So, how exactly was he/she chosen?

Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned, but shouldn't the post include being a gamer and always trying to be objective?
From what I gathered here and there it's a non-gamer with strong biases (maybe even especcially against gamers).

What exactly was involved in the hiring process?
I'd like a bit transparency from a site dedicated to idealist (DRM-free) gaming.

I didn't follow up on the whole story since I didn't even have an own internet connection in the last time and was just here sporadically.
On most other sites these days "community managers" tend to be neo-fems that are chosen because of their looks or job unrelated activities, let's just hope this isn't the case here.

And the obvious:
Why did JudasIscariot never get this title officially? For the longest time he was the one actually communicating with the community and knowing his field (gaming) quite well. What did he lack?

greetings

Shouldn't the greetings be at the top of the post?

Community Manager ? Who ? Where ? In here ?

Because presumably Judas actually has a real job at Gog (which I gather is to do with getting games here) and probably didn't want to be a Community Manager.

Drew the short straw.

Or lost a bet with god.

I can bet it was chosen in same way they choose games.
We have great game releases here and then there is 140.
GOG is running business and they want someone to get work done.
It's ironic that Community Manager is from outside community.
But that's the way life works.

I admit i too don't think 140 is their best hunting trophy so far, especially when you put it together with the time of 140's release "here" and whatever other decent indies released at same time (and/or other indies titles that were refused once or twice by GOG by the time of 140 entry in catalog)
but sorry, getting off topic...

now back on track, i'd say that paradoxically, someone "not involved" with the core theme/subject of a forum/community to manage is, by default,an asset regarding presumed neutrality and fairness

however, videogame isnt in a little sheltered social bubble anymore compared to a couple of decades ago (this couple of decade ago where the "classic" mythic "Goog OLD Games" from GOG catalog are coming from, and many users there too). So one shall still be vigilant about any non-gaming personal belief that currently "collides" with (or i'd rather say "against") gaming

now, short straw is old fashioned, folks. I understand the "old" in "good OLD games", but at least couldnt we speak about something like "dice rolls" instead ? As far as such rolls would involve non-"6 sided" dices, i would be fine with it :)

In fairness, they've gone out of their way to make it clear that opposing viewpoints will be welcome. That's even in the rules now. We could have easily gotten one of the million power-mad tyrants out there, but instead ended up with someone who's actually making an effort to meet people halfway.

Doesn't mean we have to like the idea of someone clamping down on things, and there will always be biases and preconceived notions skewing things ever so slightly, but let's at least give credit where it's due. Yeah, pretty much this.

And besides which, we asked for this. Not all of us—personally, I don't think this place has become worse so much as the internet as a whole has become worse thanks to a particularly divisive string of political happenings driving certain types of people into extreme ways of thinking—but obviously enough of us did. Those people are simply getting what they wanted, which is someone showing up and actually doing something.

Then stop gathering shrooms.

From what I've seen of his / her posts, Fables doesn't seem to be leaning in any direction in regards to moderation. The new rules, as many have pointed out aren't very different from most forum T&C and would have been written up by any intelligent person to separate any controversy from the company. In fact, one thing that's fairly uncommon that can be seen in the new rules is asking non-moderators to stay out of moderation, which I think is a kind of good way to say ''don't feed the troll'' while also discouraging the preaching behavior that occurred when the holier members clicked on a thread they didn't like.

Bias can only be seen in the implementation of the rules and so far, that seems uniform although I'm not sure how warnings work. Maybe telling people what rule they broke would go a long way in that, both transparency wise and in preventing repeat ''offenses''. As 227 said and you referred to, we were certainly lucky that we didn't get some Ministry of Truth figure that talked down to us from the ivory tower.

We can't blame someone for following orders.
"Community Manager" is just a tag.
As some of blues already said Community is their least priority.
So only thing we can do is flow with the stream.

i heard the community manager checked out a library book and never returned it!

I can't believe people are upset that someone finally took a job that no one wanted. :P