Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:03 AM
Renew Deal (57,057 posts)
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
| Author | Time | 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
LAGC (4,572 posts)
1. Yes.
|
I think we need hosts to keep out the off-topic spam.
Sounds like a good, balanced team. |
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:25 AM
Goblinmonger (16,412 posts)
2. Yes
|
Looks good.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:38 AM
muriel_volestrangler (65,826 posts)
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 |
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #3)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:07 PM
Adsos Letter (14,153 posts)
37. Ah, well, I hadn't read your post when I voted "No Hosts"
|
Looks like we'll need 'em.
|
Response to Adsos Letter (Reply #37)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:24 PM
muriel_volestrangler (65,826 posts)
39. You can edit it, if you want
|
I don't think anyone's counting until the time is up.
|
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #39)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:31 PM
Adsos Letter (14,153 posts)
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.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:49 AM
deacon_sephiroth (670 posts)
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.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:01 PM
ZombieHorde (24,094 posts)
6. Yes.
|
Hopefully we will get polls back soon.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:06 PM
cleanhippie (14,587 posts)
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.
|
Response to cleanhippie (Reply #7)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:01 PM
Renew Deal (57,057 posts)
16. I think that's fine.
|
Maybe put the info into a locking message.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #16)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:06 PM
cleanhippie (14,587 posts)
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.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:18 PM
cbayer (120,434 posts)
8. Yes - would be honored to work with this group and think Renew Deal is optimal person for the lead.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:50 PM
lazarus (27,383 posts)
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.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:59 PM
Thats my opinion (2,001 posts)
10. yes
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:34 PM
humblebum (5,881 posts)
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. |
Response to humblebum (Reply #13)
Goblinmonger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to humblebum (Reply #13)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:08 PM
cleanhippie (14,587 posts)
19. We have no control over jury decisions at all
|
That's one of the negative aspects to that.
|
Response to humblebum (Reply #13)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:17 PM
The Magistrate (80,938 posts)
20. Try Here, Sir
Response to humblebum (Reply #13)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:02 PM
iris27 (1,951 posts)
21. You'd have to take that up with Skinner, et al. Hosts have no power over jury decisions. n/t
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 02:49 PM
Adsos Letter (14,153 posts)
15. No Hosts.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:23 PM
rug (48,218 posts)
24. No hosts.
|
No whine either.
|
Response to rug (Reply #24)
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:02 PM
Adsos Letter (14,153 posts)
50. LOL!
|
Nice turn of phrase.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:27 PM
LiberalAndProud (9,921 posts)
25. Yes! Yes please!
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:30 PM
maddezmom (131,263 posts)
26. excellent choices
|
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:48 PM
EvolveOrConvolve (5,621 posts)
27. I vote yes - the sooner the better
|
We should also be working on a succession plan.
|
Response to EvolveOrConvolve (Reply #27)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:51 PM
maddezmom (131,263 posts)
28. +1000
|
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:56 PM
immoderate (16,506 posts)
29. Yes.
|
--imm
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:01 PM
WhollyHeretic (3,921 posts)
30. Yes. Tonight definitely highlights the need
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:18 PM
TygrBright (12,851 posts)
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 |
Response to TygrBright (Reply #32)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:22 PM
WhollyHeretic (3,921 posts)
34. This person posted nasty crap in several other forums that were alerted and hidden and had at least
|
2 incarnations tonight.
|
Response to WhollyHeretic (Reply #34)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:24 PM
EvolveOrConvolve (5,621 posts)
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.
|
Response to TygrBright (Reply #32)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:23 PM
Renew Deal (57,057 posts)
43. I wish we were that manipulative.
|
It was actually a troll attack.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
laconicsax This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:09 PM
westerebus (2,358 posts)
38. Yes.
|
Looks to be a good crew and reasonable policy.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:46 PM
WolverineDG (21,800 posts)
41. Yes nt
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:20 PM
SidDithers (27,606 posts)
42. Hell Yes...
|
Hosts are needed quickly, to take out the trash.
Sid |
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:36 AM
beam me up scottie (25,080 posts)
44. Whatever.
|
If jurors are allowed to blatantly disregard attacks on groups of people they dislike, what the fuck good are hosts?
|
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #44)
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:16 AM
ZombieHorde (24,094 posts)
45. Hosts can lock threads. nt
Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #45)
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:40 AM
beam me up scottie (25,080 posts)
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.
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 08:37 AM
mr blur (5,298 posts)
46. Yes (nt)
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:22 AM
Nihil (11,278 posts)
47. Yes.
|
(Good initial set of hosts too.)
|
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:41 AM
Renew Deal (57,057 posts)
51. Thanks for the support!
|
I will submit this to admin.
|

