This message was self-deleted by its author

[struggle4progress]

This message was self-deleted by its author (struggle4progress) on Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:42 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

1. I think we should try hard to find people who are pretty neutral on the subject

We definitely need a host in here, but we need someone who doesn't get caught up in the heat of the battle. There are two definite factions that duke it out on a regular basis. As a member of one of those factions, I don't think I'm an appropriate candidate.

I know that neutrality is hard with a divisive subject like religion, but there are a few who would be appropriate. Hopefully they volunteer.

[struggle4progress]

4. I tend to agree. Some of the bitter partisans might actually be capable of being fair hosts

but perception of fairness may also matter a whole lot

[Dorian Gray]

31. Agree

Most people aren't neutral on this subject, though, so it'll be difficult to find someone.

[backscatter712]

44. That why I won't volunteer.

I'm certainly not neutral, and I lose my cool a lot. Not a good idea to give me that sort of power.

[rug]

2. We should have a conclave.

[rrneck]

3. Heh. Perfect. nt

[MineralMan]

146. There ya go, but who are the Cardinals?

Aside from the team, I don't know who they might be...

[rug]

147. We can get them from here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1208

[MineralMan]

148. OK. That'll work. If you like,

I can try to catch some cardinals here, too. They'll be back come Spring.

[edhopper]

5. Are their people neutral

about religion? Good luck with that

[struggle4progress]

6. IMO the issue isn't neutrality but an ability to be civil and fair

[EvolveOrConvolve]

7. Perhaps we should ask that at least one host comes from each "camp"

If we can find level-headed members, with at least one from the "religion" camp and one from the "atheist/agnostic" camp, that may be best. And each 90 day term, the "lead" host (the first one chosen) can switch between each camp.

Since we're self-policing now, we have to learn to get along.

[Dorian Gray]

8. No way

no how.

No thank you!

[cbayer]

9. I am interested in being a host of this group.

I know there are some who might object to that, but I think I can be fair and would set a goal of having animated and even loud debate, while maintaining civility.

This is not a "battle" to be won or lost, but a chance to better understand those who may see the world differently than oneself.

For the record, I would consider myself generally agnostic. I lean towards the belief that there just has to be something more evolved than humans and am open to the possibility that this "thing" may have some of the attributes often ascribed to gods.

[beam me up scottie]

10. I would object.

I have a hard time believing that posters whose relatives repeatedly call out atheists and advocate the banning of atheists from this group could be objective.

No offense.

[cbayer]

11. No offense taken, and I certainly understand your concern.

On the other hand, my views differ significantly from my father's, and I think I am less likely to be biased than members from the extreme positions in this group.

I would like to see members with a wide range of perspectives be able to have civil discussions here without it having the "battleground" and "winner-loser" atmosphere that has dominated it for so long. I would not ban any member for what they do or don't believe, only for behavior that violates the TOS.

[beam me up scottie]

13. Even if that's true will the militantradicalfundamentalistuppityorganizedatheist faction believe it?

The resentment felt by both believers and non-believers is not going to go away just because the scenery is different.

[cbayer]

15. I am optimistic that the resentment can be addressed and reduced in this new environment.

Whether some members feel I can be fair and that my aim is true is a very fair question, and I will certainly not be surprised if my interest in being a host is rejected.

At any rate, I plan to participate here and will maintain the same goal of making this a stimulating and civil environment, whether a host or not.

[beam me up scottie]

16. I admire your intentions and welcome your participation.

I think being a host would make one more likely to censor their own posts.

[darkstar3]

33. I would object.

I simply don't think you were fair during your term as a mod before, and I have no reason to believe that you would be fair here.

[cbayer]

36. Fair in what way? I recused myself from moderating this forum for the most part,

so I am not sure what you might base this on.

What do you imagine my position to be and how do you think it might make me behave in an unfair manner?

[darkstar3]

37. So you don't even know why I might say that?

There's nothing that even crosses your mind as a reason?

[cbayer]

39. I feel fairly certain that it has something to do with your interactions with my father.

But I fail to see how you can conclude from that that I was unfair, as I never moderated any alert that was either about him, from him or involved a post in one of his threads.

As I believe you consider yourself a science based thinker, as do I, I remain curious as to what evidence you have used to draw your conclusion about my history of being unfair.

[darkstar3]

40. It has nothing to do with your father, though he certainly didn't help.

It also doesn't help that you have absolutely no idea how your own behavior during your time as a mod could be taken as biased. I could point you to the locking messages you left in DU2 that I found unquestionably and unacceptably biased, but clearly it would have no effect.

ttfn.

[cbayer]

43. Well, I am certain that there is a long line of people who have many pre-conceived ideas about who

I am due to my years of moderating. I anticipated that as we made the transition and am prepared to deal with it.

Please feel free to point out anything in particular you want. Your assumption that it would have no effect is again not based on any set of facts, as you and I have never interacted (to the best of my recollection).

[EvolveOrConvolve]

45. I'll support you as a host

If you support Goblinmonger.

[cbayer]

46. Honestly, I am willing to work with anyone who wants to make this group

a better place.

If that is goblinmonger's goal, I would fully support him/her.

[Goblinmonger]

64. I believe we moded together

if my memory serves. I don't think we had any problems with each other then.

[cbayer]

73. We may have had a brief overlap when I first started, but I am not sure.

Whatever the case, I don't recall every having had a problem with you and have no reservations about working with you in this group.

[cleanhippie]

159. A better place for whom? A better place than what?

[cbayer]

164. A better place for all who wish to participate. A better place than the war zone that it has been.

A place where people can debate and disagree agreeably. A place where people are not bullied and attacked on either side.

A place where there are no longer posts which reflect that one side thinks it has scored points or posts that sound like reports from a sporting event.

A place where the bulk of new threads are not posted just to show how bad the "other" side is.

A place where we have detente for now and allow members a fresh start. A place where we can learn to listen to and respect those with whom we may differ.

That kind of place.

[cleanhippie]

172. And who gets to decide when "that" place has been created?

Me? You?

My point is, this is a volitile subject, and we all have strong opinions and feelings about it. Unless you propose to ban everyone who fails to fall in line with what you think will make R&T some kind of utopia, I don't see how this can happen.

You seem to want to ignore anything that offends YOUR sensibilities, and you seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is a wide range of people here, all with different ideas about what religion is. We cannot ONLY talk about the feel-good stuff. We cannot snuff out dissent. We cannot keep people from disagreement.

As long as DU rules are being followed, this group needs to be an open marketplace of ideas, where posts and comments stand or fall on their merits.

[cbayer]

173. I don't see any need for anyone in particular to decide when things are better.

But I definitely think there is room for improvement.

Even in a group with a volatile subject that has members with very strong feelings and opinions, a level of civility and respect can be achieved. I am not looking for utopia and don't anticipate that will happen.

You make an awful lot of assumptions about me, my sensibilities, what I have lost sight of and what I want people to talk about. One step towards improving communication here might be to listen more and assume less. I know that I have a lot of assumptions about you, but I have gained those from a skewed perspective. I am willing to step back from that and re-assess what is most likely wrong.

I like debate. I like heated debate. I like to engage with people whose experiences and perspectives are entirely different than my own. But I don't like personal attacks or bigotry, and if I express either of those, I fully expect to be called on it.

I completely agree with your last sentence and look forward to engaging with you in this group.

[cleanhippie]

177. Fair enough.

You are right about the personal attacks and bigotry, but the current DU rules handle that just fine.

I hope to see more of you here.


Cheers.

[cbayer]

178. Thank you, cleanhippie. Your response means a great deal to me.

Cheers back at you.

[struggle4progress]

59. I'd support you as host too. I think you'd be fair

[cbayer]

60. I feel very strongly that you would also be fair and would wholeheartedly support you as a host.

You most likely would be a better choice than I due to past issues with some members and my father.

I believe that your goals and mine for this group are very much in line.

[struggle4progress]

74. I have carefully avoided volunteering as a group host here

I think the Lounge and Good Reads and the Barack Obama group may generate enough alerts to keep me busy

[cbayer]

75. Excellent choices for you. I am sorry that we did not have more opportunity to work together.

I mean that sincerely.

[cbayer]

76. Oops. Looks like I responded to my own post and not yours. Sorry about that.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

77. I think you responded to the right post

I just think the indention in the post list stops once it reaches a certain depth.

[cbayer]

78. I believe you are correct. It was confusing for a moment.

[Chemisse]

182. I think cbayer would make an excellent host.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I'd put my name in the hat.

Let me know if you don't know which "camp" I belong to

I did a stretch as a mod and the icy hammer of atheism didn't slam down on this forum.

[struggle4progress]

14. when were you a mod?

[Goblinmonger]

62. Two summers ago. n/t

[rug]

20. No but the Lounge got pretty fucked up during that term.

[Goblinmonger]

63. That was SO not my fault.

And it was a nightmare keeping all the players straight.

[rug]

68. There was a distinct lack of judgment.

It resulted in a couple of dozen mutual forced ignores, half of whom didn't know the people they were ignoring.

[Goblinmonger]

70. Well, I don't think this is the place to hash this out

And I'm pretty sure there is NO place to hash this out. But unless you were there trying to make sense of all of it, you have no idea about the judgments that went into it. I have no regrets about decisions made in that regard.

[rug]

72. No it isn't but this group will need both sensitivity and sound judgment.

[Goblinmonger]

80. And I believe that was exercised in the Lounge

and I'm sure it will be here, too. Do you have a specific problem with me sharing host duties or just atheists in general. Is there a better person from my "side" you would like to offer up?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

82. I remember that time in the lounge

It was brutal, and I think the mod crew did a pretty good job considering the mess they had to deal with.

[rug]

84. And it is that opinion which reflects poor judgment.

As is this: "Do you have a specific problem with me sharing host duties or just atheists in general."

I do in fact think you specifically are inappropriste to be a host in this group but you conflate that objection to "atheists in general". Why? It's a presupposition absent from the post that for some reason you found necessary to insert. Poor judgment.

And it's poor judgment that easily derails these discussions into personal exchanges and bullshit.

[Goblinmonger]

86. I ask because I want to know what your objection is.

Seems like a reasonable thing to do rather than just go with a supposition on my part. Pardon me for asking you what you are thinking. I guess you wish that I refrain from that in the future. I haven't conflated anything. You have not offered any names of any atheists that you think would be good in the host room, but only stated your objections to those atheists that have volunteered their names for consideration. Doesn't it seem like a legitimate question about whether you have an objection to an atheist host?

I notice you still haven't offered a name from the atheist "camp."

[rug]

90. Has it been determined this place needs representatives from "camps"?

Shall the server be moved to Panmunjom?

What the group needs, if it needs hosts at all, are individuals who do not see these discussions as hockey games, ithrowing in a few body checks on the way to score goals for their respective teams.

There are quite a few posters here that I feel would be outstanding. And quite a few who wouldn't. There are theists and atheists in both categories. They can speak for themselves.

[Goblinmonger]

94. If we are to have hosts,

I believe representatives from both theists and atheists to be vital. And each "side" needs to agree on their representative. If we don't have that, then there will be ill feelings toward all decisions by the host(s).

I would like to hear your nominations. From your decision to put the Lounge wars on me, I would like to see you happy with the hosts of this group so we don't have to hear you complain about them.

[struggle4progress]

79. What? We can't blame you for the consensus action of several dozen mods?

Who can we blame then?

[Goblinmonger]

81. Sounds like

several still want to blame me, I guess.

It's a much harder job than those that who haven't done it understand.

[rug]

85. Considering that entire model has been scrapped, I'd say the system itself.

I wouldn't tout it as an asset.

[darkstar3]

34. You'd have my vote.

[beam me up scottie]

69. You also drafted an R/T truce-time pledge and convinced many to sign it.

I don't have the link anymore but it was a noble gesture.

[NMMNG]

83. I'd support that

[cleanhippie]

17. I'm interested

While I have strong opinions and convictions on the subject, Im quite fair and reasonable.

Respectfully, I was quite concerned about s4p becoming a mod, but he seemed to manage it just fine.

[rug]

21. Frankly, I thinky you'd have a problem with this part of the TOS:

"Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic."

Based on past postings, I'm not sure you'd recognize bigotry based on someone's rekigion.

Other than that, I'd say you're more than fair. But the topic of this group is religion and I think there'd be problems.

[cleanhippie]

23. If I am guilty of violating that part, then so are you, as well as everyone else that posts here.

Good luck finding anyone here who doesn't have others that think they are bigots.

And I think being a host is much different than being a mod, right?

Perhaps a good rule would be that hosts cannot use host powers on replies to their own OP's?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. We could go the way that Environment & Energy seems to be - no host

The basic job of the hosts is to lock off-topic threads, and block people who are consistently disrupting the group through being against the purpose of the group. But the group's purpose is for all-comers; and I don't think we got a lot of off-topic threads in the old R&T forum. If we're not sure who should be the first host, perhaps it's better to hold off appointing one.

[iris27]

52. EDIT - changed my mind...I was reminded of a recent flurry of incredibly off-topic posts.

I think it would be helpful to have hosts, if only for that reason.

[bananas]

123. I agree - no host. nt

[Angry Dragon]

19. Who would you like to see as host??

[dmallind]

22. There are three ways to go here

a) An at least vaguely low-bias representative from theistic and nontheistic groups. Problem - there are few candidates - I can't think of a single example who has not been at best dismissive of the other "side". Extra problem - their can be only one senior host who can override, remove and anoint others.

b) Elect a single host from those who wish to serve. Problem - likely to cause animosity and resentment

c) Have multiple hosts with revolving "senior host" role. Problem - complicated to maintain

Is there even a consensus on how to achieve consensus?

[rug]

26. I think the success of this group will depend more on random juries than on hosts.

[dmallind]

27. Quite probably so. Wonder if alerts will increase or drop? nt

[Odin2005]

24. Kinda hard to find someone neutral.

[Fumesucker]

25. I don't come here often enough to really be a host I think..

But let me propose having an extremist on each side as hosts, that could be an interesting dynamic and we might all even learn something.

Just throwing my two cents worth of plastique into the conversation you understand..

[rug]

28. It's worked well in Cyprus.

[dmallind]

29. Well the 63-74 stint was a bit testy. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Does this mean I can declare part of the Religion group as British sovereign territory?

Jolly good. Top-hole.

[struggle4progress]

61. Wait wait wait! Would we then pay taxes to support the CoE?

We're all pretty much disestablishmentarians in this forum, y'know

[deacon_sephiroth]

150. Extremists are in?

Hot damn, I assumed rabble like me would be out of the question, but if we're letting extremists in the door, I'll throw in. I've got like what, 12 posts here? I'm the next big thing, and ready to host (whatever that means)

(I'm kidding of course, don't take me seriously)

I'd support Goblin, I saw Dark throw in, I'll second that, and laconicsax, Cleanhippy seems like a relly level headed, well spoken person, Struggle did OK by me really, kinda talked AT you not to you, and seemed to have trouble focusing on the topic at hand, but otherwise OK. I haven't seen anyone nominate Humblebum yet, if he's not on to throw his hat in, I'll toss it for him!

HUMBLEBUM IN 2012!

[darkstar3]

32. I don't know that I spend enough time here to host,

but if asked to do so I would most certainly be fair.

[rug]

41. I would object.

I don't think you could do it, despite your best intentions.

[darkstar3]

42. Thank you. I consider your objection high praise.

[lazarus]

35. I think we should have no host

Honestly, a host only keeps things on topic, and how off topic do we anticipate things getting?

The believers won't accept an atheist as host, and the atheists won't accept a believer as host, and nobody like agnostics.

[laconicsax]

38. I'll give it a go.

Even if I'm not the lead host.

ETA: We should really have more than one host.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

47. I propose cbayer and goblinmonger

cbayer and goblinmonger are from different "camps", and both seem fair to me. I have no illusions about the bias in posters in this forum, but I think someone can be biased and still act in a fair manner.

So I propose those two posters as our first hosts. I also propose that they each get to choose one other host, since I don't think that two is enough. Four sounds just about right.

Thoughts?

Edit to add: if the hosts system doesn't work for this forum, we can always take a vote and have the admin remove all of our hosts and go to an unhosted forum.

[darkstar3]

48. I agree with the concept of four hosts,

but I think we need some new blood.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

50. Ideally we'd have new blood that isn't in either camp

But let's admit it: this is one of the wilder corners of DU, and I don't know how much an outsider would put up with the abuse they'd have to take as a host. It's going to be hard to find someone willing to go through that.

[rug]

49. Well, then you need an agnostic to be the tiebreaker.

This group needs decisiveness dammit!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

51. Uh oh, that's a slippery slope

We don't want to let just ANYONE in.

[dmallind]

107. an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

Belief is a binary condition - there is no and can be no tiebreaker, any more than there is between symmetrical and asymmetrical.

[rug]

118. I don't know.

[laconicsax]

53. I think there are better choices than cbayer

Struggle4progress is much more likely to put aside his private beliefs and do the job in an objective manner.

[cbayer]

55. I'm cool with that. I am only invested in trying to make this group a better place and

not so much in having a specific role in it.

However, I am not clear on how you have reached such rapid conclusions about my private beliefs, my objectivity or my ability to be fair. I hope you will allow us the opportunity to get to know each other better before making assumptions about who I am or how I might behave.

[struggle4progress]

56. I think that's unfair to cbayer who I saw as a very fair mod during my mod term

[laconicsax]

128. I don't think cbayer has the capacity to be objective in this group.

Other groups/forums, probably. This one, nope.

[westerebus]

54. I hear there's an opening for an agnostic?

Would I do?

[beam me up scottie]

57. Speaking as an atheist and a former Marine

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2011, 08:28 PM - Edit history (1)

*edit: I changed my mind, yes, you'd have my vote.

[westerebus]

65. Speaking as an atheist and a Marine Vetern

No.

There I fixed it for you. You are a Marine Vetern until you die then you are a former Marine.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Thank you, Devil Dog.

[westerebus]

67. No problem.

I'd put a smiley thing here if I could figure out where they are.

So let's say its in stealth mode. lulz

[beam me up scottie]

71. I was wrong, my apologies.

I think I had you confused with another DUer, I am sorry.

Oh, here's the link to the smilies: http://www.democraticunderground.com/du3/emoticons/index.html

[westerebus]

87. We're good.

You know what they say about us Marines.

You can tell a Marine. You just can't tell them much.

Thanks for link.

For a minute there I thought I'd need Marine Corps instructions on how to pin it to this post.

As in, raise your left hand... no... your other left hand and extend your index finger... no... your trigger finger...The one you clen your nose with... now place that finger on the shift key... S H I F T... god dam it... S H I F T...Key... DAM IT!! Get with the program...now locate the colon... aw shit.. no.. the two dots you...

being green ain't easy..

[beam me up scottie]

97. It's funny how much you block out over the years.

Mostly the bad stuff, I'll always remember the characters, individuals desperately trying to not be assimilated.

[beam me up scottie]

58. I nominate muriel_volestrangler

If he's willing to do the job again, that is.

What say you, mv?

[darkstar3]

88. Second.

[Festivito]

89. I find this thread amusing. A bunch lacking religion wanting charge over a religion group.

Rather than putting in some fast-typing ideologue win-at-any-cost possible-sock-puppet safely in charge of the gang war that raged before in the religion forum, the randomness of the jury system might just be what this group needed all along.

[darkstar3]

91. You act as though those without religion have no place here.

[Festivito]

99. No, just those who decry not being given charge means they have no place - in a jump too many times.

All people have a place here, there and everywhere, as long as they are respectful.

For example, a straight person could be in charge of the LGBT forum, but a straight person that wishes to antagonize gay people being set in charge there would not be good.

I think: "You act as though those without gay feelings has no place in a LGBT forum." Would fall flat there, as it should here.

It's a rhetorical trick to characterize what I say as being an act, and adding a red herring of giving you "no place" here as a jump to a non-logic driven conclusion. I find this close to typical of our prior interactions.

[darkstar3]

101. Back-pedal if you want, but your play on words was clear.

As for your "respectful" statement, I believe there has been quite a lot of discussion between the old hands here on what actually constitutes "respect", and it is not deference to any particular idea simply because it's religious.

[Festivito]

111. I guess we disagree there. /nt

[iris27]

114. Again, there is NO other place on DU where people of all viewpoints can discuss religion and

its influence. Why should those without religion not expect equal representation among those chosen as hosts here?

As someone who is queer, I would have no problem with a straight person who had actively contributed to the LGBT forum being made one of the hosts.

[Festivito]

125. Equal? You live in a dreamworld. We'll all be lucky to get good representation.

And, that's what I said about the LGBT forum, only I'd word your statement differently.

[iris27]

130. Equal in number.

And it is against the DU rules to stand against gay rights. It is not against DU rules to not believe in a deity. So your example of an antagonistic straight person wanting to host GLBT fails on that count.

There are plenty of places on DU that are for religious folks ONLY. This is the one place where everyone is welcome to the discussion, and it's only reasonable to have both believers and non-believers as hosts.

[Festivito]

142. Chances are a host will act alone while others are away or in bed. So, there could be one person.

A person can tolerate gay rights and still antagonize gay people by making fun of their sex, using derogatory names, etc. So, my point does not fail there. They would not make a good host.

[iris27]

144. But by having many hosts, decisions will have to be made by consensus, and rogue actions against

that consensus (say, in the wee hours of the morning) will lead to their removal as a host. If you notice, most of the constructive discussion on this board is over how many hosts to have, and trying to stay away from choosing members with shorter fuses.

Do you believe that EVERY non-believer on this board has made fun of the sex of, or used derogatory names toward, others on the board? If not, then your comparison still fails.

I'd say the percentage of believers and non-believers who get personally insulting is roughly the same, and that none of them should be chosen as hosts.

[rug]

92. I agree. The jury system is key.

[Goblinmonger]

93. As I understand it, the jury system will be in place with or without a host.

So, from your post, is it safe to assume that you think that atheists have no place in this forum?
And who, exactly, do you believe the sock puppets to be?

[Festivito]

112. Yes, it will. As to the no place meme, no. As to calling people out, no. /nt

[Goblinmonger]

117. So you'd rather

make passive aggressive comments about people possibly being sock puppets and leave it at that? How wonderfully back-handed of you.

[darkstar3]

119. Consider it par.

[Festivito]

124. Do you think there are no sock puppets on DU?

Such passive aggressive wonderfully back-handed cynicism!

[Goblinmonger]

126. I'm sure people have two accounts.

I don't go around throwing that claim out and if I did, I would back it up. Of course, I would never make that claim and would, instead, handle it like an adult and alert on it so that it can be checked out. There are ways for that to be found out with ISP #s and such.

Perhaps you want to look up passive aggressive and back-handed before you go around making that claim. I'm not the one doing it. I'm the one handling conflict like an adult.

Is this attitude of yours in this thread what we can expect you to bring to DU3?

[Festivito]

133. You just did throw that claim out.

Saying you're sure, no less.

And, thanks for telling me that you're handling it like an adult.

You don't think you have an attitude? I think you do, and that you've mischaracterized what I've said because of it. I did not say that atheists had no place in this group, you wrote that that was what I meant.

[darkstar3]

134. GM is one of many people who caught your implication.

Run away from it if you like, but don't tream GM like he's some lunatic coming out of left field.

[Goblinmonger]

137. So it is going to be passive-aggressive doublespeak with you. Got it.

You are going to make these veiled claims and comments and when someone questions you on it, you are going to shrug your shoulders, give your best "aw shucks me" look, and then call the person who is calling you on your crap the crazy one.

I think anyone reading this will know which attitude they like more--yours or mine. At least you know what you get with me and not word games.

[Festivito]

140. Perhaps you're just bad and unveiling.

Or, perhaps you're bad at unveiling because you don't have a good point.

BTW, I love the "passive-aggressive doublespeak" phrase.

[Goblinmonger]

141. Feel free to use it.

The Orwellian nature of it fits you well.

[Festivito]

143. Right back at you. /nt

[EvolveOrConvolve]

95. You're making some pretty big assumptions there

And I'm sure it's against the rules to call out a group with your accusations about sock puppets.

[Festivito]

108. Calling sock puppets, sock puppets is not broadbrushing anything but sock puppets as sock puppets.

Funny as it is.

[darkstar3]

109. But accusing others of sock-puppetry has been against the rules for years.

Good thing, too, because otherwise this forum would devolve into nothing but such accusations.

[Festivito]

113. Whom did I accuse? No one. /nt

[Goblinmonger]

110. Stating that someone posting here right now

is a sock puppet, is, actually, not a cool thing.

So, again I ask...who do you think the sock puppets are since you don't think it is a problem? I'm interested to know.

[Festivito]

115. Accusing someone of accusing someone is not cool either. /nt

[Goblinmonger]

116. So "possible sock puppet" is what?

Please don't tell me you are going to use some political double-speak to say you weren't having a discussion about sock puppets.

So, let me reword...who do you think is the "possible sock puppet"?

[Festivito]

127. Why would the specific name of a sock puppet matter?

If a sock puppet were in charge, it would help its owner in using the powers given the host. I do not see that any specific name would matter in that case.

Call one DUX2X and the other Jubilatory, provided those names do not exist already.

So, there are two names, what does it matter to this discussion?

[beam me up scottie]

96. I find it amusing you still haven't figured out that this isn't a "religion group".

And by amusing I mean typical.

[Festivito]

100. DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group)

DU: Religion (Group)
YOU: .... I find it amusing you still haven't figured out that this isn't a "religion group". ....

Hmmmmm.

[darkstar3]

102. SOP

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

This is in stark contrast to other groups on DU, which are considered "safe havens" and are even referred to as such in their SOPs. Group in DU3 terms is far more inclusive than it used to be.

[beam me up scottie]

104. If you're going to participate you really should take the time to read the statement of purpose.

Statement of Purpose

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

You may feel less threatened here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1222

Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith (Group): About This Group

Statement of Purpose

A group for Christians and Christian-friendly persons who would like to have an open discussion about our faith and its role in the world around us. Our group will provide a safe haven for discussion and support, and find ways to express our beliefs in positive, non-threatening ways.

[Festivito]

139. All of which is fine and is in line with what I said. /nt

[iris27]

98. This isn't "a religion group". It's the only place on DU where people of all beliefs are allowed to

discuss the influence of religion on politics and public life.

[Festivito]

103. So, this DU: » Religion (Group) » is not "a religion group" in response to someone being amused

over who wants to be in charge.

I, also, like to discuss the influence of religion on politics and public life. Unfortuanately, in the past such discussions are cut short by people making obtuse comments that seem so inane that further discussion seems worthless to continue.

[iris27]

105. No, it's not.

If posts discussing religion were allowed in GD, your amusement might be warranted. But as this is the only such discussion space where all viewpoints are welcome, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that all viewpoints be represented among those who are chosen to host.

[Festivito]

120. Yes, it is (a religion group). So there. (We're up to 3rd grade playground level.)

If only one person is chosen as host would the name have to be Sybil in order for all the viewpoints to be represented?

[iris27]

131. GD has 20 hosts. I see no reason why Religion should have only one, and almost no one

here is suggesting that it have only one.

[beam me up scottie]

106. "people making obtuse comments that seem so inane that further discussion seems worthless" :

I find this thread amusing. A bunch lacking religion wanting charge over a religion group.

Rather than putting in some fast-typing ideologue win-at-any-cost possible-sock-puppet safely in charge of the gang war that raged before in the religion forum, the randomness of the jury system might just be what this group needed all along.

Yeah, I know just what you mean.

[Festivito]

122. Good! /nt

[cleanhippie]

160. I find you post amusing. Publicly displaying that you have no idea what you are saying....

[bananas]

121. I don't think this forum should have a host. nt

[laconicsax]

129. I'm inclined to agree. n/t

[iris27]

132. I was, until I was reminded by someone's appearance of their tendency to spam this board

with unrelated, nonsensical polls.

It's up to the host to determine if an OP if off-topic, and Skinner says the admins will not play host duty when a group hasn't chosen a host. I'd rather not have half a dozen useless polls on the front page.

[laconicsax]

136. You make a very good point. n/t

[laconicsax]

135. I nominate AsahinaKimi

[Goblinmonger]

138. I have no problems with that nomination.

Always like what she posts.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

151. I second that

[Jim__]

145. I doubt we can pick a host from among the contenders in a contentious group.

From [a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/1013434"]Does your group need a host[/a]:

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.

I think the religion forum plays host to open debate.

[Angry Dragon]

186. I have no axe to grind

[MineralMan]

149. It's a tough job for anyone.

I'm not interested in the hosting job at all, but choosing a lead Host for this forum should be done, I think, by looking for someone who can separate his or her own beliefs from the duties of moderating a sometimes contentious forum. That's a tough thing to find, but I know there are people who are regulars in this forum who could do the job without favoring one particular viewpoint. Someone who respects the rights of everyone to hold whatever beliefs they find that suit themselves. Someone who can look at posts in the forum for their tone, rather than for the belief system they espouse or don't hold.

I suggest that everyone look for someone in the forum who routinely tries to listen to both sides of an issue, regardless of personal beliefs. Someone who doesn't respond to others with snark, but with honest questions. Someone who you may not have noticed in the forum because he or she isn't abrasive or insistent on having his or her own way or the last word on every issue.

I'm not a regular in the Religion forum, but I've seen just such people posting in it back on DU2. There are several. I suggest you choose one of those to be the lead host, not one of the most vocal and frequent posters here. You'll find someone.

[Renew Deal]

152. Maybe I should be the host.

What are you all trying to accomplish with a host? Can 4 of you come together to agree on how you want this forum to operate? Then the 4 of you can share responsibility for this place. Do you want it to be a wide open discussion or non-offensive?

If you want you can make me the lead host. My promise would be to make sure none of you throw any one of the other ones out of a host position and I promise to not throw any of you out. I am a former mod, long time member, and infrequent poster, but frequent lurker. The other former mods can attest to my fairness in R\T.

Let me know.

[Goblinmonger]

153. I'd support that.

Perhaps a lead host that is not part of the normal mix. Then a couple from each "side."

I think this needs to be a wide open discussion as per the SOP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

154. I'd support that; I'd be willing to be another host

I'm obviously on the 'atheist' side of the discussions and arguments, but I was also a mod for a few terms, and I think I was fair in any voting on R&T issues in that time. As I said above, I don't think the need for a host for this group is vital, which at least means it's worth taking time to get a line up that we have true consensus on (unlike Environment & Energy, where they've appointed some, and it looks like it could be Tears Before Bedtime).

[Renew Deal]

158. I'd support that. Now we need two believers

I'll be the lead with the promise to not interfere other than way off topic material and preventing you all from throwing each other off.

muriel_volestrangler and ZombieHorde represent "the 'atheist' side"

Now we need two believers to come along. People that are in favor of open discussion and are not easily offended by having their faith questioned.

[Goblinmonger]

163. I'm good with those two to represent me.

I'll do a stint when and if needed.

[Renew Deal]

165. Thanks.

Hopefully we can get two more people and make this a ticket.

[struggle4progress]

157. Be sure you understand the community standards here!

[rrneck]

161. Job one for host: Lock that damn pie wagon! nt

[deacon_sephiroth]

179. I wouldn't come here without the pies

We......are keeping the pies right?

[cbayer]

162. I would definitely support you as host.

[Renew Deal]

166. Thanks

I'd support you too. I wonder if we can get you on board under this scenario. Do you think you can fill one of the two open spots?

[cbayer]

167. I have previously volunteered to do so.

I wouldn't label myself as a theist, but I am have a very strong convictions about broad tolerance of all kinds of belief systems and for those that do not hold a belief system. I see the issues as completely individually defined and value the insights of others as to how they arrived there and what it means to them.

I would really like to see this group move from an atmosphere of intolerance to one of mutual support and understanding.

[Renew Deal]

168. .

[cbayer]

169. I thought you were looking to add a theist to the mix.

Laconicsax is a self-defined atheist and a pretty vocal one at that.

[Renew Deal]

171. Oops

I saw the cross and mixed it up.

I guess we still need one more.

[cbayer]

174. Yes, the cross is..... well, confusing.

[struggle4progress]

175. I can support that

[Renew Deal]

176. OK, here is the proposal.

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 other hosts are:

muriel_volestrangler
ZombieHorde
cbayer
struggle4progress

We need to come to an agreement on how to deal with this place, but it has to be a principle of openness. Dismissing a host would require a unanimous vote. Locking an on-topic thread would also require a unanimous vote of the four other hosts or three of them and myself. If you think that we're not going to get anything accomplished, that's the point. It's to keep this place open as much as possible.

This does not safeguard this group from the juries, but at least it sets some ground rules for OP's.

If there is support for this, we'll put it up for a yes, no vote.

[struggle4progress]

180. Not bad -- I'd modify the proposal slightly

I'd suggest that the hosts may not all be simultaneously on duty and so unanimity for a lock may be impossible to obtain quickly

So I'd propose the following modification:

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

[cbayer]

181. Great job. I am in support of this proposal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

183. OK, this makes sense, as does s4p's suggestion on how to deal with absent hosts

I was going to suggest s4p as the other host, but wasn't sure if he wanted a break after modding the final DU2 season.

[ZombieHorde]

184. Seems good.

S4P suggestion also seems good, since hosts may be away for a day, or too sick to log in.

[rug]

187. I disagree and support a "no hosts" group.

To "safeguard this group from the juries" is not the goal. The jury system, not hosts, is the safeguard of this group.

[lazarus]

188. this may be the only time I ever say this, so everyone listen up

I agree with rug. No hosts.

[darkstar3]

189. So what happens when off topic and otherwise unacceptable OPs are posted?

It seems the alerts on the off-topic test post didn't exactly work.

ETA: Also, what about barring serial disruptors? The admins won't perform host duties for groups with no hosts, and we all know that Guns and Religion are magnets for trolls from the-site-that-must-not-be-named.

[lazarus]

190. true

I think rotating hosts would be a good idea, then. Let everybody have a turn in the barrel.

I know from my days as a moderator I often thought that posters would behave better if they had to be a mod for a time, just to see things from a different perspective.

[rug]

191. The juries are already routinely deciding those alerts.

[struggle4progress]

192. I don't think the juries are deciding those.

[rug]

195. Results of latest jury.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Dec 13, 2011, 10:12 PM, and the Jury voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Posters over the top comments and angling for a 3rd party are inappropriate.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: pretty much advocating a repuke candidate plus lecturing members, bet it is a troll anyway
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: The screen name is homophobic. The conent is troll bait. The poster appears to be deranged.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Seems to me like a basic right-wing troll. Buh-bye!
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I found it rude and not constructive.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Thinly veiled freeper, tombstone his sorry ass

[struggle4progress]

196. which thread is that? and was it alerted as a Statement of Purpose violation for a group w/o host?

[rug]

197. It's in GD. I'll pm you the link. I don't know if the poster has been revoked yet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

198. So that is not an off-topic OP

which would be the primary duty of hosts. Serial disruptors of the Religion Group will probably get caught as breaking Community Standards and Terms of Service (because, as long as it's related to religion, there aren't protected, or disallowed, stances here apart from 'bigoted', which breaks Terms of Service), and that would be similar to the GD alert you posted; but I do now think that there will be off-topic OPs in Religion, and it would be better for them to be caught early, rather than become another point of argument.

[rug]

199. Alerts are sent on SOP posts and are acted on by juries.

There is no need for a host in this group.

[muriel_volestrangler]

201. That is not my understanding

If hosts exist for a group, then SOP alerts will go to those hosts, and not to any jury. I haven't seen anything saying that, in the absence of hosts, then they go to a jury.

On edit: that comes from:

What happens when I alert? I see there are a few options to select when I alert.

For reference:

This discussion thread violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum. (See this group's Statement of Purpose.)
-- Goes to the Hosts of that forum or group.

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

This post includes a copyright violation. (See Copyright Policy.)
-- Goes to Admin

This person's avatar image or signature line is inappropriate.
-- Goes to Admin

If "Does this post include a Terms of Service violation?" is checked:
-- Goes to Malicious Intruder Removal Team and Admin if the Jury voted to hide the post.
-- Goes to Admin only if the Jury voted to leave the post alone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12401893

The intention is certainly that hosts should be the ones dealing with SOP violations, whether they see them themselves, or if a DUer alerts one.

[struggle4progress]

202. The link you pm'd me concerned a post that was not an OP. The hiding message corresponds

to a community standards alert, not a group Statement of Purpose alert. It looks like the Malicious Intruder Team snagged the poster. But these are three separate sorts of action

A group Statement of Purpose alert would go to the group hosts. The community standards alerts go to juries. I don't yet know how the Malicious Intruder Team works

[laconicsax]

193. Let's do it.

While I'm not confident that cbayer can be impartial, I'll set aside those concerns and support this.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

194. That sounds like a good plan

It might help to it in its own OP - it's pretty hard to find buried in this post.

[Goblinmonger]

200. Thundercats are go!

I like it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

203. "Thundercats HO!" & "ThunderBIRDS Are Go!"

Please get your your children's adventure memes correct. They could be like a religion to someone ...

[Goblinmonger]

204. My apologies

I shall walk the day in shame and disgrace.

[ZombieHorde]

155. How many hosts do we get?

Maybe we should have two hosts: one atheist and one theist.

I would be willing to host, or co-host R/T.

[Jim__]

156. I think the first host is the "capo de tutti capi." - n/t

[Angry Dragon]

185. I do not know what the fuss is all about

This forum needs people that can see both sides at the same time.

[struggle4progress]

205. I've asked Renew Deal to repost his religion-hosts proposal as an OP for an up-or-down vote

I think this thread "Why don't folk interested in hosting or cohosting this contentious group post in this thread so we can decide who would be a good lead host?" has run its course, so I'm going to lock it by self-deleting the OP