HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Religion Group Hosts Prop...

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:03 AM

Religion Group Hosts Proposal (Please vote by Thursday at 11:59PM EST).

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Here is the proposal cooked up in the discussion thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218129

I will be the lead host. Like I said, I will be hands off except to deal with off topic issues and problems between the hosts which I do not anticipate. The people chosen represent both the theist and atheist points of view which was important to many people.

The other hosts are:

muriel_volestrangler
ZombieHorde
cbayer
struggle4progress

We are doing this on the principle of openness. Locking an on-topic thread would also require a unanimous vote of the four other hosts or three of them and myself. Dismissing a host would require a unanimous vote. The point is to make sure that it's very difficult to do anything. It's to keep this place open as much as possible.

This does not safeguard this group from the juries. If someone posts something that is considered "bigoted" by a jury, we can't help you.

Here are the options when voting. You may vote Yes, No, or No Hosts. If you support the proposal, vote yes. If you oppose it, vote no. If you believe there should be no hosts, vote for No Hosts. Yes needs a majority of all votes to pass. All votes must be in by Friday 12/15 at 11:59PM EST. Votes cast after that time will not be counted.



Notes about if hosts are unavailable: a host who wants to lock an ON TOPIC thread should alert on it as if it were a violation of the Statement of Purpose -- but should explain in the comment box that thread is on-topic and should explain the reasons for wanting to lock. all hosts would then automatically get the alert. the other hosts can then alert on the same thread as if it were a violation of the Statement of Purpose and can explain their vote on the lock in the comment box. in a short period of time, the hosts on duty will have voted on the lock, and in a few minutes we'd know who was around and who wasn't: if there was unanimous agreement of the folk around to lock, we'd lock. but the missing hosts will have the alerts in their inboxes -- and when they return to duty then could also vote on the thread. this gives a mechanism for possibly temporary locking: if the thread has been locked and there's only one later host objection to the lock, not overridden by Renew Deal, the locker would unlock; if the thread has been locked and there's only one later host objection to the lock, Renew Deal could override that one objection, and the thread would remain locked; if the thread has been locked and there are two or more later host objections to the lock, the locker would unlock. Renew Deal, as lead host, would be able to remove any locking host who (after reasonable notice) failed to unlock pursuant to this agreement. This also gives a mechanism for chilling a thread temporarily and reopening it later

Thanks to the LGBT forum AGAIN for their leadership on getting people organized. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1137720

Edit: I changed this from Friday to Thursday for two reasons. One is that I thought it was Thursday when I posted this, and the other is that it's pretty clear where this is headed.

51 replies, 3771 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply Religion Group Hosts Proposal (Please vote by Thursday at 11:59PM EST). (Original post)
Renew Deal Dec 2011 OP
LAGC Dec 2011 #1
Goblinmonger Dec 2011 #2
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #3
Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #37
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #39
Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #40
laconicsax Dec 2011 #4
deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #5
ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #6
cleanhippie Dec 2011 #7
Renew Deal Dec 2011 #16
cleanhippie Dec 2011 #17
cbayer Dec 2011 #8
lazarus Dec 2011 #9
cleanhippie Dec 2011 #18
Thats my opinion Dec 2011 #10
Dorian Gray Dec 2011 #11
Jim__ Dec 2011 #12
humblebum Dec 2011 #13
Goblinmonger Dec 2011 #14
cleanhippie Dec 2011 #19
The Magistrate Dec 2011 #20
iris27 Dec 2011 #21
Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #15
iris27 Dec 2011 #22
rrneck Dec 2011 #23
rug Dec 2011 #24
Adsos Letter Dec 2011 #50
LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #25
maddezmom Dec 2011 #26
EvolveOrConvolve Dec 2011 #27
maddezmom Dec 2011 #28
immoderate Dec 2011 #29
WhollyHeretic Dec 2011 #30
frogmarch Dec 2011 #31
TygrBright Dec 2011 #32
WhollyHeretic Dec 2011 #34
EvolveOrConvolve Dec 2011 #35
Renew Deal Dec 2011 #43
uriel1972 Dec 2011 #33
laconicsax Dec 2011 #36
westerebus Dec 2011 #38
WolverineDG Dec 2011 #41
SidDithers Dec 2011 #42
beam me up scottie Dec 2011 #44
ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #45
beam me up scottie Dec 2011 #48
mr blur Dec 2011 #46
Nihil Dec 2011 #47
rexcat Dec 2011 #49
Renew Deal Dec 2011 #51

Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:14 AM

1. Yes.

I think we need hosts to keep out the off-topic spam.

Sounds like a good, balanced team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:25 AM

2. Yes

Looks good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:38 AM

3. Yes (note I am one of the proposed hosts)

Also, a point about having no hosts - there was a question on what happens to Statement of Purpose alerts if there are no hosts. With thanks to EFerrari for finding the following paragraph - I think it would mean such alerts would just disappear:

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:07 PM

37. Ah, well, I hadn't read your post when I voted "No Hosts"

Looks like we'll need 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adsos Letter (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:24 PM

39. You can edit it, if you want

I don't think anyone's counting until the time is up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:31 PM

40. No, that's alright. My initial response was "No Host," until I read your post...

...future historians may be interested in the complex progression of my thoughts on this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:41 AM

4. Yes

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:49 AM

5. Yes

sure, it's better than my idea to just elect ravenous extremists from both sides and let the whole place be a bloodbath for my amusement... but then I've always been a romantic like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:01 PM

6. Yes.

Hopefully we will get polls back soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:06 PM

7. Yes, with one condition. Host discussions need to be public.

I mean to say, when hosts need to decide something, how they come to forming a consensus need to be public info. No secret meetings, no star chambers. If a thread is locked, then the opinions of the hosts as to what to do need to made public, so that the trust of the test of us can remain high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:01 PM

16. I think that's fine.

Maybe put the info into a locking message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:06 PM

17. Yes. It would increase the trust if all hosts opinions

Were listed in the locking post, so that we all can see how each host voted and why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:18 PM

8. Yes - would be honored to work with this group and think Renew Deal is optimal person for the lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:50 PM

9. yes, but no locking of on-topic threads

ever. A host's job is to lock off-topic threads and ban disruptors from the group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lazarus (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:07 PM

18. Yes. +1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:59 PM

10. yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:12 PM

11. YES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:48 PM

12. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:34 PM

13. Yes, but I will add that I think a mechanism must be put in place to enable "jury" decisions to be

 

appealed. How democratic is it for a jury to pass judgment with only a charge being presented, the "defendant"
not being allowed to present a defense, and consequently being judged by an other than unanimous vote?

It may seem trivial, but recently recently a "case" was presented to a jury. A "charge" was made that the "defendant" said certain words, that in reality were never said nor implied, and the subject of the charge was a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of the actual facts.

Again, this may seem trivial, but if such actions become common, the credibility of DU itself could be undermined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #13)


Response to humblebum (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:08 PM

19. We have no control over jury decisions at all

That's one of the negative aspects to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to humblebum (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:02 PM

21. You'd have to take that up with Skinner, et al. Hosts have no power over jury decisions. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:49 PM

15. No Hosts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:02 PM

22. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:12 PM

23. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:23 PM

24. No hosts.

No whine either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:02 PM

50. LOL!

Nice turn of phrase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:27 PM

25. Yes! Yes please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:30 PM

26. excellent choices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:48 PM

27. I vote yes - the sooner the better

We should also be working on a succession plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EvolveOrConvolve (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:51 PM

28. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:56 PM

29. Yes.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:01 PM

30. Yes. Tonight definitely highlights the need

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:05 PM

31. YES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:18 PM

32. I'm fine with it. But I have to wonder if tonight's little troll/sockpuppet wasn't an...

...attempt at manipulation to just this end.

Of course, I have a nasty, cynical, paranoid streak. Feel free to ignore me.

equably,
Bright

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:22 PM

34. This person posted nasty crap in several other forums that were alerted and hidden and had at least

2 incarnations tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhollyHeretic (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:24 PM

35. Yes, they were a definite troll

One with experience with DU - they knew where to troll. I have a feeling we haven't seen the end of this person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:23 PM

43. I wish we were that manipulative.

It was actually a troll attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:21 PM

33. Oh yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:09 PM

38. Yes.

Looks to be a good crew and reasonable policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:46 PM

41. Yes nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:20 PM

42. Hell Yes...

Hosts are needed quickly, to take out the trash.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:36 AM

44. Whatever.

If jurors are allowed to blatantly disregard attacks on groups of people they dislike, what the fuck good are hosts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:16 AM

45. Hosts can lock threads. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:40 AM

48. They cannot prevent jurors from abusing their powers.

I wish you the best, too bad it's come to this, I had really high hopes for DU3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 08:37 AM

46. Yes (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:22 AM

47. Yes.

(Good initial set of hosts too.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:55 AM

49. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:41 AM

51. Thanks for the support!

I will submit this to admin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread