How is this group a "safe haven?"

[demwing]

133. My "Proper response"...

I've spent the last few days publicly and privately trying to work with you to come up with solutions. I've listened, and made it clear that you're voice would be considered.

After all that, you wrote:

I certainly never saw anyone who complained being expected to outline a solution before.

Merrily, If you're used to complaining without being asked for possible solutions, then perhaps you've been reading the wrong forums. We're here promoting grass roots populist reform-not implementing top down policies.

If you want to complain without taking any responsibility for helping to make this a better place, then you're in the wrong place.


You then continued:

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...If a great suggestion for making the party more populist comes from the "most rightest" Dem on this board, so much the better.

Thank you for your voice. I mostly agree, which is why the first 2 Co-Hosts I selected were NYC_SKP--a co host at the BOG, and Manny Goldstein, DU's satirist extraordinaire, known for his posts as "3rd Way Manny." I wanted ideas from all areas of DU. Not because I am fond of the type of posts found in the BOG, but because I didn't want to dismiss a great idea just because of the source.


You continued:

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?

That's ironic, because my personal opinion is that your posts in this thread epitomize the nitpicking, challenging types of posts you seem to find so senseless. Should the hosts have locked the thread? Maybe, but I chose to try to engage you. You appear to have devoted a great deal of energy to this topic, and I had hoped you could direct it constructively.


You them wrote:

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.

And I disagree. This group IS ready, and so is DU. i believe the hosts are in agreement on that point, as are the many people that have come here.

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.

It's only confusing when you expect the Hosts to police your posts. Hosts enforce the rules, but posters have to alert us to the violations. It's the same with Juries, its the same with MIRT. And FYI - violations may involve Hosts. We're just people, and not above fucking up sometimes. If a Host acts contrary to the rules, or refuses to enforce the rules, PM me.

Why is that confusing?


Continuing, you wrote:

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.

You assume I have not...

From the rules: "Everyone starts out as welcomed. No one earns their way in - only their way out."

That's it. Inclusive, and safe. If you were expecting "safe" to mean "no risk of ever encountering a troll" then I'm afraid you have a naive view of safety - especially if you think that the hosts can manage that all on their own without preemptively banning people before they disrupt. What you seem to want is not realistic, and neither is it safe. It's autocratic and contrary to the mood of a populist reform group.


You added:

You are not, IMO, ever going to have a "safe" group...if you and the other hosts collectively are not willing to spend a decent amount of time on enforcement.

On this we agree, and as the hosts can attest, our recent conversations have been about stepping up our presence on the board. That's why we went from 1 host to 3 hosts to 5 in our first month. However, I would hold you, and all our members and guests to the same challenge. Step up your presence, step up your post count, and step up your participation in the building our Safety Net.

5 hosts cant do it alone, but 200 member sure as hell can.


You wrote:

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.

I don't want to preemptively exclude, and I prefer to not have to ban anyone. You may not think it possible to offer a safe haven along with inclusivity. I respect your right to your opinion, but I don't share it. Our solution requires your assistance, just like a democracy requires your vote. If you don't believe that such a system can work. I just can't be concerned.

Lead, follow, or scoot.


again, continuing:

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.

And I say that your interpretation of what Cosmic Kitty (no need to withhold names when we can all read the thread) has written is not correct. Period.


And you finish:

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.

I wish you would have posted this paragraph earlier in our conversations, because I very much appreciate each of your points. My only comments are that
1) I already know what I want - I want a group of like-minded progressive, populists adults that are empowered to regulate themselves -- with the hosts there to enforce solutions to escalated problems.
2)The hosts ARE on the same page - but when we're not, we talk it out. There is no Host email that we can use to communicate freely, so communication can be clumsy...but we're doing it.
3) This is your best recommendation. I feel that clearly defined expectations decreases conflict and increases enthusiasm. We'll get on that over the coming days...
4) Enforcement is already in play, what we need is members to participate in the building of our safety net.

Thank you for your comments. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but I do respect you for standing up for what you believe. BTW- Be careful, the last person that fit that description became a Host.

This thread has now run its course, but I'll give you the last word.

24 hours from now this thread will close. Feel free to respond before the lock

Demwing