Does this group need a permanent host?

[Bolo Boffin]

From Skinner's post on group hosts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1013434

If your group plays host to open debate on a particular topic, and welcomes a wide range of viewpoints, then the choice might not be so simple. If you select a Host, it needs to be someone who is trusted to be fair by people holding a wide range of viewpoints. You may decide that it is better not to assign anyone as the Host of your group, to avoid the risk that that person might use their power to benefit a particular viewpoint.

This group is not non-controversial and it is alson not a safe haven. Is there a need for a permanent host and is there anyone that can gain the trust of both sides?

Probably the best thing to do is to first explain why you think the group could benefit from either having or not having a permanent host, and then if you think we do need one, nominate someone from the other side of the aisle. If we can only nominate someone who agrees with us, then I'd say that was a strong argument for having no permanent host.

Remember, unlike forum hosts, group hosts have no term limit. This could be a lifetime post.

Here are the superpowers of a group host:

Group Hosts have the following abilities in their assigned groups:

•Lock thread (Reason: Violates this forum's Statement of Purpose)
Locks a thread when the OP is not on-topic for the group. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP explaining why the thread was locked. The thread can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.


•Lock thread (Reason not specified)
Locks a thread for an unspecified reason. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP, but no reason for the lock will be provided. The thread can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.


•Pin & lock thread
Pins a thread to the top of the group and simultaneously locks it. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP, but no reason for the lock will be provided. The thread can be unpinned by any Host, but can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.


•Pin thread
Pins a thread to the top of the group, where it will remain until it is unpinned. The thread can be unpinned by any Host.


•Block a member from the group
Blocks a member from posting in the group. The member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can be unblocked by any Host.


•Make a member a Host of the group
Creates a new group Host. The selected member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can only be removed as a Host by Hosts who are listed above them in the hierarchy.


•Remove a Host of the group
Removes a Host. Hosts can only remove Hosts who are listed below them in the hierarchy

Is there anyone on the other side of the aisle from you that you would trust to be on the top of the hierarchy?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. If we cannot decide on a permanent host, we'll need to ask an admin to unsticky the threads on top

Not a sufficient reason to have one, of course, but I think we'll all get tired of looking at threads like that at the top. I'm actually surprised any of it is still there. I thought these posts would get wiped before the ribbon cutting.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Not in my opinion. nt

[Make7]

3. I think there are functions that only Hosts can do that are beneficial.

For example, pinning threads for discussing group related topics would be useful, sort of like the Please read thread at DU2-September 11.

Also blocking obvious trolls/disruptors from being allowed to post at all will probably be needed at some point.

What if we decided that for this group any Hosts related action could not be taken unilaterally, but would require some minimal form of a consensus? We could even limit it to just two Hosts, but they would have to agree before acting. Hopefully we could all agree on at least two people to Host in a reasonable manner.

Unfortunately not a lot of people frequent the DU2-Dungeon anymore, but I hope some will find it more productive over here at DU3 and visit more often. I think eomer would be a good candidate for being a Host, but I'm not sure if he's around enough should there only be two (or very few) hosts. Someone else that seems like a reasonable choice would be OnTheOtherHand - and he seems to check in quite frequently. There should probably also be some agreed to method to remove hosts if the group members feel they are over stepping their bounds.

Or, thinking as I type this, perhaps we should just have a single Host that simply serves as the person who acts as a representative of the group members. For example, votes could be held whether or not to block someone from (or reinstate them to) the group and the Host would simply enact whatever the result turned out to be.

There are a lot of possibilities on how to run a group. I have no issues with having a few hosts from different perspectives using their best judgement while using the Host position as it seems to be set up by the Admins, but I was usually not the one having issues with how the DU2-Dungeon was moderated.

What would be helpful to getting things off to a good start over here would be to get the input of people that found the DU2-Dungeon unfair. If people really want a place for more productive discussions, it shouldn't be terribly difficult to come up with some agreement on how to proceed.

[eomer]

11. Hi, I'm here.

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2011, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

I've been around more than it would appear, but just reading. I'd like to participate more under this new protocol but that depends on how it plays out. Eliminating theories of space lizards wielding ray beams is in the direction of what I think is needed but probably misses the mark still because one could always ignore those threads anyway. What I would need is for us to also somehow eliminate the inane at the post level. And, as I think about it, also to eliminate posts that deliver no substance but instead attempt to sway by mere ridicule. And maybe those two will tend to feed into each other: less inanity leads to less tendency to use ridicule.

I think that many of the old regulars, from both sides of the fence, would be more interested and engaged if we could rein in the discussion in those ways. Of course, there are some other regulars who wouldn't, if you get my drift. And, to be clear, I wouldn't want to go so far in policing inanity that creativity was smothered. Creative speculation should probably be permitted in a group called Creative Speculation.

Regarding me being a host, I couldn't if it was one of only two, couldn't commit to that amount of engagement always. Being one of 6 or something like that is something I would do, assuming the DU3 version ends up making the conversation more attractive.

Edit to add: what I really meant was: space lizards wielding ray beams demolished the World Trade Center. There may actually be other threads about space lizards wielding ray beams that I think should be allowed, such as a discussion on whether aliens exist and whether they would be hostile or not.

[Make7]

26. Well, it still remains to be seen how the conversations develop here.

(And also whether having Hosts would make things more amicable.)

My hope is that we can all agree on at least six Hosts initially. I couldn't fault anyone if they wanted to see how the first round went before jumping into the fire themselves (so to speak) - although I don't think the Hosts will get nearly as much criticism as the moderators did on DU2. It just seems to me like it would be a good idea to have someone around to lock off-topic threads and block people who are obviously disruptive from posting in the group.

At this point I think we are just trying to come up with a basic understanding of how the Hosts here will be selected and perhaps how their responsibilities might differ (or not) for this particular group. I've thrown some ideas out there (as has Bolo Boffin, who has made most of the effort so far), but I am still hoping some more people chime in.

Just be sure to check in periodically to see if there are any developments and let us know what your opinion is on anything being considered.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. I could see Grateful for Hope as a permanent host.

She's been a moderator over at DU for a couple of years now, right? If she was up to being a permanent host, her successful stint as a DU2 moderator makes me feel like she could be impartial.

[Grateful for Hope]

12. Hi Bolo

Yes, I was a moderator for nearly three years. It's true that moderators were expected to put their biases aside when participating in the consensus process. It wasn't always easy!

I'd be happy to host here, although I would need to do this in the evenings as I might be going back to work in a week (have been unemployed for the last two months).

However, I also think you would make a good host. From what I saw over the last several days, you have the ability to be unbiased in your decisions...

[maddezmom]

13. I think you both would make good hosts

and if you need anyone else, I'd be happy to help as well.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Of course if either Lithos or undergroundrailroad (or both) were to put their hats into the ring

I'd endorse either without hesitation for the top spot.

[maddezmom]

22. that sounds like a great idea

[greyl]

6. I think it's too early to be certain.

I don't see any urgency in assigning a host here. I'd vote for giving it a couple weeks for people to start showing up again, and see how the group discussions about it play out.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Oh, definitely.

No need to make a decision tomorrow or the next couple of weeks.

[maddezmom]

7. I think this group needs a few hosts

[greyl]

8. Yeah, when/if the time comes, at least 6 would be nice. nt

[canetoad]

15. Agree with multiple hosts

One host will work just fine in many groups; not, I think, this one.

I suggest Grateful for Hope as lead host, five other places to be filled.

[SidDithers]

10. Yes. And I nominate you..nt

Sid

[Lithos]

14. Yes, there should be hosts for this group

One of the occasional things which happens is the occasional bad source is used and someone needs to kindly shut it down.

Lithos

[Bolo Boffin]

16. I think this is the consensus. Anyone who feels otherwise, please speak up.

And that's because most are suggesting a candidate or two. Anyone who disagrees and thinks we don't need a permanent host, please speak up.

[Ohio Joe]

17. My two cents... I suggest Bolo and Spooked

I believe both of them would take seriously the job of Host and perform it without bias and... It gives one from each perspective. More may be desired down the road but I think these two would be an excellent start.

[greyl]

20. I'd be worried about assigning someone whose DU2 posts frequently clearly violated DU3's TOS. nt

[Ohio Joe]

25. Come on... Bolo was never that bad...

It is true that most of what Spooked posted is no longer allowed however... I do not remember Spooked breaking rules very often, I think it was pretty rare for him to get a post deleted. It is also true that I do not see him violating the new ToS or even trying to push boundries on it.

[canoeist52]

18. Probably not a good idea.

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. If a group has no host, a thread CAN be alerted on.

One of the alert options is that the thread/post be judged to not meet the group Statement of Purpose.
However, that throws the decision to a jury of 6 people across the entire DU map.

One advantage of a host is that important posts can be pinned.

Also bear in mind that a host can only lock the OP, NOT an indiv. thread IN the Op.
The thread has to be alerted on.

This group, as with the dungeon, could benefit from a few hosts. If "king forever" issue is a problem, the lead host could step down after a certain agreed upon period allowing #2 to move up, etc.
But bear in mind that any locked posts and pinned threads by #1 would remain.

I really recommend trying out, in due time, 2-3 host roster.

One host alone can be kept pretty busy, as I am finding out in another group.

My 2 $, FWIW.

[greyl]

21. Adding DUer known as noise to the "ballot". nt

[Little Star]

23. If ever a group needed hosts this group would be my pick because..

I like creative speculation and back on DU2 I was afraid to step my toe into the dungeon.

One time was enough for me. It felt like no discussion was allowed. It felt as though some individual posters were successful in shutting down the conversation. I mean no disrespect, but it was almost like a closed group to the rest of us who were over powered by stronger personalities. I never alerted, I just never went back, so I hold some responsibility there too.

This is a new start. The way DU3 is set up groups will hopefully see more people participating. That is a good thing. No group should be owned by a few with domineering personalities. Any DUer should feel welcome in any forum or group on this board.

A group of hosts working in good faith for all can help mold the group into a welcoming place for all well intended DUers.

Besides, I think there are bound to be a few incidents when there will be a need for blocking.

Thanks for listening, LS

[Little Star]

24. I nominate you Bolo.