The nomination process seems to have collapsed a bit into chaos

[krispos42]

This discussion thread was locked by krispos42 (a host of the Gun Control & RKBA group).

At this time, we have 4 nominees with seconds, and some discussion about the purpose of Hosts and who would be a good host.



At edit time and with the one-person, one-nomination format, I have the following nominated and seconded:

krispos42 (yours truly), oneshooter, pipoman, The Wraith, and jpak

Note: jpak is not in this thread and may not be aware he's been nominated. He may not want the job.




I also have the following people nominated with no seconds:

ileus


We also have a sparsely-voted poll that indicates the majority of people think the new Gungeon needs 3 hosts.


So, my proposal is that we affirm to Skinner that it is the sense of the Gungeon to have myself as first Host, and we put the other three or four names up to a vote, with the top two becoming hosts as well.



Does this sound reasonable?

[Upton]

1. Consider Logical..

I believe he expressed interest in the job..

[Starboard Tack]

17. I will second that. Logical would make a good host.

After all, his name alone should qualify him.

[oneshooter]

2. Reasonable? Yes.

I would like to take this opportunity to second ileus as a Host.

Oneshooter
Still Armed and still Livin in Texas

[ileus]

35. Thanks...

[Hoyt]

3. Krispos, I appreciate the fact that someone nominated me, probably by mistake or under influence.

As impartially as I would try to handle the responsibilities, I would likely fail and be brought up on charges of dereliction of duties.

I think the folks listed above are all fine people (especially when unarmed), but the Gungeon deserves better than someone routinely referred to as a gun grabber; idiot; moron; anti; "bigoted" for opposing guns on city streets where children play; and worse.

Good luck to you guys.

[Remmah2]

4. That post brought tears to my eyes. nt

nt

[Hoyt]

5. Your post gave me a good laugh. Take care.

[krispos42]

7. We've all been called things here.

And the powers of Group Host are significantly less than a Moderator on DU2. I used to be a mod, so I know the powers a mod had and understood why a mod could only use those powers with consensus.

A Host basically just has to make sure to keep the Group on topic.

FWIW, I think you would be good at the job.

But if you want, I'll pull your name from the OP.

[oneshooter]

10. But Hoyt, we need you as a counterpoint to us racist backwards toters! n/t

[ileus]

13. OS needs a counter balance who better than hoyt?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. I know the feeling. I wanted to volunteer...

but I don't think I could stay impartial either - lol.

[pipoman]

6. Sounds reasonable to me

I nominated myself in the other thread mainly trying to get the discussion started.. I can take it or leave it. I spend quite a lot of time here and have for a long time (and intend on continuing hanging out either way).

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. if Hoyt turns it down ... I will nominate jpak in the interest of fairness of representation.

[krispos42]

20. That gives us the same problem... does jpak know he's nominated?

We'll have to ask him.

I'll do that now. In the mean time I'll update my OP.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. OK and also Petronius makes some salient points

I think.

[rrneck]

9. I'd second Pipoman. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. I would second TheWraith, if it's not too late

I've always found his posts to be accurate and worth a read, no offense to the other two contenders.

Personally, I would much rather have iverglas as the token anti-rights host than jpak or Hoyt.

[ileus]

14. at least Jpak and hoyt are reasonable (and live in America, home of the 2A)

Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2011, 07:46 PM - Edit history (1)

hell Hoyt even lives in the good part of America.

[iverglas]

15. and your point is?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. lol. about time you showed up!

place just is not the same without you.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Seriously?!?

Although I disagree with her stance on some issues, iverglas will often bring studies or facts and at least a structured reasoned (in her opinion) argument.

Outside of the gungeon hoyt's a good dude... but he some serious predjudice against guns and/or gun owners. It shows in just about all of his gungeon posts.

and jpak doesn't make points... he does "drive-byes" and "yups"

[Hoyt]

19. I admit it, I am bigoted against those who carry guns in public, as well as corporate greed.

Therefore, I am not qualified to keep people on topic/target. In fact, I'm glad to see you guys discussing liberal/progressive issues other than guns and training/preparing to shoot people. So, I would tend to encourage discussion of non-gun related topics, even in the depths of the Gungeon.

[ileus]

24. I knew there was a reason I liked you.

I'd much rather talk gear and with like minded people around here. It would be nice to have that flexibility.

[pipoman]

31. I would agree

it is nice to see regulars in the gungeon espousing liberal/Democratic opinions outside of the gun issue. I don't see a need to do this within the gungeon, just nice to see on other forums and groups around DU. I don't see the gungeon as a place for "discussion of non-gun related topics".

[petronius]

18. At this point, I don't think we need three (there doesn't seem to be much work for

even one).

My suggestion remains this: we appoint one Host (my vote is Krispos), he pins one open thread at the top where we can discuss our community standards, and then he backs completely away from the controls until there is a broad agreement that hostly actions are needed in some form...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. good points. Until traffic gets heavier, I agree.

[krispos42]

25. Well, here's the problem...

...or not really a problem, but a process...


If a Host locks a thread, only that Host (or an Admin) can unlock it.

A Host that's higher up in the hierarchy can hire and fire lower Hosts, but can't unlock threads. So if a Host decides to be jerk-ish, it can't be resolved by majority rules.

There's also no dedicated, Gungeon-Hosts-only "Hot Tub" where issues could be discussed in private. It's not a consensus thing, like in the old moderator system on DU2. So it's not like we'll have sides discussing Host action, voting, then somebody executes the will of the group.

As the system stands now, if you alert on an original post, you have the following options if you want to alert on an OP:

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FAEBD7]Reason for your alert:

• This discussion thread is off-topic, or violates the Statement of Purpose for this group

• This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)

• This post includes a copyright violation. (See Copyright Policy.)

• This person's avatar image or signature line is inappropriate.

The first reason sends an alert to the Group/Forum Host
The second reason convenes a Jury
The third and forth reasons send an alert to the Admins.


So if somebody thinks a post violates the Gungeon SoP, they just alert on it and the Hosts are notified. And the first Host to check his/her DU mail can act first.



Yeah, there's a Hosts-only forum, but it's open to all Hosts, which changes the dynamic.

The multi-host idea is really to keep continuous coverage, so that most of the day there's somebody on DU that can respond if needed.

As far as I'm concerned, the Gungeon members can hash things out and express their beliefs on borderline OPs or disruptive posters.

[petronius]

26. I understand the logic of multiple hosts, but I think that's a bit of a DU2 holdover

Since hosts don't deal with individual posts, a large part of the old modding job is removed, and the need for a quick response is reduced. The only role hosts would have - aside from the pinning and the banning - would be to lock threads violating the SoP. Granted we've only been here three days, but the demand for that service appears limited: I see maybe 3 threads that strictly-speaking violate the SoP, but none that I would actually support locking. As I think back to DU2, it seems we had plenty of posts that arguably should have been deleted, but relatively few OPs (which is all a host could touch).

My main reason for wanting a host is so someone can pin threads; I'd like us to have a running discussion about the group itself where we can - maybe - hash out standards and perhaps provide a resource for juries that may get dropped in here unaware of the dynamics. Beyond that, it would be nice to have someone in place down the road, just in case something blows up and it becomes necessary to lock threads a bit quickly. (If nothing else, if a true horror-show developed down the road, it would be nice to have the foundation for dealing with it in the group rather than waiting for an admin clean-up.)

So what I hope for in a host is someone light on the trigger, who can be trusted to take a broad view of our SoP, be light on the lock button, and not think every bit of drama required a reaction. I don't care if it's more than one, but I'm not sure there's a need for more yet. I volunteered, because I trust me, but I'm equally confident in you (and a few others).

So from that, my vote is that we simply vote on you as the first host (no one, I think, has raised any objection to your name). Then, if you want to appoint a few others who've been mentioned I'd say go for it - with the understanding that everyone should keep fingers off buttons as much as possible...

[krispos42]

27. I've started a thread in H&M-D about getting a "Recreational Shooting" group.

I figure if we could have a place where gunners could just yak about guns and such that don't have to be directly related to self-defense or hunting, that would ease the future work on a Gungeon host, too.


I'm more than willing to be the primary or sole Host, but Skinner has to see some sort of consensus on this.

[gejohnston]

28. I'm cool with it

[krispos42]

34. Don't tell me, them the Admins!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12408146

[petronius]

29. Given that there were few votes for 'No host' in the DU2 poll, and no objections

that I can see to you as the starting host, I think that on that one point at least we do have consensus.

I've already expressed what I would hope for from our Host(s) in other posts, and I'm sure we'll continue our discussion of group standards and preferences, but I think we're ready to move forward with one appointment...

[pipoman]

30. I agree that the standard for thread locking should be very liberal

and after the completion of the 'host' assignment process, there should be discussion about a few 'community standards' which extend beyond the statement of purpose. I also visit other groups, many of which are 'safe heavens' for only positive discussion. The gc/rkba group is sort of unique in that by it's very statement of purpose in lumping the two sides together, will get contentious from time to time. That is actually what makes this group different than virtually any other gun related forum on the web (that I am aware of), and what makes this group 'one stop shopping' for anyone who wants a better understanding of this issue. I can see this group being used by students and others wishing to study the issue for academics or debate. In the process both sides have the opportunity to express their view point without fear of repercussions delt out by biased hosts.

I also think it is important to have more than one host because of the history of this group, seldom a week goes by without over-the-top disruptions. Krispos likely has a life outside of DU, we all do. A vacation, illness, work related absence, or any number of other personal issues can and will arise taking any one person away for days or even weeks at a time.

As stated above, there will likely need to be a few 'community standards' beyond the statement of purpose pinned in this group. Maybe one such standard should be something to the effect, 'hosts agree to communicate with each other regarding locking of threads/ops', maybe 2 hosts need to agree. It could be pretty simple, one host sees a thread which he believes should be locked, pm's the other 2 with the objection, and if either of the other 2 hosts agree with the first host, the thread gets locked.

Personally, I would like to see the host question handled and the community standards handled sooner rather than later so it isn't hanging out there, so we all have access to the group standards with little or no ambiguity, and so we can get back to the fun business of the gungeon.

edit..Also, maybe hosts should share personal contact information with each other in case of unexplained absence. Email and cell for texting.

[krispos42]

32. One thing the lead Host can do...

...is appoint "temp" hosts. Since any host can "hire" a new, junior host and any host senior to the new host can "fire" the new host, it's entirely possible to make "temp" hosts to cover for a vacation or whatever.


And for the record, my life is very routine and dull, although now that I got this new job yesterday (yay!) I'm hoping to be able to afford to go out and have some fun on occasion.

And maybe even *gasp* get a girlfriend.

[pipoman]

38. Congrats on the new job!!

Outstanding! They better let you tote or you'll simply have to quit!..Rude toter and such..

[krispos42]

39. I checked the employee manual

All 2½ sheets of it. Nothing about carrying concealed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. One-Eyed Fatman

His scholarship and demeanor make him a natural choice

[MicaelS]

36. I vote for Nuclear Unicorn and / or One-Eyed Fatman n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. That's very flatterig but I lack the technical expertise many of these discussions require n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Thanks

That's the first time I have heard field work in "Applied Foreign Policy" defined as scholarly.

[gejohnston]

41. soldier scholar does come to mind nt8

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. Dude! Seriously?

I didn't even know what Form 10 was, let alone that it even existed, or how it related to the National Firearms Act of 1968 until I read your posts. Heck, I didn't even know there was a NFA of 1968!

The fact that you present fact instead of hyperbole, innuendo and wild-speculation makes you the best qualified. I see those vices on both sides of the debate including myself from time-to-time. I think you would be best for keeping the less-than-fact-based emotional aspects in check.

You elevate every discussion where you participate.

And I just saw "True Grit" not too long ago and I can definitely see you as Mr. Cogburn.

[krispos42]

43. Despite the chaos, it appears that we've picked up a Host.

So I'm going to lock up these discussion threads as being outdated, and we'll start fresh.

Regards,
Krispos42, GHost