I don’t really see it as my job, or anybody’s job, to make people ‘get along’ if they just do not mix. Unification is a utopia dream, but not one that I feel is actually going to be realistic to achieve, nor is it necessarily a goal to be aimed for. If people are happy to coexist besides one another, then so be it. Coexist.
- do you have any thoughts on what specific actions you will take to build out our community? Do you have thoughts on crafting a new culture, creating a welcoming space for new posters, or finding ways to promote the forum to bring in posters who are not being introduced to it by existing ones?
For the rest of the candidates, what are your thoughts on how to handle occurrences of one part of the community using a slogan (for whatever issue) that specifically hurts another part of the community when there are less divisive/harmful alternatives?
"Do the Least Harm and the Most Good" is a core belief of mine. If there is a slogan that is being used that causes harm, and there is another way to express the sentiment behind it that causes less harm, use the other way. Being pithy at the expense of others is just another form of bullying. Especially when you know that your pith causes harm.
First, I do want to say Thank You for stepping up for the community (and the rest of the candidates too! I do appreciate folks willing to put it out there for this community - even if I disagree with a few of them).
I do have some hesitation though.
There are members of this community that are very much 1) against the genocide in Palestine, 2) against the illegal expansion settlements and violence in the west bank, but have also indicated (at least as I understand them right now) that the controversial "River to the Sea" slogan makes them feel less safe and unwelcome in this community because of the historical usage in previous decades being a call to genocide (for both sides!) - Especially when there are plenty of other crisp, clear and most importantly less divisive ways to show support for Palestine ("Free Palestine!", "Stop the Fascist!", "No Genocide!", "Palestinian-Israeli Peace Now!", etc),
Why do you feel qualified to shepherd a reasonably diverse community when specifically using terminology/slogans that is divisive while there are plenty of good alternatives to achieve the same message?
(specifically, Raijin - you used it in an answer in this very thread, and Kelor you own both the thread in SE++ AND the new thread on the CoRe forums where you've placed this in the title)
For the rest of the candidates, what are your thoughts on how to handle occurrences of one part of the community using a slogan (for whatever issue) that specifically hurts another part of the community when there are less divisive/harmful alternatives?
Hurting another part of the community with your words when there are easy alternatives to use that do not hurt your fellow members is Not Okay. Sometimes things happen by accident, and that's regrettable but does happen. But once awareness is made, we should do our best to be welcoming to everyone, not just the groups of people we prefer more at any given moment.
Sometimes this will cause conflict, sometimes there won't be clear answers. It's important to try and communicate in good faith with each other to navigate these. In this specific situation, though, there is a clear answer, and it's to use an alternative that doesn't alienate another marginalized community on the forums. There was nothing especially relevant about this phrase to the message folks wanted to get across (that of protesting the genocide).
For the rest of the candidates, what are your thoughts on how to handle occurrences of one part of the community using a slogan (for whatever issue) that specifically hurts another part of the community when there are less divisive/harmful alternatives?
This is tricky, and I will start by saying upfront that I don't have all the answers.
In the case of the specific slogan that was an issue here, I will say that while I sympathize with the people on both sides of the divide, ultimately I think destickying the thread, so at least the slogan was not boldly viewable to the people I know who were personally made to feel unsafe by seeing it, was the right call.
In the general case, the solution is going to involve people on both sides willing to consider viewpoints other than their own. That doesn't mean "the answer is always somewhere in the middle" or anything so pat, but I do think that if someone asks you "how do you think someone on the other side if this feels," you should be able to answer honestly. Even if they're "wrong" by some metric, they're still people.
I also think it's worth pointing out that the audience of any given thread or title is not "the world", it's "the people in CoRe," and I think it's imperative that we communicate to them that they matter. If there's a more sensitive way to express an idea that doesn't hurt or alienate people here, I think it's probably, all things equal, the best bet.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
+6
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
When was the last time you changed your stance on a previously-held position based on new information? How often does it happen?
How difficult do you find it to apologize to someone when you feel aggrieved? Do you require a cooling off period where you need to disengage to reach that point?
How much does your general stress level vary from week to week? Are there outside stressors that could prevent you from participating in board activities?
Have you at any point during the transition process considered not moving forward to CR? What was the crux of the issue, and has it been resolved to your satisfaction?
What is more important to you: finding consensus with people you disagree with or holding fast to your convictions?
Happens all the time. I don't recall a specific thing recently, but as a broad personal example I was raised evangelical Christian but left the religion in my teenage years and have been agnostic (functionally atheist) since. While I do have clearly-voiced opinions, they aren't necessarily strong in the sense that I can change them given the right evidence and information. I have absolutely no problem being wrong in public or in private. A personal motto of mine is, "Would you rather be right or would you rather do good?"
If I truly believe I'm aggrieved then I generally don't apologize because I was the one who was harmed. If you meant how difficult it is for me to apologize if I've done something wrong or offended someone, then that's a very easy thing. I might be angry in the moment, but I am pretty good at stepping away and coming back with an honest assessment of my own fault in something.
I don't have a particularly stressful job in the sense that it requires tons of time. I don't have a lot of outside stressors, either.
I have seriously considered not moving to Coin Return, yes. But decided that at minimum I would take a "look and see" approach after the transition was done. The crux of the issue for me was the lack of clear testing against, or direct resolution of, the cultural and interpersonal issues that seem to have bled over into this very thread. I'm not entirely convinced that this is something that you can wait out the clock on. It has not been resolved.
I find this to be a false choice. If you define "consensus" as "moving forward", then I think that is clearly defined by the process. I can vehemently disagree but if I'm outvoted then that's fine by me. Does that mean there's consensus, or that people are willing to accept that their opinion wasn't the one chosen and can move on with their lives? If by convictions you mean a strongly held value, such as racism is bad, then I'm not sure you could ever convince me otherwise. That conviction would have to be assessed against whatever is being decided upon for "consensus". I know this sounds like a very political answer, but it's the honest truth. If you present me with a concrete scenario I'm more than happy to elaborate. But I find it very hard to respond to this kind of hypothetical answer in any meaningfully honest, categorical way because the details do fundamentally matter here. There are times where I will believe that everyone publicly agreeing is an important thing, more valuable than perhaps aligning the decision with my own personal ideological purity. There are times where I might feel obligated to vote no or abstain (or publicly leave) based on my own principles.
There's been a lot of questions regarding AI and training etc, but I would like to ask the most important AI question. Where would you rank Allen Iverson as a basketball player? Do you find him overrated or underrated?
AI occupies a unique place in history where his cultural impact far outweighs his impact on winning basketball games. I would say he is, as a basketball player, overrated in the sense that people tend to put him in Top 5 or Top 10 discussions for his era when he probably wasn't that good. That being said, given his lack of physical size, and the sheer skill he displayed with the ball in terms of handling and scoring, he was better than 99.9% of his peers. But you can be both incredibly skilled and culturally relevant without having a Jordan-esque impact on wins and losses.
There have been a lot of posts today, so I'm not quite sure if I missed this question being asked but, for all the candidates:
What time zone are you situated in and what are your general hours of being "active" on the forums?
This question is probably better suited for our mods, but I think it could be useful, in terms of board coverage and the feasibility of attending meetings?
I'm in California, so Pacific Time. I am generally a night owl, and don't do early mornings.
I have one question for all the candidates, and I would appreciate a straightforward answer void of wordplay, jokes, or cutesy answers.
As directly as possible, what is a quality of yours that would make you a poor board member, and how did you reconcile with yourself that it wasn't a disqualification for serving on the Board?
I am an incredibly skeptical, critical person, particularly when it comes to "serious" issues. Due to a confluence of factors (see: the aforementioned religious upbringing, but also my family dynamics), I tend to undervalue feelings - particularly those that are quickly, strongly expressed - in favor of assessing facts and figures, and then extrapolating the "validity" of those feelings after the fact. (The irony of having a previous career as an employee opinion consultant and not valuing feelings is not lost on me.) That being said, I do actually value feelings quite a bit on a personal level, and I think they have value in and of themselves. But I find it very hard to think that someone's opinions can be justified in and of themselves just because they feel or react strongly about something, as growing up I would regularly see emotions being weaponized as a tool of control. If you are angry about something, I appreciate that anger for what it is and I think it indicates something meaningful to you. In that sense it is and will always be valid. But whether or not it means I, personally, should do something about it, or I should compel others to do something about it, is a different assessment entirely. In that sense, I think I may come across as cold or distant, or perhaps even a little condescending, when I come with an analytical "tell me what actually happened" approach when someone is coming to me and just wants a friendly ear or shoulder to cry on. This is not a great quality in any leadership position because leaders should fundamentally be and come across as empathetic, especially when they are expected to represent a community. There may be times where someone comes to me with a very real, very meaningful concern to them, and I may (after investigation and deliberation) feel like it's just not that important to the broader group. It's "easy" for me to do this, for lack of a better term.
I'm not sure this is "disqualifying" so I'm not sure I ever really reconciled it, per se. It's a character flaw I am well aware of, but I hope my earnestness and honesty come through here.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Hey guys, I realize this is an incredibly emotionally devastating topic, but as somebody that wants to answer the questions given, can we please stay a little more on rails so that those that are running can answer the more direct questions from forumers? I am pretty sure I missed some questions (going to go back, if I have missed anyone, it is not out of malice)
+6
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
For the rest of the candidates, what are your thoughts on how to handle occurrences of one part of the community using a slogan (for whatever issue) that specifically hurts another part of the community when there are less divisive/harmful alternatives?
Regarding the "From the river to the sea" issue, I am on record as saying that the thread title wasn't appropriate given the alternatives. More softly, I think the request specifically was that it be unstickied, and I think that was a reasonable request given the concerns raised. The history of that thread title was itself pretty convoluted, and if recollection serves, it was an example of when the wagon wheel of history just sort of rolled forward without any intentional thought as to where it would end up. There wasn't anything particularly nefarious meant by it initially, and it became a whole other thing once people started reacting to it, and then reacting to the reactions.
Otherwise, to beat a dead horse on my responses, I think I'd need a specific example to provide any other input on this question. The details matter, and there are - unfortunately or not, depending upon your perspective - elements of severity and utilitarianism that often goes into these assessments.
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.
How active former moderators will be in terms of "onboarding" new moderators is up to the new moderators. We will choose people based on our assessments of their qualifications and expertise. If we didn't think they could do the job then they wouldn't be chosen. If they want to ask the old moderators of the PA Forums for advice, that's entirely their prerogative. But it's not something I feel important enough to expect or mandate, or even encourage. The term "onboarding" implies that there's some kind of formal transition, when the reality is that Coin Return is a new entity and its moderators are empowered by and responsible for an entirely different thing, regardless of historical baggage of its collective user base.
To that end, I don't believe moderators of Penny Arcade have any standing to expect access to any moderation or reporting for Coin Return. If they asked for it, I would likely, at least initially, view that as a strange request that indicates a level of entitlement. In the absence of other information, the request on its own would make me incredibly suspicious. If Cincinnatus went back to his farm for the Roman Republic, I'm pretty sure you can do without reading the moderator forum for Coin Return.
Frankly, in terms of Coin Return that issue has been resolved and ex-moderators are not going to be given access just because they used to be mods. I am in agreement with that policy. The Principle of Least Privilege is a good one for a variety of reasons - security, privacy, ethics, etc. If you have no good reason to have access to perform your assigned responsibilities then you don't need access. That's true across the board for any position, not just mods.
As a side note, I considered not responding to this question because it feels like a regurgitation and relitigation of an existing argument. The only reason I am responding is because I am assuming a good faith question on your end. But I would sincerely hope that this isn't an attempt to bring up a specific scenario once again and drag it into questions for other candidates who have nothing to do with it and are trying to answer questions from the broader community. This is likely the last time I will respond to a question that touches upon this issue or the candidate in question.
Two questions for you fine folks if you don't mind:
- given the reorg involves a full restructuring, we're going to have a whole lot of people who identified with spaces that will no longer exist. How do you expect to promote unification and bringing the community together? Do you have any initiatives or policy thoughts in mind?
- do you have any thoughts on what specific actions you will take to build out our community? Do you have thoughts on crafting a new culture, creating a welcoming space for new posters, or finding ways to promote the forum to bring in posters who are not being introduced to it by existing ones?
I don't have any specific initiatives or policies in mind, but you bring up a great point. I'm just not sure what can be done given the limited tools we have available. We can't even email people because that's a breach of what people consented their emails be used for when they signed up for the PA Forums (not to mention mass emailing people out of the blue an iffy ethical proposition for Coin Return to be engaging with in the first place). If you or any others have any thoughts I'm sure everyone would love to hear them. You do have me thinking, though... Maybe some kind of welcome message would be good once people sign up?
Per above, I don't have any specific actions in mind regarding those points. This question has prompted me to think about it some more, however, and if something comes to mind I'll be sure to mention it here in the future. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of banner that pops up the very first time someone accesses the site - "This is who we are, this is what we stand for, this is what this place is for, we'd love to have you" kind of thing. (I'm not much of an ideas guy, in case you haven't noticed.)
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Two questions for you fine folks if you don't mind:
- given the reorg involves a full restructuring, we're going to have a whole lot of people who identified with spaces that will no longer exist. How do you expect to promote unification and bringing the community together? Do you have any initiatives or policy thoughts in mind?
- do you have any thoughts on what specific actions you will take to build out our community? Do you have thoughts on crafting a new culture, creating a welcoming space for new posters, or finding ways to promote the forum to bring in posters who are not being introduced to it by existing ones?
A forumer mentioned this as a concern to me literally this afternoon, but it is something I have been thinking about for awhile. There is going to be some adjustment, I think, but the most important thing will be that just because the forums are changing in format, we are not. The community is still us. Therefore, I think when it comes to the relatively less fraught sections of the forums (G&T, for example) the transition should be relatively smooth, but we still need to be respectful of a) the relationships that we built, and b) that we are building a new space together. I am hoping that those that made the threads what they are continue on, and I think they can make something new. I don't want to make any rules concerning thread 'ownership', obviously, but I am going to be watching carefully that people are being constructive, not disruptive or destructive.
Now, for topics that are obviously more contentious, the mods are simply going to need to be more present. Part of the reason the forums and those in charge have lost trust is because over the years there have a)been fewer and fewer mods, and b)those mods seemed to have been constrained by distracted admin. from the sounds of it, that main problem seems to be solved, and so now the prospective issue is that the rules will not be applied equally. I hope that everyone would take the opportunity to create the space in good faith, but I am not naive. This needs to be a collaborative effort from both the Board and the Mods, and so whatever policy is put out, it must be all of us together.
As a note, I am perfectly aware that there are many subgroups who think that the mods have been slanted against them, and I just want to say the most serious responsibility as board member will be to ensure that this a)does not happen and b) does not have the appearance of happening (beyond everyone thinking that the mod action against them was unfair, obviously)
As I referred to a little in the previous question about expansion, I am honestly not sure whether we can expand significantly. As I mentioned, forums are seen as old fashioned, despite the fact that having a longform conversation here is infinitely easier than, say, Discord. I want to make sure the existing community is settled and secure before changing things to bring in new blood, because that always brings risk, and I would rather we do that from a position of sure footing.
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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 that the institutional knowledge of how to manage communities in general and this community specifically is incredibly valuable, and I would absolutely be willing to consider a kind of advisory position for former mods (and possibly admin). I think it is patently obvious, however, the exact extent of what they are doing, the scope of their advice, and what they can actually look at need to be explicitly clear.
My understanding is that moderation tenures would be somewhat staggered, which I think is a good idea, but the exact nature of transition time has not been decided. Presumably in the matter of months, but I think that would be one of the things the board would decide on. my gut would be four or six, but I don't have a specific number in my head
As for admin, it seems like the platform is relatively stable, from what people tell me, so hopefully those transitions go relatively smoothly, and there would also be an overlap of transition time, hopefully. Again, I think 4 to six months should be enough. If this doesn't work, I think the board should obviously reexamine the exact nature of the transition
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?
@ElJeffe
Having people with wildly varied opinions isn't a bug of the initial Board, it's a desirable trait that should be present in all Boards. If all Board members agree on everything, there's no point in having a Board at all.
We need a varied and balanced Board of members who are willing to cooperate and to learn from each other's opinions and experiences in order to find the best way forward for CoRe. That's the kind of Board member I commit to being.
What time zone are you situated in and what are your general hours of being "active" on the forums?
CST. Kind of just all the time? I work remotely so I have access all day. I have classes 1-2 nights a week for 3 hours where I'm probably not checking the boards.
@ElJeffe
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?
short answer yes. long answer I really don't see that being an issue. I'm not engaged in forcing my personal belief onto the community against another board member's personal belief. Those are just our frameworks for navigating things being brought to us explicitly or implicitly by the community. I'm always centering on that and as long as people engage toward that goal I see no problem.
@Cello
- given the reorg involves a full restructuring, we're going to have a whole lot of people who identified with spaces that will no longer exist. How do you expect to promote unification and bringing the community together? Do you have any initiatives or policy thoughts in mind?
Unification for the majority of people is already happening by nature of where the things they want to post about will live now. Part of the concept of this project is taking it in good faith to make an attempt in the new space. I don't think that solves everything but an outsized percentage of current issues can be traced back to policies and structures that we're very intentionally tearing down. I think there have already been great general suggestions for forum wide ideas like the game that is coming out of the fundraiser. I would like to see continued efforts like that that make it clear that there are no longer separate enclaves of the forum, they're just different topic sections.
- do you have any thoughts on what specific actions you will take to build out our community? Do you have thoughts on crafting a new culture, creating a welcoming space for new posters, or finding ways to promote the forum to bring in posters who are not being introduced to it by existing ones?
the first thing I thought of was the old 24 hour marathon that the steam thread did for years. That dual fundraiser to "make" forumers join the marathon or play specific games and then stream the entire duration after that was amazing. This board raised a lot of money for childs play over the years. I think that kind of effort can absolutely be activated. I've also been thinking about a friend that is on mafiascum. he said they got a huge influx of younger members when amongus first launched. Maybe we missed that particular boat to attract phalla zoomers, but why can't we pair up to run a cross board game or otherwise promote connections between our groups of forum gamers. So many forums have one niche. We're actually a little more unique in covering as much ground as we do, and I'd be interested to explore ways to connect more to different spaces as a hub. bring back webrings I guess I'm saying. Importantly I want to make sure this is always a space that is safe for queer and marginalized communities. I don't want to say we need it more, but well, we definitely don't need it less. So much of the internet and right wing infosphere is hyperfocused on isolating people to radicalize them. We are structurally the antithesis of that, but we need to actively stay philosophically against that isolation.
@thatassemblyguy
what are your thoughts on how to handle occurrences of one part of the community using a slogan (for whatever issue) that specifically hurts another part of the community when there are less divisive/harmful alternatives?
I don't feel like I can answer the generic of this question without answering the specific of it. The reason that From the River to the Sea is an appropriate phrase to use is because the Palestinian people resisting their absolute genocidal destruction are using it as their call to action. It does not matter if I am comfortable with it, but I will clearly state that I am comfortable with it just so this isn't a nonanswer. I'm not putting my body on the line with front line organizing but the two most important things I have learned from them are 1) we don't get to dictate the terms used by the subjugated people and decide if they're acceptable enough for us. 2) We have to sit with things that might be uncomfortable with us in order grow and to be true allies to oppressed people. so kind of at the most basic level if we are aligned with the Palestinian struggle then we accept their means of struggle. I can not and will not speak for our jewish board members. I only have personal conversations with Jewish friends and their families (and very clearly this is not an authoritative answer) about their own struggling with this issue and I respect that they have suffered harm from a different use of the same phrase. I'm not going to be able to gather all of my thoughts on this in any reasonable length and I am constantly learning on topics like this more than a lot of other things and have updated my opinion many times on this and imagine I will continue to evolve my understanding with a goal toward doing the most good.
[*] When was the last time you changed your stance on a previously-held position based on new information? How often does it happen?
[*] How difficult do you find it to apologize to someone when you feel aggrieved? Do you require a cooling off period where you need to disengage to reach that point?
[*] How much does your general stress level vary from week to week? Are there outside stressors that could prevent you from participating in board activities?
[*] Have you at any point during the transition process considered not moving forward to CR? What was the crux of the issue, and has it been resolved to your satisfaction?
[*] What is more important to you: finding consensus with people you disagree with or holding fast to your convictions?
[/list]
- This is something that I feel I do with a high degree of frequency. I think that if you're not willing to interrogate your own beliefs and be prepared to adjust your mindset frequently, you're a lesser person because of it. One example recently that is pertinent to this place was that I was really big on a direct democracy model where we voted for all the mods from within the community. Many people in the larger forum and within the governance team presented facts and well-communicated opinions that I ended up walking away from that position into supporting what we have decided to go with here, i.e. the vetted list with community ratification
- Not hard at all and in fact, I have received criticism in the past that I am too eager and to quick to be conciliatory and to seek common ground, and some people view it as a weakness that I don't write more people off completely. I personally still see it as a virtue; when we are talking about building a community, we need to bring people along on the journey
- Not really ever considered not moving ahead with the move to CoRe. The governance work has been a tough, gruelling slog at times, but I always felt motivated by the idea of amazing core can (and will) be
- Finding consensus, definitely. Sure, I have principles and ethics that I hold sacrosanct. Happily, I think the vast, vast majority of our community also hold the same or similar values and principles so I don't feel like I will ever have to betray them at CoRe. We simply must be able to work with people who disagree on some points; this is a foundational element of building community
There have been a lot of posts today, so I'm not quite sure if I missed this question being asked but, for all the candidates:
What time zone are you situated in and what are your general hours of being "active" on the forums?
This question is probably better suited for our mods, but I think it could be useful, in terms of board coverage and the feasibility of attending meetings?
I am GMT+11. I can be 'on call' for short conversations here and there during the regular work day at least 60% of the time. I am available for longer calls/discussions between 0400 - 0700(ish) and from 2000 - 2400. Weekends I can put time aside as required given at least 72 hours' notice
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
Alright, it's my lunch hour, and I'm going to try and set about answering questions from the first 5 pages or so.
Or at least the serious ones. If people feel it's really important to know my favourite comic, opinion on sandwiches, or inside seam measurements, repeat your question at a less significant time.
I'm doing this in a bit of a rush, so forgive me if these aren't necessarily fully thought out, or even necessarily final stances - just my immediate thoughts on to try and make inroads into this rather large large backlog of questions.
Early in this process I posited a possible standard that in the Political Subforums, Thread Titles should be refrained from including stuff like "Oh no" or "We're in trouble", or even stuff like "he did WHAT". I think we can agree the emotional bandwidth in dealing with modern political discussion has increased dramatically. Can't do anything about the dead doves actually in the threads, Caveat Lector and all that, but what do the candidates feel about a commitment to keeping political thread titles to a relatively neutral keel, something to the example of how Hahnsoo1 titled every thread about it "The 2024 Election", with the hope of avoiding psychic landmines for those focusing their emotional budget elsewhere?
I would say that it is not the responsibility of the board to set these standards; governance of Coin Return is no longer an authoritarian hierarchy where dictates are decided at the top level, but driven up by the community.
That said, this community already has chosen to codify values of Connectedness, Safety, Self-Expression, Equity, Accountability, and Empathy.
My interpretation of those values is such that vague, unclear titles are not in line with the values of the community - particularly Connectedness, Empathy, Equity, and Accountability, and would have an expectation that our community values steer towards norms and standards that unclear and vague titles are generally not acceptable, at least in regards to serious topics. However, that is not a absolute dictate, and there should still be room for more relaxed tones and occasional joke threads. No one value trumps another, and there is room for nuance and subjectivity, but in large it's in the hands of the community as to what those standards are - with support and guidance from those who have been entrusted to represent and guide those standards.
So this is for all candidates. This board has mostly oversight over the forum's money but also moderation team and making sure to react if we get hit something like an investigation or legal thing.
1)When you look at moderation what are the most important aspects to a mod?
2)How do you plan to support the moderation team if they are harassed, villainized by segments of the community, or attacked? Moding is not always fun and games and you will anger people enforcing the rules.
3)How will you work with others on the committee that hold differing views from you? How do you normally work towards a compromise?
1) The moderators are the shepherds and maintainers of forum guidelines, and are entrusted with acting to ensure the continued good function of the social space. To this end, I look for qualities that support that role: empathy, insight, professionalism, and a sense of social intelligence. I think the most important thing is understanding this community, having a sense of how it flows, and being able to steer it if necessary.
2) We've worked hard to establish a system of values and rules that hopefully allow that harassment or abuse be appropriately dealt with, but no system is foolproof. More important is taking care of our moderation team, and to this end I support having sufficient coverage to allow them breaks and the ability to step away. My professional background is in public social welfare, and my baseline metric is the support offered Social Welfare workers; what that might look like may depend on a case-by-case basis of assessment and severity, but if one of our moderators is put in an unsafe situation as a result of their role or actions, then I'd be open to exploring opening the books to provide professional support - mental, physical or digital safety, or other potential options in severe cases.
3) First, by attempting to understand their alternate viewpoints. I cannot meet someone who cannot articulate their argument. But by and large, I'm an analytical and rational person who is good at finding solutions. It's my entire career, and I'm good at it. As an IT analyst, it is my job to distill expressed ideas into defined and understood requirements, and work out achievable solutions. The mapping is not 1-to-1, but making compromises to achieve solutions is the kind of meeting I have a half dozen times a week, and a lot of the skills are transferable. I hope that this is something that has been demonstrated several times in the Transition subforum during various refinement and feedback threads.
1) Are you will to support parts of the forum you have disagreements with? We are all mostly on the same page here just usually disagree on path not the goals on a lot of things at times. I know this is me mostly being D&D showing. But the board should be making sure the board is welcoming to all folks that aren't nazis, bigots, transphobes, or antisemites.
2)I forgot though I did mention it (if I did write this I am on 5 hours of sleep from my 2 month old), if we are contacted by a legal entity what is your immediate reaction on how to handle it? Especially since we live in interesting times. Also considering some of these positions will include people's real names.
1) Yes. I want to support the whole community, not just my community.
2) My immediate reaction to being contacted by a legal entity would probably be along the lines of "Don't we retain legal counsel for this shit?" followed by potentially "No? Why not?". Legal hardball is not a game for amateurs to dabble in. Get a professional, listen to their advice.
I feel obligated to inform everyone that Kime is an avid fan of Heroes of the Storm. Which may be indicitave of a serious sickness.
Ok serious question for any and all candidates.
In a hypothetical scenario of a mod that ends up not meshing with the new style, whether that ends with them being overly harsh, overly lax, showing favoritism or anything like that. This is brought to the board by several individuals, but not a crushing wave of reports.
How is this is handled?
By design, mod actions have been set up to socialise, and thereby neutralise, outlying moderation activity. However, I would hope that we set up some sort of in-team norming tools - onboarding, mentorship, community management - that give us the structure to bring moderation into step with the whole team and the community at large. Importantly, respectful transparency and communication should be part of this, as should accountability.
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?
Are we making “problematic” users less welcome and encouraging them to exit the space? Are we examining why some users might engage in “problem behaviour” in the first place and looking at what can be done at a Board level to address those contributing factors? Are we leading by example, with humility and introspection and self-awareness? Are we prioritising the good of the community over our own positions within it, formal leadership or otherwise?
What does “the good of the community” mean to you?
Mostly yes to all of the above, in varying degrees depending on circumstance?
I think I put this into another thread in the Transition forums, but ideally, I want to build a positive and vibrant community that is capable of self-correction and healing. To that end, toxicity and intolerance are things to excised, whether by behaviour modification, or removal matters little to the end result as concerns the health of the community. That said, this is also a place that has (to varying degrees of success) served as a safe space and outlet for people going through stressful and troubled times. Patience and empathy should also be a feature, but not to the point of harm to the whole; some have never exited that spiral, but others have come back better for the support they received here. That's an important part of the space this community provides, as well, and should not be lost sight of.
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.
Okay, like this is totally a me thing, but it does bother me more than it should that we use the shorthand term 'Key Decisions' to describe both the process and the outcome of the generation of governance guidelines. It leads to confusion of message and conflation of terms, and I'd rename the outcome to Key Decision Log or Governing Documents or Coin Return Societal Charter of Rules or something.
I have a full slate of meetings this afternoon, but will try to answer more later if the thread isn't on fire by then.
Early in this process I posited a possible standard that in the Political Subforums, Thread Titles should be refrained from including stuff like "Oh no" or "We're in trouble", or even stuff like "he did WHAT". I think we can agree the emotional bandwidth in dealing with modern political discussion has increased dramatically. Can't do anything about the dead doves actually in the threads, Caveat Lector and all that, but what do the candidates feel about a commitment to keeping political thread titles to a relatively neutral keel, something to the example of how Hahnsoo1 titled every thread about it "The 2024 Election", with the hope of avoiding psychic landmines for those focusing their emotional budget elsewhere?
I lean towards leaving thread titles up to the discretion of their creator. While on the balance I think most of the laugh out loud titles I have seen will be for topics (like the NBA thread) moving to other parts of the forum , I'm also mindful that with the creation of the new community at CoRe there will likely be a broader range of topics and users. I think some dark humour like [Staring Into the Abyss] perhaps strikes a little to close to the core at times, and there other topics . The introduction of tags with regards to the topic or framework of threads will help keep things on track a bit and my understanding is that you'll be able to search the forum by tag as well if forumers wish to.
You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
I've read 1001 Arabian Nights. Nothing good will come of this tortoise.
So this is for all candidates. This board has mostly oversight over the forum's money but also moderation team and making sure to react if we get hit something like an investigation or legal thing.
1)When you look at moderation what are the most important aspects to a mod?
2)How do you plan to support the moderation team if they are harassed, villainized by segments of the community, or attacked? Moding is not always fun and games and you will anger people enforcing the rules.
3)How will you work with others on the committee that hold differing views from you? How do you normally work towards a compromise?
1 - I've touched on this at length a bit more than other topics in my introduction as I agree, I think that it will be one of the more important tasks establishing the new community and I wanted to give people a sense of where my views on that lie, so thanks for the opportunity to expand.
Traits I would value would be good community touch. The examples I gave of this earlier were Chu, someone I knew only in passing and what I had picked up was through forum osmosis. In a time were trust was shaky with the departure of Geebs I felt Chu really went out of his way to integrate himself into disparate communities. Sterica was another example who has been active for a long time and has built up the respect of the community at large and they are the benchmark I have in my head at the moment.
Patience, as things can get heated both between forumers and mods. There are obviously limits to this, which I'll get into in the next section you raised.
Judgement. I'm hopeful with new rules and governance decisions this will help create a framework for mods to work off, along with access to a wider range of tools to apply will lighten the load that mods have faced at times.
I believe Tef at one point mentioned developing a sort of tutorial/training program for new moderators providing various examples and scenarios they might encounter as usecases/guidelines how how to apply those new tools to it will give more flexibility.
2 - I do want to support and empower our moderation team. At times the moderator count here has resulted in an unhealthy amount of work falling to a few people and while burned out felt burdened to keep at it on behalf of the community. Obviously as something that people volunteer for to help the community those are bad outcomes, particularly when I want our mods to be members of their community and not having to troubleshoot every single event happening because no one else is on deck.
New changes to moderation on the nuForums as I mentioned above, a deeper pool of mods spanning the breadth of the forums will hopefully be another fork in a strategy to help mitigate stress accumulation for moderators. We're also creating a new community that is working with a rule set that won by consensus and that should make a difference.
I also recognise that mods, admins and board members aren't infallible and we also now have processes and guidelines to address that as well that were not there before to provide accountability.
I don't want to delve too deep into specifics here other than to say that Chu shared some details of the awful shit that he was on the receiving end anonymously. A few other mods have too and what I heard was both horrific and completely beyond the pale.
3 - If I am selected for the board, it will be by the wishes of the community and that is whose interests I'll be working towards. So will the people in the other seats, all of whom have at least a decade of presence on the forums. I have passing familiarity with all but one of the other cadidates just from time spent around each other.
The furtherance of the forums and our new community is a common goal guided by our Core Values. Those CV will serve to at least give a starting point on what isn't up for compromise, from there we can establish common ground and build out.
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.
As far as I'm concerned, only elected or community ratified people will be able to look at private information. From a process view, that means if we deemed it necessary to have additional mod mentors (I think some old mods will be selected for CoRe, but that's a given fact) there will need to be community ratification for giving those mentors private matters, if we deemed such a thing necessary. I have been a big proponent of, essentially, a 'mod handbook' to help moderators in their role. It is within the realm of possibility that the board will standup up a subcommittee for the purpose of putting that together, and that subcommittee could very well be made up of ex-mods. Essentially, fully aligned that this needs to be done well for our future success, I believe we have some governance in place already about how people may access private info, and I would lean into those to utilise any additional mentoring and coaching support we need. This would all be done a transparent way, so the community can have confidence on who is seeing what info and why.
@Kelor ,you state in your submission for the board that you don’t have executive experience. Why should you be selected over other candidates who do have experience in a role such as this?
Why should we, as a community, be content to vote in favor of someone who would basically be learning on the job, especially over other candidates who are experienced in similar roles?
How will you separate your personal feelings from the role you would occupy in a leadership
role in the new forums?
Marathon on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Kelor, you state in your submission for the board that you don’t have executive experience. Why should you be selected over other candidates who do have experience in a role such as this?
Why should we, as a community, be content to vote in favor of someone who would basically be learning on the job, especially over other candidates who are experienced in similar roles?
How will you separate your personal feelings from the role you would occupy in a leadership
role in the new forums?
As someone who also lack executive experience, I would say that I think that, since we all want the community to succeed, we can support each other through the learning process. The important qualities on the board are the drive to preserve and improve the community, and the commitment to do it throughout the community equally.
I think I can easily separate the needs of the community from my personal feelings and opinions, as being able to take a step back and try to be empathetic for all parties is something I have always tried to do, even if I am not always successful.
It's a pretty hard sell to me that candidates ought to be seriously penalized for not having a job that affords them the right kind of experience (which seems to be the situation here; many of the applications have that experience from their work lives, which is fine), for managing a message board with a modest budget and no aspirations of huge growth or anything. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it a class issue but that topic feels in the ballpark.
The board will have five members, there will be resources they can turn to if they have questions about processes or how to manage the organization, they are not an island. The board can be supported easily by people outside of it for many things.
This is not going to be a byzantinely structured corp with many departments in need of a lot of executive support.
It's a pretty hard sell to me that candidates ought to be seriously penalized for not having a job that affords them the right kind of experience (which seems to be the situation here; many of the applications have that experience from their work lives, which is fine), for managing a message board with a modest budget and no aspirations of huge growth or anything. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it a class issue but that topic feels in the ballpark.
The board will have five members, there will be resources they can turn to if they have questions about processes or how to manage the organization, they are not an island. The board can be supported easily by people outside of it for many things.
This is not going to be a byzantinely structured corp with many departments in need of a lot of executive support.
I would just like to point out that your posts have a real Rimjob_Steve vibe to them, @xXx_bLunTmaSTeR_420x69?
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
One time courtesy because i know no one reads OPs, but this is not a discussion thread. it is for questions to candidates and answers from candidates only
You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
Early in this process I posited a possible standard that in the Political Subforums, Thread Titles should be refrained from including stuff like "Oh no" or "We're in trouble", or even stuff like "he did WHAT". I think we can agree the emotional bandwidth in dealing with modern political discussion has increased dramatically. Can't do anything about the dead doves actually in the threads, Caveat Lector and all that, but what do the candidates feel about a commitment to keeping political thread titles to a relatively neutral keel, something to the example of how Hahnsoo1 titled every thread about it "The 2024 Election", with the hope of avoiding psychic landmines for those focusing their emotional budget elsewhere?
A person should be able to look at a thread and see what it is about, without needing to click on it.
I was under the impression that this is what Tags were meant to be used for.
If a person is going to make a thread on a topic and they want to interact with other people on said topic, then I think it's on the OP to make sure both the OP and the Title are easily understood.
I have no objection to humour in appropriate doses, sometimes you need to laugh or it's just crying forever. But I think if your clever joke is oh so clever and can't possibly be left out, put it in the OP, make the Thread Title clear.
Posts
Now I have a specific question in mind, I'm hoping getting it presented will hopefully head off some drama.
@tynic
@spono
@Tef
@amateurhour
@ElJeffe
@Fishman
@kime
@Kelor
@Solysp
@Disco11
@Inquisitor77
@Moridin889
@Infidel
@ahava
@Fencingsax
@DrZiplock
@Richy
@Raijin Quickfoot
@initiatefailure
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 will say this, transparency is key. I’m not sure how long admin or mods should retain access yet. That’s something I’d have to think about some more and it be something that’s on a case by case basis.
But I will 100% be sure the community is aware of who is and isn’t given access. No surprises.
I’d like to see an overlap if possible. If one mod is leaving we can institute a new mod before they leave so they can be eased into the position. I’m not going to force other mods to train a new mod but I feel if we have the right people, that won’t be a problem.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Bonus Question First:
Former mods, former admins, and former board members shouldn't have access to any of the tools/resources that they had when they were active. If you have left with ill will, you don't get those toys and tools. If you have left on great terms, then thank you for your service and now your watch has ended...others will take it from here.
With that in mind, I would advocate for a transition period where institutional knowledge can be passed over so that there isn't a loss there. Also, staggering replacements is always good so there is old blood and new blood working together.
Training is key, and this is going to be on the job training in a live fire kinda way. It's not an ideal for people to get their feet under them. We still have a number of experienced mods who are able to help show the ropes, as well as all the developers of CoRe to show how all the tools play together.
@Expendable
I feel like I do not have any specific concerns. I have vague worries and anxiety, but a lot of that is hard to separate from my overall general worry and anxiety that is just part of life. If there were anything in particular that I could point to, it would be the overall feeling that all of this is being over-engineered to the point of ridiculous. But that is what the community has wanted and what the overall decision process has been, so my opinion on how this has taken too long and been too complicated is just that, my opinion and I have gone along with the majority.
Should or will? What I think my time in the office Should entail is choosing valuable, professional, and acceptable moderators for the forums, setting up good workable guidelines for the moderators to do their volunteer jobs, and then letting go. Being available should any fires appear, but overall trusting the people we hand authority to’s ability to actuall weild that authority with some autonomy. What Will the first months entail? Likely trying to maintain calm and working relationships with other board members while putting out fires and dealing with people trying to game a new system to demand retribution for things that were meant to have been forgotten. Hopefully, the community is much more towards what I think the first months Should Be and not what I think they Will Be.
I have been in many conversations and discussions with Transition Team members, though not on the forums as I feel things get too clogged down with drama and conversations are easy to get lost.
I intend to post as myself the majority of the time. However if I am to post as a Board Member due to whatever absolute breakdown of the chain of command that would require me to do so, then it would be made obvious which “Voice” I am using. I do not intend to post as a Board Member without the knowledge and consensus of my fellow Board Members. We are a team who are working for the best for the community, not individuals running our own fiefdoms. If any situation arises requiring a Board Member to post in our capacity as a Board Member, and that happens to be myself at the time, then I will do with that as my role, not as a person, but as a spokesvoice for an entity. It is entirely separate ‘personalities’ if you like.
It is hard to really predict growth/loss at these times. Everything around us is changing at rapid speeds. Do I wish for CoRe to grow? Sure. Would I like to be able to have a welcoming, safe space to be able to offer a home and comfort to more people on the Wilds of the Internet at this time? A place to help foster the character growth and personal learning that we all experienced through our decades+ on Penny Arcade Forums? Yes. Am I a better person than I was when I joined? Yes. Do I want to provide a place for others to find and also have that kind of growth? Definitely. Am I sure on how to achieve that in this current day and age, with this current state of the world and the Internet? No, not quite. But I try to live my life to a motto that I heard somewhere, “Be the person you needed as a child”. We have the opportunity here to create a space that is open, welcoming, kind, and fostering growth and understanding. In a world that is actively growing more hostile every day.
My first reply would be to direct you to the Moderators, as this is their position. In my opinion they should be your first point of contact. Through private means if you are not getting any interaction in a thread. Especially in a fast moving thread where things are getting heated, it is often easy to miss people trying to ask and be polite in the middle of a tornado. Private direct communication is the best first method. If it were me who was feeling unheard or unseen in a fast thread, I would take myself to PMs with at least two moderators to discuss things. I would send a message but accept that if things are going that fast and that hard, it might be a while before my question can be seen. If after whatever time period passes and you feel that you have not been seen/heard/listened to, then I would approach at least two board members. Lay out what the issue was, what your thoughts were, and how you feel overlooked. At that point it would be on the board to check in with not only you, but with the Moderators you tried communicating with. And from there, ideally, as a group we would be able to have a discussion about things and hopefully resolve, or at least respond to, your queries. But in my opinion, Board Members should absolutely not be a First line response to Community Members.
This is a tricky item to answer because it is such a nebulous question. And my Neurodivergent brain has a hard time with straight Yes/No questions at the best of times. I would take whatever steps I could to protect our community members. And absolutely insist on the Board engaging the assistance of qualified legal counsel to facilitate that. However, without knowing an exact scenario and without knowing the particular local laws, etc, it would be difficult for me to give an answer beyond “do what I can to protect the people under my charge, and primarily contact a lawyer to assist in doing that”
@Zonugal
I am in New Zealand, currently GMT + 13, although that is changing to GMT +12 this weekend. My active times on the forums spread from about 10am my time to about 10pm my time during Tuesday – Friday. I am also available over the weekend, but with less consistency as I have family commitments and on Mondays I am available in the afternoons my time due to friend commitments.
@Delzhand
I change my mind often on my positions based on new information. That’s what a person is meant to do. We are meant to take in new information, use it to adjust our current views, and then adjust from there. It is a constant thing.
This is a complicated question. Am I justified in feeling aggrieved? If I am the one with the grievance, why am I apologizing to the person that hurt me? Are they also apologizing to me? Have they acknowledged the hurt they caused me, or are they denying my right to feel hurt? As for a cooling off period, yes. Of course I do. I’m human. Emotions don’t turn on and off like a light switch. How much of a cooling off period is required depends entirely on the hurt given. Do I hold a grudge? Yes. Can I work through and past it? Yes. Will it take time? Yes. How much time? Depends on the situation, the hurt caused and felt, and whether I feel that my own feelings in the situation were considered. If I am simply expected to ‘be the better person’ without having my hurt and injuries even acknowledged as being valid, it could take some time.
I’m a parent of an undiagnosed neurodivergent child who is rapidly, all too rapidly for my liking, approaching puberty. There is some stress there. However I am semi-retired at this point. Will there be stress in my life? Of course there will be. It’s stress. It’s life. Could they prevent me from participating in Board Activities? Well, sure they could. Or they might not. But It would be my duty as a Board Member to communicate that clearly to the other members of the board and do my best to find ways to work through the issues that arise, as they arise. That’s what responsibility requires.
Of course I have. There have been instances where I have questioned whether or not it is time to find another community or simply accept the loss of this one. Anybody who says that they haven’t considered just not moving over might just be lying to themselves. There is no real crux of the issue, as it has been a blend of me trying to decide if I am simply too old for this, or if I want to deal with politics of people on an internet forum in an age when people feel it is their primary goal to be as nasty to others as possible. Has it been resolved? No. Not completely. But again, a lot of that is within my own head. I have made a decision to continue over to Coin Return at this time. Should I find in the future that it is simply not what I was hoping for it to become, or that I am feeling uncomfortable or unsafe for any reason, I will make that decision then and will go through the processes chosen to leave.
This answer will depend on what exactly the situation is. I can come to consensus on many things, like pizza toppings etc. I have convictions that I will hold fast to and consensus be damned. But without having a specific case in front of me, I cannot actually give a specific answer. Context is crucial for these kinds of statements and answers.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Re: AI
As someone who lives in Silicon Valley and has had to deal firsthand with the "AI revolution" I am incredibly skeptical of the type of Generative AI everyone is freaking out over, particularly in the corporate and startup space. The technology is barely understood by the people who build it, and not understood at all by the people funding and pushing for it.
From an ethical standpoint I have serious issues with the sheer amount of capital, hardware, and energy that has been thrown into Generative AI towards clearly-inappropriate use cases, to the detriment of incredibly socially-valuable, highly-appropriate use cases, such as protein identification and design. In addition, I think it is blatantly obvious and documented that the current leaders in the Generative AI space have ignored existing copyright and intellectual patent laws to build their AIs without fear of reprisal or regulatory punishment. Generative AI using any human-generated content without legal approval and, where appropriate, compensation is a clear violation. At minimum, the lack of attribution and "black box" nature of the technology should give people pause as to what it is actually doing, and whether it is simply regurgitating, via overwrought autocomplete, someone else's work.
I do believe there is a time and place for Generative AI to be used as a tool. Much like, by way of analogy, you might consider Photoshop to be the tool of an artist, or spellcheck to be the tool of a writer. But currently, the way it is haphazardly and aimlessly applied to any and all problems is a glaring indictment of our quasi-capitalist system, another salvo in the long line of dumb shit that we've done in the ~decade or so to make things worse for everyone without clear benefits to the vast majority of people (see also: cryptocurrencies & NFTs).
Re: Palestinian genocide
I believe Israel is perpetuating genocide against Palestinians. I believe this is an intentional policy by the Israeli government, supported by the Israeli people (to the extent that those who oppose it have not been successful, and the rest are either complicit or sit idly by and let it happen). I believe that there has been a half-century-long intentional policy by the Israeli government and its right-wing supporters to conflate Israeli policies with anti-Semitism in order to silence what would otherwise be appropriate and ethical opposition to their pro-conflict, pro-genocide approach. In the context of American politics, I view Israel's support as primarily being provided via evangelicals who believe that a war in the Middle East is a necessary condition to the Rapture, alongside conventional conservative views which see a "democratic" state which - more importantly - buys American arms, to be an overall Good Thing (or if not a Good Thing, then a Necessary Thing to maintain American hegemony).
Re: Minorities & LGBTQ+
As a minority myself, I believe very strongly in the rights of minorities, the disenfranchised, and LGBTQ+ folks to live their lives as they see fit without fear of discrimination, harassment, or abuse.
Re: Politeness Politics
As mentioned in other responses, I would prefer a concrete example of this to provide feedback upon, rather than vague generalities. It's almost certain that this question means different things to different people. More broadly speaking, the only things I will say at this point is that politeness and decorum do, in fact, matter, but that they also are not a shield that should protect you if you are trolling or harassing other users.
Re: Pizza Toppings
I prefer magherita, pepperoni & red onion, and occasionally a good mushroom vegan pizza with a squeeze of lemon.
As a general principle, people who like olives on pizza are provably terrible human beings who have poor taste not just in pizza toppings, but all other aspects of their lives.
The term "identity politics" means different things to different people. I don't particularly care for the phrase because it generally acts as a slogan or watchword to indicate something else, often as a distraction to a real, underlying issue or situation.
There is an obvious intuitive concept which is that people who have had similar experiences or characteristics to your own, particularly those you heavily identify with, may be easier to empathize with or may share similar values or opinions. But that's a general trend, like older people tending to have higher rates of dementia. It's not an actual thing you can grapple with other than as an academic exercise - in which case, unless you are a pollster or sociologist, you are well out of your depth to define and analyze the term appropriately.
The "simple" part of my answer is that trust was harmed. Part of what we are doing no matter the mod panel is establishing a new system that has rebuilding that trust as a goal. I would always advocate for transparency but especially so in the case where we hope to regain that trust. I think a clear definition of access and role and expectations being visible is already an improvement. I think moderation being more evenly seen across the boards will reduce tensions already. I do think the handoff to new mods is going to be super critical especially the first one but even just as we cycle people in and out over time. It's something I would definitely think about more, but I've experienced a few set ups that could be a fit to what we do. One group I work with has "outgoing president" as a role. They're not board, they don't vote. They are just the former president acting as a resource for getting the new one up to speed and a source of advice. Similarly a thing that maybe can't be planned for is overlap, but If someone knows they'd like to step down and is willing to they could be an invaluable guide to a new person getting up to speed. Another org I've engaged with has a "spokes of a wheel" kind of system for training where all the current spokes teach their piece of expertise to the new person and by the end you have someone who is trained on everything without requiring one person to dedicate all of their time. There's certainly options, but ultimately I agree that the longer we can maintain unbroken knowledge chains, the stronger the system will be.
to the bonus, I don't think time is as important as clarity. Do people know this person still has that access or is acting in that role? So much of our pain has been leaders doing/not doing things in secret, just because PACorp didn't have to answer to us. But a board/exec/mods that is empowered by us actually does have to answer to us
Well, I don’t have any personal differences with anyone on the list so there’s no concern there. As far as working with people with differing opinions…I’m always going to err on the side of the forumers and forums. I will fight for my opinions but I’m reasonable.
@Pinfeldorf
I have an instinct to avoid conflict at first. I will try to wait out a situation until it cools enough for actual conversation to happen, instead of immediate reaction. This may not be the most desirable thing for this fast paced internet where everything is Instant Gratification. I do not, however, feel that waiting for calm before speaking because screaming is scary is disqualifying. I actually think it is a rather important trait to have. Not everything can or should be solved in the instant it is brought up, not everything can or should be Instant Gratification. Being deliberate is not a vice.
@Kadith
I have no real answer for this. I have no experience with a community lead model and so can’t explain how it will be better or worse or equivalent to what we have now. It will be an adventure and something different to occupy my time with. Other than that, not knowing what to expect, we’ll see.
@archivistkitsune
I am a big believer in ‘Institutional Memory’, and not just the Season 7 West Wing episode. There is a chance that people who get selected to be Mods on Coin Return will have little recent, if any, experience with moderating a forum and community of this size. As such I feel that having access to previous moderators who have that experience is crucial. What that will look like in practical terms, I do not fully know. Whether it’s a separate channel or private messaging system set up to ask for advice or support, or if it’s something more formal within the structure of Xenforo, I don’t know. I do not even know that former Moderators will need to have access to Moderation forums in order to be available to provide advice.
A lot of this will depend on who gets elected. But I would say as soon as the elected Board gets a feel for how levers and buttons work, which button goes where, and where the tea kettle is, then anybody not in power should not be able to access the tea kettle. They have moved out of the flat, so to speak, they don’t need to eat the biscuits in the cupboard. Ideally, I would say that once the Board is elected and Mods selected there would be a fortnight to a month of handover time, as would be normal to expect in any job doing things correctly, and then the locks changed.
@ElJeffe
Yes. I am capable of being a professional adult in a professional setting. I have in the past worked well with people who believed I should have died in the concentration camps and they told me so to my face. I didn’t associate with them during social events at work, or outside of work. But I am capable of communicating with people who either hate me or I hate them, or even have a vague dislike and distrust of in a strictly professional manner.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I definitely want to foster some better conversations in movie and tv threads. There's a lot of static in them that I think could be ironed out, but I don't have anything concrete in mind just yet.
I do want to build the community. Me being who I am, am not great at that unless you want a bunch of people from a TN farmer's market joining the forum (you don't). I would say like some charity drives or twitch streams with some of our more popular online members would be cool to bring in new blood or raise awareness to the world that Forums can still survive for us olds.
(joke answer) I will get my "farming" and "slice of life" tags reinstated on my farm thread on CR and everyone will flock to that first
First, I do want to say Thank You for stepping up for the community (and the rest of the candidates too! I do appreciate folks willing to put it out there for this community - even if I disagree with a few of them).
I do have some hesitation though.
There are members of this community that are very much 1) against the genocide in Palestine, 2) against the illegal expansion settlements and violence in the west bank, but have also indicated (at least as I understand them right now) that the controversial "River to the Sea" slogan makes them feel less safe and unwelcome in this community because of the historical usage in previous decades being a call to genocide (for both sides!) - Especially when there are plenty of other crisp, clear and most importantly less divisive ways to show support for Palestine ("Free Palestine!", "Stop the Fascist!", "No Genocide!", "Palestinian-Israeli Peace Now!", etc),
Why do you feel qualified to shepherd a reasonably diverse community when specifically using terminology/slogans that is divisive while there are plenty of good alternatives to achieve the same message?
(specifically, Raijin - you used it in an answer in this very thread, and Kelor you own both the thread in SE++ AND the new thread on the CoRe forums where you've placed this in the title)
Candidate block (minus the two above):
@ElJeffe
@spono
@Tef
@amateurhour
@Fishman
@kime
@Solysp
@Disco11
@Inquisitor77
@Moridin889
@Infidel
@ahava
@Fencingsax
@DrZiplock
@Richy
@initiatefailure
For the rest of the candidates, what are your thoughts on how to handle occurrences of one part of the community using a slogan (for whatever issue) that specifically hurts another part of the community when there are less divisive/harmful alternatives?
@Death of Rats
@The Lovely Bastard
I’m a Jew who believes in the existence of a state of Israel, although not this current state as it is presently. Pretty sure that disqualifies me for about half of the people here, nuance be damned. I have no control over the fact that I am ethnically Jewish and have a deep spiritual and religious tie to being Jewish and a deep pride in my identity. I have no control that there are people who do not understand, either through malice or ignorance, the difference between being a Jew, being a Zionist, and being a supporter of the current state of Israel’s government and actions. I have no control over people refusing to listen to nuance, or even to acknowledge that nuance exists. How will I adjust? I am who I am. But unless someone decides they want to use my identity against me in some way, I see no reason why it would come into play. And if I somehow end up anywhere near controlling other people’s money, something has gone wrong. I am not the Treasurer. I am not a Financial Officer. I should be having no interaction in financial anything with anybody’s money.
@The Zombie Penguin
Artists are key to the function and growth of society. I like that I can take a nebulous concept of a character in my head and get a generated rendering of it better than anything I could do on my own or afford to pay somebody else to do for me. But it is not something I would use for anything outside of my own amusement.
Fuck Netanyahu. Fuck Hamas. The latter has continually made my life as a Jewish woman in the diaspora a tenuously safe thing. The former has made my life as a Jewish woman in the diaspora a definitely unsafe existence. There are no good answers, there is no good in any of this and there is very little ‘less bad’.
I am a minority. I am LGBTQ+. PA Forums are among the safest online that I have felt as a member of those communities in a long time. Until recently. And that is even within the LGBTQ community here driving away people that fit under the umbrella. I have distinct memories of gay men and even trans forumers being explicitly told they were not welcome or not enough because they held different views or different social statuses.
Outright aggressive bullying has no place in a community. Any community. Words that we use and choose to use matter. Subtle microaggressive bullying also has no place in a community. Asking a person who is disagreeing with me to speak to me in tones and words that are not the same tone and words as an emotionally abusive partner is not ‘politeness politics’ as it is asking for some common ground and decency.
I tend to go for just cheese pizza. Mushroom and green pepper also acceptable. I do not like the texture of onions, so a standard ‘veggie’ option is out for me. And almost any ‘meat’ type pizza will contain some form of pork. Cheese is the easiest option.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I think the idea that outgoing moderators (I assume we're talking about the ones that are retiring in good standing) can help out and offer advice to current mods is great. I don't know if the rules currently support that, maybe not, and if that's the case, so be it. But in any other field this would be considered a really valuable opportunity, and I don't see any reason why this is different. Even here on the PA forums, it seems like it was the case that multiple mods appreciated the input of ex-mods, from what has been said.
I guess just to be honest, trying to say "ex-mods can only access the moderation forum for 4 months!" just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Best I can tell, there's not really any good examples of that being a problem, nor any real indication it was ever going to be. So like... whatevs? But in the end, that should be something the community has agreement and understanding on. It's not something that I feel strongly enough that I'm going to argue excessively for it or anything, but since you're asking my own opinion on it, there ya go
I feel like the admin stuff is similar. If you have an admin who's just retiring and they've been a good community member, letting them be able to be a mentor-figure to the incoming admin is just a good practice. Again, something that would be invaluable in many fields like this.
Folks don't pay attention to all the inner workings of stuff, and things like this generally don't need an announcement. So, I see why people missed it on PA, and so it should be codified in the rules (or similar) for reference on CoRe. But even then, you'll have folks who didn't know about it. Just, something to keep in mind if we do end up going down this route
I don't think this is really something the board gets to decide, though, so just my own thoughts.
Yes, although I definitely have preferences on who I'd hope to work with
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Not at this time, no.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
"Do the Least Harm and the Most Good" is a core belief of mine. If there is a slogan that is being used that causes harm, and there is another way to express the sentiment behind it that causes less harm, use the other way. Being pithy at the expense of others is just another form of bullying. Especially when you know that your pith causes harm.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Hurting another part of the community with your words when there are easy alternatives to use that do not hurt your fellow members is Not Okay. Sometimes things happen by accident, and that's regrettable but does happen. But once awareness is made, we should do our best to be welcoming to everyone, not just the groups of people we prefer more at any given moment.
Sometimes this will cause conflict, sometimes there won't be clear answers. It's important to try and communicate in good faith with each other to navigate these. In this specific situation, though, there is a clear answer, and it's to use an alternative that doesn't alienate another marginalized community on the forums. There was nothing especially relevant about this phrase to the message folks wanted to get across (that of protesting the genocide).
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
This is tricky, and I will start by saying upfront that I don't have all the answers.
In the case of the specific slogan that was an issue here, I will say that while I sympathize with the people on both sides of the divide, ultimately I think destickying the thread, so at least the slogan was not boldly viewable to the people I know who were personally made to feel unsafe by seeing it, was the right call.
In the general case, the solution is going to involve people on both sides willing to consider viewpoints other than their own. That doesn't mean "the answer is always somewhere in the middle" or anything so pat, but I do think that if someone asks you "how do you think someone on the other side if this feels," you should be able to answer honestly. Even if they're "wrong" by some metric, they're still people.
I also think it's worth pointing out that the audience of any given thread or title is not "the world", it's "the people in CoRe," and I think it's imperative that we communicate to them that they matter. If there's a more sensitive way to express an idea that doesn't hurt or alienate people here, I think it's probably, all things equal, the best bet.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
AI occupies a unique place in history where his cultural impact far outweighs his impact on winning basketball games. I would say he is, as a basketball player, overrated in the sense that people tend to put him in Top 5 or Top 10 discussions for his era when he probably wasn't that good. That being said, given his lack of physical size, and the sheer skill he displayed with the ball in terms of handling and scoring, he was better than 99.9% of his peers. But you can be both incredibly skilled and culturally relevant without having a Jordan-esque impact on wins and losses.
I'm in California, so Pacific Time. I am generally a night owl, and don't do early mornings.
I am an incredibly skeptical, critical person, particularly when it comes to "serious" issues. Due to a confluence of factors (see: the aforementioned religious upbringing, but also my family dynamics), I tend to undervalue feelings - particularly those that are quickly, strongly expressed - in favor of assessing facts and figures, and then extrapolating the "validity" of those feelings after the fact. (The irony of having a previous career as an employee opinion consultant and not valuing feelings is not lost on me.) That being said, I do actually value feelings quite a bit on a personal level, and I think they have value in and of themselves. But I find it very hard to think that someone's opinions can be justified in and of themselves just because they feel or react strongly about something, as growing up I would regularly see emotions being weaponized as a tool of control. If you are angry about something, I appreciate that anger for what it is and I think it indicates something meaningful to you. In that sense it is and will always be valid. But whether or not it means I, personally, should do something about it, or I should compel others to do something about it, is a different assessment entirely. In that sense, I think I may come across as cold or distant, or perhaps even a little condescending, when I come with an analytical "tell me what actually happened" approach when someone is coming to me and just wants a friendly ear or shoulder to cry on. This is not a great quality in any leadership position because leaders should fundamentally be and come across as empathetic, especially when they are expected to represent a community. There may be times where someone comes to me with a very real, very meaningful concern to them, and I may (after investigation and deliberation) feel like it's just not that important to the broader group. It's "easy" for me to do this, for lack of a better term.
I'm not sure this is "disqualifying" so I'm not sure I ever really reconciled it, per se. It's a character flaw I am well aware of, but I hope my earnestness and honesty come through here.
Regarding the "From the river to the sea" issue, I am on record as saying that the thread title wasn't appropriate given the alternatives. More softly, I think the request specifically was that it be unstickied, and I think that was a reasonable request given the concerns raised. The history of that thread title was itself pretty convoluted, and if recollection serves, it was an example of when the wagon wheel of history just sort of rolled forward without any intentional thought as to where it would end up. There wasn't anything particularly nefarious meant by it initially, and it became a whole other thing once people started reacting to it, and then reacting to the reactions.
Otherwise, to beat a dead horse on my responses, I think I'd need a specific example to provide any other input on this question. The details matter, and there are - unfortunately or not, depending upon your perspective - elements of severity and utilitarianism that often goes into these assessments.
How active former moderators will be in terms of "onboarding" new moderators is up to the new moderators. We will choose people based on our assessments of their qualifications and expertise. If we didn't think they could do the job then they wouldn't be chosen. If they want to ask the old moderators of the PA Forums for advice, that's entirely their prerogative. But it's not something I feel important enough to expect or mandate, or even encourage. The term "onboarding" implies that there's some kind of formal transition, when the reality is that Coin Return is a new entity and its moderators are empowered by and responsible for an entirely different thing, regardless of historical baggage of its collective user base.
To that end, I don't believe moderators of Penny Arcade have any standing to expect access to any moderation or reporting for Coin Return. If they asked for it, I would likely, at least initially, view that as a strange request that indicates a level of entitlement. In the absence of other information, the request on its own would make me incredibly suspicious. If Cincinnatus went back to his farm for the Roman Republic, I'm pretty sure you can do without reading the moderator forum for Coin Return.
Frankly, in terms of Coin Return that issue has been resolved and ex-moderators are not going to be given access just because they used to be mods. I am in agreement with that policy. The Principle of Least Privilege is a good one for a variety of reasons - security, privacy, ethics, etc. If you have no good reason to have access to perform your assigned responsibilities then you don't need access. That's true across the board for any position, not just mods.
As a side note, I considered not responding to this question because it feels like a regurgitation and relitigation of an existing argument. The only reason I am responding is because I am assuming a good faith question on your end. But I would sincerely hope that this isn't an attempt to bring up a specific scenario once again and drag it into questions for other candidates who have nothing to do with it and are trying to answer questions from the broader community. This is likely the last time I will respond to a question that touches upon this issue or the candidate in question.
A forumer mentioned this as a concern to me literally this afternoon, but it is something I have been thinking about for awhile. There is going to be some adjustment, I think, but the most important thing will be that just because the forums are changing in format, we are not. The community is still us. Therefore, I think when it comes to the relatively less fraught sections of the forums (G&T, for example) the transition should be relatively smooth, but we still need to be respectful of a) the relationships that we built, and b) that we are building a new space together. I am hoping that those that made the threads what they are continue on, and I think they can make something new. I don't want to make any rules concerning thread 'ownership', obviously, but I am going to be watching carefully that people are being constructive, not disruptive or destructive.
Now, for topics that are obviously more contentious, the mods are simply going to need to be more present. Part of the reason the forums and those in charge have lost trust is because over the years there have a)been fewer and fewer mods, and b)those mods seemed to have been constrained by distracted admin. from the sounds of it, that main problem seems to be solved, and so now the prospective issue is that the rules will not be applied equally. I hope that everyone would take the opportunity to create the space in good faith, but I am not naive. This needs to be a collaborative effort from both the Board and the Mods, and so whatever policy is put out, it must be all of us together.
As a note, I am perfectly aware that there are many subgroups who think that the mods have been slanted against them, and I just want to say the most serious responsibility as board member will be to ensure that this a)does not happen and b) does not have the appearance of happening (beyond everyone thinking that the mod action against them was unfair, obviously)
As I referred to a little in the previous question about expansion, I am honestly not sure whether we can expand significantly. As I mentioned, forums are seen as old fashioned, despite the fact that having a longform conversation here is infinitely easier than, say, Discord. I want to make sure the existing community is settled and secure before changing things to bring in new blood, because that always brings risk, and I would rather we do that from a position of sure footing.
I think that the institutional knowledge of how to manage communities in general and this community specifically is incredibly valuable, and I would absolutely be willing to consider a kind of advisory position for former mods (and possibly admin). I think it is patently obvious, however, the exact extent of what they are doing, the scope of their advice, and what they can actually look at need to be explicitly clear.
My understanding is that moderation tenures would be somewhat staggered, which I think is a good idea, but the exact nature of transition time has not been decided. Presumably in the matter of months, but I think that would be one of the things the board would decide on. my gut would be four or six, but I don't have a specific number in my head
As for admin, it seems like the platform is relatively stable, from what people tell me, so hopefully those transitions go relatively smoothly, and there would also be an overlap of transition time, hopefully. Again, I think 4 to six months should be enough. If this doesn't work, I think the board should obviously reexamine the exact nature of the transition
@ElJeffe
Having people with wildly varied opinions isn't a bug of the initial Board, it's a desirable trait that should be present in all Boards. If all Board members agree on everything, there's no point in having a Board at all.
We need a varied and balanced Board of members who are willing to cooperate and to learn from each other's opinions and experiences in order to find the best way forward for CoRe. That's the kind of Board member I commit to being.
What time zone are you situated in and what are your general hours of being "active" on the forums?
CST. Kind of just all the time? I work remotely so I have access all day. I have classes 1-2 nights a week for 3 hours where I'm probably not checking the boards.
@ElJeffe
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?
short answer yes. long answer I really don't see that being an issue. I'm not engaged in forcing my personal belief onto the community against another board member's personal belief. Those are just our frameworks for navigating things being brought to us explicitly or implicitly by the community. I'm always centering on that and as long as people engage toward that goal I see no problem.
@Cello
- given the reorg involves a full restructuring, we're going to have a whole lot of people who identified with spaces that will no longer exist. How do you expect to promote unification and bringing the community together? Do you have any initiatives or policy thoughts in mind?
Unification for the majority of people is already happening by nature of where the things they want to post about will live now. Part of the concept of this project is taking it in good faith to make an attempt in the new space. I don't think that solves everything but an outsized percentage of current issues can be traced back to policies and structures that we're very intentionally tearing down. I think there have already been great general suggestions for forum wide ideas like the game that is coming out of the fundraiser. I would like to see continued efforts like that that make it clear that there are no longer separate enclaves of the forum, they're just different topic sections.
- do you have any thoughts on what specific actions you will take to build out our community? Do you have thoughts on crafting a new culture, creating a welcoming space for new posters, or finding ways to promote the forum to bring in posters who are not being introduced to it by existing ones?
the first thing I thought of was the old 24 hour marathon that the steam thread did for years. That dual fundraiser to "make" forumers join the marathon or play specific games and then stream the entire duration after that was amazing. This board raised a lot of money for childs play over the years. I think that kind of effort can absolutely be activated. I've also been thinking about a friend that is on mafiascum. he said they got a huge influx of younger members when amongus first launched. Maybe we missed that particular boat to attract phalla zoomers, but why can't we pair up to run a cross board game or otherwise promote connections between our groups of forum gamers. So many forums have one niche. We're actually a little more unique in covering as much ground as we do, and I'd be interested to explore ways to connect more to different spaces as a hub. bring back webrings I guess I'm saying. Importantly I want to make sure this is always a space that is safe for queer and marginalized communities. I don't want to say we need it more, but well, we definitely don't need it less. So much of the internet and right wing infosphere is hyperfocused on isolating people to radicalize them. We are structurally the antithesis of that, but we need to actively stay philosophically against that isolation.
@thatassemblyguy
what are your thoughts on how to handle occurrences of one part of the community using a slogan (for whatever issue) that specifically hurts another part of the community when there are less divisive/harmful alternatives?
I don't feel like I can answer the generic of this question without answering the specific of it. The reason that From the River to the Sea is an appropriate phrase to use is because the Palestinian people resisting their absolute genocidal destruction are using it as their call to action. It does not matter if I am comfortable with it, but I will clearly state that I am comfortable with it just so this isn't a nonanswer. I'm not putting my body on the line with front line organizing but the two most important things I have learned from them are 1) we don't get to dictate the terms used by the subjugated people and decide if they're acceptable enough for us. 2) We have to sit with things that might be uncomfortable with us in order grow and to be true allies to oppressed people. so kind of at the most basic level if we are aligned with the Palestinian struggle then we accept their means of struggle. I can not and will not speak for our jewish board members. I only have personal conversations with Jewish friends and their families (and very clearly this is not an authoritative answer) about their own struggling with this issue and I respect that they have suffered harm from a different use of the same phrase. I'm not going to be able to gather all of my thoughts on this in any reasonable length and I am constantly learning on topics like this more than a lot of other things and have updated my opinion many times on this and imagine I will continue to evolve my understanding with a goal toward doing the most good.
- This is something that I feel I do with a high degree of frequency. I think that if you're not willing to interrogate your own beliefs and be prepared to adjust your mindset frequently, you're a lesser person because of it. One example recently that is pertinent to this place was that I was really big on a direct democracy model where we voted for all the mods from within the community. Many people in the larger forum and within the governance team presented facts and well-communicated opinions that I ended up walking away from that position into supporting what we have decided to go with here, i.e. the vetted list with community ratification
- Not hard at all and in fact, I have received criticism in the past that I am too eager and to quick to be conciliatory and to seek common ground, and some people view it as a weakness that I don't write more people off completely. I personally still see it as a virtue; when we are talking about building a community, we need to bring people along on the journey
- Not really ever considered not moving ahead with the move to CoRe. The governance work has been a tough, gruelling slog at times, but I always felt motivated by the idea of amazing core can (and will) be
- Finding consensus, definitely. Sure, I have principles and ethics that I hold sacrosanct. Happily, I think the vast, vast majority of our community also hold the same or similar values and principles so I don't feel like I will ever have to betray them at CoRe. We simply must be able to work with people who disagree on some points; this is a foundational element of building community
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I am GMT+11. I can be 'on call' for short conversations here and there during the regular work day at least 60% of the time. I am available for longer calls/discussions between 0400 - 0700(ish) and from 2000 - 2400. Weekends I can put time aside as required given at least 72 hours' notice
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Or at least the serious ones. If people feel it's really important to know my favourite comic, opinion on sandwiches, or inside seam measurements, repeat your question at a less significant time.
I'm doing this in a bit of a rush, so forgive me if these aren't necessarily fully thought out, or even necessarily final stances - just my immediate thoughts on to try and make inroads into this rather large large backlog of questions.
Apologies if I missed anyone's queries.
I would say that it is not the responsibility of the board to set these standards; governance of Coin Return is no longer an authoritarian hierarchy where dictates are decided at the top level, but driven up by the community.
That said, this community already has chosen to codify values of Connectedness, Safety, Self-Expression, Equity, Accountability, and Empathy.
My interpretation of those values is such that vague, unclear titles are not in line with the values of the community - particularly Connectedness, Empathy, Equity, and Accountability, and would have an expectation that our community values steer towards norms and standards that unclear and vague titles are generally not acceptable, at least in regards to serious topics. However, that is not a absolute dictate, and there should still be room for more relaxed tones and occasional joke threads. No one value trumps another, and there is room for nuance and subjectivity, but in large it's in the hands of the community as to what those standards are - with support and guidance from those who have been entrusted to represent and guide those standards.
1) The moderators are the shepherds and maintainers of forum guidelines, and are entrusted with acting to ensure the continued good function of the social space. To this end, I look for qualities that support that role: empathy, insight, professionalism, and a sense of social intelligence. I think the most important thing is understanding this community, having a sense of how it flows, and being able to steer it if necessary.
2) We've worked hard to establish a system of values and rules that hopefully allow that harassment or abuse be appropriately dealt with, but no system is foolproof. More important is taking care of our moderation team, and to this end I support having sufficient coverage to allow them breaks and the ability to step away. My professional background is in public social welfare, and my baseline metric is the support offered Social Welfare workers; what that might look like may depend on a case-by-case basis of assessment and severity, but if one of our moderators is put in an unsafe situation as a result of their role or actions, then I'd be open to exploring opening the books to provide professional support - mental, physical or digital safety, or other potential options in severe cases.
3) First, by attempting to understand their alternate viewpoints. I cannot meet someone who cannot articulate their argument. But by and large, I'm an analytical and rational person who is good at finding solutions. It's my entire career, and I'm good at it. As an IT analyst, it is my job to distill expressed ideas into defined and understood requirements, and work out achievable solutions. The mapping is not 1-to-1, but making compromises to achieve solutions is the kind of meeting I have a half dozen times a week, and a lot of the skills are transferable. I hope that this is something that has been demonstrated several times in the Transition subforum during various refinement and feedback threads.
1) Yes. I want to support the whole community, not just my community.
2) My immediate reaction to being contacted by a legal entity would probably be along the lines of "Don't we retain legal counsel for this shit?" followed by potentially "No? Why not?". Legal hardball is not a game for amateurs to dabble in. Get a professional, listen to their advice.
By design, mod actions have been set up to socialise, and thereby neutralise, outlying moderation activity. However, I would hope that we set up some sort of in-team norming tools - onboarding, mentorship, community management - that give us the structure to bring moderation into step with the whole team and the community at large. Importantly, respectful transparency and communication should be part of this, as should accountability.
Mostly yes to all of the above, in varying degrees depending on circumstance?
I think I put this into another thread in the Transition forums, but ideally, I want to build a positive and vibrant community that is capable of self-correction and healing. To that end, toxicity and intolerance are things to excised, whether by behaviour modification, or removal matters little to the end result as concerns the health of the community. That said, this is also a place that has (to varying degrees of success) served as a safe space and outlet for people going through stressful and troubled times. Patience and empathy should also be a feature, but not to the point of harm to the whole; some have never exited that spiral, but others have come back better for the support they received here. That's an important part of the space this community provides, as well, and should not be lost sight of.
Okay, like this is totally a me thing, but it does bother me more than it should that we use the shorthand term 'Key Decisions' to describe both the process and the outcome of the generation of governance guidelines. It leads to confusion of message and conflation of terms, and I'd rename the outcome to Key Decision Log or Governing Documents or Coin Return Societal Charter of Rules or something.
I have a full slate of meetings this afternoon, but will try to answer more later if the thread isn't on fire by then.
It's blocked for me, but it appears that they have The Thing.
Yes.
No.
I lean towards leaving thread titles up to the discretion of their creator. While on the balance I think most of the laugh out loud titles I have seen will be for topics (like the NBA thread) moving to other parts of the forum , I'm also mindful that with the creation of the new community at CoRe there will likely be a broader range of topics and users. I think some dark humour like [Staring Into the Abyss] perhaps strikes a little to close to the core at times, and there other topics . The introduction of tags with regards to the topic or framework of threads will help keep things on track a bit and my understanding is that you'll be able to search the forum by tag as well if forumers wish to.
If it's a cricket bat, knife. If it's a baseball bat I'll take the bat.
I've read 1001 Arabian Nights. Nothing good will come of this tortoise.
1 - I've touched on this at length a bit more than other topics in my introduction as I agree, I think that it will be one of the more important tasks establishing the new community and I wanted to give people a sense of where my views on that lie, so thanks for the opportunity to expand.
Traits I would value would be good community touch. The examples I gave of this earlier were Chu, someone I knew only in passing and what I had picked up was through forum osmosis. In a time were trust was shaky with the departure of Geebs I felt Chu really went out of his way to integrate himself into disparate communities. Sterica was another example who has been active for a long time and has built up the respect of the community at large and they are the benchmark I have in my head at the moment.
Patience, as things can get heated both between forumers and mods. There are obviously limits to this, which I'll get into in the next section you raised.
Judgement. I'm hopeful with new rules and governance decisions this will help create a framework for mods to work off, along with access to a wider range of tools to apply will lighten the load that mods have faced at times.
I believe Tef at one point mentioned developing a sort of tutorial/training program for new moderators providing various examples and scenarios they might encounter as usecases/guidelines how how to apply those new tools to it will give more flexibility.
2 - I do want to support and empower our moderation team. At times the moderator count here has resulted in an unhealthy amount of work falling to a few people and while burned out felt burdened to keep at it on behalf of the community. Obviously as something that people volunteer for to help the community those are bad outcomes, particularly when I want our mods to be members of their community and not having to troubleshoot every single event happening because no one else is on deck.
New changes to moderation on the nuForums as I mentioned above, a deeper pool of mods spanning the breadth of the forums will hopefully be another fork in a strategy to help mitigate stress accumulation for moderators. We're also creating a new community that is working with a rule set that won by consensus and that should make a difference.
I also recognise that mods, admins and board members aren't infallible and we also now have processes and guidelines to address that as well that were not there before to provide accountability.
I don't want to delve too deep into specifics here other than to say that Chu shared some details of the awful shit that he was on the receiving end anonymously. A few other mods have too and what I heard was both horrific and completely beyond the pale.
3 - If I am selected for the board, it will be by the wishes of the community and that is whose interests I'll be working towards. So will the people in the other seats, all of whom have at least a decade of presence on the forums. I have passing familiarity with all but one of the other cadidates just from time spent around each other.
The furtherance of the forums and our new community is a common goal guided by our Core Values. Those CV will serve to at least give a starting point on what isn't up for compromise, from there we can establish common ground and build out.
As far as I'm concerned, only elected or community ratified people will be able to look at private information. From a process view, that means if we deemed it necessary to have additional mod mentors (I think some old mods will be selected for CoRe, but that's a given fact) there will need to be community ratification for giving those mentors private matters, if we deemed such a thing necessary. I have been a big proponent of, essentially, a 'mod handbook' to help moderators in their role. It is within the realm of possibility that the board will standup up a subcommittee for the purpose of putting that together, and that subcommittee could very well be made up of ex-mods. Essentially, fully aligned that this needs to be done well for our future success, I believe we have some governance in place already about how people may access private info, and I would lean into those to utilise any additional mentoring and coaching support we need. This would all be done a transparent way, so the community can have confidence on who is seeing what info and why.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I do not care. Just don't put ketchup on it, heathen.
Why should we, as a community, be content to vote in favor of someone who would basically be learning on the job, especially over other candidates who are experienced in similar roles?
How will you separate your personal feelings from the role you would occupy in a leadership
role in the new forums?
The board will have five members, there will be resources they can turn to if they have questions about processes or how to manage the organization, they are not an island. The board can be supported easily by people outside of it for many things.
This is not going to be a byzantinely structured corp with many departments in need of a lot of executive support.
I would just like to point out that your posts have a real Rimjob_Steve vibe to them, @xXx_bLunTmaSTeR_420x69?
When I'm a board member, I'll ensure you all are banned!
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
why the fuck am i in the desert? I hate sand.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
A person should be able to look at a thread and see what it is about, without needing to click on it.
I was under the impression that this is what Tags were meant to be used for.
If a person is going to make a thread on a topic and they want to interact with other people on said topic, then I think it's on the OP to make sure both the OP and the Title are easily understood.
I have no objection to humour in appropriate doses, sometimes you need to laugh or it's just crying forever. But I think if your clever joke is oh so clever and can't possibly be left out, put it in the OP, make the Thread Title clear.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad