"How did we get a host?" a locked thread asks? Here is the answer.

[kristopher]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by pinto (a host of the Environment & Energy group).

This thread has been approved by Admin.
Main admin thread on hosting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=681
The discussion below starts at the subthread descending from post #28

Although there are few posts in the subthread, it occurs over several days.


In the midst of the discussion about hosting the EE group xemasab decided to preempt the process and appealed to be host in the (very busy) thread where Skinner was handing out host-ships(?). With no mention of the controversy in the thread, she made her request and linked to an innocuous post she had made which had no replies.

xemasab
28. I would like to continue being host in E/E.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1127159

Link to post 28:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=466

As he did with a large number of other groups, Skinner granted the request.
"Done"

muriel_volestrangler then posted this:

muriel_volestrangler
123. Can I ask if you followed the argument thread about the E&E hosts?

It seems to have cut off the argument (and it was an argument, not just a discussion) a bit prematurely, to me. No-one had said "everyone vote now", for instance, or "voting will close at XXXX EST".

Links:
Argument thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112774

Thread expressing doubt that consensus had been found (also locked): http://www.democraticunderground.com/1127444

and, inevitably, thread annoyed at the latest lock (also locked): http://www.democraticunderground.com/1127529

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=581

Skinner's reply:

Skinner
145. I didn't. I'm going on the honor system here.
If you all want me to do something else, just tell me what to do.

My reply to Skinner:

kristopher
169. It seems evident that the honor system was abused

There was a discussion underway where the emerging consensus certainly looked to be no host.
Knowing that, one participant in that discussion posted the request to be host to you, deliberately not linking to the discussion thread.

I think to any fair minded person that is evidence of an approach to ethics that disqualifies the person from serving in that capacity.

EE is different from most other groups in two important ways;
1) there is an active global "war" between the present fossil/nuclear based system and the use of renewable sources,
2) the content of the postings is largely based on independently verifiable information far more than opinion.

What that *means* is a matter of opinion, but your approach to selecting a host will determine whether the group is a prolific source of misinformation, an unreadable pit where frustrated propagandists dedicate themselves to disruption, or a platform for meaningful, fact based discussion of some of the most pressing problems ever to face humanity.

The manner in which you choose the host will determine that path IMO.

Skinner then threw it back to the members of the group.

So here we are.

In view of the well established pronuclear vs prorenewable warfare that has been ongoing here for several years, it is difficult to believe that we will all start getting along now.

xemasab has attempted lately to portray herself as pro-renewables, however her historical position is one that is *extremely* critical of both wind and solar - the backbone of a renewable system. She has consistently worked in concert over the years with the strong and overt pronuclear voices here. I do not accept that she has had a sudden conversion to sweetness and light since I've been on the receiving end of a multiyear effort led by to discourage posters from engaging in discussion with me.

The pronuclear voices have relentlessly hectored those critical of renewables and when they couldn't drive them off they have used every trick in the book to derail the discussions and make threads unreadable.

Their intent seems clear to me - they do not want this forum to function as a place where liberal, antinuclear sentiment can take root. And from what I have observed they are more than willing to discard any accepted social norm to accomplish that end. It was, in fact, their flagrant disregard for truth and the accompanying lack of shame for deliberately spreading false information that turned me against the technology overall. After watching the discussion here I realized the information related to nuclear I had based my prior acceptance of nuclear power on was, quite literally, nothing more than the output of a massive corporate propaganda campaign.

So while this period of adjustment to the new system for DU3 is underway, I would expect open and unfettered discussion. However, over time, I cannot see how the same people that have attempted so vociferously to silence nuclear critics could be expected to do anything other than act true to their nature.

If we go with an unhosted forum we well continue the status quo from DU2, but neither "side" will be comfortable with a primary host from the other.

Another alternative was mentioned that might have merit, however. I have polished it a bit and propose this, would it work if we had two groups labeled energy and environment?

Energy and Environment in a World of Nuclear Power
Where the pronuclear voices can lay out their vision with no disruptors.

And

Energy and Environment in a World of Renewable Power
Where those who group nuclear in with fossil fuels can lay out their vision of tomorrow with no disruptors.

[XemaSab]

1. Here's the deal:

Skinner made me the host. I'm sorry if you feel that this wasn't done fairly.

When picking co-hosts, I asked each and every one of them about their feelings on nuclear power. I also solicited input from several other people in this forum.

I know you have a personal vendetta against me, but I want you to know that I'm not planning on doing ANYTHING without full cooperation from my co-hosts Dead_Parrot, hatrack, xchrom, jpak, and pinto.

If you have further questions, feel free to send me or one of my co-hosts a private message.

[kristopher]

28. Please clarify a couple of your views; when asked earlier you sidstepped the questions.

1) When you asked to be host, why did you not inform skinner there was an ongoing discussion with divergent views?

2) For years you've been making posts that feature the theme "don't feed the kea".
What is the meaning of that series of posts?
What was your goal in making them?

3) You have previously said that you are against development of wind power.
Is that still true?

4) You have previously said that you are against development of solar power except on rooftops.
Is that still true?

5) You have previously said that you believe we should rely primarily on nuclear power.
Is that still true?

[kristopher]

36. One clarification and one additional question

You wrote that I "have a personal vendetta against" you.
I deny that.

In fact that is why I'm asking Q2 above:
2) For years you've been making posts that feature the theme "don't feed the kea".
What is the meaning of that series of posts?
What was your goal in making them?


The other question I has was this.

6) In your post 2 explaining why you locked the thread, you wrote, "I want you to know that I'm not planning on doing ANYTHING without full cooperation from my co-hosts Dead_Parrot, hatrack, xchrom, jpak, and pinto."

Did they concur with you locking this thread?


I ask specifically because it seems odd that they would have all failed to read and appreciate the first sentence in the OP.

[XemaSab]

39. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124011066

[kristopher]

45. Why wont you answer the question posed?

They are on point and relevant to your wish to host this group.

[Dead_Parrot]

46. Err, Because it was the most popular option?

You were quite happy to put your name forward in the original discussion, so you evidently had no problem with there being a host. And despite his rec of this thread, Bananas was also happy originally: It's only since you didn't get the job that you've starting demanding there not be a host, and/or that the group be closed down.

[kristopher]

47. That has nothing to do with the questions posed to xema.

Which are

1) When you asked to be host, why did you not inform skinner there was an ongoing discussion with divergent views?

You wrote that I "have a personal vendetta against" you.
I deny that.
In fact that is why I'm asking
2) For years you've been making posts that feature the theme "don't feed the kea".
What is the meaning of that series of posts?
What was your goal in making them?

3) You have previously said that you are against development of wind power.
Is that still true?

4) You have previously said that you are against development of solar power except on rooftops.
Is that still true?

5) You have previously said that you believe we should rely primarily on nuclear power.
Is that still true?

6) In your post 2 explaining why you locked the thread, you wrote, "I want you to know that I'm not planning on doing ANYTHING without full cooperation from my co-hosts Dead_Parrot, hatrack, xchrom, jpak, and pinto."
Did they concur with you locking this thread? I ask specifically because it seems odd that they would have all failed to read and appreciate the first sentence in the OP.

Unless you are xema you really have no business responding to these posts since your input can only be an attempt to derail the discussion.

[Dead_Parrot]

48. You misunderstand, Kris.

In your post to Skinner, you claimed "the emerging consensus certainly looked to be no host". This was not the opinion that you put forward at the time.

I'd also like to point out that Skinner gave you the go ahead to re-open a host/no host discussion, not to quizz Xema or any other E/E regular on their viewpoints on specific issues, to see if they meet your personal requirements for ethical purity.

[kristopher]

49. Why are you acting as xema's proxy?

This was my post to skinner and is included in the OP

169. It seems evident that the honor system was abused
There was a discussion underway where the emerging consensus certainly looked to be no host.
Knowing that, one participant in that discussion posted the request to be host to you, deliberately not linking to the discussion thread.

I think to any fair minded person that is evidence of an approach to ethics that disqualifies the person from serving in that capacity.

EE is different from most other groups in two important ways;
1) there is an active global "war" between the present fossil/nuclear based system and the use of renewable sources,
2) the content of the postings is largely based on independently verifiable information far more than opinion.

What that *means* is a matter of opinion, but your approach to selecting a host will determine whether the group is a prolific source of misinformation, an unreadable pit where frustrated propagandists dedicate themselves to disruption, or a platform for meaningful, fact based discussion of some of the most pressing problems ever to face humanity.

The manner in which you choose the host will determine that path IMO.[/div


The questions I asked of Xema are directly related to the issue of hosting DUEE.

1) When you asked to be host, why did you not inform skinner there was an ongoing discussion with divergent views?

You wrote that I "have a personal vendetta against" you.
I deny that.
In fact that is why I'm asking
2) For years you've been making posts that feature the theme "don't feed the kea".
What is the meaning of that series of posts?
What was your goal in making them?

3) You have previously said that you are against development of wind power.
Is that still true?

4) You have previously said that you are against development of solar power except on rooftops.
Is that still true?

5) You have previously said that you believe we should rely primarily on nuclear power.
Is that still true?

6) In your post 2 explaining why you locked the thread, you wrote, "I want you to know that I'm not planning on doing ANYTHING without full cooperation from my co-hosts Dead_Parrot, hatrack, xchrom, jpak, and pinto."
Did they concur with you locking this thread? I ask specifically because it seems odd that they would have all failed to read and appreciate the first sentence in the OP.

You seem to feel that DUEE should be a group where nuclear supporters, who are a distinct minority of progressives, should have the freedom to obstruct discussion and activism by those who oppose nuclear power.

I disagree.

Through a maneuver as questionable as those used to get Bush into office in 2000, the nuclear supporters have grabbed control of host spot for the group.

I don't think that is fair to the bulk of progressives who do not support a world dependent on nuclear power and who would like a place to conduct a discussion in peace, free from the schoolyard badgering that characterizes the tactics of nuclear supporters here.

"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.

It is evident that the schism between those who want to pursue nuclear power and those who don't isn't one that can be bridged - we simply have different visions for the future. I've made a proposal where you would be free to explain and discuss what you think is a good path for us to follow, while those of us who think nuclear is not a good idea would be free to explain and discuss our beliefs.

You obviously object to that and want to have total control over all messaging related to energy.

Why?

[Dead_Parrot]

50. If you want to start a thread to form a new SOP, go ahead.

Can we steer this one back to the host/no host issue?

[kristopher]

51. He says after 4 posts diverting from the topic - Questions for Xema -

Which are

1) When you asked to be host, why did you not inform skinner there was an ongoing discussion with divergent views?

You wrote that I "have a personal vendetta against" you.
I deny that.
In fact that is why I'm asking
2) For years you've been making posts that feature the theme "don't feed the kea".
What is the meaning of that series of posts?
What was your goal in making them?

3) You have previously said that you are against development of wind power.
Is that still true?

4) You have previously said that you are against development of solar power except on rooftops.
Is that still true?

5) You have previously said that you believe we should rely primarily on nuclear power.
Is that still true?

6) In your post 2 explaining why you locked the thread, you wrote, "I want you to know that I'm not planning on doing ANYTHING without full cooperation from my co-hosts Dead_Parrot, hatrack, xchrom, jpak, and pinto."
Did they concur with you locking this thread? I ask specifically because it seems odd that they would have all failed to read and appreciate the first sentence in the OP.

Unless you are xema you really have no business responding to these posts since your input can only be an attempt to derail the discussion.

[Dead_Parrot]

52. You're still not getting it, Kris

You were given permission to reopen discussion on whether or not we should have a host. If you are not going to discuss this fairly simple issue, I suggest we give up.

[kristopher]

107. You too are a very strong advocate for nuclear power, right?

[Dead_Parrot]

155. I prefer hydro offset by wind.

But don't let that stop you. I recall saying this in the past to no effect.

[kristopher]

104. Only 25% of the Democratic party supports your position on nuclear.

[GliderGuider]

2. Why not wait for evidence of malfeasance?

It seems like such a waste of adrenaline to get worked up about something that hasn't happened.

I have great faith in the named hosts' ability to distinguish between expressing their personal opinions and executing their official functions. IOW I have faith in their emotional maturity. If that faith proves unwarranted, we can always appeal to higher authority.

[kristopher]

3. The deceptive method of becoming host was malfeasance.

As was locking this thread. It is clearly stated in the first line of the OP that admin approved reopening the discussion.

And since you brought it up, when the earlier discussion threads were locked (see links in OP under muriel's name) that wasn't exactly kosher either.

[FBaggins]

5. Sorry. Nope.

It's reasonable for a host to wonder how to deal with a thread that doesn't relate to the group's charter, but instead relates to accusations about the moderation of the group. Such discussions can quickly break down into finger pointing and acrimony (and in your case you don't even wait for it to "break down&quot . A host could easily be torn between "we can't constantly rehash the host question" and "how can I block a thread that's about me without appearing to be biased". IMO (as stated in my reply to your post to Skinner), at this point we should wait for multiple actual bad decisions by a host before debating this all over again. And no, locking a thread about whether or not we should have a host is not itself evidence of bad faith.

My reply to the other thread stands. You aren't concerned about how even-handed our hosts will be in exercising their limited powers, you want the powers yourself and clearly had no intention of being even-handed.

[kristopher]

6. Why was an end run around the process attempted?

[FBaggins]

7. Because you desperately wanted to be the host of course.

Why else?

[kristopher]

8. So she didn't tell Skinner there was an ongoing discussion because I too volunteered to be host?

The original thread is in the OP and my level of desperation can be weighed by all.

I've made my position clear but I'll recap in case you missed it:
- The possibilities inherent in our energy system are a matter of science far more than it is opinion.
- The nuclear supporters have for years been making an unending series of demonstrably false claims regarding the potential of both nuclear and renewable sources.
- When those (nearly always unsubstantiated) claims are confronted routinely by peer reviewed science that refutes them, continuing to make them becomes futile.
- The fall-back strategy has been to make DUEE an energy version of the "gungeon" by turning the discussion away from the science and into the gutter.

What I would like to see is an end to what is demonstrably misinformation.
I would also like to see an end to the disruptive hectoring and campaigns of social bullying and character assassination against those who are against nuclear power.

DU EE has the potential to be one of 3 things:
1) A source of misinformation serving the entrenched corporate interests.
2) A gutter where meaningful discussion is impossible.
3) A place of positive discussion informed by the best facts and science that are available.

What I've seen since coming here is that since "the best facts and science that are available" support nuclear power no more than they support climate deniers, it is in the interest of both supporters of nuclear power and those who deny climate change to ensure that the status quo is either 1) or 2) above.

It seems unlikely we can agree on a hosting arrangement - both "camps" think that will result in 1) above.
If we do not have hosts, we know that results mostly in 2) above.

The only way I see to reach 3) above (and I strongly believe we should attempt to move the board to 3)) is to have dual groups were each camp can make the best case for their position based on " the best facts and science that are available" while controlling for the perverse incentives that push they kind of tactics that ruin the atmosphere for civil discourse.

Why not?

[FBaggins]

11. As I said... disingenuous at best.

You didn't advocate for dual systems. You wanted a purge that would allow you to decide what was "disruption" and what was "positive discussion" (when you have no track record of correctly identifying either). You position wasn't "either no host or dual groups"... it was the current structure but with you running things (expressing continued ignorance of what the host's role was to be).

It was only after it was clear that you couldn't gain anything like a consensus for your putsch that you've suddenly seen a new light. Not surprisingly, you still want a result that ends with you being free to post whatever you like without even a challenge/debate.

That's not DU (1, 2, or 3). Start your own board if that's what you want.

What is clear to most but obviously hidden to you is that there are plenty of progressives on both sides of this debate. Not just on DU, but around the world.

I would also like to see an end to the disruptive hectoring and campaigns of social bullying and character assassination

If that were true you wouldn't be here.

against those who are against nuclear power.

Oops. Sorry. My mistake. Discrimination is fine... as long as we get rid of the right people.

The amazing thing to me is that you actually read these diatribes and think that they reinforce your claim to objectivity and fairness.

As a direct reply to the "dual groups" BS. I'm sure that it's clear to almost everyone that this is nonsense. There is an actual dialog to be had here. We actually do need to craft solutions to climate issues. "Seperate but equal" purdahs is not a solution.

[Nederland]

24. I actually have no problem with two groups

I would however suggest a few minor changes to what kristopher has proposed:

1) The group name should not be Energy and Environment in a World of Renewable Power but should be named the Mark Z Jacobson is God group.

2) The host of the Mark Z Jacobson is God group will be whatever member is shown to have created the the largest number of posts linking to papers written by Mark Z Jacobson.

3) The host of the Mark Z Jacobson is God group will not actually be referred to as "host", but "Pope" or in formal contexts, "His Holiness". This person shall be considered infallible in matters of science.

4) Members of the Mark Z Jacobson is God group will not engage in discussion, but celebrate mass. Mass shall consist of selected readings from peer reviewed Mark Z Jacobson papers and end with the following prayer:

"Our Father, who art at Stanford,
hallowed be your name.
Your smart-grid come,
your wind plans be done,
on earth as well as the ocean.

Give us this day a renewable plant,
and forgive us our debts,
racked up to buy Chinese panels.
And lead us not into low winds,
but deliver us from nuclear."

Amen.

[kristopher]

25. The invitation is still standing.

Provide a peer reviewed analysis that contradicts the work Jacobson has published.

His analysis rates coal with ccs and nuclear both as poor performers - and both industries have, like you, launched attacks sans content against both Jacobson and the (rather standard) analysis he has published.

If they could have legitimately shown the work to be invalid, it is without question that they would have.

Every post you guys make re-enforces the need for a place where substantive discussion can be conducted free of disruptive empty rhetoric.

[Nederland]

29. I completely agree

Every post you guys make re-enforces the need for a place where substantive discussion can be conducted free of disruptive empty rhetoric.

I completely agree. If the old EE demonstrated anything, it was the need for a place where the words of Mark Z Jacobson can be posted without fear. I have lost count of the number of former members who posted links to papers by Mark Z Jacobson and were immediately banned. Worse than banned was the subtle discrimination of disinterest. How many times did we see portions of Mark Z Jacobson papers posted, only to see the contents of those posts completely ignored instead of revered?

The obvious solution to these problems is to create a special place for people that are very special--in an Olympic sense. We need to have a place where the writings of Mark Z Jacobson can be posted and the only response will be "excellent post, my brother!". We need to create a chamber where the words of this great man can echo on for an eternity.

But most of all, we need to create a place where diversity can flourish.

A person should feel free to work by the light of a burning bush, carve the words of Mark Z Jacobson on stone tablets, and then post pictures of those tablets for all others to admire.

A person should feel free to give up all of their earthy possessions and focus entirely on the reading of Mark Z Jacobson related posts, read of course on a computer in a public library powered by wind turbines.

A person should be free to kneel, touch their forehead to the ground, and five times a day chant the words of Mark Z Jacobson (peace be upon him).

A person should be free to kill Mark Z Jacobson should they meet him on the road.


In short, it is my fervent hope that such a place can be created so that those that have grasped the brilliance of Mark Z Jacobson can go there and isolate themselves from the rest of DU, who shall rightfully be deprived ever more of hearing about the savior of the human race. PTL-MZJ!

[kristopher]

31. And the invitation still stands...

Knowing what offends people can tell you a lot about them. You, and every other nuclear supporter here, maintain yourselves in a state of absolute fury that Jacobson's work gets posted so often. "Spam", you cry as you wear out the alert button.

But what is the nature of Jacobson's oft seen paper and why is it posted so often?

It is a comparison; a fundamental review and accounting of what low-carbon energy resources we have, how much of those resources can be used, how long it takes to develop them, and the impact or external consequences of that development.

It is comprehensive.
It is well done.
It has been vetted by other experts for validity.
And it is easy to understand.

It can be used by non-experts to evaluate the validity of various claims posters on DUEE make about what a given technology can or can't do, or to compare the scale of effects related developing the resources.


Why does it get posted so often? Because the questions it answers arise so often. And the funny thing is, we have the same posters making the same invalid claims over and over that cause it to be needed.

You are clearly disturbed by the paper being posted.

Why aren't you disturbed by the repeated false claims that cause it to be needed? Do you desire everyone believe things that are not supported by the evidence? Especially when those things are inclined to result in support for the energy status quo?

[GliderGuider]

32. Do you understand that this thread has nothing to do with the scientific value of Jacobson's paper?

It is about your behaviour. Do you understand that?

[kristopher]

33. That post explains my behavior - and questions your own.

[GliderGuider]

34. You're really going to take that route?

Last edited Sat Dec 17, 2011, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

"I know you are but what am I?"

Really?

[kristopher]

35. I shared what I had already written.

You are not only mischaracterizing what this thread is about, but you are also mischaracterizing what I wrote.

The thread isn't about my behavior, it is about the aborted discussion on hosting.

My reply to Neds speaks for itself:

Knowing what offends people can tell you a lot about them. You, and every other nuclear supporter here, maintain yourselves in a state of absolute fury that Jacobson's work gets posted so often. "Spam", you cry as you wear out the alert button.

But what is the nature of Jacobson's oft seen paper and why is it posted so often?

It is a comparison; a fundamental review and accounting of what low-carbon energy resources we have, how much of those resources can be used, how long it takes to develop them, and the impact or external consequences of that development.

It is comprehensive.
It is well done.
It has been vetted by other experts for validity.
And it is easy to understand.

It can be used by non-experts to evaluate the validity of various claims posters on DUEE make about what a given technology can or can't do, or to compare the scale of effects related developing the resources.


Why does it get posted so often? Because the questions it answers arise so often. And the funny thing is, we have the same posters making the same invalid claims over and over that cause it to be needed.

You are clearly disturbed by the paper being posted.

Why aren't you disturbed by the repeated false claims that cause it to be needed? Do you desire everyone believe things that are not supported by the evidence? Especially when those things are inclined to result in support for the energy status quo?

[Nederland]

40. I will decline the invitation

I know that searching for peer reviewed papers that contradict the work Mark Z Jacobson has published is an exercise in futility. I know this because I fully realize that the following things are true about the work of Mark Z Jacobson:

It is comprehensive.
It is well done.
It has been vetted by other experts for validity.
And it is easy to understand.

I know with certainty that all of these things are absolutely true because you, and anonymous poster on the internet, have told me that they are true. That is why it is so absolutely vital for us to form the Mark Z Jacobson is God group. The world is a complex, confusing place, and we all desperately need a place where we can go to hear the absolute truth from someone that we trust. A place where the truth can be proclaimed without the confusion of dissenting voices and the distraction of intellectual debate. That is why I am trying to help you form a group where this is possible--the Mark Z Jacobson is God group.

Are you with me? Can I get an amen?

[kristopher]

41. Of course you will

For "I know with certainty that" if such a refutation were possible you would have located it long ago so that you could trumpet it to the heavens and beyond.

[Nederland]

43. Do you have absolutely no sense of humor at all? (nt)

[Confusious]

44. medical experts say that not understanding sarcasm

is a sign of brain damage.

Just thrown' it out there.

[kristopher]

114. Advocate for nuclear power.

[Confusious]

145. Is that suppose to be a degrogatory comment?

You think you've got people here figured, but you've got a filter screwed on so tight you can't see the forest for the trees. You're blind as a bat. Without the radar either.

BTW, joke. Maybe you should get yourself checked. You seem to lack any understanding of HUMOR.

P.S. Your behavior of late has been worse then childish. My 7 year old daughter had more self control then you have had.

[kristopher]

108. A climate "skeptic" and a proponent of nuclear power.

[Nederland]

157. Even worse, I'm a Unitarian too... (nt)

[Dead_Parrot]

158. Heathen!

[Nederland]

162. The personal insults continue

If I had known this thread would be like this I would have never posted.

I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition...

[Dead_Parrot]

163. NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise - surprise and fear... fear and surprise...
Our two weapons are fear and surprise - and ruthless efficiency...
Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency - and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
Our four... no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....
I'll come in again.”

Bring out... The comfy chair!

[GliderGuider]

161. Unitarian, eh? Same background for me.

My parents helped establish the Unitarian fellowship in London, Ontario in the mid-1950s. I was a member until I was 18 or so. It's a great organization, with lots of latitude for different personal philosophies. I drifted away, but I still have a soft spot in my soul for them

[kristopher]

105. You are a nuclear supporter, correct?

[FBaggins]

120. Are you serious?

I think that I've made that more than clear.

I also support almost any form of renewable power built out as fast as possible, but as a home-team fanatic, you view anyone who says "our QB is great, but not the best out of the pocket" as a traitor and obviously a plant from some other team.

More importantly - in the context of this (host) conversation... why on earth do you think that it's relevant???

You've been corrected on this over and over and over. Being host has nothing whatsoever to do with which position you take on nuclear power... and there were pro-nuke posters recommending anti-nuke posters as host.

Do you have the same level of maturity?

[kristopher]

123. Damned right it's relevant.

[FBaggins]

124. Nope. And I note that you're dodging the actual relevant question.

What a shock.

You're now intentionally spamming the thread in behavior that you know should get it locked and you blocked... so that you can feign outrage again.

Such actions got you sanctioned on DU2 by admins and moderators who have nothing at all to do with the debate here... how do you hold yourself out having the right "temperment" ?

You claimed that you could help make E/E "a place where open discussion is not only encouraged, but allowed to flourish free of disruptive behavior"... yet you're blind to the fact that you are intentionally doing just the opposite.[/b[

[SpoonFed]

53. I have to agree with your assessement...

that things sure don't seem kosher in the rash of locked threads since someone was appointed host.
The rational seems clear, since the threads called into question the need for a host(s) and who they might be,
to keep the reins of power, better to lock down any discussion.

I have been only stopping by very briefly and from the last time by until now there are now MORE hosts not less or ongoing discussion. I really am amazed and I feel inclined to agree with the two seperate group idea since most nuclear-critical or pro-renewable discussions get drive-bye'd and disrupted more often than not but a bunch of usual suspects.

I was getting an tired of reading the same disruptive garbage and now there is this disruptive host-no-host conflict to make DU E/E and even less enjoyable place to stop by... but for some, I suspect that is really the point.

[FBaggins]

4. "Emotional maturity"

Exactly right.

There seemed to be a great deal of misunderstanding re: what characteristics would make a good host.

It has nothing to do with what position they take on a particular issue. There are a handful of groups where that's probably necessary, but this isn't one of them.

[Massacure]

19. I was about ready to swallow that emotional maturity argument and then I saw JPak as a host.

I don't think I have enough fingers and toes to count the number of posts he made that went something along the lines of "LOLOLOLOL" when arguing with people with whom he disagreed. I'd like to see JPak removed.

I'm okay with Dead Parrot and Hatrack. I have no opinion of the others.

[FBaggins]

20. There's a difference.

I think jpak just has an odd sense of humor... but that's not the same thing.

I say that having had any number of heated disagreements with him. I just don't get the sense that this is someone who would abuse this kind of authority. He could go all day long belittling an argument that he disagrees with (in an often infuriating way), but never think "I'm tired of this bozo... he needs to go!" (or perhaps he would think it but not act on it).

For the record, I think jpak was offered the host role and initially turned it down but was later convinced to serve... and with this crowd it is a service because as you'll no doubt notice, while the host group doesn't seem to be kind of people who would abuse the power, there is no shortage of whiners here who will "run to mama" the first time someone won't accept their spin. (and then we'll no doubt get new threads to display the displeasure when the "offender" isn't blocked).

It is most certainly an almost-thankless job. So I here again thank them for being willing to serve.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Seconded.

I do not like Jpak's posting, especially in the guns folder, but my personal preference doesn't count. Poster can probably adequately, and fairly carry out assigned duties. That is enough.

[kristopher]

112. "Reformed" advocate for nuclear power

[jpak]

30. In my defense - I usually respond to vicious over-the-top personal attacks with real laughter

and post it.

[kristopher]

115. Advocate for nuclear power.

[FBaggins]

121. Someone who imagines that that's relevant.

It isn't.

[Yo_Mama]

9. Good point

There are multiple hosts, and in any case the duties of the host are not to control discussion, but just to keep discussion civil and relevant to the point of the group.

This has always been an extremely interesting and informative forum (sorry, group now) with high informational content, and until it degenerates I don't think we need to worry about who the hosts are. Precisely because this discussion tends to center on facts, it doesn't require tremendous efforts from the hosts.

It may be my cluelessness, but I'm not grasping the "malfeasance" here.

[kristopher]

113. Advocate for nuclear power.

[bananas]

16. There's already been several examples of malfeasance and abuse.

We were reaching a consensus of no host, I come back and there are two pro-nuke hosts, and the discussions are locked.

Turns out she misled skinner.

Skinner re-opens the discussion, and she tries to lock it down again.

[joshcryer]

17. "We were reaching a consensus of no host"

After awhile I'm sure every group forum here would "reach a consensus of no host." Trolls and disruptor's hate the idea of having hosts. I'll note that the OP himself argued for himself being a host, the idea of having "no host" was only begun to be advocated when it appeared that it wasn't going to go the way some wanted.

This is basically an example of "my way or the highway."

As far as the discussion, I don't know how it was locked down again, the thread is here. And there are only two people that I see who are clearly against it, for no good reason.

We got a Host, report abuse to the Admins.

[FBaggins]

18. Your bar for "malfeasance and abuse" appears incredibly low

To be less charitable... really a double standard since you continued to advocate for kristopher (as "open minded" after he made it clear he was for blocking some regulars from the group.

Skinner re-opens the discussion, and she tries to lock it down again.

More accurately put. Kris re-reopened the discussion which had previously been closed as moot and it was locked until the host saw that the admin was willing to allow the conversation. Far from "abuse". This isn't a group for discussing DU structure or decisions, so it's reasonable to lock such a thread when nothing new has occurred.

Had there been a number of "pro-renewable energy and anti-nuclear threads get locked" (as jpak - one of the hosts - had feared) then there would be some reason to reopen the debate.

I'm willing to bet that you've read this thread and still don't see it as an acceptance of the current team.

We were reaching a consensus of no host

Nope (and you'll remember that I say that as the one who proposed it). There were a number supporting Xema and a comparable number supporting "no host". A number of the other names were put forward with lesser support (including anti-nuke regulars) are on the team as well.

[caraher]

22. Well, this is why I was a "no host" person all along

Have there been any threads locked for being anti-nuke? Then what is the relevance of there being 2 (by your accounting) "pro-nuke" hosts (out of 6)?

I don't like how the process went and wouldn't object to reverting to "no hosts." At the same time, the only evidence of "malfeasance and abuse" I've noticed are that XemaSab linked to an irrelevant discussion when posting to Skinner about continuing as E/E host and what really boils down to an interpretational issue (are threads about the host process for this forum truly about energy and the environment? Would the same actions be seen as malfeasance were kristopher host and pro-nuke people wanted to reopen discussion?).

At this stage, I'd prefer no host as option 1 and keeping the present team as option 2 (since I see no evidence of host powers being used to steer discussion of the substantive (as opposed to procedural) issues in this forum). And if we do have some kind of vote, it needs to be announced as such, with a clear timeline that allows at least a little time for reflection, for candidates to step forward and identify themselves, etc.

[SpoonFed]

54. Yep.

Same experience here.

[Confusious]

58. Two? Out of six.

How many would you be happy with?

Zero?

[Nihil]

60. Where?

> There's already been several examples of malfeasance and abuse.

If that's true then I've missed them.



> We were reaching a consensus of no host, ...

As you might recall in the Religion group/forum/bucket, the "no host" situation was a problem
as it failed to address disruptors - hence it adopted several hosts from a mixture of "sides".


> ... I come back and there are two pro-nuke hosts

Two pro-nuke out of six total does not indicate anything untoward unless your position - like that
of the OP - is that there should be no dissenting voices at all.

I really don't see any reason (other than petulance) why this subject has been dragged up again.

[Nihil]

125. That is a lie.

You know that it is a lie.

You know that it has been stated many times on the E&E forum that it is a lie.

You persist in continuing with this lie for no reason other than your ongoing desire
to smear & libel anyone who doesn't bow down to your over-rated ego.

Please desist from this behaviour.

[GliderGuider]

148. kristopher, your behaviour in this thread is outrageous and disruptive.

You are being a schoolyard bully. The fact that you are still posting like this is a true testament to the forbearance of the hosts.

[FBaggins]

153. He's trying hard to get the thread locked and (he hopes) himself blocked as disruptive.

There's no way to spin his behavior (not his positions, but his actual behavior) as anything but intentionally disruptive... but he's baiting the hosts - hoping that they will act. Giving him an entirely new subject to appeal.

The funny thing is that this kind of behavior would have gotten the thread locked by mods in DU2 (and did for kris on multiple occasions)... but here on DU3 (under the irrationally pro-nuke hosts), kris has been safe.

Ironic, no?

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I admit, I was surprised at first to find we had a host

However, I didn’t get the impression there was anything dishonest involved.

I suggest we carry on just as we did when we had “moderators” (who, to my knowledge, were not of our own choosing) and address any concerns that come up, if/when they come up.


As for your proposal of two different groups, I say “nay.”

[FBaggins]

12. I figured that you would feel that way.

For the record, we most often disagree, but I nominated you for host.

Though that could certainly be read as torture... so perhaps not a compliment.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. I’ll take it as a compliment (thanks)

Were I a host, I believe my mantra might be, “I’m not getting paid enough to deal with this nonsense…”

[joshcryer]

14. I'm pleased with our Hosts.

As far as the two alternate "Environment and Energy" groups, I think that would distract, again, from environment. It's bad enough that Renewable vs Nuclear argument gets played out week after week. On the old forum all we had were anti-nuclear posts and the Environment was taking a back seat.

If there were to be a split it would better be separating out Environment and Energy altogether. That way those who want to push their preferred energy agenda can have at it while those of us who want to post about the Environment would not be marginalized by people who rarely post about the environment.

As it stands now, however, I would be against such a split of the group, as E&E is doing fine except for the occasional Host discussion disruption.

[hunter]

23. So long as we burn fossil fuels E&E will be inseparable...

[kristopher]

111. Yet another nuclear power advocate.

[pinto]

15. My input as a member host on my assignment -

When I asked the other hosts of E / E to be assigned as a co-host I offered no other commitment than to help support the Statement of Purpose for the forum -

Discuss all things related to environmental issues and energy policy.

and perform the other responsibilities outlined for Group hosts. No more, nor less. I expect to do just that.

I didn't offer a specific opinion, nor promote an agenda on any aspect of the discussion of energy resources, environmental issues or public policy. Just offered the willingness to be objective.

The hosts were good with that, so I'm on board. Support other members' input and suggest others offer some time as a group host. It's a group effort, by definition.

(aside) I'm finding that DU3 is much more fluid, member driven and adaptable (though change can be chaotic). I feel it'll go well given some time.

[kristopher]

21. Some reading for those interested

A link to my journal on DU2

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher

[Confusious]

27. The hypocrisy is rancid

I want to be the host!

I can't be the host so I'll say we don't need a host!

Smells worse then week old cow dung in august.

[SpoonFed]

55. I think it's clear that your ongoing vitriolic attacts against kristopher...

in DU2 and now DU3 make your opinion on the topic moot, irrelevant, unnecessarily increase the groups S/N and frankly I wish I could get the 5 seconds of my life it took to read your message back.

[Confusious]

57. Really, which would those be?

I don't do vitriolic attacks. I call it like I see it.

I guess if I had a little hero worship going, I could see any criticism as "vitriolic."

Still, I've seen plenty of hypocrisy in my life and this shit is still up there.

P.S. 5 seconds to read that post? Reading is fundamental, it'll help.

I'm a helper, it's what I do, no thanks necessary. LOL

P.P.S. You complain about me insulting someone, and then turn around and insult.

LOL. Peas in a pod.

[eppur_se_muova]

37. I knew from the beginning E/E would face the most contentious discussion re hosts ...

I believe this is why the admins allow up to 20 hosts -- so there can be discussion and something approaching consensus among hosts. E/E is not a good bet for consensus, even among hosts, and unfortunately perhaps, the Groups are set up to have one Archhost at a time. It may be necessary to have a panel with an odd number of Archhosts for this particular Group, and possibly for other Groups where divisions run deep. How to work out details of lock/unlock priviliges is something I'm a little reluctant to inflict on the Admins, but it seems to me a voting system among (Arch)hosts similar to that already in place for juries might be the simplest to implement.

It seems to me that as long as Democrats in elected office are supporting all energy options (including some objectionable ones) we ought to be able to discuss those options on a forum called Democratic Underground.

Just my $0.02.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. The chances of reaching absolute consensus across E/E...

...are roughly the same as winning the lottery 5 weeks in a row. Given that a start point, the most popular option was for Xema to carry on as host, and I think she's done a good job of pulling in co-hosts split between the assorted camps.

As Pinto says, our remit is Discuss all things related to environmental issues and energy policy which has served E/E pretty well for the last decade: Nobody - at least outside of this thread - has suggested changing this and favouring one form of energy over any other.

[kristopher]

117. Advocate for nuclear power.

[eppur_se_muova]

143. A noun phrase, not a statement about anything.

Sentence fragments are a poor means of contributing to discussion.

[bloom]

42. Hosts and 2 groups

I am not esp. caught up in the personalities and host wars, but I agree with kristopher to the extent that I would like to be able to read topics and discussions in the E/E forum without a bunch of nonsense from pro-nuke people. If that means that those (pro-nuke) people need to have their own group, and have Xema and other pro-nuke people as hosts - then I am all for that.

I definitely do not want a bunch of pro-nuke and/or anti-renewable people given the reins to a group that is trying to be more enlightened about the best energy possibilities /consequences to the environment.

[SpoonFed]

56. Thanks for your post...

you've renewed my belief that there still are some like-minded people around here interested in discussion and not derailment when it comes to nukes vs alternatives, which is what I needed after reading this pro-host back-patting non-discussion that I fell into when I returned to find DU3.

I think hosts are a bad idea as already has been seen with the sideways thread locking in these few short days, perhaps impartial out of group juries or whatever that is, is really the way given the partisan way E/E is split, and I'm leaning towards a 2 group split but not entirely convinced yet...

[Kolesar]

62. A nod to you and Bloom upthread

Well said

[Nihil]

59. Alerted for continuation personal attacks from other threads as well as ...

... broad-brush smearing of anyone with an opposing opinion.

This is a new low, even for you.


Edited to state my obvious NO vote to the pathetic proposal of "splitting into two groups".

[Kolesar]

61. This "host selection" has been exactly contrary to the stated process in the DU3-Announcements-forum

If your group plays host to open debate on a particular topic and welcomes a wide range of viewpoints, then the choice might not be so simple. If you select a Host, it needs to be someone who is trusted to be fair by people holding a wide range of viewpoints. You may decide that it is better not to assign anyone as the Host of your group, to avoid the risk that that person might use their power to benefit a particular viewpoint.

December 11. 2011 "Announcements" "forum" on the left

This forum meets the administration's definition of "Plays host to open debate". The E&E forum is quite contentious and participants are often rude. Presumably, the fair minded hosts are responsible to wade into the arguments and maintain civility. That's a tall task.

The pronuclear temporary hosts that are on the list don't have my approval. I don't want them arbitrating my discussions. I have read their material for years on this forum. The standard should be quite high for someone to be the forum host. We cannot all perform at the standards of Gandhi, of course, and I am not claiming that I am. However, at the moment, the selection is way off.

I object to how this process was rammed through so quickly. I have a job, I have other responsibilities, I have been going about my business and learning DU3. I returned to this forum to find that "hosts" have been selected before I even knew that E&E was going to have hosts.

Put the hosts on hold for now and let E&E return to control by the moderators. Thank you.

[XemaSab]

63. Protip: don't believe everything you read on the internet

I can't speak for my fellow hosts, but here's my take on it.

We need to get off fossil fuels NOW. Not in 10 years or 20 years or 50 years or whenever, but NOW.

When I came to DU, I thought that this could be accomplished with renewable energy, but after a few years of reading the discussion and debate here I realized that if we take nuclear energy out of the picture, we have that much further uphill to roll our Sisyphean stone. I also realized through discussion here that even though there are many promising renewable technologies, they're always out in the future. There is also the persistent and unsolved problem of storage. Finally, many renewable technologies such as wind require massive amounts of natural gas power, which necessitates fracking and the pollution of groundwater.

While all this was going on, I worked on several projects that would have required the destruction of massive swaths of open space. I became pretty jaded by the shadiness of some of our clients, and I became convinced that corporate solar doesn't have our best interests at heart. I also had many talks with colleagues who were in the wind industry, and while I support PROPERLY SITED wind, I don't think we will ever see a high percent penetration into the market.

I believe in renewable energy, but I think destroying our oceans and our deserts and our plains and our forests in the name of the god of capitalism is vile. I utterly reject the industrialization of open space in the name of making a dollar and feeding the machine.

I am pro-nuclear in the same way that I am pro-abortion. It's horrible and it sucks, but it's better than fossil fuels, which are killing the entire planet as we speak.

Also for the record, I think having purity tests for hosts is bullshit. I don't care what my co-hosts believe as long as they're smart, fair, and can spot a troll.

[FBaggins]

66. "The pronuclear temporary hosts that are on the list don't have my approval" makes that pretty clear

Exactly which pro-nuclear regulars would meet with your approval?

It's clear that some of the regular anti-nuke posters met with the approval of at least one pro-nuclear host.

[XemaSab]

68. Sorry if my response to you came off as rude, that wasn't my intent

This forum meets the administration's definition of "Plays host to open debate". The E&E forum is quite contentious and participants are often rude. Presumably, the fair minded hosts are responsible to wade into the arguments and maintain civility. That's a tall task.

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

So far I have locked three threads that were off topic, and I have made five people my co-hosts. I understand that the discussion here is often contentious and rude. Without that it would not be the E/E we know and love. If people want to have flamewars, god bless 'em.

The pronuclear temporary hosts that are on the list don't have my approval. I don't want them arbitrating my discussions. I have read their material for years on this forum. The standard should be quite high for someone to be the forum host. We cannot all perform at the standards of Gandhi, of course, and I am not claiming that I am. However, at the moment, the selection is way off.

You are advocating a purity test here. You say that the existing people do not meet with your approval because *I* am supposedly pronuclear.

I object to how this process was rammed through so quickly. I have a job, I have other responsibilities, I have been going about my business and learning DU3. I returned to this forum to find that "hosts" have been selected before I even knew that E&E was going to have hosts.

I volunteered to be the host because I am here a lot, and so far it's been very time consuming. Since becoming the host, I have read every post in every thread. Why have I taken this upon myself? Because I want to be fair.

Put the hosts on hold for now and let E&E return to control by the moderators. Thank you.

There are no moderators. There are the hosts, and there are juries. If you see a post that violates the statement of purpose or the community standards, please hit the "Alert Abuse" button.

[FBaggins]

64. Welcome to DU3. There are still some things to catch up on.

First of all, there are no moderators. You may be "resistant to change," but "put things back the way they were" isn't an option.

Second, you've confused a bias on the topic with an inability to be fair to those with an opposing viewpoint. This error has cropped up several times during this debate. The question isn't whether one of the hosts will vehemently disagree with you on a given subject, it's whether they will block an on-topic thread because they don't like what it says, or block you from the group because they don't like you (or your position). There has been no evidence that any of the six have or would do such a thing. Jpak and I have had several heated discussions, but I seriously doubt that he's going to just up and decide that I can't participate.

And if you feel that such a thing has happened, you can always appeal it back up the food chain. You can say that you feel it was "rammed through quickly", but most of the groups with any real volume were even quicker. The thread prior to the one you're citing basically said that they expected the job to go to the first person who was willing to do it in most cases and our current host played host through most of the beta period IIRC.

One wonders why we can't just wait for the expected terribly unfair hosting to occur before whining about it? From reading this thread you would assume that great injustice had already occured when I think a total of three threads have been locked (and no posters blocked). The first was the original host thread that was closed after a host was assigned (makes sense), then two follow-on threads that had nothing to do with E/E's topic but just wanted to rehash the host decision. Then this thread was locked for the same reason until it was clear that the admins were willing to reopen the host/no host decision.

Some want it to be about whether a particular host is acceptable. Such whining is more than childish. The posters have made clear that they don't understand what DU considers the host role to be... constantly rehashing variations on the "doesn't agree with me so he can't be fair" BS which was never the point. What is more than clear is that they know that were they in the same position, they would abuse the power... so their paranoia forces them to fear that others will do the same to them.

[Kolesar]

67. I didn't know there are no moderators

Thanks for telling me. I have been too busy to learn the DU3 system.

Joshcryer: Second, you've confused a bias on the topic with an inability to be fair to those with an opposing viewpoint.

I have seen enough of DU to know when people cannot be tasteful. If one cannot be tasteful to a poster, how can they be fair?

The forum failed when that creep from New Jersey was starting fights on nearly every thread he was in. I don't see any grand improvement in the works.

[FBaggins]

69. Lack of "taste" can be dealt with through the jury system.

I think I know the poster you're refering to (though my experience has been a lack of civility on both sides). If someone gets personally insulting, refer it to a jury. If you're worried that others will alert your posts, add your 15 favorite pro-nuclear posters and they won't even be able to serve on a jury for one of your posts. Juries are selected from across DU (not E/E specifically). If people get out of hand, the forum has an outlet for dealing with them as a community - the host doesn't do that.

The host's powers are limited to declaring a thread to be off-topic (which he certainly can't do just because it's anti-nuke or he won't be host for long)... and blocking a disruptive poster from the group entirely (a decision that can easily be appealed if it's a regular poster and the host just happens to not get along with him - another case where a host can be dis-rated easily).

[Confusious]

70. Tastefull and fair are not interlinked

Nor is bias and fair.

i.e. You have a friend, and a person you dislike. You are chosen to moderate a disagreement.
Obviously your friend is wrong. You make a judgement for the person you dislike.

That is being fair.

[kristopher]

71. The OP is an accurate summary of what led to this.

The links to the discussion that was interrupted are included.

I posed several questions to xema and she has finally addressed a couple of them - what she neglected to mention is that she is actively against mainstay renewable energy development in all cases except rooftop solar. That completely contradicts the idea she floats that climate change is her primary concern.

There are two other issues I'd like to see addressed. The first is why she didn't tell Skinner that a discussion was ongoing. In any election process the action can only be seen as a (successful) effort to steal an election.
She's been asked to explain but she is dedicated to avoiding answering for her actions.

The second is her claim to be able to be fair. There is another thread on whaling where after a series of attempts by her to falsely portray me as being a supporter of whaling, I brought up the questions she has been dodging. Her response was to 1) threaten to lock the thread, and 2) promise "I will make a good faith effort to be fair"

That brings us to another of my questions above. HEr claim is that she will be fair, yes. But she conducted a multiyear "don't feed the "kea" campaign that is still hanging out there waiting for an explanation.

Since the campaign was directed at me and she is claiming the ability to be fair generally, I like her to explain openly what the intent was in making all of those posts to the people who were responding to me?

Perhaps she will address those questions here, now.

In any case, I'm pretty sure this thread on whaling is a good example of what anyone who crosses xemasab is in for:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271378

ETA: This is the 2008 post that caused her to launch a her vendetta against me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x160654

[Systematic Chaos]

72. You need to go find yourself a hobby or something.

I posed several questions to xema and she has finally addressed a couple of them - what she neglected to mention is that she is actively against mainstay renewable energy development in all cases except rooftop solar. That completely contradicts the idea she floats that climate change is her primary concern.

And being so dead-set against nuclear makes you what, totally impartial and non-biased?

There are two other issues I'd like to see addressed. The first is why she didn't tell Skinner that a discussion was ongoing. In any election process the action can only be seen as a (successful) effort to steal an election. She's been asked to explain but she is dedicated to avoiding answering for her actions.

Yet, up to this point she has been nothing but fair to you, while you continue to be a disruptor and ceaseless whiner. Isn't that special?

The second is her claim to be able to be fair. There is another thread on whaling where after a series of attempts by her to falsely portray me as being a supporter of whaling, I brought up the questions she has been dodging. Her response was to 1) threaten to lock the thread, and 2) promise "I will make a good faith effort to be fair"

Anybody who wishes to read through that thread will see the myriad and sundry ways in which you have contradicted yourself, and will see your horrible attitude for what it truly is. The whole "lock the thread" thing was hypothetical, so you can stop being so fucking disingenuous any day now.

That brings us to another of my questions above. HEr claim is that she will be fair, yes. But she conducted a multiyear "don't feed the "kea" campaign that is still hanging out there waiting for an explanation.

So, you were called a bird a few times and some people had a bit of humor at your expense. Do you really want to hold that up as an example of some horrible conspiracy against you? The whole thing has done nothing to stop you from posting here, and as far as I can tell it NEVER stopped you from trying to force whatever you thought your point was at any given time. So really, quit the whining.

In closing, reading through both of those threads you linked shows that going back more than 3 years you have been insufferably obtuse and ALWAYS disingenuous. Compare that to a few "kea" jokes from XemaSab. The evidence which you yourself have linked speaks for itself.

[SpoonFed]

73. I cannot express properly in words how disappointed I am...

to see that even with DU3 the rampant vitriol for kristopher and more importantly why such behaviour is tolerated on E/E when clearly the posters have a severe distain or outright hatred for the guy and almost never add any salient points to the OP. We get it, you don't like him, you don't respect him, you don't respect his position on anything, you don't want him here. Too bad, he seems to have the metal to keep slogging through the crap that gets slung in his direction.

To that end, a discussion as to why we got a host (then hosts) and the circumstances in which this happened is totally valid in my opinion. I don't care that kristopher may or may not have wanted to be a host, frankly I have lost total confidence with all the crap flying and incredible thread locking that has happened since one was appointed.

The guy (kristopher) has a right to exist and a right to his opinion at least under the premise that this is some sort of progressive, open forum for discussion, whether or not you agree with him or like him as a person or whatever. He routinely attempts to back himself up with citations and logical argumentation, unlike most of what I read from a certain identifiable section of what I am starting to suspect are sock puppets.

I can only assume the rampant personal attacks are tolerated because of some sort of dislike or inherent bias from above, and the lack of stomping down on all the total shit and personal attacks in E/E makes this place more and more a complete waste of time (which is what I would assume the nuke industry really hopes to accomplish).

There needs to be some serious ass-spanking, smack-downing until everything posted in this group that doesn't pass as semi-respectable, polite discussion is gone, and I think the switch to DU3 would have been a suitable point to break with the past despite how much pain that might bring to some of the long term verbose posters with such tendencies.

But I can't see this happening, given the current circumstances.

[FBaggins]

74. Lol! You must live in some sort of bizarro world.

Nobody has questioned kris's "right to exist" or post whatever the heck he likes. Quite the contrary, it has been kris who has been calling for banning/blocking pro-nuclear posters (even "ran on that platform&quot and is irate not that we have a host, but that we have one who won't shut down anyone who disagrees with kris. He calls people names and then whines that everyone is calling him names. He insults and then whines that he's insulted. He makes personal attacks and then complains that others are making personal attacks. He dredges up long-dead threads where he feels he was mistreated and insists that others account for them before being qualified to host... all while ignoring identical behavior on his part which no doubt was justified by the fact that he judged that the person deserved it.

There needs to be some serious ass-spanking, smack-downing until everything posted in this group that doesn't pass as semi-respectable, polite discussion is gone

That isn't the role of the host. DU3 has a perfectly acceptable system for doing just that. If you think that a post is out of line, then alert it. Half a dozen DUers will be selected (based on valid metrics) to judge whether or not the post is reasonable. Not only will the offending post be hidden, but the poster's statistics will be available for all to see. If some pro-nuke is a serial offender, you'll be able to say "in the last 90 days, a jury of her peers have found her posts to be offensive 22 times!"

I'm beginning to think that I was wrong earlier in assuming that it was mere paranoia assuming that you fear other doing what you would do to them if given the power. Perhaps you're concerned about what that impartial jury will do not because they won't be fair... but because they will be fair.

Given your past record, perhaps that fear is warranted.

[SpoonFed]

76. Thanks for posting a good example of...

an off topic post that has nothing to do with the topic at hand,
a handful of juvenile insults spewed in my direction,
a sample of your disruptive and incourteous routine behaviour.

I wasn't asking you to give your boring perceived history of E/E,
I wasn't asking you to throw a few insults in my direction or kristopher's.

Last time I checked, I was also entitled to an opinion.

Please note that I already (ad naseum) know that you do not like nor respect my contributions nor kristopher's,
so take it as a given and just refrain from adding to the S/N of threads.

kthxbye.

[FBaggins]

78. You are entitled to an opinion.

Your opinion is wrong.

I wasn't asking you to throw a few insults in my direction or kristopher's.

Oh please. Probably a third of your first 200 posts in this incarnation were nothing but insults that didn't add one whit to the conversation (and that's of the ones that weren't deleted). You have an enourmous amount of nerve calling anyone else disruptive or incourteous.

Please note that I already (ad naseum) know that you do not like nor respect my contributions nor kristopher's,

Sorry. My impresion of you has been tainted by a perception of ongoing childishness. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "like" or "dislike". It isn't the same for kris. We've found several areas of agreement in the past and no doubt will again in the future. His real problem is that he suffers from a clinical (possibly incurable) case of "home-team fanatic".

[joshcryer]

75. Your entire premise is false, no one is suppressing anyone.

Indeed, these highly disruptive, non-environment posts continue unabated.

Personal attacks are dealt with by the jury, and so far the poster in question has been reprimanded not once, but twice, for personal attacks against other DUers. Then, went on to produce not one, but two threads as a direct continuation to the threads which they were locked out of.

You are defending the wrong behavior here. And outright making up behavior that doesn't exist for others.

[SpoonFed]

77. Straw man arguments in the past couple of replies...

a) I did not suggest hosts were a way to deal with the rampant behaviour problems (but I did state that there are obviously a massive problem) what problem are hosts here to solve if it isn't these behaviour problems?

b) I did not state that anyone was suppressing anyone else (these are your words in my mouth) the jury remains out but there is a lot of stuff floating at the top of the bowl in E/E that should be flushed on a regular basis.

c) where am I defending any specific behaviour besides bringing all discussions back to some level of common courtesy and respect?

You're knee-jerking at my as a response to my suggestion that kristopher has a right to an opinion and that some of the points he makes are supported by myself and others.

BTW, why is there a host again? why did the host lock threads discussing hosts?
why are there heaps of abuse (tolerated) on the guy for putting out an opinion on the subject?
sure, maybe he wanted the job, but that doesn't justify or excuse all this crap I have had to wade through on the subject.

But I really get it, you don't like the guy too, but frankly I drew that conclusion that back in DU2. It seems to me that the system was gamed for having a host and it has been stated that hosts don't solve the issue of the disrespectful conduct going on in the group. So why have a host at all? E/E is so blatently, irreconcilably divided on some issues I don't see how having hosts does anything whatsoever.

But I'm glad that you and Xema's pals want to give a clear example of how much a waste of time it is for casual readers to have slog through anything related to hosts, nuke power or anything kristopher posts for that matter.

Honestly, given the alert feature from DU2 and the rampant vitriol back then as well as now, I'm frankly put off by reading the DU forums since I can now intuitively know how most of the threads run. Not fun, not interesting and no one has sold me on how a host makes this any better and the usual suspects have simply given more evidence on how broken this whole thing is...

[Dead_Parrot]

82. You seem to be confused about how DU3 works

The jury system is for individual posts. If you see "heaps of abuse", use the alert button - otherwise you are tolerating it just as much as anyone else. The hosts can't remove posts.

Hosts are only here to ban serious disruptors - you'll notice there aren't any yet - and to lock any threads that aren't related to the environment and energy. Which is why Kris' other threads were locked: they should have been in Help and Meta.

This one has been cleared by Skinner as a re-visit of "Do we need hosts?", but frankly only a few of the posts reflect this.

[kristopher]

85. "This one has been cleared by Skinner as a re-visit of "Do we need hosts?" = BS

That isn't true. You are simply making it up. The post I made to Skinner clearly discussed the behavior of xemasab and expressed the opinion her actions demonstrated ethics that disqualified her as host.

See my post #169 in the OP.

[Dead_Parrot]

89. That was my reading of it

from "There was a discussion underway where the emerging consensus certainly looked to be no host. "

Surely that issue needs sorting out, doesn't it?

[kristopher]

91. A self serving reading that is obviously not supported by the OP

As this thread demonstrates the ethical foundation for discussion simply doesn't exist in the present set up and I am absolutely convinced we need to split the EE Group. I think a lot of us want "safe haven" from the nuclear fan club.

[Dead_Parrot]

94. The option for user-created groups should be along shortly, if that helps.

It's on the Admins "to do" list.

[FBaggins]

100. Sorry... no. It has been your reading that has been self-serving.

You (re re)opened the conversation by claiming that we had not reached a consensus regarding whether or not we needed a host.

The problem with that is that you weren't on the losing side of that question. You clearly thought that we did need a host. It's just that you thought that you should hold the position.

This transparent variation on "If I can't have it, nobody will!" is beneath us. It smacks of "If I can't be QB, I'll take my ball and go home"

But the role isn't that of a QB, it's the thankless janitor... and it isn't your ball.

[Nihil]

101. I think it is blatantly obvious to every reader of this thread exactly who is being "self serving".

You have repeated demonstrated the lack of an ethical foundation for discussion
by your single-minded persecution of a DUer despite the lack of any evidence to
even vaguely support your personal crusade.

The answer isn't to "split the EE Group" (although, if there is sufficient support, by all
means go off and form your own little echo-chamber to give yourself a "safe haven" )
as most of the E/E group are more concerned with the environment & energy issues
than with one man's temper tantrums.


(Edited to avoid DU3's irritating habit of substituting smileys for closing parentheses)

[kristopher]

102. Yes it is "blindingly obvious".

What is your objection to splitting EE into two groups?

Obviously there are a number of us who are fed up with the nuclear faction's unremitting attempts at message control here and 75% of Dems are AGAINST spending any more money on nuclear power.

Why the hell should those who are expressing the mainstream views of the progressive movement have to put up with a Rove style political and PR campaign by the nuclear supporters here?

Present two equal and separate groups each making its own argument and lets see what vision for tomorrow the public accepts.

[Nihil]

119. If you are going to use quotes, at least get the words right ...

> What is your objection to splitting EE into two groups?

E&E is a bigger concern than one or two personalities.

As I stated earlier, if *you* wish to set up a Kristopher-worshipping group in order
to provide a "safe haven", go ahead and do so - just don't claim that it is somehow
the "Environment & Energy" group.


> Obviously there are a number of us who are fed up with
> the nuclear faction's unremitting attempts at message control here ...

Smear ignored.


> ... and 75% of Dems are AGAINST spending any more money on nuclear power.

Non-sequitor - attempt at distraction ignored.


> Why the hell should those who are expressing the mainstream views of the progressive
> movement have to put up with a Rove style political and PR campaign by the nuclear
> supporters here?

Distraction + smear ignored.

Actually, on reconsidering, no, I'm not going to ignore yet another petty vindictive smear
from you against anyone who dares to disagree (or who has dared to do so in the past
as you obviously hold grudges for a l-o-n-g time).

If you view a post as being part of "a Rove style political and PR campaign" then alert on it.

If you view a poster as being a supporter of "a Rove style political and PR campaign" then
alert on them with a ToS flag for being a disruptor.

If you just wish to scream & shout about nonexistent persecution, victimisation or other
pretended behaviour from people who have been bending over backwards to try to
accomodate your hatred of disagreement then be prepared for *your* hateful rants to
be alerted upon in turn.

[kristopher]

127. In other words you do not have a reason to oppose splitting EE into two groups.

You want the minority of Dems supporting nuclear nuclear to be able to exercise message control over those who believe spending more money on nuclear power is counterproductive to the effort to address climate change.

And by message control I'm not just talking about deleting posts etc. The nuclear club has been making this board completely dysfunctional as a source of legitimate information with a wide variety of strategies. The very reason I'm so unpopular with the nuclear supporters is because I've used the best science available and shown the false arguments you've been promoting to be what they are - propaganda generated by an industry intent on forcing an unneeded and unpopular product on a poorly informed public.

Trying to make it about me instead of the message is pure bull.

[FBaggins]

128. Nope.

You want to exercise message control. It was, in fact, the key plank in your campaign for host. You want to be able to make a statement and have nobody refute it. You want "open discussion" that are open to anyone who agrees with you.

The rest of us are happy with a group that exists to "Discuss all things related to environmental issues and energy policy."

DU is not here to provide you with a captive audience.

[kristopher]

133. Not at all. I want the science to lead the discussion

It is completely possible to gather a body of literature that represents the consensus view of science about the best way forward in the fight against climate change. It has already been done several times so it isn't breaking new ground. Pin the positions established by that science - with full references to papers accessible by all to - the top of the board.

If you want to post something that contradicts the settle science (see some of the positions in post #129) then you need to have something at least as solid as what is already pinned to offer in order to open up the discussion on those specific areas.

And yes you bet your ass those areas are as many of the the myths promoted by the entrenched energy industries (including nuclear) as can be found and identified as PR driven misinformation.

If you want to characterize that as censorship, then be my guest.

[FBaggins]

136. And you insist that your interpretation of what "the science" says is the correct one.

No other reading can be heard.

It's your fantasy alone that considers your position to be the "settled science". You regularly cite a tiny handful of sources, few of whom are accepted within the scientific community and only a couple are actually peer reviewed. Yet you insist that that argument is now over and we must accept that as the foundation for any further discussion.

Sorry. That isn't how it works. DU does not exist to provide you with your own playground where you make the rules.

[kristopher]

138. Most of it isn't subject to "interpretation".

It is straightforward. Your objection sounds EXACTLY like that of climate deniers.

[FBaggins]

139. Sorry. You're dead wrong.

It's your position that matches that of the climate deniers.

Why do you think you end up with standard bearers like Gundersen/Busby/etc. ?

[kristopher]

142. You mean the IPCC, the IEEE journal, DOE etc.

Your red herring is duly noted, however.

[FBaggins]

151. Nope... and it isn't a red herring.

If you divorce yourself from the right/wrong part of the equation and look just at behavior, the parallels are clear.

Take, for instance, the ongoing debate here re the comparative risk involved in some given amount of exposure. There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community on one side... and on the other you've got one guy who can't get published in a peer-reviewed journal so he publishes his own journal online for a few months and pretends that it's the same thing... then you've got a decades-retired pediatrician with virtually no relevant credentials joining with him...

...yet their nonsense gets cited here over and over and over again as authoritative. It's exactly like the creation "scientists" and their followers.

But what you are blind to is that this isn't even the point. Nobody is saying that posting their cr@p should be banned on E/E or that people who post it should be blocked as disrupters.

[Nihil]

131. Much as you might want it to be otherwise, you are still wrong.

Suggestions:

1) Read #119 again.
It explains the reasons why E&E doesn't need to split and also why I do not oppose you starting
up your own group to act as an echo-chamber where dissent is not tolerated.

2) Decide whether 2 > (6-2).
This will help explain the weakness in your frequently repeated accusation that a minority can
somehow magically overpower the majority.

3) Consider providing some proof for your accusations.
This will help to make your posts substantial as opposed to over-emotional rants that have little
or no basis in truth.

The only person making it about you is you. Consistently so.

[kristopher]

135. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271082#post129

[Nihil]

140. Ah ...

... so we've got to the "I have no answer to you so I'll just post a link to another piece of my unsubstantiated opinion" stage
again have we?

Have a nice day Kristopher.

[joshcryer]

98. You said "the guy has a right to exist." Who is denying him that even with his disruptive behavior?

Everything you said is predicated on a false premise. On DU2 a "thread continuation" was an immediate lock. He did that twice. It's obvious that this victim language is really nonsense and has no basis in reality.

[kristopher]

118. Advocate for nuclear power.

[SpoonFed]

79. Yes, well put.

I object to how this process was rammed through so quickly. I have a job, I have other responsibilities, I have been going about my business and learning DU3. I returned to this forum to find that "hosts" have been selected before I even knew that E&E was going to have hosts.

Put the hosts on hold for now and let E&E return to control by the moderators. Thank you.

I totally agree. The pronuclear temporary hosts that are on the list don't have my approval. I think finding a host or hosts for E/E to be a monumental task and certainly not something to be settled with a simple "I wanna be host", followed by an "okay". Followed by "you can be hosts, too" so that I can stay host.

[XemaSab]

80. Please

If you see any examples of abuse by myself or any of the other hosts, let the admins know.

[kristopher]

81. Why didn't you tell skinner the discussion was ongoing?

Why link to a totally unrelated post?

Why?

[Dead_Parrot]

83. Personally, I thought it was wrapped up

Last I saw we were talking about pies.

[kristopher]

86. What you thought has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked of Xemasab.

Why don't you stop running interference for her. Is there some reason she can't speak for herself?

[Dead_Parrot]

87. I'm speaking for *my*self, kris

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[kristopher]

88. But I wasn't speaking TO you was I. I asked HER to explain HER act.

[Dead_Parrot]

90. Oh, I'm sorry.

If it was a private message, may I suggest using the Private Message system?

[kristopher]

92. It wasn't a private message, it was a question specifically to Xemasab.

Your "Dead Parrot" routine is worn out.

[GliderGuider]

95. If it wasn't private then anyone that wishes may reply to it. n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

97. What do you think this is, some sort of internet forum?

Oh, wait...

[kristopher]

93. Once more: Why didn't you tell skinner the discussion was ongoing?

Why link to a totally unrelated post?

Why?

[kristopher]

96. OK Xema.

It is obvious why you did what you did.

I'll not ask again.

[FBaggins]

99. You obviously think that a discussion is "ongoing" until you get what you want.

"Consensus" and "unanimity" are not the same thing.

There were clearly more people supporting a host than "no host" (and I was in the minority). Of those supporting a host, Xema had the clear voting advantage (did anyone else have more than one or two votes?). Of the remaining "candidates", most (including both sides of the issue) were also made hosts.

None of those hosts (that I've seen) have questioned the handful of host decisions that have been made to date.

Is there a polite way to suggest that it's time to grow up?

[kristopher]

103. And you obviously think that stealing the postion of host is a legitimate act.

I can only begin to imagine the howls of outrage - from all those who act as if nothing is amiss - if I had done what xemasab has done.

[FBaggins]

106. Lol that you continue to claim that anything was "stolen"

As I understand it, Xema was the host throughout the beta trials. You really think she was doing that for months just so she could "grab" the reigns? She asked politely and a clear plurality accepted her. You stumped far harder than she did for the position (including passing out resumes on DU2) but received a fraction of what she did by simply offering her services.

Your faux outrage excalates beyond rationality and well into temper tantrum.

Let's try a simple measure of maturity. Please name three pro-nuclear regulars that you would consider acceptable for the host position.

[kristopher]

122. Then why didn't she accurately relate the state of the discussion here?

It isn't a hard question to answer unless you want to avoid the obvious - it was an end run around a process that was headed towards a no host consensus.

[FBaggins]

126. She did.

Your perception is obviously different, but is also more obviously tainted than hers.

It's you that's desperately trying to "avoid the obvious". You were not lobbying for "no host".

If you were honest with yourself you would see that your position is self-defeating. Ask merely the question "should E/E have a host" and you know that the answer you were pushing for was "yes". Ask "if there's a host, who should it be" and the clear answer from that thread was Xema with others assisting.

"If we're going to have a host it should be kristopher... or we shouldn't have a host" is not the consensus of that thread... but it's what you're trying to peddle now.

Have any of the anti-nuke hosts expressed the opinion that you have here?

[kristopher]

129. You have to be kidding.

Is that your view of how consensus building works? The first preferred position is the one that all individuals must adhere to throughout negotiations?
Are you seriously that naive to believe that this crap you are spewing has any sort of persuasive element to it at all?
I don't give a fig if I'm host - I just want a board where the nuclear clubs ongoing tactics at message control is stopped.

For example, no, Baggins, building out renewables DOES NOT lead to a massive increase in fossil fuel consumption.
That isn't an item we need to debate every time someone posts something good about renewable energy.

No Baggins, nuclear does not have the best safety record of all forms of power generation.
That isn't an item we need to debate every time someone posts something good about renewable energy.

No Baggins, nuclear power is not the cheapest source of power out there.
That isn't an item we need to debate every time someone posts something good about renewable energy.

No Baggins, nuclear power isn't the fastest way to respond to climate change.
That isn't an item we need to debate every time someone posts something good about renewable energy.

No Baggins, nuclear power isn't a "must have" in a noncarbon world.
That isn't an item we need to debate every time someone posts something good about renewable energy.


That is the issue. The unrelenting falsehoods and the lack of ability to hold a discussion on ANYTHING without it being hijacked by a nuclear proponent using a proven line of bullshit. All of the claims above are PROVEN false by the best scientific literature that is available, literature that - if it doesn't support the nuclear industry - is maligned and attacked with Rovian style smears and absolutely no substance.


Yes, I am sick of it. The behavior of the nuclear supporters is what it is. I say put you in your own pit and let you create whatever reality you want to try to spin. If that is what you think about me too, that's fine.
Let's petition together to create two Energy and Environment groups as suggested in the OP.

[FBaggins]

132. Nope. You've again confused "consensus" with "unanimity".

As if kristopher must be happy with the result or there has been a miscarriage of justice.

The first preferred position is the one that all individuals must adhere to throughout negotiations?

Never said that. Just pointed out how ridiculous your changing position has been. "If I can't have it I certainly don't want HER to have it".

Ever get around to providing a short list of the pro-nuclear regulars on E/E that you would accept as host?

Are you seriously that naive to believe that this crap you are spewing has any sort of persuasive element to it at all?

Have you seen your posts over the last few days?

Yes, I am sick of it. The behavior of the nuclear supporters is what it is. I say put you in your own pit and let you create whatever reality you want to try to spin

And to think that you expected anyone to consider you as host.

If that is what you think about me too, that's fine.

Never said that at all. Unlike you, I don't fear an open debate.

Let's petition together to create two Energy and Environment groups as suggested in the OP.

No thanks. E/E fits its mandate just fine. If you want to form a "100% renewables is the only acceptable solution" group, feel free.

[Confusious]

147. Really, OUR behavior

You don't look in the mirror much, do you?

[Dead_Parrot]

84. You got that there are no moderators now, yes?

Agreeing with the impossible isn't really moving forward.

[freshwest]

130. Groups can have from 0 to 20 hosts. I have a simple solution to resolve this thread.

Thus I nominate Krisptopher to be a host as he has always been very interested in E & E issues. He and the other hosts can discuss all of these issues in PMs.

I'm not scrolling down to read this thread any longer, but it's now up to 122+ replies, the biggest on the board now. I'll bet a lot of other people are not enjoying watching this played out for whatever reason it is being done.

Why not add another host if there is a concern about equal views on the board, instead of bumping this thread up which will create bad feelings among members with an interest in E & E and divert our attention?

I do not want to get involved with the egos of various people here. It's not mandatory to have a host, was my understanding. If this is going to be an item of contention, we can eliminate all the hosts.

Are the current hosts denying Kristopher from becoming one? Why should any current host deny another member becoming one, so we keep going on about who's going to be controlling this group?

If we have a debate over how to address environmental problems and promoting progressive ideas about energy, those should be handled in threads that reference those solutions.

This thread is not going to resolve the different opinions on those issues, let's simply move ahead on host thing, make sure that no one is being excluded, so that we can move on to other things.

That is my respectful to all parties solutions to this thread, please take it in the way intended, to make a solution to resolve this to all parties' satisfaction. Whatever past grievances between the individuals that existed from DU2 don't have to detract from this place now. Let's forget win-lose, let's make this a win-win.

[FBaggins]

134. We already have anti-nuke hosts. Good ones.

There is no need to add one whose stated purpose in using the position is to block posters who don't agree with him.

[freshwest]

144. Please link that statement, I've never seen it.

[FBaggins]

149. Sure.

Start with his first post on the topic - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=77
Then read through this thread re: which posters he thinks are really just disrupters blocking an open discussion. It's anyone who supports nuclear power.

Or rather... it's perfectly ok to support nuclear power so long as when he posts that nuclear power isn't the answer... you can't disagree with him.

Then go ahead and take a look at the comments he links to in his #137 (on this thread). The intent is plain. He hasn't just decided that he's right and others are wrong... he's so clearly right that disagreements are tantamount to claiming that the sun rises in the West... and thus are disruptive on their face. He actually thinks that these posts demonstrate that he's the man for the job - rather than just the opposite.

This is because he thinks that the job of host is (or should be) to identify acceptable positions and keep the others from distracting from those positions. The very definition of a purity test.

[freshwest]

154. You're reading way too much into that. He's a nerd, thinks, talks like one.

Probably walks like one, LOL. (Just kidding, dude.) This world needs a certain percentage of nerds, but I appreciate the actual point I see him trying to make, without judging the conclusions.

I think you are giving him *way too much power* from reading his comments. If he was not passionate and didn't have a certain viewpoint, he would not be employed to define it, which he says he is. Some of us are more neutral, more removed.

Most humans identify greatly with their jobs. Like policemen, who others may regard as the bad man, it is what years of training taught them.

None of that gives the right to deny others their right to speak, which a comment on a board does not do, but a host could do. At this point, other hosts could argue with him *off the board.* I did percieve a certain level of trolling on his threads in the past by people, that term being used by me to describe people who would not explain things to him in the way he expresses himself. I don't speak technical lingo.

Arguments over sources have not had the power to *move* me unless I was overly emotional on a subject. On DU2, there was a lot of concern about Japan's nuclear reactor problem, but I've pretty much given up caring about it, although my region is being impacted.

TPTB have decided, rightly or wrongly, our opinions don't matter and they will continue on as they please. This is a function of corporatism and should be identified as such. Things affecting untold numbers of people should not be held hostage to someone's profit and loss statements. It's against the democratic institutions that I believe DU is set up to support. It's not solely a technical issue.

Often times thought processes as Kristopher is working out here are offensive to people. This is always a problem on internet message boards. We can't see the possibility that the person is trying to express what they think is sacred without seeing their face, without knowing they are searching for an answer as they type these things.

Disagreeing or stating one's life experience with another is not calling for blocking, locking or deleting. Alerts can take care of those functions with juries. He said nowhere in that post he would abuse his position as a host to remove dissenting views.

I understand his viewpoints may have hurt someone's feelings, in fact there are a few people I had on Ignore on DU2 because I thought they were rude and intolerant, but reading them here on DU3 has made me decide to not put them on Ignore again. I'm seeing more facets than what previously caused me to write them off, as we agree in other important areas. I also recognize that not all posters are articulate, but their intent may be good.

I agree on one particular point in the comment you linked, that we should explain our positions, but believe it be done without shame attached. Some posts I saw on DU2 supporting nuclear power devolved into shouting matches because no good reasons were given, obviously button were pushed. Then some posters revealed they were or had been employed at nuclear power plants.

That's fine, people don't go to work for companies they feel are evil because that would mean they are bad. But their beliefs or loyalty to their company does not supercede the rights of those who are making the case that some industry is harming them. This falls in the negative and positive freedom argument against libertarians. One's liberty does not extend to everyone else's home and life. Business is not the answer to everything.

I would argue for more inclusion and looking to a bigger picture in all these discussions than what is seen as simply practical. We can't afford to stifle any views about the survival of the species on this planet. Because what we did to make money, or a win for us, will be judged very harshly by history if we don't protect their environment. I hope it won't get to the point that future generations look back at us with hatred for all we've done that reduced their world.

The infinite diversity of life on Earth deserves to be loved and cherished. I don't see anything in that post that argues against that, or really any post here that goes against what is important.

Ramble over...

[kristopher]

137. Please take a moment to read these two posts

The fact that you believe this is about personalities is unfortunate. It isn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271082#post129

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11271082#post133

[Nihil]

141. Reasonable suggestion.

On the plus side, it might get the focus back on the issues rather than the personalities.

On the negative side, not only might it cause offence to the existing hosts by tacitly
supporting the unsubstantiated accusations of bias (regardless of their positions on
the eternal nuclear pissing match) but it also smacks of giving in to a child's tantrum.

Still, if the current hosts & admins view it as a solution, go for it and give it a try.

[Confusious]

146. So if someone complains enough, we should give in

I also have a problem appointing someone whose goal is to shut down discussion.

[GliderGuider]

150. OK, are we done with this puerile foolishness now? n/t

[FBaggins]

152. Did kris get exactly what he wanted?

If "no"... then no, it's not done.

[miyazaki]

159. Maybe he can captain the pseudoscience forum.

His superstitious science would be right at home there.

[freshwest]

160. Well, I'm going to alert on this thread. It's not about E & E, really.

Continuing to argue about each other is not helping.

I'm hoping it'll be hidden by jury selection soon, so we can move on here.

Or someone can ask Kristopher to come and do a self-delete.

Then we can get back to saving the planet!

[pinto]

164. I'm locking this for now.

The discussion here seems to have become more about personalities than the E&E Group itself or the host process in general.

A suggestion - there's plenty of room for additional hosts. I encourage members to add their input by offering to host this group along with those of us already in place.

I think the issues about the host process in general are best discussed at this point in the Help & Meta-discussion forum or with Admin directly.

Thanks all.