MIC CHECK! Here's the report back on logistics for a DU3 companion group. Temperature check anyone?

[Leopolds Ghost]

Poll question: MIC CHECK! Here's the report back on logistics for a DU3 companion group. Temperature check anyone?

Per the Host/Meta thread here, folks there seem amenable to the idea of such a thread and just want the ten or so people who wish to "vote" to post in a new thread along with a description of the proposed group and which section we want it to go under, assuming we wish to create a DU3 group, that is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124037860 (DU3 link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1033

(example of a DU3 group with the "new rules" that make them much more autonomous but also potential fiefdoms)

Note that there are advantages and disadvantages to the DU3 group system. Obviously some of the disadvantages are why we are still here, of course -- but the advantages could be used to create a middle ground between here and there -- a place for people here to check in on, and vice versa. While I'd say many of us prefer the DU2 system of mods (or else we wouldn't be here -- others of us are here for other reasons such as issues with the new site design, affordability/accessibility, and being uncomfortable with the tenor of conversation on the new forums) I think it's worth exploring how a group could be used by pro-Occupy folks in a beneficial manner to create a companion forum on DU3 for folks who are on the new forum but prefer to hang out here, even if we feel the "host" system could be open to abuse (creating insular private clubs) in other respects. Keep in mind Cronus first proposed something like this (I think) but is now soured about hanging out on DU3 himself. So let's discuss this briefly, shall we?

Depending on the temperature check (see below) myself, Zorra, and one or two other persons have volunteered to start a formal request thread on Help/Meta if it's the consensus of pro-Occupy folks here. But Zorra will be away in a couple of days, I think.

Keep in mind that once a formal request thread is started, folks here who want to be part of the group will have to visit Help/Meta and actually be part of the ten or so votes. (We can post a link to the formal request thread, and to the group if created).



First off, here's an example of a DU3 group. (see below)

Note that some of this stuff sounds scary (to a person who prefers DU2) but it doesn't have to apply to us. While the system seems open to abuse by all-powerful hosts, it could just as easily be set up so that the "hosts" (if any are required at all) are only in place to ensure that DU3 hosting abuses do not occur. I imagine that the general preference of most IRL Occupiers would be no hosts for a forum such as this one (hence our preference for DU2) or failing that, what?

Note that we need to come up with a descriptive sentence. I'm not sure the host rules are modifiable (see below) but presumably we can add stuff to the description if we want to practice what we preach in terms of being pro-Occupy and hence, for instance, being a safe haven but not excluding people who disagree?

Regarding everypony's number one concern -- that an Occupy DU3 group might be used to shut down discussion here or on GD3 Occupy posts -- see the first underlined sentence in the Group guide below.

Single Payer Health Systems (Group)

This is a Group, not a Forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here. vv

Statement of Purpose

A place to inform, debate, discuss, learn, teach, share, strategize, and organize on promoting and getting single payer health insurance systems.

Hosts

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

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

Host Super Powers

Group Hosts have the following abilities in their assigned groups:

* Lock thread (Reason: Violates this forum's Statement of Purpose)

Locks a thread when the OP is not on-topic for the group. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP explaining why the thread was locked. The thread can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

* Lock thread (Reason not specified)

Locks a thread for an unspecified reason. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP, but no reason for the lock will be provided. The thread can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

* Pin & lock thread

Pins a thread to the top of the group and simultaneously locks it. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP, but no reason for the lock will be provided. The thread can be unpinned by any Host, but can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

* Pin thread

Pins a thread to the top of the group, where it will remain until it is unpinned. The thread can be unpinned by any Host.

* Block a member from the group

Blocks a member from posting in the group. The member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can be unblocked by any Host.

* Make a member a Host of the group

Creates a new group Host. The selected member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can only be removed as a Host by Hosts who are listed above them in the hierarchy.

* Remove a Host of the group

Removes a Host. Hosts can only remove Hosts who are listed below them in the hierarchy

Statistics and Information

Type (Forum or Group): Group

Relevance (Political or Non-political): Political

Status (Active or Pending): Active

RSS feed: RSS /?com=rss&forum=1033

Primary Category: Health
Secondary Categories: N/A

Number of posts, 30 days: 2
Number of posts, All time: 17 :-(

Number of subscribers: 34

Created: N/A (This group was created on a previous version of the DU software.)
Blocked Members

No members are blocked from this group.
About Forums and Groups

What is the difference between a forum and a group?

Forums:

* Forums are created by the DU Administrators only.
* Forums are general interest, and permit a broad range of viewpoints.
* Disagreement is the norm in forums.
* Members may not subscribe to forums.
* Members may be blocked from a forum by the DU Administrators, but not by the forum hosts.
* Blocked members may not post in a forum -- but they are able to alert abuse in that forum.
* Only members who have posted in a particular forum may be blocked from that forum.

Groups:

* Groups can be created by either the DU Administrators, or by regular DU members.
* Groups sometimes serve as safe havens for members who share similar viewpoints or interests.
* Members may subscribe to groups, and have them listed on their "My Subscriptions" page.
* Members may be blocked from a group by its hosts, or by the DU Administrators if no hosts are assigned.
* Blocked members may not post in a group or subscribe to that group -- but they are able to alert abuse in that group.
* Only members who have posted in a particular group may be blocked from that group.

I have one other thought (which I probably shouldn't do since an OP is "virtual facilitator" I guess): There's not as much pro-Occupy discussion on the main forum as there was last month -- although the Oakland photo did make the front page of DU and I imagine there's been a lot of talk about that -- but I'm probably reading the wrong threads. So an Occupy DU3 group might increase, not decrease discussion on the main forum by giving folks here a place to plug in when they visit DU3 (I find the new forums hard to keep track of, especially with GD and GDP thrown in together, it's not the same mix of subjects on the old GD) -- while also giving pro-Occupy folks a place to repost stuff where it won't drop off the radar. But these are just my random thoughts. What are yours?

Temperature Check?

(I think we're using Wikipedia-style consensus here, in support of Occupy after all, so let's try and discuss concerns)

Please click the one that most matches your viewpoint, not the one that you think is most likely to be popular solution.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. DU3'ers are welcome to reply to this poll as well, y'know.

:shrug: We're all part of the DU 99%. (Literally, in the case of folks on DU3 :evilgrin: )

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. I really don't know which one to vote for --

just hangin' dude.

99% yeah, I am.

[ellisonz]

3. I voted for the 3rd option.

"In favor of Occupy DU3 forum, but only if opening description makes clear that it's not against Occupy DU2 and/or Occupy discussion on GD3 as well"

I think that's progress for DU3, respectful of those who will not be joining DU3, and clear that it is not a "Occupygeon"

I think having a group at DU3 can only make OWS stronger. I think in the future there are likely to be OWS-friendly people who come to DU3 and find it to be a place of respite from some of the outright Occupy bashing that disappoints me as someone who loves democracy.

Just my thoughts.

;-)

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. I voted #2, but I agree with your vote. :-) Any ideas what the description should read?

Should we make the description crystal clear but short, and go into details later on an ongoing basis, per #2?

I'd love it if someone else wrote it. (Feel free to post here or start a new thread)

Or should we add in extra text to the group description (keep in mind that Skinner, like the IRS, :evilgrin: might desire to see less detail initially lest he feel obliged to pore over every statement, whereas further description might be added later)

Also, what should we do if hosts are needed, it being a new group and not grandfathered-in like the (sadly dead) Single Payer Healthcare forum?

Should we specify in the description that hosts keep a lower profile, to keep it democratic? Or rotate like the leftist peasants in Monty Python?

Or can we turn the host system to our advantage by having the hosts serve as the equivalent of Occupy GA facilitators?

Or perhaps we could simply ask current or former DU2 mods to act as hosts? After all this is DU2 and Mods = Gods ;-)

[ellisonz]

20. Vote #2 seems to be in the lead...

...I think they're probably right. The key distinction that seems to be made is whether or not this is a "safe haven" - or a discussion group. I think in this situation a safe haven is necessary.

Most groups have a really short and sweet description: "A safe haven for members of Democratic Underground who support the Occupy Wall Street movement."

I think you will need hosts, but I've objected publicly in DU3 to certain practices that have occurred in the Barack Obama Group. The point of a safe haven is not to shut-off all discussion of group purpose or discussion of even Occupy Wall Street. The purpose of a "safe haven" is provide protection from truly malicious posts, not from posts that simply criticize a particular action taken or not taken. Discussion should be allowed to be free-flowing and hosting should be light (I was actually removed from the BOG as a host and then banned for stating this opinion, and I'm a big Obama supporter).

Hosting positions should not be handed out as patronage and should the "lead host" position rotate from time-to-time via fair election. I also don't understand the groups that have a dozen or more hosts. I think having that many hosts make's it impossible for any objective decisions to be made and that subjective decision making rules. I would say that an Occupy Wall Street group probably doesn't need anymore than 5 hosts.

There should be a clear statement pinned saying what the group purpose is, what types of post are considered violations, and how they should be handled. The approach that I think is best is that a warning should be given, and then a vote should occur among the hosts, before an blocking occurs. Hosts should be able to lock threads on their own that violate the statement of purpose but should be over-turned if a majority of hosts object.

Hosts should be facilitators and should be active in the group and civil to all members, and should be subject to recall. I would be happy to draft a specific "group mission and standards statement" for such a group. I used to spend a lot of time doing internet congressional simulations (I'm lame, I know) and have a knack for running democratic systems.

Aloha. :thumbsup:

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. Sounds good ellisonz, I could work on it with you but I'm a better editor than writer from scratch.

Should we work on it before or after the group is set up (assuming there are no blocking objections to setting it up)

Also I think on the rare occasions decisions need to be taken we should try and do stuff by Wikipedia-style consensus, not so much because it's "anarchistic" as snoopy suggested, but because it's in the small-d democratic tradition of Occupy :-)

Since academic boards have a tradition of using consensus in peer review contexts, I imagine it wouldn't conflict with the concept of hosts... As long as the hosts weren't seen as the "forum leaders" or some such... I would imagine that Occupy is deliberately non-heirarchical but open to working with anyone who sides with the 99%

Note I mean Wikipedia-style academic consensus -- not formal 99% consensus ... it's a casual discussion group and us being on an Occupy online forum is more casual disobedience than civil disobedience :evilgrin:

But Wiki-style consensus is not really structurally different from voting in terms of how it affects the overall structure e.g. written standards suggested by you -- it just affects outcomes depending on who is participating and what their feedback is (e.g. how I decided to go about the OP would be an example, I guess)

I helped write the by-laws for a nonprofit (I'm a terribly technical writer so don't take that as an indication I can write something concise and readable like a statement of purpose) and we had an IRS-required statement on method of decisionmaking. I was surprised to see that the by-laws we were cribbing off of put "consensus, as defined by such and such book" and they were a church-based housing nonprofit... so we went with that. :-)

In short, I have no objections to your suggested framework... :hi:

[ellisonz]

40. I tried to draft a Statement of purpose, standards, and procedures...

...that I'm using for Democracy for America Group and am going to try and pitch to the other groups I'm involved in as a basic frame-work. I think an Occupy Group should be a perfect example that a safe haven can still be safe, and yet have a non-hierarchical structure requiring a sole protector-in-chief. I think I've decided I hate the phrase safe haven in general as it presents the idea that DU is somehow unsafe. I borrowed the structure of the Democracy for America SOP. I've decided I want this is the structure for the groups I'm involved in and will be proposing them.

I've decided to put some thought into it because I care about DU (which shocks some) - feel free to edit in anyway you like:

Statement of Purpose: A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters, to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street and share information on Occupy Wall Street and its causes, continuing the work of advocating for the 99% through peaceful civil disobedience.

Group Standards and Procedure

1. All members will treat other members in a manner consistent with the DU Community Standards, Terms of Service, and Copyright Policy. No member shall disclose personal messages without authorization. No member may engage in personal attacks or harassing behavior. Discuss the post and not the poster.

2. If a host believes a thread to be off-topic they may lock that thread, but they shall not lock any thread that they have participated in, beyond posting an explanatory locking comment. Hosts shall fairly consider appeals, and submit any appeal to other hosts for an open vote on the lock, with all host votes being equal. Members who interrupt a vote on their appeal will automatically have their appeal denied.

3. No member shall be blocked from a group without a specific warning issued by a host, followed by an open vote on the block if the warning host judges the warning has been ignored. If a member disrupts the open vote on their block, they will automatically negate the vote and be blocked. Members who appeal their block may receive a second vote on the block. No block shall be permanent and no block shall exceed 6 months in duration for a single violation of the group standards. No double jeopardy.

4. The lead host shall nominate no more than 4 co-hosts, and shall stand for election every 6 months, to be announced 1 week beforehand, and approved either by a unanimous consent motion, or a free and fair election that shall have a registration period of 72 hours and last 72 hours. The lead host shall operate the voting in a free and fair manner. All co-hosts must be similarly approved, but with a shortened announcement period of 24 hours, followed by either a unanimous consent motion, or a free and fair election.

5. During the election period members may freely debate the merits of candidates and the purpose of the group. No DU member shall be compelled to give a reason for objection or for casting a vote. Any debate must be consistent with the DU policies on conduct. No DU member shall be denied the right to register and to vote.

I used to spend a lot of time doing internet Congressional simulations. We elected everything. I guess being democratic makes me an anarchist in the eyes of some! :rofl:

[DainBramaged]

4. i'M CORNFUSED.......

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. KITTEH, place paw here!

Here, kitteh, here! (points to vote option :evilgrin: )

No, NOT Pat Buchanan! BAD cat!

[No Elephants]

5. I never say never, but I will not be logging into DU3 in the foreseeable future.

And, I do not see myself as occupying DU2. I have simply continued to post here. I will probably do that as long as anyone else is posting here

Respectfully, IMO, there is no comparison whatever between simply continuing to post at DU2 and tenting out in the freezing cold and risking getting maced or getting beaten in order to stand up to the plutocracy in the real world.

Peace and love to everyone who stays here or goes to DU3, or both.



P.S. I did not vote in the poll at all. Thank you, Leopold's Ghost, for all your work on this and on the solution to the error message problem.

[Leopolds Ghost]

14. Aw, but some of us do both! :-) I had you down as one of the votes...

I mean I guess we don't need 10 votes since we'll probably get 'em from DU3 if we do this, but...

I'll put you down as response #8, I guess. :-J

Keep in mind I spend most of my time here but sometimes you want to communicate with a broader audience, much as I suspect they will realize that DU2 is where it's cool to be at because we're so underground. :P

[No Elephants]

56. Nothing wrong with doing both, but

there is still a vast difference between coming to DU2, exactly as I have done so often as I have since I first registered here and believing that I am occupying.

I am here only from habit and because the admins have not shut it down yet. That is not an occupation or a demonstration or anything in the least dramatic. I think it's important for me to recognize the difference.

Bear in mind, though, I spoke only for myself.

As for speaking to a broader audience, nothing wrong with that, either. I just don't want to log in to DU3. Again, I spoke only for myself.


ETA: P.S. I rather suspect that fewer people do both than claim to do both. Just a guess, of course.

[No Elephants]

60. P.S. Number 8 does not reflect my view.

I don't like this proposal.

I was trying to avoid saying that, but that is where Reply 8 and I part company.

I part company at some point with each of the replies, or I would have checked one.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. Meh... it's ironic because I'm one of the DU2 die-hards who don't want to see activity leached away

Like KoKo but I'm willing to visit the new site. I'd just love it if there were... a more Occupy-friendly forum on the new site to visit.

Or at least one where Occupy posts don't sink like a stone unless there's a flame war.

I'm wondering if starting this new site would have negative consequences on discussion here or elsewhere. Not trying to talk myself out of support or anything...

[No Elephants]

78. Everyone has to do what is right/best for him or her.

I am not trying to hold anyone back.

On the other hand, and very respectfully, this is an odd OP/poll/thread from someone who opposes leaching any activity away from DU2.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. My feeling is that with no forum on DU3 that's DU2-friendly, DU2 will

die sooner rather than later.

[truedelphi]

74. Sums up my feelings exactly.

Including the peace and love part.

[No Elephants]

79. ....

:fistbump:

[NYC_SKP]

6. I was torn between choices #2 and #3, but went with #3.

I don't think that any mention of DU-2 over there helps our cause, it might invite drama and criticism.

Thanks for your work on this.

:hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. With #2 you mean? :-)

Only one vote for #3 so far, and that's ellison I think.

I think we can meet ellison's concern and a couple others by emphasizing in the short description that it's a safe haven, not an alternative to having Occupy posts in the main forum of DU3 (i.e. it's not an "Occupy-geon"... Occu-geon?)

... without having to mention DU2. As you note, discretion is the better part of valor.

Sort of like activist ~Anons don't mention ~Anon's involvement in Occupy for the same reason ;-)

Because better to have a positive impact than to queer the deal by taking credit for it and having people attack the messenger.

[NYC_SKP]

27. Correct, I went with number 2 because we should just get it done.

That flag burning foolery makes me want to step up the effort and not stress about the details.

I agree with you on the rest!

:hi:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. I am still worried about the idea of a group --

afraid that with such a group that Occupy posts in GD will be banished to the group and (happily, for some) out of sight. :shrug: I really dunno. I also think so many Occupy folks are scattered between DU2 DU3 OET and LU that some effectiveness is lost. :(

[SaveOurDemocracy]

8. My concern, as well:

"...afraid that with such a group that Occupy posts in GD will be banished to the group and (happily, for some) out of sight."


It should be made clear that the group is for discussion ... sharing of info, alerts, updates, etc ... among supporters of the Occupy Movement; and it's existance will not preclude OPs and discussion in GD.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Would you guys agree with ellisonz's post, above?

See my response to ellisonz's post, I share the same concern but I think if we write the description in such a way to be clear that

it's a clearinghouse and safe haven for pro-Occupy folks scattered here and there on the bigger forums,

not a replacement for them...

We could also suggest that folks post general NEWS posts in the main forums (e.g. here and there) and just link to them on the subforum, e.g.

* someone could volunteer to post a DAILY ROUNDUP thread of links to Occupy NEWS posts in the main forums,

and just post them as links for discussion, since most people on the subforum may have already seen the other threads.

We could repost such a link-thread here as well :-)

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. By clearinghouse / safe haven, I mean it could actually benefit DU2 and Occupy discussion offsite...

By providing them a "lifeboat" forum on DU3 should they ever want to visit.

[NYC_SKP]

28. I think that OWS posts could still go to GD, it's of public and general interest.

With the new group forum being a safe haven/clearinghouse organizational tool.

I don't think that it would draw all the good posts away.

I don't think GD hosts would whisk OWS posts off to the group page the way they do with guns and religion and conspiracy (and for good reason).

Maybe if we write the proposal carefully enough we can have cake and eat it too.

:shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

29. They would not be allowed to lock them

OWS posts would still very much fall into the SoP for GD on DU3 and Forum Hosts are only allowed to lock if a post does not.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. I think the key issue with the "dungeon" rules (although I personally prefer free speech) is that

The subjects in question are ones that inspire flame wars between DUers (I/P being the most obvious example).

So there's a logical distinguishment to be made there, I figure...

Whereas subjects like Occupy and elections only cause flame wars because they are of universal interest and so many people are bound to disagree; but the subject matter is not inherently berzerk button for specific factions of Duers.

The following is just me rambling...

:think:

If Occupy became an insular and reactive force that flamed non-Occupiers that would obviously cause us to dungeonize ourselves, like past mobilizations did by accepting free speech zones while avoiding trying to engage the opposition. But that would go against the whole 99% concept, which is inspiring to see people take seriously.

I do, however, remember when certain subjects were not automatically consigned to the dungeons on DU2 :-( Particularly religion and I/P -- when my local Occupy doesn't exclude religious people and includes organizers who are both former Palestinians and observant Jews thats gotta stand for something

[ellisonz]

44. That's more than just rambling...

...that's insight. I think it's kinda odd to suppose that an Occupy Group would be top-down and automatically restrictive in discussion. By engaging one another, people change; that doesn't happen when we isolate ourselves into groups, and the result is that when there is a flame-war it is just a massive flame war. What I'm saying below in this thread is that the first response ought never to be to silence and that decisions on moderation are best made democratically.

Unity! :)

[KoKo]

46. Interesting what you say about this. Thanks for the post...about it... n/t

[No Elephants]

80. In my observation of posts before DU3 opened, OWS was indeed a "button" for some posters on each

side of the issue.

Some of the more conservative Democrats dissed OWS at every opportunity, some doing so even as they expressed alleged support of one kind or another, some not bothering to express any kind of support.

And other posters got defensive about each diss.

I was in the latter group. I don't think many would admit to having been in the former group, but there certainly was such a group.

[KoKo]

87. What you say ...was my observation, also. n/t

[snooper2]

9. So you guys are the Anarchist "OCCUPY" DU contigent..and you are anti establishment DU3

but want a DU3 Group, so you can show your distaste for DU3?

I got this right?


:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. We're just being democratic. We are just trying to build bridges with du3 :-)

snooper2, OH U!

[Zorra]

18. Occupy...It's just...ya know...what's really happenin'

EVERYWHERE.
:hi::hi::hi::hi::hi:


And DU3 is no exception. So snooper2,...

Don't worry,


☮ccupy...if you want the job done right, you have to do it yourself.
:hi:

[ellisonz]

21. Is being civil really that hard?

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

57. That makes as much sense as your posting at DU2 to mock those who post at DU2.

I love irony.

[snooper2]

58. I post on DU3 talking about folks "occupying" DU2 as well LOL

And I know we have talked about this in the past,

But you really need to give the Elephants a break. They really just want big snuggle snuggle snuggles :)

[No Elephants]

61. You missed the point entirely.

Posts on DU 3 that people should not be posting on DU 2 is not ironic.

It may be something a lot less amusing, but it is not ironic in the least.

Therefore, it has nothing at all to do with what I posted.

Posting on DU 2 that people should not be posting on DU 2 is entirely different from posting the same thing on DU3. And it is ironic.

And no, we have not "talked" about this before. I noted the irony before, then moved on without seeing or responding to anything further that you may have posted. (nothing personal in that. I often just move on from a topic.) So, in the past, it was not a conversation between us, just my comment on your post.

As far as the elephants, I have nothing against the animal. In fact, I love the animal. However, the fucking GOP has made the elephant the symbol of the Republican Party and its members; and therefore my screen name refers to the Party and to Republicans.

That said, I have seen on the net a traffic sign on a road overseas with an elephant in a circle with a line through the circle. So, apparently, the animals want to do more than simply snuggle.


Surprised that I needed to point that out.

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. Godless Tree-Killing Machines,

is what they are.

[Ohio Joe]

17. I think this is a great idea and I'd like to throw a few things out

First and foremost, I suggest that this is a protected Group be spelled out in the Statement of Purpose(SoP). This will make certain that anyone that posts any anti-Occupy crap can be blocked from the Group with no worries. If it is not spelled out, it allows for ALL anti-occupy opinions to be posted freely and any attempt to block because of it would be seen (and supported) as Host abuse of power.

Doing this would allow for posts that show media bias against Occupy... As long as the poster is showing that they think it is wrong. Someone who might post anti-Occupy articles without comment could be blocked.

GD already has both the pro and anti voices, I suggest a place that does not allow the message of Occupy to get drowned out. I would support what ever the majority goes for but my vote would go to it being protected. A "little dissent" could not be defined so without it being protected, anything would go.

Next. All mighty Host powers.

It is true that Hosts of Groups are assigned a lot of power... It is not almighty though. Hosts can and have been removed when they are not meeting the will of the Group. There are rules for when a Host is allowed to use their powers and they are spelled out in the Hosting system page:

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

As well as in whatever SoP is drafted. Keep in mind that the SoP can be over ridden by the ToS... For instance (as an extreme example), you cannot make Hate Speech ok in the Group. You can however make it a protected Group or... Allow some talk of things not specifically stated by the Groups name (adding in support of Occupy DU2)... Give Hosts the authority to lock threads for other reasons then the OP (spell them out specifically)... The possibilities of the freedom of Groups are just being scratched. If, down the road, the SoP needs to change this can be done as well... Though I expect this is not something the Admins want to do on a regular basis.

If, at some point, the Group were to decide that a Host is overstepping bounds and abusing their power, make a thread in H&M and describe it in detail with links and PM's (don't cherry pick, the other person can post PM's as well). Naming names and bringing things into the light IS ALLOWED, nobody will stop you. The better your case, the more you will be listened to. I've seen cases the Host is removed and cases where they are not, it all depends on the case you build. This is a huge difference from DU2, Hosts are not mods and can be called onto the carpet because they do not have that set of rigid rules to live by that are verified by other mods, each Host has to be responsible for their own actions.

Also keep in mind that a Host can be convinced to change their mind, I've seen it happen a LOT of times, they do not tend to be totally locked into any action they take... At least not if they are going to remain as a Host.

OK, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents :D

P.S. Good god, I've missed spell check :D

[ellisonz]

22. A couple points...

1. Host powers should be used in a transparent and escalating manner. Just banning people at the drop of a hat only generates resentment. The first step should always be to lock, and there should always be warning given before a member is blocked. Even-handedness and transparency is paramount.

2. The point of a "safe haven" is not to stifle all discussion. The point of a "safe-haven" is to provide a home group for discussion of the group and the group subject. Simply shutting people out for expressing a differing opinion in a respectful and passionate manner is simply wrong and leads to abuse of host power. The attitude of those who believe in heavy-handed group hosting is that by sparing the rod they will spoil the child. This isn't Catholic school; it's an internet discussion forum, I think a group such as an Occupy Wall Street group by its very nature does not want to be exclusive.

3. There is actually very little restraint on host powers, and that is why checks and balances are so important. Otherwise, hosting becomes dictatorial and mob-like. Taking complaints to the H&M Fight Club generally does not result in any change of verdict as the host is just likely to want to protect their power over the group by taking a firm hand. The selection of a lead host must be taken very seriously and should be a fair and democratic process, it should not be rushed. Hosts should be selected not just for their loyalty to the cause, but because they will exercise their powers judiciously. Hosts should not make snap decisions and they should not enter the fray when they intend to exercise their power; they should do their best to be objective.

The intent of groups is to have good discussion on a more focused level, not to create a clique.

:shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

23. Well...

"1. Host powers should be used in a transparent and escalating manner. Just banning people at the drop of a hat only generates resentment. The first step should always be to lock, and there should always be warning given before a member is blocked. Even-handedness and transparency is paramount."

I would agree that the first step a Host takes should be to lock and discuss the situation, either through PM's or in a thread. Remember though, unless changed with the SoP, a Host only locks because of the OP and not because of any replies, replies must go to a Jury. A Jury may or may not understand the SoP for the Group so the Hosts are left with no recourse for someone the repeatedly breaks the rules but to block them. In addition, if the Jury returns a bad call, the Group must live with the post, Hosts do not have the ability to hide posts. Also keep in mind that a block does not have to be permanent, it can be as long or as short as a Host determines. I am unaware of any blocks that have occured where the person who was, did not knowingly break the rules. I think it would be fair if after a warning and a repeateded breaking of the rules a temporary block was put in place (a week... I'm open on length). Once the poster returned, if they broke the rules again, a permanent block.

"2. The point of a "safe haven" is not to stifle all discussion. The point of a "safe-haven" is to provide a home group for discussion of the group and the group subject. Simply shutting people out for expressing a differing opinion in a respectful and passionate manner is simply wrong and leads to abuse of host power. The attitude of those who believe in heavy-handed group hosting is that by sparing the rod they will spoil the child. This isn't Catholic school; it's an internet discussion forum, I think a group such as an Occupy Wall Street group by its very nature does not want to be exclusive."

The point of a safe haven is that opposing view points are NOT permitted, this is how DU3 defines it. Opposing view points being allowed means that the Group is NOT a safe haven. That is the definition the Admins have given, so it is one or the other. My vote is for safe haven... I take it from your comments that you would prefer it open. It is THE key item to decide before asking for the Group. If the Group is decided to be open and later wants to become protected, it will be VERY hard to change that because all posters will have a say.

"3. There is actually very little restraint on host powers, and that is why checks and balances are so important. Otherwise, hosting becomes dictatorial and mob-like. Taking complaints to the H&M Fight Club generally does not result in any change of verdict as the host is just likely to want to protect their power over the group by taking a firm hand. The selection of a lead host must be taken very seriously and should be a fair and democratic process, it should not be rushed. Hosts should be selected not just for their loyalty to the cause, but because they will exercise their powers judiciously. Hosts should not make snap decisions and they should not enter the fray when they intend to exercise their power; they should do their best to be objective.

The intent of groups is to have good discussion on a more focused level, not to create a clique."

This is simply incorrect. Because your attempt to change the SoP for the BOG was met with no support does not mean that Hosts verdicts and even Hosts themselves have not been changed or that it is that hard to do so. Host verdicts change on pretty much a daily basis, it happens all the time. Any Host can see this in the Host Discussion Group, if people would like links, I can provide them. Hosts being changed has happened rarely but there have also been only a few that have wanted to do so, those with a good case got support, those without a good case did not.

[ellisonz]

24. Not to de-rail this entirely...

1. Hosts do have the power to permanently silence a member from the group. That decision should not be taken lightly. I suspect that an Occupy Group would not want an aggressive hosting structure. I think that goes against the very principle of a General Assembly and of a discussion group. Hosts should be accountable to other hosts and to groups; decisions should not be personal and up to personal whim, nor should any block be construed as permanent. Hosts should be made to stand for election and should be accountable for every decision.

2. There's a difference between an "opposing viewpoint" and constructive criticism/legitimate expression. I think that some people are going way to far with this notion of "safe haven" for political topics. There's a difference between being deliberately disruptive and between trying to engage in discussion. Why so doctrinaire? I think a group ought to be able have its cake and eat it too :shrug:

3. That wasn't really the issue. Please though, show me a single instance of a group host being removed in DU3. Picking hosts is a very serious matter and should not be rushed. Discussion of group purpose should not be stifled. We agree, no host should be immune from criticism and when I see a host that thinks they are you've got to start asking questions. I would also note that Skinner encouraged us to have that debate, and people held grudges and used them as a pretense to over-reach. This is why it is so important that there be free and fair elections.

As Leopolds Ghost stated in the OP the decision to be made is even if a host is needed, "even if we feel the "host" system could be open to abuse (creating insular private clubs) in other respects." I'm hardly alone in my opinion of the danger of unlimited group hosting powers. The forum hosts and the group hosts are different beats. I'm fine with the way the former has been structured, I and others have deep concerns about the latter. A host of one group stated what the standard should be IMHO in a PM that I will excerpt from without specifying the group:

As to banning them from the Group, I will not ban anybody until and unless I have a record of them being unable to function within the bounds of civility, per the Community Standards of DU, in the group. While they may be the same person, they are being polite about the points they make.

Since my sense of the group regulars is they would prefer that the Host be more of passive than active in terms of SoP enforcement, I am going to leave things in the hands of the Admins and the MIRTs until circumstances change.

I had suggested banning a couple really disruptive members (who all had had more than 5 jury decisions in the Group), but I've now come to the decision that this host was correct in his assessment. I don't see why an Occupy Group can't be both a safe haven and have that attitude too. A degree of passivity is the best hosting approach, viewing yourself as the "protector" of the group will only lead to hostility with the rest of DU.

:shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

25. I think this topic is key to setting up the Group

I don't think it de-rails it at all, if the Group is protected or not is an important decision to make up front.

The thing is, you seem to be looking to change the definition of what a "Safe Haven" is and I'm not sure that could be done. I understand what you want and it simply does not fit the definition. No dissent allowed, plain and simple. These Groups are created for a reason and changing it to a "little dissent allowed" would have far greater impact then just this one Group so I do not see it happening. Regardless if any of us like it or not, either dissent is allowed or it is not, those are the choices we have so that other Groups are not impacted. We can't have "kind of a safe haven", it is not among the options.

Should there be a Host or not... That is something for the Group to consider. The effect of not having a Host is that there is no one to enforce the SoP... The Admins do not take over, the only option is a Jury and they are not there to enforce SoP, they are there for community standards. I do not reccomend doing this. In addition, I strongly suggest that anyone who is the main Host in any other Group not be allowed to be the main Host in this Group... Also, anyone that is Host in more two or more Groups already not be allowed either. I see it as far to much power for any one person to have over DU in general.

As for a Host being removed, check the Peak Oil Group. Originally it was Hutzpa but because of community outcry and a good case being made it became Javaman.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1129

I thought there was one other changed... But I can't find it, I may be wrong.

The only other time I can recall anyone wanting a Host removed was your attempt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124037696

I'm sorry, but there was not a good case and no community support for it so it did not happen.

Edit - Sorry, forgot the link to Javaman's H&M post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124014705

[ellisonz]

30. You're right.

The Peak Oil group is the one exception. There has been no other instance that I can recall. I would hardly say that a little more than a month into DU3 we have heard the last of any of this debate. I also don't think you should be drawing lines in the sand. I think you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. No one agrees on everything 100% of the time. If a member is generally supportive, they shouldn't have to worry about saying one thing that will get them banned at the drop of a hat. There should be a high standard met for a host to intervene. I'm not sure why you're trying to make the argument that an Occupy Wall Street group needs to be rigid, that's just not the nature of a General Assembly. Tell me Ohio Joe, what is "dissent." Give me a solid definition in context, if you can't, then don't try and pretend that there is some hard and fast universal definition of a "safe haven," a term that is entirely new to DU3.

Also, I'm really not sure why you're picking up the argument that there should be some limit on the number of groups one can host. Are you trying to say that a person cannot host their religious group, a recreational group say cooking and baking, and an Occupy Wall Street Group. I don't think a member could have undue influence over DU in general if they tried! The BOG is a perfect example of what such a group should not be, and yes, it is possible to thread a needle. I would also note that in that thread, neither of the main protagonists were able to answer the simple question of why multiple calls for a real election by multiple members were ignored. I think that goes to show their credibility on the matter as suspect; a host has too much power when they are not constrained by any rules and abuse it. Even you agree, that there should be rules governing host conduct. I would ask why some groups have none.

I would suggest you re-read the Peak Oil thread, you'll see exactly why some are so concerned about being doctrinaire about hosting being heavy-handed. You yourself wrote in that thread:

Response to Hutzpa (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 09:38 AM
Ohio Joe
74. Javaman was perfectly fine in his post

I don't see this as a call out at all. You decided to dictate how people can post and though you may not have locked any threads yet, you have stated in no uncertain terms that you will. You have not been fair, you made a unilateral decsion on what types of posts are allowed (even though they are within SoP and allowed everywhere else on DU) and dictated that you will now begin locking the posts of a respected DU'er who has made the same posts for years. That is being bossy and quick on the trigger... And you were very rude in the way you went about it.

Welcome to DU3, where transparency and a show of what Hosts are saying is allowed.

---------

Response to Hutzpa (Reply #91)
Thu Dec 22, 2011, 10:46 AM

Ohio Joe
99. WTF?

How else is - "I am the host of Peak Oil and that's that." - supposed to be taken? I don't remember you at all before last night... I rarely remember DU'ers names... I am baseing all my comments on what you have done and how you are re-acting to it coming to light.

I would note that in my thread you linked to, 12 long-time members of DU, all with at least 1,000 posts, supported my judgment that the BOG election was bogus. I think that if I had objected like I should have back in mid-December, admin might have forced a real vote. I really can't take the opinion seriously of someone who thinks *3 hours* is enough time for an election to be concluded. Look at how long this thread is being let to vote. In every other group I've been involved in there's been a minimum of 24 hours for a request for a formal election to be made, and when and if that request was made, it would be respected. DevonRex and co did not, they are perfect example of how not to host a group, Skinner should have never approved that election, which was preceded by dictatorial conduct. I'm going to echo Leopolds Ghost again and be done with this debate, the point of groups is not "creating insular private clubs."

P.S. I have no interest in hosting an OWS Group, but I am more than happy to see a good, functioning lifeboat created in which cannibalism is not resorted to. I'm doing what I tried to do in BOG, facilitate an open, democratic group.

:shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

31. Well...

"The Peak Oil group is the one exception. There has been no other instance that I can recall."

I can also find no other instance except yours so it appears a good case works and a bad one does not.

"Tell me Ohio Joe, what is "dissent." Give me a solid definition in context, if you can't, then don't try and pretend that there is some hard and fast universal definition of a "safe haven," a term that is entirely new to DU3."

No opposing views allowed.

This is THE definition for DU3, try giving an opposing view in any of the safe havens or try to remove it and you will pretty quickly end up being blocked from the Group. Again, this is what was desired by certain Groups and what the Admins granted. We could argue about what it "should" be but that will not change what it IS. Also again, I understand what you want but what you want is not a safe haven, it is an open Group and if you want to limit that... Try making a definition of "a little dissent", no matter what you come up with, those who oppose Occupy will be able to twist it to let any opposition stand... If that is what the Group wants, fine but everyone should be aware that that is what will happen and they will have a wicked hard time changing it later.

"Even you agree, that there should be rules governing host conduct. I would ask why some groups have none."

Every Group has the same basic set of rules for their Hosts governed by what is set out by the Admins on what they are allowed to do and what not. A SoP can modify those rules but I am aware of no Groups that have no rules for Hosts.

"Also, I'm really not sure why you're picking up the argument that there should be some limit on the number of groups one can host."

I am offering my thoughts for the Group to take into consideration when deciding on Hosts. I am surprised you would oppose this since you are so concerned about the power of Hosts.

"I would suggest you re-read the Peak Oil thread, you'll see exactly why some are so concerned about being doctrinaire about hosting being heavy-handed. You yourself wrote in that thread:"

And? I've never advocated for Hosts having no rules. I have advocated for them being spelled out in the SoP, comparing what happened in Peak Oil to your experience in BOG is apples and oranges since Peak Oil is not a Safe Haven. A Host that tried to Lock/Block a poster for posting within the SoP is bad. A Host who blocks a person who violated the SoP, knowing full well they were doing it and after being told not to do it, is doing their job, not being heavy handed.

"I would note that in my thread you linked to, 12 long-time members of DU, all with at least 1,000 posts, supported my judgment that the BOG election was bogus."

I see only one person that agrees it was bogus and lots that do not agree. People can read the post for themselves and see.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. Since Peak Oil is not a Safe Haven but a model and the DU3 rules seem to be inflexible on this point

Could it be that the best course of action might be to call Occupy Underground forum a "friendly gathering place" for Occupy supporters or some such language that gets at what ellisonz is saying, without tripping the "magic words" that ban dissent? After all, Peak Oil Group allows some dissent but the host was removed by consensus of the group subscribers for exercising unchecked power and opposing the general purpose of the group, so that seems like a fair arrangement too.

We also have to keep in mind that the language should not trip up the concerns expressed by others on this thread that it's meant to be a clearinghouse and a place for discussion amongst Occupy supporters from other forums / groups (including -- if we're lucky -- DU2ers who are on DU3 but do not like to visit the existing forums and spend all their time on other sites now), not a replacement for discussion here (I'm in solidarity with folks here personally -- Argh, this discussion of the host rules reminds me why I like DU2 :evilgrin: ) or on other forums.

The ideal situation would be if having an Occupy forum on DU3 would encourage folks to find links to threads elsewhere (on GD or here), and also provide a place for longtime DUers interested in Occupy to check in from other forums if they no longer read GD on a regular basis, thereby promoting communication... sort of like people check into a home page or twitter account to find out where to look for threads that would interest them on forums they don't often visit... So I think what ellisonz and I meant by "safe haven" was more in keeping with that "lifeboat" idea as opposed to a "dedicated forum for folks like you, where you should go post there if you expect anyone to agree with you."

Put it another way, there's a group involved with one local Occupy and they're committed to being a "safe space" for activists, not a "free speech zone" like other spaces I'm familiar with. But in a refreshing departure from the usual for small activist groups, their definition of "safe space" is modeled after Occupy to be a little less exclusive in hopes of engaging and changing people's minds. As one of them put it, "someone who disagrees with us is free to come in to our space as long as they are respectful and not a dick." Their example was actually "what if a tea partier wants to visit our space?" but that doesn't apply to DU of course since tea partiers don't fall within the TOS, but the principle remains ;-)

[Ohio Joe]

66. ummm... Yes :)

I think what is being looked for is a place where one could say:

"I disagree with this tactic/occurance/situation and would rather have seen x'

And thats great, I'm there. The wording does have to be careful though or it allows for those opposed to Occupy in... Perhaps something in (not the entire SoP but part of it) the SoP along the lines of:

"Disagreeing with with a given occurance at an Occupy event may be permitted but posters are expected to be in support of the Occupy movement as a whole"

That may need to be modified a bit... Not sure it is exactly right but... My concern is that the SoP does not allow those opposed to Occupy to take up space in the Group... And there are those that oppose Occupy on DU3.

Does this make sense?

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. Yeah, see the ellisonz wording of proposed SoP below

(black text in my posts with green text added by me -- ellisonz later reconciled the two versions.)

[Ohio Joe]

101. Yes, see my comments below

The Group is still being left open to all who wish to post. 'a little dissent' cannot be defined and as much as ellisonz wants to allow a little, that is not what is going to happen. I've suggested modified wording to allow people to dis-agree with particular incidents and still keep out anti-Occupy posters but that has been rejected in favor of allowing everyone to post. Personally, I will not be participating as I can see their crap in GD already, I don't need to see it in two locations.

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. Nothing's been accepted or rejected yet -- see post #100.

We are obviously trying out different wordings in an effort to make as many folks happy as possible -- the basic goal of "academic" consensus. (We includes anyone that wants to post an edit) Please don't give up on the idea -- you yourself seemed to be in agreement with what I was saying... and I know Zorra shares your concern and she's one of the original persons supporting the idea of creating this forum... we are just trying to avoid tripping up the restrictive "private forum" definition of safe haven that DU3 seems to use. But see the proposed new wording in the SOP, post #100. Remember I'm also trying to include wording for the benefit of down with the shippers into my suggested edits, even though they're basically stand aside, because I'm in solidarity with them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

104. But keep in mind, my main concern at this point is that

The large consensus seems to be to try and get together an SOP that everyone can agree on, and propose it, and finalize the rules later, in a manner such that the rules can be tweaked by ongoing consensus (per the edits suggested by ellisonz and I). I'm willing to keep discussion open indefinitely before I take it to Help/Meta if that's what folks want but I think they want us to take it to Help/Meta sooner rather than hold off on it for another mic check thread

(and we need to have the SoP done by then because debating it on Help/Meta will be 10x more complicated -- on DU2 there is at least the assumption that most folks here support Occupy -- in fact I'd say the current state of DU2 is a model for what we're going for, here. Minus the regrettably limited activity, of course -- but a lot of DU3 groups have that.)

I don't think your concern is with the rules (I mean we all differ with each other a little bit on the specific wording but I'm willing to live with it being a collaborative document) but with a specific statement in the SOP, which is a much smaller and simpler document that we should be able to find consensus on.

Someone (me, I think) added a sentence to the latest iteration of the SoP (post #100, last sentence in the SoP) which I think solves your concern.

[Zorra]

32. Good points.

"No dissent allowed, plain and simple."

I propose we maintain solidarity from the get go. Everyone in the group needs the basic foundation of supporting Occupy. Dissent would be counterproductive in a group focused on moving Occupy forward. Dissenters can dissent in GD all they want. They already do a lot of that. Fine; great place for it. An Occupy group would not be. People pushing Ron Paul, etc, are not acceptable in an Occupy group, IMO.

"Should there be a Host or not"

I propose a committee of hosts. Naturally, as an Occupier I have a problem with a main host. How about a committee of folks that have been clearly supportive of Occupy from day 1 with equal powers, maybe 11 or so to start off with, depending on the original size of the membership. This committee could then that add hosts as they go along. I haven't thought this all the way through as I have little time right now.

Just something to kick around and maybe come up with a committee host model through consensus.

[Ohio Joe]

33. On Hosts

The way DU3 is programmed, the Admins will only assign one Host and this Host becomes the "main" Host. This Host is resposible for assigning other Hosts and is at the top of the heirarchy. The only real difference between the "main" Host and the rest of the Hosts is that the main Host can remove any of the other Hosts, otherwise a Host can only remove Hosts, s/he has assigned... Does that makes sense?

Host1 assigns host2, host2 assigns hosts3&4.

Host1 can remove any host, host2 can remove only host3&4, hosts3&4 can remove nobody.

Other then this, there is no difference between Hosts. Host1 cannot unlock Host2's locked threads, only Host2 can do that... Same with blocking or pinning/un-pinning threads.

There can be as many as 20 Hosts but I do not know of any Groups that have that many though the main Forums keep that (as long as there are that many volunteers).

This is something that is written into the software of DU3 and I do not expect the Admins will change that.

[Zorra]

37. That'll works for me. 20 hosts sounds good.

:D

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. Regarding Heirarchy I would suggest "J.R.R. Tolkien" approach to governance

The main Host should appoint all the other hosts and otherwise serve
as a benevolent postmaster general and stamp-collector in chief. I'd
be willing if no one else is...

although in general I suspect anyone who wants the position should
not be the main Host so perhaps having been so bold, I should take
my name out of the running. ;-)

EVERYTHING IN MODERATION

SUPPORT YOUR POSTAL SERVICE:
THAT IS THE LAW & THE PROPHETS

...Since I'd - er, said person would be willing to abide by the consensus of the group
on who and how the other hosts are promoted (thereby doing an end-run around the
heirarchy aspect) and simply sign off on said hosts.

That way the number of hosts and what their roles should be / how
they are supposed to interpret the SoP can be tweaked by consensus
of the group on a later basis, like in Occupy (or a democratic process ;-)
without going through a lot of wikilawyering rigamarole at Help/Meta

(Under said proposed system,

Whoever is willing to be the first Host would commit to abide by
such consensus and simply implement it without having to go through a
higher authority -- since the lead host can be removed by a consensus
of the group members in Help/Meta, and the same consensus

(as judged by the admins in Help/Meta) would be needed to decide that
the lead host was misinterpreting consensus with respect to how the
other hosts were chosen, what they should be doing and whether they
should exist, etc. etc. etc. without the Admins or SoP having to
specify such things in a manner that is out of the control of actual
participants.

We could also insert a codicil into the SoP that the lead Host give
"great weight" to good arguments from actual Occupy supporters in
determining a consensus for issues that involve arguments over/against SoP.

Like Wikipedia does... thereby once again avoiding having to rely on
a Jury to rule over us or having to stifle all dissent by specifically
banning folks who disagree.

I agree with Zorra that Occupy opponents already have lots of places to
parasprite Occupy supporters, but I would suggest that we could handle
this with language in the SoP that says "This is a forum for supporters
of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different
groups that oppose rule by the 1%, anti-Occupy rhetoric, arguments from
a so-called 53% perspective that the 99% are really a minority and that
rule by the 1% is not a serious issue, belongs in other forums."

Or some such. :shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. Let me see if I can fit that into ellisonz's proposed SoP in #40 (possible text) hmm...

See... this is why I don't like writing official documents. Are we overthinking this?

I'd be willing to throw my hat in contention for lead Host if it's envisioned as a benevolent figurehead position to protect the group as a whole from abuse and allow the group to select x number of co-hosts (the actual hosts, who would serve as mods, DU2 style) whenever it sees fit.

The SoP could simply order the lead host to abide by such ongoing discussions, without the need for a lot of bureaucratic rigamarole.

When I try to write this into ellisonz's statement, however, it comes off as long-winded, due to the concept in principle being difficult to explain with my legalistic writing style:

-----

Statement of Purpose: A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters, to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street and share information on Occupy Wall Street and its causes, continuing the work of advocating for the 99% through peaceful civil disobedience.

Group Standards and Procedure

1. All members will treat other members in a manner consistent with the DU Community Standards, Terms of Service, and Copyright Policy. No member shall disclose personal messages without authorization. No member may engage in personal attacks or harassing behavior. Discuss the post and not the poster.

2. Up to ? co-hosts may be appointed by the lead host, in accordance with an ongoing consensus of group participants as to the identity, number and duties of such hosts, which consensus shall be recognized by the lead host in a fair manner only in response to a thread dedicated to the subject in which a decision is reached by users to make an ongoing determination of hosting issues, such thread to remain open for at least 72 hours and provide an additional 72 hours to come to a decision, the results of which shall be recognized by the lead host and acted upon per the wishes of the group.

* note: Number 2. is in accordance with the current consensus of the straw poll to go ahead and set up the SoP loosely enough to allow participants to determine the nature of the effort on an ongoing basis.

3. In accordance with the general practice of Occupy, the method of decision-making used by group participants shall be a Wikipedia-style consensus, allowing for the use of straw polls if and as needed, to be recognized accordingly by the OP or by any host who is not the OP, thereby closing out the decision-making portion of the thread. A determination of consensus may be reconsidered by two (2) other hosts, thereby leaving the discussion open.

4. Whether host(s) should close out consensus instead of the person calling for a debate on any given subject will be determined if thread participants (by acclamation) or a hosts (in-thread) or the OP themselves deem it to be an issue wherein a person other than the OP ought close out discussion. If it is a matter that hosts must decide themselves (especially in the case of conduct-related issues) shall be determined in like fashion. Any and all host decisions shall be transparent to other users. Decisions made by the group are decisions wherein a host may be asked to "determine" consensus of the group by closing out the "decision" portion of a thread. Hosts initiating or participating in the discussion may refrain from acting as the person in charge of determining consensus, if they feel it is appropriate.

5. As is typical in both Occupy and online forums such as Wikipedia, consensus may be discussion-based and the person closing out discussion may give weight to well crafted arguments presented by actual Occupy supporters, irrespective of imagined or perceived activist credentials.

6. Topics for discussion may be considered on- or off-topic by acclamation, assuming that the posters in question are producing content that is deemed valuable by fellow supporters of Occupy. If a host believes a thread to be off-topic they may lock that thread, but they shall not lock any thread that they have participated in, beyond posting an explanatory locking comment. Hosts shall fairly consider appeals, and submit any appeal to other hosts for an open vote on the lock, with all host votes being equal. Members who interrupt a vote on their appeal will automatically have their appeal denied. << is this sentence needed? --LG

7. No member shall be blocked from a group without a specific warning issued by a host, followed by an open vote on the block by hosts or by users? --LG if the warning host judges the warning has been ignored. If a member disrupts the open vote on their block, they will automatically negate the vote and be blocked. Members who appeal their block may receive a second vote on the block. No block shall be permanent and no block shall exceed 6 months 2 months in duration for a single violation of the group standards. No double jeopardy.

* explanation: for an internet forum, 6 months might as well be indefinite, in which case no need to specify.

8. The lead host shall nominate no more than 4 co-hosts, and shall stand for election every 6 months, to be announced 1 week beforehand, and approved either by a unanimous consent motion, or a free and fair election that shall have a registration period of 72 hours and last 72 hours. The lead host shall operate the voting in a free and fair manner. All co-hosts must be similarly approved, but with a shortened announcement period of 24 hours, followed by either a unanimous consent motion, or a free and fair election.

9. The lead host shall serve at the pleasure of the group and shall stand for election every 6 months, and approved either by a unanimous consent motion, or by election that shall have a registration period of 72 hours and last 72 hours. Up to ? co-hosts, if and as needed, shall serve at the pleasure of the group membership in similar fashion, provided they may be jointly subject to review and re-appointment in similar fashion at reasonable intervals as determined by the group as a whole.

* explanation: simplified this per the results of the straw poll in this thread which calls for us not to get too worked up about the structure of the forum prior to setting it up, which I assume means that people want to set up the SoP in a manner that decisions over structure can be postponed or revisited; see above.

10. During the election period members may freely debate the merits of candidates and the purpose of the group. No DU member shall be compelled to give a reason for objection or for casting a vote. Any debate must be consistent with the DU policies on conduct. No DU member shall be denied the right to participate in a consensus or vote. Objections may be interpreted as request for further discussion. Consensus will not include blocking motions by individuals, unless the person(s) calling for discussion allow for it.

-----

BTW I agree with ellisonz on keeping the number of co-hosts down but not having it so small that individual hosts have a lot of power. I see the lead host as more of a benevolent figurehead to enact the decisions of the group with respect to actual hosts or lack thereof on an ongoing basis, though.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. What I mean is, the consensus of the poll seems to be to make a SoP that is short and flex as can be

So as to allow for ongoing correction and improvement (and more importantly, not getting bogged down in the bureaucratic swamp of DU3 rules, or the whole effort is pointless if it becomes just like every other forum on DU3).

So maybe someone else could try to reconcile ellisonz's, my, and other people's suggestions into a short, 3-4 paragraph version?

I dunno.

[ellisonz]

54. Nice edit.

I'll just clean it up and clarify where my language was unclear.

SOP: "A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters and to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street and share information. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, purely disruptive anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums."

Group Standards and Procedure

1. All members will treat other members in a manner consistent with the DU Community Standards and Terms of Service. No member shall disclose personal messages without authorization. No member may engage in personal attacks or harassing behavior. Discuss the post and not the poster.

2. Up to 4 co-hosts may be appointed by the lead host, in accordance with an ongoing consensus of group participants as to the identity, number and duties of such hosts, which consensus shall be recognized by the lead host in a fair manner only in response to a thread dedicated to the subject in which a decision is reached by users to make an ongoing determination of hosting issues, such thread to remain open for at least 72 hours and provide an additional 72 hours to come to a decision, the results of which shall be recognized by the lead host and acted upon per the wishes of the group.

3. In accordance with the general practice of Occupy, the method of decision-making used by group participants shall be a Wikipedia-style consensus, allowing for the use of straw polls if and as needed, to be recognized accordingly by the OP or by any host who is not the OP, thereby closing out the decision-making portion of the thread. A determination of consensus may be reconsidered by two (2) other hosts, thereby leaving the discussion open.

4. Whether host(s) should close out consensus instead of the person calling for a debate on any given subject will be determined if thread participants (by acclamation) or a hosts (in-thread) or the OP themselves deem it to be an issue wherein a person other than the OP ought close out discussion. If it is a matter that hosts must decide themselves (especially in the case of conduct-related issues) shall be determined in like fashion. Any and all host decisions shall be transparent to other users. Decisions made by the group are decisions wherein a host may be asked to "determine" consensus of the group by closing out the "decision" portion of a thread. Hosts initiating or participating in the discussion may refrain from acting as the person in charge of determining consensus, if they feel it is appropriate.

5. As is typical in both Occupy and online forums such as Wikipedia, consensus may be discussion-based and the person closing out discussion may give weight to well crafted arguments presented by actual Occupy supporters, irrespective of imagined or perceived activist credentials in locking threads.

6. Topics for discussion may be considered on or off-topic by acclamation, assuming that the poster in question is producing content that is deemed valuable by fellow supporters of Occupy. If a host believes a thread to be off-topic they may lock that thread, but they shall not lock any thread that they have participated in, beyond posting an explanatory locking comment. Hosts shall fairly consider appeals, and submit any appeal to other hosts for an open vote on the lock, with all host votes being equal.

7. No member shall be blocked from a group without a specific warning issued by a host, if the warning host judges the warning has been ignored, followed by an open vote on the block by hosts, with all votes being equal. If a member disrupts the open vote on their block, they will automatically negate the vote and be blocked by the lead host. Members may appeal their block to the any host and receive a second vote on the block if any host makes such a request. No double jeopardy.

8. The lead host shall nominate no more than 4 co-hosts, and shall stand for election every 6 months, to be announced 1 week beforehand, and approved either by a unanimous consent motion, or a free and fair election that shall have a registration period of 72 hours and last 72 hours. The lead host shall operate the voting in a free and fair manner. All co-hosts must be similarly approved, but with a shortened announcement period of 24 hours, followed by either a unanimous consent motion, or a free and fair election.

9. The lead host shall serve at the pleasure of the group and shall stand for election every 6 months, and approved either by a unanimous consent motion, or by election that shall have a registration period of 72 hours and last 72 hours. Up to 4 co-hosts, if and as needed, shall serve at the pleasure of the group membership in similar fashion, provided they may be jointly subject to review and re-appointment in similar fashion at reasonable intervals as determined by the group as a whole. Any host may be subject to an open recall election at the petition of 10 members previously voting in a host election.

10. During the election period members may freely debate the merits of candidates and the purpose of the group. No DU member shall be compelled to give a reason for objection or for casting a vote. Any debate must be consistent with the DU policies on conduct. No DU member shall be denied the right to participate in a consensus or vote. Objections may be interpreted as request for further discussion. Consensus will not include blocking motions by individuals, unless the person(s) calling for discussion allow for it. These standards and procedures may be amended only by an open vote at the petition of 10 members previously voting in a host election.

I tried to condense our SOP ideas into a simple statement. Clarified that blocks are to be voted on by hosts. Set the number of co-hosts at 4, so there will be 5 total, thus preventing a tie. I think that's enough to allow monitoring of the group given the availability of the jury system and of hosts to overrule any decision. I think setting it to high makes it difficult to manage since there's actually no way to know who blocks anyone. I also think that prevents host positions from being used as patronage. I added language so that hosts can be recalled, but only by those who previously voted them into position the first place. I also added similar language so this document can be amended.

It's probably not perfect, but it's in the spirit of OWS, provides for a committee like approach to host powers, and has thorough checks and balances to ensure that dissent is not stifled and hosts are subject to group members as well as the DU admins. I actually really like how this came out. It's flexible, durable, and reason-minded. A little lengthy, but no one has ever accused the DU membership of being not into good governance. Pleasure working with you! :thumbsup:

I would suggest you go ahead and propose the group in Meta with just the SOP and a call for signatures. I think this can be put to vote once the group has been created, proposing them now will likely result in extraneous debate. I have the text saved on my hard drive and further revisions can be made before being ratified. As of this point there are 16 votes in favor, 2 in opposition, and 4 neutral.

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. I'll let this thread sit and marinate for part of the day, in part because I overslept

And missed an event here this morning (the counter-breakfast), which I promised somepony I'd attend, and I'm rushing out the door :yoiks:

I tried to incorporate the concerns of DU2-only folks in part because I share them. But I'm not sure how or whether to add a phrase saying it's a clearinghouse for Occupy supporters on GD2 and GD3, since folks said that discretion might be the better part of valor when writing an SoP.

---

Perhaps if we added a phrase to the SoP "and a place for Occupy supporters to check in when visiting the site." ?? Would that help address KoKo's concern.

"It is not meant to forestall but to encourage discussion on other DU forums by providing a place for inter-forum links and public information that might get lost in the shuffle." -- optional additional sentence

---

Without getting too overly specific about DU2 in the SoP, or DU-friendly folks who have drifted away to other forums etc. I think this forum would be a lifeboat for -some- of the folks who left... that aren't around here right now... even if they don't wish to post.

BTW, no prob with your edits...

Per Zorra's and other's concerns, we could say "up to 4 co-hosts, or a set number specified by the group" and specify the number when and if the group orders the lead host to appoint co-hosts, since there's no structural need to specify it prior to that (unless we really have a number we want engrained in the SoP) thereby allowing further discussion on that (hopefully minor) issue. (I think 4 is fine but doesn't necessarily need to be baked into the SoP as Zorra and others may feel differently)

Hope these corrections / suggestions don't upset the apple cart though.

I will try and crosspost SoP discussions between here and there if possible.

[Ohio Joe]

67. This looks good... Just a couple of suggestions

"SOP: "A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters and to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street and share information. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, purely disruptive anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums."

Change

"purely disruptive anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums"

to

"Those that are supportive of the Occupy movement are welcome to post"

I like this better then what I had above. The fact is that there are those that do not support Occupy on DU3 and it must be made clear that the Group is not for them. Personally, "Disruptive" is to subjective a word I think and leaves the door open, the SoP should be consistent all the way across.

"7. No member shall be blocked from a group without a specific warning issued by a host, if the warning host judges the warning has been ignored, followed by an open vote on the block by hosts, with all votes being equal. If a member disrupts the open vote on their block, they will automatically negate the vote and be blocked by the lead host. Members may appeal their block to the any host and receive a second vote on the block if any host makes such a request. No double jeopardy."

In particular, this:

"Members may appeal their block to the any host and receive a second vote on the block if any host makes such a request."

Just a not on this... Being able to appeal to any Host sounds good but be aware that the software of DU3 makes it so that the only person that can un-block is the person that blocked in the first place. Another Host may say "yeah, I'm convinced, un-block" but they do not have the ability to do it, not even the lead Host. Buy in will be required from all Hosts.

9&10

ellisonz has recently brought this up on DU3:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124038739

I'll express my same question on it here... Why? Hosts do not do much and in this Group (in particular) nothing gets done but by consensus. There is already an effective way to remove any Hosts that abuse power. I don't see any benefit to going through the process over and over when it does not appear (to me at least) to do anything. Is there an actual reason to do this?

[ellisonz]

68. Getting admins to do anything can be a pain.

People in that thread largely believed that groups should be self-governing. This is a mechanism for self-governance. See the added recall section. Checks and balances my friend. The goal here is bottom-up decision making, not top down. Some people prefer it that way and I think it raises the standard of conduct in a very positive way. Democracy can be messy, but it is much preferable to dictatorship. If a host didn't abide by the decision of the co-hosts or group consensus they could be removed from office via recall.

I don't like your SOP change. As Leopolds Ghost stated, posters should be welcome to come in the area and post as long as they are "respectful and not dicks." Occupy should want to persuade, not isolate itself. All decisions are subjective on this issue for the most part. The key thing here is that accountability will be easy to administer via the host and jury systems.

[Ohio Joe]

69. So you want this Group wide open for both pro and anti Occupy?

Thats up to the Group but I suspect it will quickly turn off a lot of pro Occupy people as there will be no difference between this Group and what goes on in GD. I would ask all of the Group to chime in and say if this is what they want or not?

"People in that thread largely believed that groups should be self-governing. This is a mechanism for self-governance. See the added recall section. Checks and balances my friend. The goal here is bottom-up decision making, not top down. Some people prefer it that way and I think it raises the standard of conduct in a very positive way. Democracy can be messy, but it is much preferable to dictatorship. If a host didn't abide by the decision of the co-hosts or group consensus they could be removed from office via recall."

None of this answers the question... Why?

Hosts are not there to do any decision making or be a dictator. They are there to enforce SoP, promote the Group and go an extra mile to make it a welcoming place... They work for the Group. If they are not doing this to the satisfaction of the Group, they can be removed. So again I'll ask... Why? What is the benefit?

[ellisonz]

71. Why so binary, Ohio Joe?

Not every comment can be reduced down to pro and anti, and especially in a group as diverse as Occupy Wall Street. Even here in Southern California, the occupations differed radically in their conduct toward police. In downtown L.A. and Riverside they were removed forcefully by police, in Irvine, Long Beach and I believe San Diego the camps dispersed without requiring a massive police response. What I think most of us don't want is this group to be like any other group. This will all be voted on in a free and fair election. Permitting as much free speech as possible without creating a hostile environment is the goal here.

"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution."

— Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice, 1947<14>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism#Emergence_from_revolutionary_syndicalism

The goal here is to have hosts that are as responsive and democratized to the group as possible. It is an attempt at internet General Assembly. You've got to respect the beauty of the ideal. If it works, we shall see, but I was told by many that the reason GDP had to go away was because there was so much fighting, but since Politics 2012 came back there have been hardly any alerts or hidden posts. This is a marked contrast to GD. People ought to be able to disagree, without being disagreeable. :shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

72. You seem to believe there is another option besdies allowing anti Occupy in or not

I'm being binary on this because there simply is no third option. Your solution seems to be that Hosts will enforce civility... They are not allowed to, it is not their job. A Host cannot block a member for not being polite enough, that is something that goes to a Jury and a Jury will not always go the way the Group wants.

The concept of "People ought to be able to disagree, without being disagreeable." is great... I love it but... It cannot be enforced by Hosts. It is not within a Hosts job to ban for civility violations, it is an example of a Host abusing their power and a reason to have them removed... Yes, even if all Hosts agree.

In addition, if you think it can be tried out this way and changed after a month or two... You are wrong. All would have a say so on if it should now become a protected Group and you can bet that people this would now bar from the Group would be very vocal in their opposition.

If the Group does not want to hear this advice, fine. I promise though, you will end up with threads going exactly as they do in GD today and you will end up with anti-Occupy people as Hosts. Is this really what the Group wants?

I would really love to hear some other people check in rather then one person making the choice for everyone.

[ellisonz]

76. Boy do you have me figured wrong...

...also you're hearing at least two people on this, like I've said all along, this and any other proposal will be voted on in a free and fair election lasting more than 3 hours so as to provide all to weigh in. Under this proposal the group empowers the hosts and has review power over all decisions. I don't get how you don't see the irony of telling a group predicated on dissent to not tolerate *any* dissent. :shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

77. So my recommendations will be included as well?

oh wait... You decided to reject them without any valid reason or taking any other opinions into consideration. Are you saying all sides will be put up for consideration or just yours?

"I don't get how you don't see the irony of telling a group predicated on dissent to not tolerate *any* dissent."

I've no where said that. I'll repeat myself again. Allowing people to disagree with individual actions is fine but I feel this should be a pro-Occupy Group. I am also not the only one to express that on this thread. Also, I have made it abundantly clear that I am offering advice, you are the one deciding it will not be accepted.

I will also repeat again. The idea that 'a little dissent only' will be allowed is a fantasy, if the Group decides to go with a non-protected format, any and all anti-Occupy voices will be allowed. Saying that there can be some type of middle ground is great but I've seen no mention on how this could be accomplished, wishing it so, will not make it happen.

[ellisonz]

82. Draft something up and it can be voted on.

I never said anything like that. I did present valid reasons. You seem to have a gripe with me and it's unwarranted. I'm just trying to advocate for a group structure as close to the General Assembly as possible. I don't disagree this should be a pro-Occupy Group. That's clearly stated in everything written in the thread, but pro-Occupy doesn't mean absolute uniform agreement at all times.

I think clearly the document that Leopold's Ghost and I have been working on is as close to "constitutionalism" as you can get. I don't see any problem with having group by-laws that try to mirror the principles of the General Assembly. I don't get why you're so skeptical about trying to stick to "democratic" principles for an Occupy Wall Street group. Do you think I've missed all the debate on Occupy Wall Street that has taken place at DU? Do you not think I understand that there are some posters that seemingly detest Occupy Wall Street? I do.

But I also recognize that there is a broad middle group at DU that has no firm opinion and can be persuaded by allowing open discussion and free exchange of information without resorting to the doctrinal approach of "safe haven." I'm in no way quashing your right to dissent from what Leopolds Ghost and I are suggesting, and that's the way it should be. I've yet to see no reports of any actual General Assembly or Occupation being severely disrupted by any group because there wasn't a ring of "no dissent allowed" signs. :shrug:

[Ohio Joe]

84. I gave my recommendation above

You dismissed it out of hand and completely ignore that fact that without it, anti-Occupy voices are allowed... ALL of them. You are in fact advocating an open Group where anti-Occupy is welcome with your statement. My adjustment allows for objecting to single tactics or events but does not allow the anti-Occupy crowd in. You just don't seem to want to understand or get this... or address it.

"Do you not think I understand that there are some posters that seemingly detest Occupy Wall Street? I do."

Then accept my advice and do not let them in. Anything else is simply dismissing me because it is you that has the problem.

"I'm in no way quashing your right to dissent"

It is exactly what you are doing. I suggested one sentence change and you dismiss it with bullshit. I also asked one question and you answered it with 'I want to make a redundant system', also bullshit. You have also refused to explain how you are going to define 'a little dissent'.

[No Elephants]

81. Don't the DU3 rules say that DU3 is not for people pushing Ron Paul ("Paulites")?

So, if there are any, and those rules mean anything, Paulites should be banned from all of DU3.

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. Per the new wording (which is a reconciled version of ellisonz's and my texts)

I suggested an addon sentence to the OP stating it as a logical syllogism:

Occupy is a nonpartisan movement open to anyone who considers themselves part of the 99% but DU by definition is a partisan forum (nothing wrong with noting that). ERGO, Occupy DU would necessarily be a forum for contributing members of Du who happen to be supporters of Occupy.

I.e. it is homegrown, not a raid on DU3 by Occupy supporters of random political affiliation.

[ellisonz]

95. I would also just note.

That unlike DU2, members do not need a star to post in groups. I don't think the admins would out of hand reject such a group just because Occupy Wall Street is non-partisan, or so I would hope. I would also note that 3rd party advocacy is prohibited by the DU2 terms of service also.

[truedelphi]

73. Give me a PM if this Occupy group becomes reality

I spend a lot of time on other sites and on FaceBook now that some trolls follow me relentlessly over at DU3. I was probably followed when I was on DU2, but the ignore function allowed it to be a much more pleasant experience.

I would definitely contribute to a group that is for the Occupy movement. Not too sure that our Admins would care to have it happen though.

[Zorra]

19. Consensus? Oh for pete's sake, this is just like an Occupy GA.

Love it.

I voted to go for it and shoot it out later.

The first host needs to be totally pro-Occupy, of course. The first host can then pick more hosts, etc.

In a group, we can prevent Occuphobes from endlessly spamming MSM/1% talking points over and over and wasting our time.

I don't really see how any Occupy OP's/threads can justifiably be excluded from GD just because we have an Occupy group. Occupy is a newsworthy, major global phenomenon. Time picked The Protester as Person of the Year. Occupy was the Word of the Year.

Any GD host shutting down Occupy threads would be blatantly abusing their host powers due to obvious prejudice and would have some serious conflicts with DU membership over this, and, most probably, with administrators as well.

I gotta go will check back in later.

[scarletwoman]

26. Hello from a DU3er! Hope you don't mind that I voted in your poll. I voted #2.

I followed your link from your Meta thread, so here I am. I've not visited DU2 for quite a long while, being well and happily settled into DU3. As a result, I'm really basically ignorant of the issues you all have been discussing among yourselves over here.

That being said, I want you to know that I will totally support your request for the Occupy Group you are envisioning. As soon as your request is made in Meta, I will add my vote for your group, and do all I can to argue in support of its formation.

Just wanted you all to know that. :)

As an aside, I noticed that there was a complaint somewhere in this thread about GD & GDP being combined on DU3. I believe that has been remedied - at least somewhat - by the introduction of the "Politics 2012" forum a couple weeks ago, which is basically GDP by another name.

I truly believe that you will be able to form the group you wish and make it work. I believe that it would be a valuable asset. I believe that you will have the freedom to design it to be what you want it to be, and that ultimately there are no potential negatives that cannot be overcome. I also believe that it will NOT dilute discussion of Occupy on GD - rather, it will strengthen and enhance such discussions.

Shorter version: Please do this. As a DU3er, I will help any way I can.

Thank you,
sw

[PatrynXX]

34. Good luck..

DU2 is the endline. DU3 is dead to me. Like filesonic is dead to me. first time I'd been on DU3 in weeks was after oakland and the first Oakland story has a bunch of pro wall street fans on it. zzzzzz

only place I got proper news was on Truth Out....

[Lady Freedom Returns]

38. It is so touchy over there!

Things that we would do in DU2 Lounge is now supposed to go in this place or that place, you can't just have fun. An the GD is the same way! there are so many sub categories. I don't really like it. And there is NO Spell check!

[mojowork_n]

39. Hello, didn't know there was anyone still over here.

There is "Occupy" info on DU3 but it's mostly news reports and
following the action. Not a whole lot of what you could characterize
as "activism," really.

So how does this work -- there's a Chinese log-in wall between the
two DU's? Can't be logged in to both at the same time?

...Guess I'll find out in a minute.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. Lady & co., do y'all know if new posters can log in here?

I think I saw a new DU3er post here with no post count on DU2, but it could be they just were a lurker before Dec.

[Raine]

41. I voted #2 nt

:thumbsup:

[Hatchling]

42. There need to be hosts.

It's the only way to keep the anti-OWS hacks in check. IMO, there are some agent provocateurs out there that should be banned from the group before even opening our doors.

Is there some way to incorporate the GA principle?

1. For example if a ruling has been appealed have a general assembly on the decision?

2.Elect a main host we can absolutely trust, and then have as many hosts as we can that in effect becomes a GA?

3. We need at least one host to protect the group and a simple SOP to start with, and then a GA to determine what the group culture/consensus would be.

Maybe something in the SOP to indicate that group culture/consensus will be be a factor. That way the group itself can create the flexibility it needs with out having to revise the SOP. The group culture consensus would be posted in a sticky and be amenable to change as the group evolves.

Just tossing a few ideas out there. There are probably logistic problems with all of these.

[ellisonz]

45. Agreed.

The best way to keep order and still be as close to a democracy is to have checks and balances. Having 20 hosts would be chaos. No one would know who was making decisions. All decisions must be made in the open and be peer-reviewable. The lead host should have no more sway than any other elected co-hosts.

Rules are made to revised. :D

[KoKo]

43. I voted for this one...and Because...

Serious concern -- oppose the idea of a DU3 forum because it would draw people away from Occu-DU2 and do not wish personally to visit the new site / find it impossible to navigate anyhow. Discuss.

DISCUSS:

I voted for that because I don't believe that the Dem Party wants much discussion of OWS or OCCUPY ANYTHING! Otherwise Eric Holder would be prosecuting all over the place.

When I check out DU3 (always hoping to see signs of improvement over what I feared)..I leave very discouraged.

I do not think the Democratic Party wants anyone questioning anything about it's policies since Election 2008. I'm a lifelong Dem...I never thought I'd see this...but, I must have been stupid, blinded all these years because ACTIVISM is to be avoided these days. And, maybe it always was but the 60's Revolution (and it was a Revolution for a time...with some coat tales for a couple of decades)...seems all but dead in their eyes. I see post after post over there disparaging the OWS Movement.

I wish you all well in you endeavors to create a Forum for posts about OWS but, there are better sources online, these days for Activism. FireDogLake, Nation of Change, Common Dreams websites come to mind. Serious folks (Activists and Dems who want their party to move in the direction of Change) would be better served spending time reading articles at the above mentioned sites which do have dedicated OWS news than to expect DU-3 or 2 to report what's going on.

There's a whole dedicated Forum to OWS Activities all over the US on FireDogLake and it links to local and has continuing blog. That's where the info is. Not here or would be at DU-3 in the way that true activists for improving our whole society would want to go to be informed.

Just saying. That's my 2 cents...

Edited: Because I always leave out second "parens" in my posts. It's a brain blip, I have..it seems.

[Sapphocrat]

47. I certainly understand and sympathize, but I am one of the four who voted for:

"Stand-aside -- will not be on DU3 because do not wish to visit the new site. But not against proposal."

...for the sole reason that what will happen will happen, and it will happen with or without me. I figure if something good comes from it (mind you, I don't believe it will, but there is always the possibility), then, to paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Admittedly, mine is sort of a backhanded support of the idea -- as I am not a DU3er, it will not affect me whether it happens or not -- but who am I to stand in the way of it if there is even the most remote chance it could be a good thing? (Funny, but I'm also compelled to paraphrase another great thinker: "First, do no harm..."

Not, mind you, that I think you're standing in the way of anything, KoKo. I do not think that at all; I believe you want only what is best for everyone. And I think (especially because of this: "I wish you all well in you endeavors to create a Forum for posts about OWS...") we're more on the same page about this than not.

But, aside from all of the above, ultimately, I believe DU2's days are numbered. I could be wrong about that, and I would like to be wrong about that. But if I'm right, well, if DU2 goes dark, wouldn't it be better for an Occupy group to exist on DU3 than to disappear when DU2 does?

Meanwhile, I think your mention of more activist sites is spot-on. I hope your post will stand. And that is all I will say about that so as not get my own post deleted. :)

[KoKo]

48. delete..dupe

[KoKo]

49. Yes...I understand what you say....

and thanks for understanding where I'm coming from and that I wish the DU-3 Well...but, I cannot be a part of it because I have fundamental disagreements with the TOS and Privacy Agreements. Plus...I hate food fights and paying a high fee for nothing but "reader posted content" and nothing original by the site owners/admins. It just seems unfair to be asked to pay such a high fee for "reader input site" where "WE" do all the work and the owners collect the Google Ad's money. It's not at all what many of us who've been here since 2001 thought would become of this site and what we contributed in time and money to help build it.


:-)'s to you for understanding.

[truedelphi]

75. One small tidbit about Eric Holder -

His DOJ is prosecuting all over the place. It is called rousting the medical marijuana clinics.

Already some 2,500 well paying jobs have been lost to people here in California. My county lost 25 jobs and there is an 18% unemployment rate here, with it expected to be even higher due to how much money is not in existence in the state budget.

Oh and then there is this little tidbit from Yahoo news --
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/dea-investigates-montana-state-legislator-medical-marijuana-views-222007610.html

State House Democrat Diane Sands tells the Missoulian she was contacted by a defense attorney with some unusual news: The attorney had been approached by the DEA who wanted to know whether Sands might be connected to one of the attorney's clients who had been charged with distributing marijuana.

"So now, if you're a state legislator who has been working on medical marijuana laws, you are somehow part of a conspiracy," said Sands. "It's ridiculous, of course, but it's also threatening to think that the federal government is willing to use its influence and try to chill discussion about this subject."

[sabrina 1]

55. Just saw this thread and voted for #2. However, as someone

who has been writing about and supporting OWS from day one on DU2 where OWS was enthusiastically supported by a majority of DUers. This has changed as anyone visiting DU3 knows. This is in part because so many have left and seem to have been replaced by an entirely different membership, so I am, like so many others considering how to continue from here. I used to write a lot about OWS on DU2, but agree with Koko now that other blogs are where the action is on this subject and have not bothered to write so far, on DU3. Although to be honest, this movement is far more important to me now, than any other entity regarding contributing to real changes needed in this country.

I like the idea of a group, which might encourage more people to stay on DU3. Otoh, I do not think that too many rules and 'leaders' would reflect the principles of OWS and would hope that such a group would be way more democratic than what I've seen of some of the groups so far.

I am and have been from the start, totally impressed with OWS's democratic process, even though it often takes time to come to a consensus, but it's worth it, it gives everyone a voice, no one is more important than anyone else, and each person is valued for their contributions.

The other thing that concerns me about an OWS group on a partisan board. OWS is not Partisan or political in terms of party politics so obviously a group on DU would not really be reflective of the actual OWS entirely. And I am worried about any party hi-jacking of the movement. It should not be seen as a partisan movement nor does it want to be.

As Koko pointed out there are so many blogs in support of OWS, and it is disappointing that DU is no longer one of them, to say the least. I certainly do not want to see rightwing/Corporate media opinions of OWS, if I did I would tune in to the MSM or go to rightwing blogs, so maybe this group will help to diminish and maybe help educate those on DU3 who seem to be most unfamiliar with the movement.

Anyhow, I will read the rest of the thread tomorrow and will definitely vote to support the group even if I am not around most of the time as time goes on.

Thank you for all the work and thought you are putting into this.

[Leopolds Ghost]

62. What if we had the SoP read like this? (apologies as it's an add-on sentence to ellison final draft)

A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters and to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street and share information, and a place for persons interested in Occupy to check in when visiting the new site. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, purely disruptive anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums.

Note that Occupy is not a partisan movement, but DU is a partisan blog. Therefore this group is, necessarily, a forum for Occupy supporters who happen to be contributing members of the DU community and does not seek to co-opt the label, speak for any Occupy or for all Occupiers, or take the place of physical Occupy efforts. It is not meant to forestall but to encourage discussion on other DU forums by providing a place for inter-forum links among other things, bringing people together on a common issue, and public information that might get lost in the shuffle.

Occupy ALL Streets. Occupy ALL Seats. Occupy ALL Forums.

<-- the last part from No Elephants, I think. because it sounds cool ;-)

<-- italicized text is from my previous suggested edit to ensure Zorra's and KoKo's concerns are remedied

[KoKo]

65. One problem I could see...

and don't know how it could be addressed is dealing with folks who want to post in that group who might bring up issues about Occupiers behavior.

For instance there was a post about "Occupy Oakland" where the issue of "flag burning" came up and there were comments criticizing the flag burning and one commenter even accused flag burners from the 60's for being responsible for ending the anti-war movement. It was pointed out that the comment was not accurate (re: flag burners of 60's ending anti-war movement) but there were others that went on to insinuate that "OWS" would fall apart if it continued with incidents that could turn off the public to the cause.

Other posters on thread pointed out that during the 60's the "Movements--Civil Rights, Anti-Vietnam War and Women's Movement" were infiltrated by FBI and that it's well documented that all movements that work for change against a status quo always attract government attention and very often the violent acts by otherwise peaceful movements are done by agent provocateurs.

Given the language regarding "conspiracy theories" in TOS Agreement for DU-3, wouldn't it be possible for someone pointing out that violence can often be attributed to "infiltrators" in the OWS movement be in violation TOS because "speculating" that agent provocateurs are doing violent actions could be seen as "conspiracy theory?"

How could OWS be discussed without having battles about anarchists vs. govt. agents or "Passive Resistance to arrest as opposed to avoiding arrest entirely?"

This is probably nit picking on my part, but I could see the OWS Group being hit by posts about tactics that desend into flame wars. Maybe that would be a positive thing for discussion, but it could also be very negative and cause more "Denial of Posting Privileges" for members who get involved in the discussions when the arguments get too heated or the discussion strays into TOS conspiracy theories violations.

:shrug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. Good questions. I figure there's gotta be a way to work something out...

I myself am on the fence when it comes to issues of tactics. One of the solid Occupy friendly posters on DU3 dislikes me because I posted that Occupy needed to deal with stuff like petty thieves infiltrating the camps and he felt I was sowing FUD.

[ellisonz]

70. 11th Commandment?

I think that's a good additional idea, but the thought could be condensed and the "new site" language could become dated. How about:

SOP. A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street, share information, and form a non-partisan community. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, purely disruptive anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums.

11. Note that Occupy is not a partisan movement, but DU is a partisan blog. Therefore this group is, necessarily, a forum for Occupy supporters who happen to be contributing members of the DU community and does not seek to co-opt the label, speak for any Occupy or for all Occupiers, or take the place of physical Occupy efforts. It is not meant to forestall but to encourage discussion on other DU forums by providing a place for inter-forum links among other things, bringing people together on a common issue, and public information that might get lost in the shuffle.

Occupy ALL Streets. Occupy ALL Seats. Occupy ALL Forums.

:toast:

[KoKo]

83. That's interesting... But, how do you deal with other sites that are WAY ahead of DU

on Occupy Issues and Postings about them?

You Say:

"It is not meant to forestall but to encourage discussion on other DU forums by providing a place for inter-forum links among other things, bringing people together on a common issue, and public information that might get lost in the shuffle.

Occupy ALL Streets. Occupy ALL Seats. Occupy ALL Forums."

-----

It sounds good in theory what you say might work on DU-3...but, in practice, couldn't it end up something very different and ugly because so many DU-3 Supporters and the Owners of this Site...would not want their site to be seen as supporting some movement that could be construed as Anti-Dems and Obama Re-election?

How could this be worked around given the Jury System, the Restricting "TOS Agreement and Privacy Agreements" that DU-3 has in place?

:shrug:

EDITED: inserted DU 2 by mistake when I meant DU3 in sentence 3.

[ellisonz]

85. I think we build bridges.

DU is a big enough and substantial website that simply pulling out of it entirely is a tactical mistake in that there are many pro-Occupy posters at the DU3. I for one, am tired of seeing posters relentlessly attacked in the main forums. Giving them a lifeboat can only help the cause to the extent that it allows the message to be spread. I think we're going to have to walk a tight-rope. I think as long as there's not third-party advocacy it should be alright. Simply making anti-Obama statements isn't enough to get booted from DU at this point. I think providing an Occupy Group is likely to keep a number of posters from simply throwing their hands up in the air and walking away. It's a "lifeboat," and the sturdier the better.

[KoKo]

88. There isn't any reason for many of us (who can go elsewhere) to provide a Lifeboat to DU-3

What's in it for Us? Nothing.

We here who were cut off without lifeboats are supposed to supply one to DU-3..when there's so much else to read and participate in OUTSIDE of the DU BOX?

:shrug: Why should WE here on DU-2..even bother with that. We are here until the lights go out...(those of us who thought the Old DU had more potential than the newly "FaceBooked" DU-3.

Just saying........

[ellisonz]

89. I respect going down with the ship.

I for one suspect that the administrators will be in for a rude awakening when they find that more money was actually raised in the funding drives than in the current minimum pricing. I'm going to keep pulling people out of the freezing waters and into the lifeboat. :shrug:

Aloha. I wish you the best of luck.:thumbsup:

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. I'm going to stay here in solidarity with you guys, KoKo. Even if I'm on the DU3 forum

I'm sure NYC_SKP feels the same way :hi:

Heck, I'll probably spend more time on Occu-DU3 than DU3 General Discussion... so my main reason for supporting this is selfish in that right now GD3 is no fun and I'm not one to avoid the site and the folks who are still on it entirely, esp when so many others have drifted away.

If you want to know what really makes me feel emotional kinship, KoKo, it is trying to talk to folks who dropped out of DU3 but refuse to hang with us here because DU2 is "doooomed. DOOOOOOOOOMED!" and have already left for wherever :-( Maybe if they see we have a forum on DU3 they'll be more likely to check in here at least, so long as we're here :-)

[KoKo]

96. Well...some of us are trying to keep interest peaked here...

to be an alternative. And Thanks for trying to keep it up along with the few others.

It's slower here, but posts stay around longer and some rival the views of DU-3 without the angst of getting involved with the snark which sucks one in if you aren't careful and you come out needed a shower.

I'm sure there's good stuff in the groups over there if one looks...but, they are so hidden and even at that there have been dust up with the Hosts or whatever the Group Heads are called. It's all so regimented it's just too time consuming.

We will just keep trucking along until the lights go out... Glad you will split time after you get the group going over there. As I said, I wish you all well.

:hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

98. "Thou Shalt Not Piss Against The Wall"

Mark Twain, I believe :evilgrin:

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. But seriously, I think we're slowly moving toward and if we snip out the SOP and propose that first

As you said upthread (#54, I believe) we can hold off debate on setting the "Rules" in stone until after the group is formed since that seems to be the consensus according to the straw poll.

That's how DU3 allows it to work, right?

As you note, we've got enough opinions here on DU2 that it might be good to continue debate on the "Rules" here in another mic check thread if and when a proposal is submitted containing the text of the SOP. That will, however, require us to post a (hopefully brief, although this thread has been truly epic) current proposed text of the SOP and try to reconcile it with Zorra and Ohio Joe's concerns. I do agree with your edit, BTW.

Aren't you worried that specifying non-partisan in the opening text of the SoP might cause unnecessary debate, since it's mentioned in the numbered paragraph following?

Stating explicitly that we want it to be a nonpartisan community (even if it is implicit elsewhere in the document) might be a bridge too far because both Occupy supporters who are concerned about safe haven status and middle-of-the road DUers might see it as a camel's nose under the tent of some sort and both hold up the vote on creating it, causing a DU3 flamewar.

The main object with that sentence was to address KoKo's concern about drawing friendly people away from other forums.

how about this?

SOP. A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street, share information, and form a broad-based community where persons from various DU-related forums can check in. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums.

I don't see why the last bit (snipped "purely disruptive" as a redundant qualifier) wouldn't meet Ohio Joe's concern (which I think Zorra shares, less vocally) about creating a safe haven (without being necessarily required to abide by DU3's restrictive definition of a safe haven.) It certainly allows the hosts to enforce SoP at the discretion of the group membership's wishes...

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. Hmm, on reading it, DU-related forums sounds too vague. Correcting own proposed edit

SOP. A place for Occupy Wall Street members and supporters to promote the values of Occupy Wall Street, share information, and form a broad-based community where persons from DU past and present can check in. This is a forum for supporters of the 99%. While dissent is allowed because there are many different groups that oppose rule by the 1%, anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums.

[No Elephants]

86. Guilty, although I stole the first part from JayZ, but the seats and forums part was mine.

The seats bit was my response to someone who said we needed to occupy Scott Brown's seats. And, of course, the forums part came from the suggestion (which may have been a little disingenuous) that we should occupy DU3.

And then, I just strung them all together. Of course, we could shorthand to Occupy Everywhere!

I've also used "Occupy 2012." Again, we could broaden that to "Occupy Everywhere, All the Time."

Fun with slogans.

Thanks for the quote and for the acknowledgment.

[KoKo]

90. BTW, LEO/GHOST...here's another example of Diss of OWS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002259963

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. Someone has executed a potentially blocking objection to forming the group (poll result #9).

Since the only way to address such an objection is to discuss it, I would like to know if they wish to discuss it here or on MIC CHECK thread #2 (on this forum).

If it is Ohio Joe, I would venture to suggest MIC CHECK #2 would be the place to address it since his specific issue is with the wording of the SoP.

I am not sure anonymous blocks without explanation count (per the spirit of the rules we've been drafting), which are not yet set in stone, again see MIC CHECK thread #2.

Also keep in mind #9 is a strong objection which would be potentially blocking in an activist group that uses blocking consensus (like the Quakers), so I think it counts as a request that we address their concerns before moving forward.

Which might be easier to do on MIC CHECK #2 due to the size of this thread.

Still, this has been a good thread, don't you think?

[NYC_SKP]

107. I would submit that, as the objection was made anonymously, we are free to move forward.

Absent any clarifying commentary by the poster...

It could, after all, have been anyone who hit #9, may not be one of us, and may never venture back to this forum ever again.

I say move ahead.

:hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. OK, no one explained the block so we're posting in Help/Meta this evening. Thanks you guys!