Post removed

[RKP5637]

2. K&R! n/t

[boston bean]

3. do racist postings from racist websites meet the SOP of GD?

You know, the Asian privilege thread. From what I saw most hosts all agreed it was posted from a racist rw website, yet they couldn't pull the trigger and lock it.

How do racist postings meet the GD SOP?

[Gormy Cuss]

45. That's for a jury to decide!

It's working perfectly, too!

Do I have to add ?

[Cha]

4. Where do we look to find if the sources are credible when on a jury, ucr?

Thank you

[ucrdem]

5. Good question Cha, I wish there was an easy answer

but I think it comes down to clicking the link and inspecting the source for obvious wingnuttery, antisemitism, outrageous CT or other objectionable content. I don't think juries can be expected to read a lot of the content posted on a site, apart from the OP article, but if I had to come up with a quick checklist, it would probably be: Homepage; About US (if there is one); Middle East (if there is one), and any link that looks suspicious. But jurors don't have all day to make decisions, so if that doesn't do it, then I think it falls to admins to deal with source complaints.

[Cha]

8. Got it..thanks again.. :)

[William769]

6. Forget it CHA.

Your going somewhere you don't want to. I would ignore this OP.

[ucrdem]

9. I think GD members are entitled to know what their options are alerters

and what their responsibilities are as jurors.

[William769]

10. And GD Hosts should know what there jobs are, which is clearly not the case. nt

[ucrdem]

13. I'm speaking as a current GD host.

Your experiences might be different but I don't know what they are.

[William769]

15. I'm speaking as a former and future GD Host.

[ucrdem]

19. You don't seem to understand the job very well.

I hope this is helpful to you.

[William769]

20. I understand all to well. and since the Hosts Forum is not secret

I will be more than happy to copy paste statements made there to here.

[ucrdem]

23. It's not up to me to decide what you can or cannot post on DU.

Why would you think it was?

[maddezmom]

7. While I appreciate the post and it has a lot of great points

You are speaking for yourself not all hosts unless I missed something where all the hosts subscribed to you making a post for all of us.

[ucrdem]

12. I am speaking from my experience as a GD host, yes.

I don't believe I said anything to the contrary.

[maddezmom]

21. It is a memo from you not from the host forum

Sorry, but sounds like you are speaking for everyone and you are not.

[ucrdem]

26. If your experience as a current GD host is different I'll change the OP.

but as far as I know you aren't.

[maddezmom]

29. Not at this time, but I have served in the past. Was trying to be subtle but now I am going to be

blunt, This post is out of line. I think you are going to regret it because it is either going to get hidden, locked or the total host thread is going to get pasted here. And normally, that never works out well.

[ucrdem]

43. If you would like to add anything please do.

I know you're currently an LBN host and I respect the work you do there but I'm kind of surprised that you would come into this thread and behave this way. It's meant to clear up points of confusion in the alert process. If you have a problem with the explanations I posted fine, but otherwise I don't think this is the appropriate place.

[maddezmom]

53. Behave this way? You posted a META type thread in GD about the host forum

After the one there was already a freaking train wreck. I read the thread in the host forum as I was one of the alerters. What do you really think you are going to accomplish here with this thread? Like I said at first, you made some good points but knowing the back story and what led to this I believe it is out of line. YMMV

[Make7]

11. I wonder if the Admins could just add a greyed out disabled SOP choice on non-OP alerts.

If the order of the alert choices were always the same for any post, yet for replies the first choice (SoP) was disabled and obviously not selectable then it might cut down on erroneous alerts. From a user interface perspective, having things appear in the same place/order reduces user error.

[LeftyMom]

14. FWIW, if you want to post something racist in GD, the OP of this thead will defend it.

You should all know that, in the interest of transparency.

[William769]

16. ...

[ucrdem]

17. That is grotesquely untrue and a disgusting thing to say.

I hope you'll reconsider your remark.

[LeftyMom]

18. There's no expectation of privacy in hosts, do you want me to C&P the whole thread?

I'm entirely willing to do that because I'm telling the truth, and all the other hosts on this thread saw.

[ucrdem]

22. It's not up to me to decide what you can or cannot post on DU.

It's up to a jury. Apart from that consideration you can do whatever you like.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. You have no business being a host then.

If you think that right-wing racist drivel is acceptable as long as a jury lets it stand? You should quit.

[bettyellen]

60. + 10000 After this stunt, they should definately step down.

[DURHAM D]

24. I am curious.

Did all of the GD Hosts sign off on this or did you just appoint yourself the official spokesman?

jftr - This looks like a GD Host Meta OP. Should it be Locked?

[greatauntoftriplets]

25. No, they didn't.

[DURHAM D]

28. I am not familiar with this poster.

Maybe I missed it but I did not see an announcement that DU now has a fourth owner/administrator?

[greatauntoftriplets]

30. It doesn't.

He's a host who is speaking for himself.

[BainsBane]

41. Seems like a process issue more than anything

I can see why people would be irritated that someone posts something claiming to come from the hosts when it is one member's initiative, but the content of the OP is sound enough.

[bettyellen]

49. Actually, many hosts disagree with his interpetation, so the OP is misleading.

[boston bean]

50. be careful not to get plsyed here. there is much more going on.

[greatauntoftriplets]

62. There certainly is.

[ucrdem]

27. If your experience as a current GD host is different please let me know. nt

[DURHAM D]

31. I am not a GD Host but

have been around for a long time and I have never seen a Host pull a stunt like this.

[ucrdem]

32. I'm explaining several points that cause a lot confusion.

If you want to call that a stunt be my guest.

[DURHAM D]

33. Okay. It is a stunt.

[ucrdem]

35. Thanks for your input.

I hope this was helpful.

[bettyellen]

51. you do not have authority to speak to the hosts, it's embarrassing to watch.

[ucrdem]

64. bettyellen, we have responsibilities as hosts.

We're not cops, we're not mods, we're basically explainers, or facilitators, and the OP is utterly impersonal. I think your comments here are out of line.

[boston bean]

34. trying to cover the cover it seems.

Know what I'm saying?

[ucrdem]

36. What exactly do find objectionable about the OP?

And do you realize that hosts are have a responsibility to set the tone of discussion in the forums they host?

[Metatron]

40. Since when do hosts "have a responsibility to set the tone of discussion

in the forums they host"? I thought, for the main forums, hosts were responsible for making sure threads met the SOP?

[boston bean]

42. what i find objectional is in knowing the backstory and reason for this post,

and your flimsy reasoning for holding up a lock of that racist thread, you come into GD and try to make it seem that hosts had no other choice but to leave that thread open.

[Starry Messenger]

44. What tone do you think was set by allowing a hate site spin like a turd in GD for 24 hours?

One host could have taken the initiative to simply lock it and wait for the admins to do something about it.

I'll repeat, hosting isn't going to make the earth tilt on its axis if a thread is locked. There needs to be common fucking sense for things.

[boston bean]

59. its like they think gd and du would be forever harmed with locking the thread.

And little concern for the harm the thread actually caused.

[Starry Messenger]

65. I get that people want to respect the process, but the dogmatic adherence to it was mind-blowing.

Skinner, Earl, and Elad can unlock threads if they feel that they've been locked incorrectly. I seriously doubt they would have done so in this instance.

[DURHAM D]

38. Yep

"The gentleman doth protest too much."

[TBF]

48. We had an inactive MIRT member do it

last session out of the blue. Never participated in threads and then all of a sudden decided to cut and paste from MIRT into GD. Some sort of crusade or desire to be self-important I guess. It didn't help MIRT relations and I'm sure it won't do much for the gd-hosts forum either. This type of thing never ends well.

[ucrdem]

54. Can you please explain what on earth you're tallking about?

This is a completely impersonal OP and there's no cutting and pasting. I'm clarifying the alert process because posters are often confused.

[TBF]

63. I was responding to DURHAM D -

we had a similar episode on MIRT.

I don't think the alert process is the problem.

[BainsBane]

37. I'd like to add something

Though I am not a host.

As for checking our sources and the context of alerted remarks, I think that if a juror feels s/he doesn't know what's going on, they should opt out of the jury and let someone else cast a vote. I did that today on a jury where the alert said the post was anti-Semitic. I was doped up on allergy meds and sleep deprived, and I didn't feel like I was with it enough to figure it out, so I opted out.

[ScreamingMeemie]

39. Respectfully, I ask you not to speak for me.

I agree, the job of GD Hosts is limited. I am attempting to host without bias and with respect for even those hosts I may not necessarily care for who may not care for me. That said, I don't think we're taking a lot of pride in much these days.

There is a horribly racist disgusting thread that has been allowed to stand by a host vote of 6-4 with what basically amounted to a hostage situation (if you lock this, then I should get to lock this) happening within the thread. I would love to lock it, and I can't. So, I respect my fellow hosts' opinions and leave it...causing further disruption within that forum. That shouldn't be happening.

What it boils down to is that we are not moderators. I would like to think that we could at least set aside our mutual dislikes (if we have them) and do the job at hand...without sniping at each other. Life is too freaking short.


The only thing I would say in regard to hosting in the GD forum: if you really can't take the time to make a commitment to check in once every couple of days to lend a hand in voting so that things aren't 6-4 or 3-1 out of 20, you should reconsider and take your name off the waiting list.

[ucrdem]

46. I'm not speaking for you and you're doing a fine job.

Thank you, that's helpful.

[bettyellen]

47. Unless other hosts asked you to speak for them could you correct the OP? It is very misleading.

[ucrdem]

52. What corrections are you looking for exactly?

I'm not suggesting that I'm speaking for anyone. I'm clarifying some points of confusion in the alert process.

[bettyellen]

55. "Memo from ucrdem...." or "Memo from a host..." This appears to be from a group, not your personal

interpetation or view. It is VERY misleading.

[Nye Bevan]

57. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

It seems that many here are confused about the roles of juries versus hosts, and do not understand that even if a post is extremely hurtful or racist, provided that it is not a post about "Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports", or a "conspiracy theory", or "whining about DU", it is not the hosts' place to lock it, but can be hidden by a jury if the jury agrees with the alerter. Quite a few DUers seem to be under the misconception that hosts can act like the old DU2 moderators and step in if in their opinion the jury "got it wrong".

Like many here I have never served as a host and occasional explanations like this are very helpful as to how the process works.

[SidDithers]

58. Hosts have always had the authority to evaluate an OP based on the source used...

They've consistently chosen to ignore sources, instead hoping juries would do their job for them.

It's one of the reasons that Hosting, especially in GD, in my opinion, is a failed experiment.

Sid

[EvolveOrConvolve]

61. A couple of things

Just so posters who aren't hosts know what took place in the hosts forum. I'm not a GD host, but as the host of another group, I have access to the hosts forum. Note that per skinner, nothing in the hosts forum is confidential or secret.

1. A disgusting post was made that links to a nasty race-baiting right-wing website.
2. Several alerts came to the hosts group, where an OP was created for the alerts.
3. The hosts voted 6-4 to leave the thread, even though a similar post linking to Stormfront or The Blaze would have been shut down in a second.
4. At least one host has stepped down rather than implicitly support racist garbage at DU.
5. The situation has been escalated to the admin team that have, to date, done nothing to address the issue.

ucrdem is one of the hosts who voted to leave the racist post unlocked, and s/he now has taken it upon him/herself to post a "memo" purporting to be "from the DU Hosts forum", defending the decision, and attempting to speak for hosts that vehemently disagreed with the decision.