How is this group a "safe haven?"

[merrily]

118. My "honest" advice? As opposed to what?

First, I am the only poster who has complained about extraneous posts in this group. I have not spent a lot of time in this group. Nonetheless, I've seen other posters noting/complaining about it on threads, albeit not in an OP. Mostly, their comments (and my own) within the body of a thread got no response that I know of. And I certainly never saw anyone who complained being expected to outline a solution before.

Second, safe haven groups are not anything new on DU. I have never been a board owner, or a mod on any board or a group host at DU; and I am certainly not a host of this group. I don't even know which powers DU group hosts have. I typically don't worry about things like that because I read the rules and then do my best to follow them--or take the risk of consequences.

And I did not volunteer to be responsible for this group in any way. So, I am really not sure why I am the one who is supposed to come up with solutions. (No, I don't subscribe to the view that people should not complain unless they know how to fix the problem. Few things are worse, IMO, than even putative responsibility coupled with zero power.) So, I would think hosts would be asking each other for possible solutions--if they think there is a problem.

But, okay, I'll give it a shot, as long as we're all clear that I do not have any expertise or experience in this area, nor have I sought any.

Before I do anything else, I want to be very clear: For me, it's not about including or excluding posters, but about the content and nature of a specific post, regardless of who made the post.

If a great suggestion for making the party more populist comes from the "most rightest" Dem on this board, so much the better. If, on the other hand, the nature of the post is nothing but to nitpick, gadfly, challenge, etc. does including that post in this group make sense, even if FDR somehow came back to life and posted it?

So talking about more people participating does not make sense to me. I am not thinking of excluding people. Of course, a particular poster can be so persistent in posts that are inconsistent with the purposes of this group as to be undesirable in this group, ever. But, I don't think this group is ready for that discussion yet.

Next, simply describing a group as "safe" does not make it safe. Unless action is taken to make it safe and keep it safe, describing it as safe only confuses people like me and leads to OP's like the one I posted.

All that said, the first step, IMO, is that you, demwing, as head host, have to get very clear in your own mind about just how "safe" or how "inclusive" you want this group to be at this moment and how much you and the other hosts are willing to do to make it safe at this moment. If this is a trial period, then maybe the group is not a "safe" place yet and should not be described as such yet.

If you never want to have "subordinates" or if are loathe or to lay down rules, you are not, IMO, ever going to have a "safe" group. Ditto if you and the other hosts collectively are not willing to spend a decent amount of time on enforcement.

Any of that would be just fine. DU's TOS still apply here; and it's not the end of the world Just don't claim the group is safer for leftists than, say, GD is. It's the disconnect between the description and the reality that causes confusion, not that any of us is too frail or too emotional to put up with something that is like GD as far as "safety."

Next, you and the other hosts have to get on the same page with each other. You, as head host are posting on the welcome thread and on this thread that this is a "safe" group, but also that you did not want to exclude. I don't think it's possible to have it both ways.

Meanwhile, as you post those things to me, another host is posting to me, on this very thread, variously that I need to be patient about expecting safety just yet and that this group has no need to be safe like other groups. That host is also posted to me on another thread, in essence, that I should learn how to live with it.

Therefore, I think step 1 is for you to decide truly what you want, given that this group is not going to make itself safe. After you do that, step 2 would be, IMO, to make sure the other hosts are on the same page with you. Step 3 would be to develop a description of what is and is not acceptable here. Step 4 would be enforcement. And, if there is any confusion, maybe contact hosts of other groups that seem relatively safe and ask what they do.

IMO, the hosts have to take the initiative to keep the board safe, especially at first. If safety is the goal, I don't think it is going to happen if the expectation is that posters are going to send a pm every time they see a post they think is off base. That is not realistic in general, but especially true if posters don't get a shared vision about what constitutes safety and what constitutes appropriate corrective action.

Or, again, you could simply decide that "safe" is not really the direction you want.