Who wants to be the host?

[XemaSab]

This discussion thread was locked by XemaSab (a host of the Environment & Energy group).

If nobody else wants the job, I'll take it.

[Vadem]

1. I vote for you, then! If you want it, you should have it! Go for it!

[joshcryer]

2. You got my vote, XemaSab.

[kristopher]

3. I don't think it is as simple as that.

The new system has a lot of potential in both positive and negative ways. I'd like to offer my help in making the EE group a place where open discussion is not only encouraged, but allowed to flourish free of disruptive behavior designed to drive readers away.

I'm a completely unaffiliated policy analyst specializing in the transition to a carbon-free world. Using qualitative analytic methods from the realm of cultural anthropology I've devoted considerable time looking at the nature of the public discussion surrounding the various aspects of the problems (climate change, pollution and energy security), the technologies available to potentially solve those problems and the social/political/economic variables that are in play.

I came to this forum with no bias against nuclear power. Over time, however, I witnessed a steady stream of untrue negative information about the potential of renewable energy sources and the problems associated with them. Since I knew these claims were false I started tracking those who were making them. Without exception they were all strong proponents of nuclear power.

It is entirely possible to have a legitimate discussion with disagreements about this topic, I do it on a regular basis in venues where professionals gather, but they are all wearing nametags. But the normal rules of civility do not work when in an anonymous setting one side of the discussion is willing to make overtly false claims and willing to do nearly anything disrupt any thread that paints nuclear power in a negative light; which is the situation we are faced with here.

If you are as tired as I am of the character assassination, diatribes and derailed legitimate discussions by those who want to ensure the dominant position of nuclear power then this is the opportunity to do something about it. There is a lot of reason to be very optimistic about what is happening in the world of renewable energy and the transition away from a carbon economy and DU has the potential to not only keep its regular members up to date, but to also make the occasional reader aware of what they can do to help make this transition happen.

I think I have the knowledge base, skill-set and temperament to separate the wheat from the chaff and I'd like to help.

[joshcryer]

5. I vote no to industry insiders.

[kristopher]

6. Case in point

Attempted character assassination by a strong proponent of nuclear power.

[joshcryer]

9. You are the one claiming to be a "policy analyst." I only claim to be someone who knows...

...a thing or two about climate change. I cannot in good consciousness vote for someone who has at one point diminished the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and who has dismissed fracking as an issue.

Given that natural gas and wind power are intertwined in some right wing plans and that fracking natural gas is taking the lions share of new natural gas production, I find insider "policy analysts" the last thing DU's E/E forum needs. I'm not opposed to a "policy analyst" having a general Host position, I am opposed to the primary Host position being a "policy analyst."

[kristopher]

11. First character assassination, now false claims about 2 of my positions

I have never "diminished the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere". However, that was your claim about me in an attempt to discredit an *award winning paper* that looked at the possibility that thermal pollution from coal and nuclear plants was having a far larger impact than it was being credited with.

I have never "dismissed fracking as an issue". What I did do was to open one thread asking for help in gathering the published peer reviewed information into one point. An effort, I might add that was made impossible by nuclear supporters making the same kind of claim you just wrote.

That issue is an excellent example of the potential for misinformation by outside groups with financial interests at stake. The policy allowing was enacted in secrecy by Cheney and gave the gas industry extremely strong protections amid a great deal of secrecy. That is a recipe for disaster. At the same time however, declining natural gas prices are making the economics of new nuclear and new coal impossible.
That means we have a climate where the natural gas industry almost certainly is behaving irresponsibly since there is no accountability.
It also means that very powerful interest groups have a motive to use the popular press to make the situation seem much worse than it potentially is.

Since natural gas could help put the coal plants out of business very quickly and effect an almost immediate reduction in US carbon emissions of 16% I really like to know where the truth is.

Why is you don't?

[joshcryer]

17. A factual observation shouldn't be considered "character assassination." Sorry you feel that way.

I'm not a nuclear advocate, and I deny that even now (in fact, I'm going to have to write an OP on why I am not a nuclear advocate, since you seem to insist on perpetuating that dishonesty; which is character assassination).

You are a self-professed "policy analyst" and "in venues where professionals gather," that makes you, unabashedly, an insider. That's fine, I have no problem with an insider being a Host. I have stated this. Primary host? No. No way, no how. This is Democratic Underground, this is not Democratic Insiders Anonymous. I'll note that you, unlike myself, are anonymous, and the claim that "when in an anonymous setting one side of the discussion is willing to make overtly false claims" almost certainly applies to you, our local anonymous "policy analyst" insider. Again, not a character assassination, merely using your own words.

Meanwhile, your diminishment of CO2 is related more to the fact that you insisted on emphasizing a small number for CO2's warming contribution in the atmosphere. The Nordell stuff was just unimportant silliness which anyone can discover by simply clicking the link provided. I really do hope no one allows anyone with this sort of view to seriously have any sort of power over the direction of E/E.

Your fracking statements, on the other hand, are even more ridiculous. You claim to have merely asked questions, but the actual thread tells the real story. You start off by defending fracking emissions by saying that they "had the potential for being addressed by better business practices." Better business practices? Seriously? Sounds exactly like a policy analyst to me, that's for sure. When you say that "in the long term, though it would be easier for renewables to make headway in a system dominated by natural gas than it is in a system dominated by coal/nuclear" you are invoking the very heart of the old right wing "Picken's Plan." And of course, since conventional natural gas has long since peaked and newly produced natural gas must come from fracking, it's only natural that you, as a "policy analyst," would say these things. And again, I have no problem with you as a "policy analyst." And I have no problem with that assessment. I have a problem with insiders being at the head of this forum.

[bananas]

12. You thought the Nuclear Energy Institute was an environmentalist organization

Your ability to detect bias leaves a lot to be desired.

[joshcryer]

13. Link?

[bananas]

21. sure, here's two threads

Here, you thought NEI's bullshit greenwashing blog was "environmentalist":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217096&mesg_id=217506

joshcryer Thu Nov-19-09 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #148

149. So do you always equate nuclear power with right wingers?

I mean the blog in question is environmentalist, ...

<snip>

In another thread, you linked to NEI's bullshit greenwashing blog again, and I replied:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217399&mesg_id=217647

bananas Thu Nov-19-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #23

57. LOL - that "guy" is paid to do PR for the nuclear industry - "his" blog is the official blog of ...

the Nuclear Energy Institute, the official lobbying group of the nuclear industry.
From SourceWatch:

<snip>

and I also pointed out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217399&mesg_id=217677

bananas Thu Nov-19-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #60

63. NEI spokesman says global warming is a good thing

The Nuclear Energy Institute hired "environmentalist" Patrick Moore to do PR for them,
he runs a greenwashing PR company, there's lots more about him in this thread:

<snip>

[joshcryer]

22. Ahh, yes, I appreciate an environmental view by a blog and am smeared as agreeing with everything...

...the NEI does or says. I remember that.

[bananas]

23. You repeatedly promoted the Nuclear Energy Institute's bullshit greenwashing blog.

You claimed it was an "environmentalist" blog, but it isn't.

[joshcryer]

44. Note how your allegation changed.

First I thought NEI was an environmentalist org, now I think their blog is environmentalist, when in the end neither is supported. I think that the posts when I made that post were environmentalist. The blog can change, my opinion at the time was an accurate observation.

[bananas]

15. I vote for kristopher

He's open-minded and well informed on energy and environment issues.

[hunter]

4. Go XemaSab!

[tawadi]

7. I vote for you too

Though I am not sure how to vote for a host yet.

[kristopher]

8. Xemasab you are against wind energy and support solar only on rooftops, correct?

[XemaSab]

10. Will you vote for me if I bake you cookies?

[kristopher]

14. If I bake you brownies will you vote for me?

Double fudge even.

[XemaSab]

16. Would these make you happier?

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Apparently, there can be up to **20** hosts per group.

That should get interesting. Maybe we'll have lock/unlock wars.

Maybe I should volunteer as well. I'll be the one to lock the fawning Blacklight Power threads. And the FREE unlimited fuel from seawater!!!!! threads.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hydrino_scam

[joshcryer]

19. Groups have a super host though that has very mighty powers.

We cannot have industry insiders or anyone who has shown ardent disdain for posters here as a primary host. It is inconceivable. Good posters would be banned by them simply for either advocating nuclear or having done so in the past.

XemaSab has shown nothing but respect for posters in this forum (group).

[eppur_se_muova]

20. OK, you just made me go to a *lot* of trouble to view a post by someone I have on ignore ! }(

I, for one, am willing to cut people a lot of slack if they'll just make it clear they are playing Devil's Advocate, or otherwise making sure that a *plausible* case can be made for the point they're arguing.

I'm still not clear on the host/super host thing. Not to mention that some may find the term 'host' confusing ...

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Not confusing, just very subtle...

...It's from Lat. Hostia, meaning 'sacrificial victim'. Let's sign Xema up and see what happens.

[eppur_se_muova]

41. On reflection, I feel hatrack should be nominated as "first among equals".

If there is to be one red-kryptonite-proof Host of Hosts, it should go to E/E's most durable member.

[XemaSab]

45. hatrack?

I think we need someone with a little more "experience."

[FBaggins]

24. I think you would do a fine job... but also that this group probably shouldn't have a host.

I'm reasonably sure that E/E is one of the groups that Skinner had in mind when asking "Does your group need a host at all?"

[bananas]

28. Maybe this group shouldn't have a host

Here's the instructions for group hosts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1013434

<snip>

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.

<snip>

[FBaggins]

35. Yep! That's E/E alright. n/t

[pscot]

26. Xema! Xema! Xema!

Another vote for Zema Sab.

[caraher]

27. I'm largely DU3-ignorant

Since I'm not sure why DU3 was deemed a necessary or even desirable change, I'm even more unsure whether hosts are a good or bad idea for this group and how much it matters who the hosts are.

I'm still processing the description of hosts and their role (from the DU3 page on the moderation system):

About Forum Hosts

Forum Hosts have one very simple job: they lock discussion threads which violate the Statement of Purpose for the forum they are hosting. When determining whether a thread violates the Statement of Purpose they must use their own best judgment and only consider the content of the OP (Original Post -- the post which begins the thread).

Forum Hosts are responsible for their decisions to lock threads -- their usernames are made public on any threads that they lock. In addition, only the Host who locks a thread is capable of unlocking it again. Any time a thread is locked, the person who started the thread is permitted to make an official appeal to the Host who locked it, explaining why they believe the thread should be unlocked. If the Host believes the appeal has merit, they may opt to unlock the thread. If the Host believes the appeal has no merit, they may deny the appeal and leave the thread locked.

Members are eligible to serve as a forum Host if they are a Star Member, have been a registered DU member for at least one year, have posted more than 1,000 times, have posted in the forum they wish to host at least once during the previous seven days, and have not had a post hidden by a DU Jury in the previous seven days. Forum Hosts may serve for a maximum of 90 consecutive days if they meet (and continue to meet) these requirements.

Forum Hosts can make use of a special access-restricted workspace which essentially functions like a forum or a group. This workspace is provided for forum Hosts only, in the event that they need help and/or advice from their colleagues when discussing Statement of Purpose violations. While the Forum Hosts Workspace cannot be viewed by DU members who are not forum Hosts, discussions that take place in the workspace are not considered privileged information and forum Hosts are not forbidden from talking about them elsewhere. However, forum Hosts should use their best judgment when doing so.

Because forum Hosts have a very specific and important role in the operation of Democratic Underground, the Adminstrators reserve the right to remove any Host -- or in extreme circumstances, revoke the posting privileges of any Host -- whom they judge to be exercising poor judgment or deliberately abusing their powers.

For more information about forum Hosts including information about how to become a Host, visit any forum, click the "About this Forum" button found near the top of the page, and look for the "Hosts" section.


About Group Hosts

Group Hosts perform a similar role to forum Hosts, but they have additional powers. 1) They can lock threads which they believe violate their group's stated purpose; 2) they can pin threads to the top of their group; 3) they can block out members whom they believe are not adhering to their group's purpose; 4) they can make other members Hosts of their group; and 5) they can remove any Host of their group that became a Host after they did.

If a group already has Hosts assigned, members who wish to become a Host must contact one of the current Hosts. Current Hosts may select any other member to become a Host, without restrictions. If a group does not have any Hosts assigned, members who wish to become a Host of that group must contact an Administrator for approval. Before assigning a Host, the Administrators may post a thread in the group asking for member feedback.

Groups are not required to have any Hosts assigned. If no Hosts are assigned, then nobody will enforce the group's Statement of Purpose.

[bananas]

32. There are new instructions about group hosts: "THESE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE CHANGED"

"THESE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE CHANGED"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1013434

Skinner
Sat Dec 10, 2011, 09:05 PM

Would you like to serve as a Host of a Group? And does your Group even need a Host?

Again, this is an announcement about Group Hosts, not Forum Hosts.

<snip>

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.
   

[caraher]

38. Thanks!

Clearly everything is in flux so soon after the launch...

[GliderGuider]

29. Here are my preferred qualities for a host of this very contentious group

In no particular order:

- Broadly knowledgeable on energy and environmental issues
- Open-minded
- Even-handed
- Impartial
- Non-judgmental
- Not wedded to a particular position, point of view or technology
- Not inclined to make discussions personal or to take others' positions personally
- Doesn't react to personal comments by other forum members (i.e. thick-skinned with lots of self-restraint)
- Is a unifying voice rather than a divisive one
- Has (and displays) a good sense of humour

It goes without saying that I am NOT a candidate because my positions on technology, population, energy in society and my fervent hopes for the imminent failure of industrial civilization are too far from the mainstream. Plus I'm way too much of a smart-ass.

There are some members I would gladly support for this role, and others I would emphatically not support.

[FBaggins]

36. I disagree.

You've just the right amount of smartass.

[XemaSab]

37. I think you would make a good host

precisely because you're not in the middle of a lot of the arguments we have here plus you do your own thinking.

Also, in this forum, having a good sense of humor often entails being a smart ass.

[GliderGuider]

39. One minor personal factor would keep me from ever considering it.

I'm an anarchist, FFS! The very idea of some individual having veto power over my self-expression, or me having a veto over theirs, is repugnant to me.

I have no problem with juries of my peers, but anything that smells like a one-person judge, jury and executioner would drive me out of here in a heartbeat.

On edit: Yes, I did reconsider my original position. I don't support the idea of a host, no matter how well-qualified they might be.

[caraher]

30. Having read a little more...

After reviewing the powers of hosts, I'd rather not have hosts at all than delegate fairly substantial powers to steer discussion to a subset of members who may or may not be universally trusted. I think there are many here who would make fine hosts, but I also see potential for abuse that would have a worse outcome than simply allowing sometimes-contentious debate. We've already seen hints of how this could play out in this thread.

[GliderGuider]

31. Agree. n/t

[Ghost Dog]

42. I agree too.

Hi

[Massacure]

34. I'm with caraher n/t.

[joshcryer]

40. Concur.

The jury handles disruptive posts. We don't need a host.

edit: but if we have to have one, my vote still goes to XemaSab. I would also be fine with hatrack or hunter, both long timers, both never getting into controversial debates.

[Dead_Parrot]

43. The host just clears what is E/E, and what isn't.

I don't think any of our regular flames stray outside of the core topic, no matter how heated they get: The inevitable name-calling and tangential logic are handled by the jury system, not the host. So I think a host or three would be a good idea, but they'll have a pretty quiet time of it.

[bananas]

46. No, they also appoint and remove sub-hosts, ban people, pin and lock threads for any reason

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1127

Environment & Energy (Group): About This Group

Statement of Purpose

Discuss all things related to environmental issues and energy policy.

Hosts

Group Hosts are assigned either by the DU Administrators, or by other Hosts of that group. Group Hosts have the following abilities: 1) They can lock threads which they believe violate the group's stated purpose; 2) they can pin threads to the top of the group; 3) they may completely block out members whom they believe are not adhering to the group's purpose; 4) they may add other members as group Hosts; and 5) they may remove any Host that became a Host after they did (and who is listed below their name on the list below).

Currently there are no Hosts assigned to this group. If you would like to become a Host of this group, contact an Administrator.

Host Super Powers

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
  

[XemaSab]

47. Pie?

[joshcryer]

48. Seriously?

I'm fucking starving. This is just evil.

[Dead_Parrot]

50. Eh, fair enough

I though that had changed. You see that being a problem, though? Hosts who run rampant won't be hosts for very long.

[Massacure]

33. I would prefer not to have a host.

There is too much division in this forum. I feel that that random juries are the best mechanism for keeping posts "in bounds" so to speak.

[joshcryer]

49. How would juries handle deniers though?

I do not think that deniers should be allowed to run amok. I suppose we can wait and see, but remember, the old E&E had moderators, and threads did get locked from time to time.

[Dead_Parrot]

51. Not amok, but...

...we shouldn't automatically ban them or their posts, either. So long as they are sticking to the subject and the general rules, they can speak their piece.

Let's face it, if you can't argue with someone who claims the icecaps are growing, you're in the wrong place.

[jpak]

52. Sorry, I aready have worms - and not in the mood for any more "hitchhikers"

nope

[XemaSab]

55. I have no idea what this post means

[jpak]

56. It's a biology joke - host... parasite

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2011, 10:14 PM - Edit history (1)

get it?

[XemaSab]

57. I get it now!

[stuntcat]

60. that was what I thought the thread was about!

it sounded sciency enough.. being in the E/E room.

I don't know what hosts would do but I vote for XemaSab anyway!

[GliderGuider]

53. If we think a host would be a good idea, XemaSab would be OK by me.

I wouldn't run screaming for the exit, anyway...

[NMDemDist2]

54. you go darling!! n/t

[jpak]

58. So, what happens when pro-renewable energy and anti-nuclear threads get locked?

Under the new rules that could happen here

yup

[joshcryer]

59. We have no Host so that is not a possiblity unless done via jury decision.

Either way I am sure that if there is a Host chosen (which isn't necessary), we'll have plenty of time to share our grievances with the administrators. If it is the wrong Host then that will be quite short lived.

[jpak]

63. Good

[joshcryer]

64. Hosts were a response to DU2 mods, which had to jump through hoops, sign...

...confidentiality agreements (for privacy) and such.

Here you just volunteer and are accepted.

We'll be fine without a Host as long as we don't get deniers or other crackpots posting here a lot. E&E had very few locked threads.

[XemaSab]

61. Locking threads because I disagree with the person

isn't my scene.

[jpak]

62. Good

[kristopher]

66. Then perhaps you could share the meaning of the "Don't feed the kea" campaign you waged?

[XemaSab]

68. You're worried I'm going to lock your threads?

I find your threads entertaining and it would amuse me to keep them open.

[kristopher]

69. You tell us; what was the meaning of the dozens, if not hundreds, of "don't feed the kea" posts?

You were crusading for something, what was it?

[XemaSab]

72. Is the kea a mere pawn, or is it clever enough to invent its own rules?

I tease because I care.

[kristopher]

73. It isn't teasing, it is avoiding taking responsibility for your shameful behavior.

[XemaSab]

74. If I had actually insulted you, then I might have something to feel ashamed about

As it were....

[joshcryer]

75. "cleverist bird in the world" = shameful

Come now.

[Dead_Parrot]

65. shouldn't be an issue

This is E/E, after all: Its raison d'être is the great nuclear pie-fight, occasionally broken up with bits of bad news. So while it's possible that:

1) You say you don't like nuclear power
2) Xema locks your thread
3) You get banned from E/E

What follows is:

4) You complain to the admins
5) The thread is unlocked
6) You get re-instated
7) Xema gets booted from hosting, and has eggs thrown at her.

Steps 4-7 would probably take about 10 minutes.

Remember, the hosts don't run the site, or make the rules, or even write the statement of purpose: They're just here to pick out the low-level trolls - which you're not.

I would, however, suggest that any main host's first job should be to assign a few secondarys from differing viewpoints - for visible neutrality, if nothing else.

[XemaSab]

67. You think the raison d'etre of this group is to argue over nukes?

I think the raison d'etre of this group is to document the collapse of the biosphere, with occasional forays into sturm und drang and general shenanigans.

Also, lol.

[Dead_Parrot]

70. It's either the raison d'etre...

...or the raisin granola. I always get them confused.

[XemaSab]

71. Well there certainly are a lot of granolas in this group

Present company included.