I must object to Lithos being assigned as Host of this Group.

[Make7]

From Skinner's thread in the 'Announcements' group:

[div class=excerpt style=border-style:ridge;]What to do if you want to serve as a Host? (THESE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE CHANGED)

If the members of your group decide to select a Host, then you must decide who will serve as the first Host. The DU Administrators will assign ONLY ONE host to each Group, and then it is the responsibility of that Host to select other members of the Host Team (if anyone else wishes to serve).

Hopefully in most Groups, selecting a first Host will be a simple matter of awarding the job to the first person who posts in the Group to volunteer for the job. If more than one person is interested, then you need to discuss the choice of Host amongst yourselves until you come to some sort of consensus regarding who should have the job.

1. If you want to serve as a Host of a particular Group, the first thing you need to do is post in that group to let the members of that group know you are interested in serving as the Host. If a consensus is reached and you are chosen for the job, then -- and only then -- you can report back to this thread and let me know.
2. Post a reply in this thread telling me which group you have been selected to Host. Include a direct link to your post in the group where you want to serve. I need that link in order to give you host powers.
3. I will only assign ONE host to each group. After that first host has been assigned, then that first host has the power to grant host status to anyone else. So, if a host is already assigned to a group, then you need to contact that host to become a host.

Good luck selecting your Hosts.

Skinner
DU Admin
Perhaps I am reading step 1 incorrectly, but I see no post by Lithos in this group stating his interest in becoming a Host and, as far as I can tell, there has been no concensus that he should be the first Host. He has also made no reply in Skinner's thread as outlined in step 2 above.

What is the point of setting up guidelines for groups to choose the first Host position if the Administrators are simply going to make the choice for a group without going through any of the steps they instructed us to follow?

Is this really how we want the Hosting duties of this group to begin? We are told we will be able to decide how our groups are run, but then we find out that someone has been given the first Host position without even having to adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Administrators.

Should we even bother with any further discussions of who should be Hosts in this group? Or should just assume that the Administrators and the first Host will decide all that for us?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. I was hoping Lithos and undergroundrailroad both would throw their hats into the ring

But we did have a process underway to get some consensus.

[jberryhill]

2. Lithos has been mod of this group for, like, ever

What was your complaint about Lithos up till now?

[greyl]

4. By the letter, there was never a 9/11 Group, Conspiracy Group, Speculation Group, etc...

At DU2, September 11 was a Forum. This is a brand new place, and it's a Group.
To be technical about it, anyway.

[noise]

5. AFAIK Lithos never posted anything

in the September 11 forum (discounting -locked Lithos posts).

Is he or she even interested in this subject?

[jberryhill]

7. Who better to keep the peace?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. Concur. Sort of a Cincinnatus of the Creative Speculation forum. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

6. I think Make7 made his point quite clearly.

He objects to the way Lithos was made host, not to Lithos' qualifications.

Both Make and I have spent a lot of time thinking through how hosts from both sides of the aisles here could cooperate in hosting this group, with lots of input from others. And now comes this top-down installation as if the group were not working through the issues at all. Personally, I don't see the reason for the rush. True, we weren't getting a lot of input from the free-thinker side, but we were getting some, including some willing to serve as hosts.

I myself had suggested that if Lithos or undergroundrailroad or both were willing to serve, that they'd be good choices for the top spot. It would have been nice to hear of their interest and to put it to a vote in the group.

[jberryhill]

8. I guess I just don't see it as that big a deal

We don't have to have one.

"If" your group decides to have a host...

But I don't quite get the "host" thing either.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Well, the group didn't decide to have one or not.

I think the difference between host and moderator is intentional in DU3. A host to me is someone that provides an atmosphere for reasonable debate by, among other things, making sure disruptive party-poopers are shown the door, regardless of their slavish attention to the rule of law.

[jberryhill]

10. If we had someone doing that

...there would be nobody left.

I'm sure I could round up a healthy head count on the proposition that you or I are disruptive party poopers.

[greyl]

41. I think a clear majority of those who replied thought there should be at least 1 host.

A benefit of having a host that didn't come up in discussion, is the ability to lock OPs from Malicious Intruders. For that utilitarian reason alone, every group should have a host.

For the record, I have no objection to Lithos acting as top host, and I can't imagine anyone beating him in an election for that position either.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. yes, perhaps so.

But as BeFree just demonstrated, we still have people who haven't logged in yet, most notably from the freethinker side of the issue. There's a limit to how long we can wait, but I also don't think things are moving with such speed down here.

And it's not about anyone possibly beating Lithos in a vote, either. I would have voted for him (among others) myself. I brought up his name in the other thread. It's about the callousness shown toward the actual discussion that was going on. How can you build a consensus in a group with a history of bad blood between both sides? With respect. The admins installing Lithos without following the recommended procedure, indeed, trampling on that procedure, isn't a sign of respect for the group or any participants in it.

Yeesh. I'm beginning to think noise has a point about authoritarianism.

[Make7]

47. I don't have a problem with him. I like Lithos.

In fact, Lithos was going to be one of my nominations when Bolo Boffin posted the voting thread he was planning to in the next few days.

My problem stems from the way in which Lithos was made Host.

There had been numerous discussions in the DU2-September 11 forum in the past about the atmosphere of that forum and whether or not the way it was run was fair or biased. With so much history and unresolved issues between the participants, it seems rather short-sighted to begin the new DU3-Creative Speculation group right where the DU2-September 11 forum left off.

My post was not an indictment of Lithos but rather a complaint about the Admins simply designating someone to be Host without the input of the people posting in the group.

[flying rabbit]

3. Funny how that played out

innit?

[BeFree]

11. TOTALLY AGREE

Is Lithos still a mod here on 3? Can I question Lithos now? Cuz there are some things I'd like to know.

I read the discussions on who the host should be. And of course the #1 host should be me. But I have no star.

Why me? Because of the regular posters on DU2 9/11, I have the longest presence and the most posts on DU.

And Lithos hardly ever posts. If this is what DU wants, they may as well just ban the lot of us. Be real, and just fucking ban us.

And here I was hoping DU3 was gonna be run by the members who contributed the most. WRONG! Same old shit!

[maddezmom]

12. just for the record, hosts don't need to have a star as far as I know

might want to double check in the help and meta forum.

[maddezmom]

14. oops, wrong place

[Bolo Boffin]

13. As far as I can determine, this is your first statement on the matter anywhere in this new group.

If you wanted to be host, why haven't you said anything until now?

[BeFree]

17. Just logged on 1st time

What I would do as host is appoint 6 others. Eomer would be good. OTOH, no way. Spooked, no way.

I would ask the group for recs of other hosts. And have the others agree to a certain threshold of conduct which would be public.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. That's what we'd been working up to in the various host discussion threads we had going.

I was on the verge of posting a thread asking for nominations/volunteers, with a vote probably for Wednesday or 24 hours after no one replied to the nomination thread, whichever came first. Then this happened.

[maddezmom]

15. jmo, but I have no problem with Lithos being the first host and I think there should be others

jmo, but I have no problem with Lithos being the first host and I think there should be others

pulled from either side of the debate. One of the reason not a lot of former mods posted in this forum is we didn't want to been seen as biased one way or the other. It can be a contentious group as most of the regulars here know but I think Lithos would be in a better position than most to make sure the other hosts were a fair representation of the membership of the forum. Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Lithos would have gotten my vote

if he'd submitted his name and gone through a vote. That didn't happen here.

I'm not questioning his qualifications. I expressly brought up his name and undergroundrailroad's. Indicating a desire or at least a willingness to serve wouldn't have biased the debate one way or the other.

Did I want the spot? Sort of. I would have served. Would I have gotten it? Not likely. I'm too contentious a choice. I'd have to have demonstrated my ability to be impartial as a lower host for a while before a lot of people here would have stood for me in the top spot.

But checking the legalese, the admins don't promise a democratic choosing of hosts. They say they have that option. With this appointment over the head of an ongoing discussion about hosting and the outright banning of longtime poster defendandprotect over chemtrails, the admins are making their intentions toward this group rather clear.

[BeFree]

19. Can we question Lithos now?

Or is he still above being questioned? Has anything changed?

And I am having a hard time remembering your presence here, maddezmom.

I think old mods should all retire and let us start all new.

[maddezmom]

21. there are no mods anymore and like i said I didn't post much here, but didn't mean I didn't read.

As for questioning hosts, I see no reason why not if you do it in a respectful way. But making blanket accusation and motives about admin, former mods or other members will probably be seen as bad form.

[BeFree]

22. Yes, I know

I should watch what I say and who I say it to.

[maddezmom]

23. not sure what you mean

but not going to get into an argument here.

[BeFree]

24. Question

Do you think bushco is innocent of everything about 9/11?

Or do they have a measure of guilt?

Of course you are free to just ignore my question and go your merry way. But I would like to know and you do have like 124,000 posts and I don't recall your position on 9/11.

[maddezmom]

25. I don't have a clear position...I'm not in either camp so to speak.

But I'll tell you what I'm not...I'm not a no planer, I don't believe there were nukes at WTC and I believe we were attacked by terrorists on 911. Does Bushco have a measure of guilt? Sure because I believe they blew off any warnings that Al Qaeda wanted to attack. They felt the knew more about anything than any intel from the former Clinton administration.

As for the rest, that is why I read here to try to make sense of it all.

[BeFree]

26. Thank you

You show a great measure of reliability by accurately describing the incriminating evidence against that most criminal of administrations.

I hope this forum can continue to be open, and as educational -- even more so -- than it was on 2.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. I think the Bush Adminstration has a measure of guilt.

And I agree with everything Maddezmom said here: "I'm not a no planer, I don't believe there were nukes at WTC and I believe we were attacked by terrorists on 911. Does Bushco have a measure of guilt? Sure because I believe they blew off any warnings that Al Qaeda wanted to attack. They felt the knew more about anything than any intel from the former Clinton administration."

Thanks for your endorsement of "great measure of reliability." Can I quote you on that?

[BeFree]

28. Yes

Maddezmom is cool by me. You can quote me on that, indeed.

And quote this: I give bushco no quarter. No leniency, no reasonable shadow of a doubt. Were I to do so would be most unwarranted.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. And since maddezmom and I agree, I'm cool by you as well? n/t

[BeFree]

30. to be fair

If you can put it in your own words that you think bushco is guilty then I can quote you? Sure, that would be cool.



I do like maddezmom. Indeed.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. I like her words that I quoted. I wouldn't change a thing.

Well, I might add some commas and spell one word right.

I'm not a no planer, I don't believe there were nukes at WTC, and I believe we were attacked by terrorists on 911. Does Bushco have a measure of guilt? Sure, because I believe they blew off any warnings that Al Qaeda wanted to attack. They felt they knew more about anything than any intel from the former Clinton administration.

My words. Thanks for saying I "show a great measure of reliability," BeFree. Your endorsement of me means a lot here in DU3.

[BeFree]

39. Do you remember?

Weeks ago on the old DU you said something totally different?

I am flattered you are seeking my approval, bolo. But really, it is a bit much, actually getting embarrassing,

[Bolo Boffin]

40. I do remember, and I said nothing totally different at all.

Please don't misrepresent my words, BeFree. That would be uncivil.

[zappaman]

31. What is 'BUSHCO"? n/t

[maddezmom]

32. to me it's shorthand for the Bush Administration

[zappaman]

34. so everyone in the BUSH administration is guilty of something when it comes to 9/11?

everyone?

[maddezmom]

37. no not everyone, like I said it's shorthand

how is this? BUSH'SINNERCIRCLECO?

[zappaman]

38. BUSH'SINNERCIRCLECO

and that is who?
be specific please. I would like to know WHO is guilty and WHAT they are guilty of.

[BeFree]

33. ignoring you, z

n/t

[zappaman]

36. of course you are because you can't answer the question.

and since you NEVER answer any direct question that is asked of you in all of your thousands of posts, I think you would be a terrible moderator.

[Ohio Joe]

43. Moderation is very different on DU3 then DU2

You are free to ask Lithos anything you want... He is, of course, under no obligation to provide you any answers.

Hosts can indeed lock OP's that do not meet the Groups Statement of Purpose or that violate the Terms of Service. I suggest you read each of them as they are not the same as DU2. The SoP for each Forum/Group is found at the top of each thread list. The ToS has a link at the bottom of each page. Hosts also have the ability to ban disrupters from Groups (not Forums) that they are Hosts of.

Replies the are found objectionable, go to Juries and/or Admins (for ToS violations). It is important to fill out an alert correctly, give an explanation as to why an alert is being given and be sure to check the ToS violation box if the post is a violation of the ToS.

This being a contentious Group, I suspect Skinner asked Lithos to take on the Host duties since the Group has been unable to decide for ourselves. My votes for Hosts went to Bolo and Spooked. Be sure to help the Group figure out who should be Host in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1135145

[Grateful for Hope]

44. I am surprised to see this since this was supposed to be a group decision.

However, it is what it is. I would like to see more hosts added representative of all members who post in this forum.

[Cherchez la Femme]

45. Shouldn't there be some kind of vote?

[Grateful for Hope]

46. That was my understanding.

Apparently, this group is different.

[eomer]

48. I agree with the OP.

Lithos is not unbiased, in my opinion. If the process for choosing hosts were followed I would consider Lithos a fair choice to represent one side of the obvious divide that exists but would not have agreed to have Lithos as a single top-level host.