Does the Group need/want a host?

[petronius]

I just PM'ed Skinner volunteering to be a host for this group, but then I read the thread in Announcements about hosts in general. So, perhaps a Gungeon meta-thread is in order:

Do we want a host?

Who should it be?

Does anyone want to do it?

I volunteer, as I said (but I also nominate Krispos... )

[gateley]

1. I'm not a denizen of the Gungeon - but kicking so your fellow citizens see your post.

And hell, I'd vote for you!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. maybe you and Krispos should shoot it out?

I keed. I keed.

[petronius]

3. I was gonna nominate you too, until I saw you'd volunteered for another group

So I guess we could do one of those three way standoffs like the end of The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. moi?

truly, I am honored . . .

have a feeling this group might get busy though . . .

figure you guys will have your hands full over here

[krispos42]

4. Heh, I just PMed Skinner and got back a link to the new process

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1013434

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]With that in mind, there may be some Groups where it might make sense to leave the position of Host vacant:

• If your group is dedicated to a non-controversial topic, then there is probably no harm in assigning someone as a Host. You are unlikely to need someone to lock threads or block people out of the group, but it might be useful to have someone who can take ownership of the group.
• If your group is a "Safe Haven" where only one viewpoint is welcome, then you should probably assign a Host to help run the group. It is likely that you will need a Host to lock off-topic threads and block out people who disagree with the purpose of the group.
• If your group plays host to open debate on a particular topic, and welcomes a wide range of viewpoints, then the choice might not be so simple. If you select a Host, it needs to be someone who is trusted to be fair by people holding a wide range of viewpoints. You may decide that it is better not to assign anyone as the Host of your group, to avoid the risk that that person might use their power to benefit a particular viewpoint.

I think the Gungeon is the last one. Just a bit.





[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]If the members of your group decide to select a Host, then you must decide who will serve as the first Host. The DU Administrators will assign ONLY ONE host to each Group, and then it is the responsibility of that Host to select other members of the Host Team (if anyone else wishes to serve).

Hopefully in most Groups, selecting a first Host will be a simple matter of awarding the job to the first person who posts in the Group to volunteer for the job. If more than one person is interested, then you need to discuss the choice of Host amongst yourselves until you come to some sort of consensus regarding who should have the job.

1. If you want to serve as a Host of a particular Group, the first thing you need to do is post in that group to let the members of that group know you are interested in serving as the Host. If a consensus is reached and you are chosen for the job, then -- and only then -- you can report back to this thread and let me know.
   
2. Post a reply in this thread telling me which group you have been selected to Host. Include a direct link to your post in the group where you want to serve. I need that link in order to give you host powers.
   
3. I will only assign ONE host to each group. After that first host has been assigned, then that first host has the power to grant host status to anyone else. So, if a host is already assigned to a group, then you need to contact that host to become a host.

So we need consensus on a first Host, who then promotes other hosts as needed.



I'd like to volunteer to be first Host. I have 2 years of mod experience, some of which was in the Gungeon, and I believe I was fair to all sides and all players when I did so.

</end stump speech>

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. fine by me. what say you Petronius?

[petronius]

7. Yes! I think Krispos would be excellent in that first slot,

and has a proven record of equitable DU2 moderation and positive contributions to the forum...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. my thoughts, too. agreed.

[krispos42]

9. Thanks

Do you think we need more people to weigh in?

[petronius]

11. Perhaps a few more "Ayes" would be in order, although there's no real definition

of consensus. I saw a few people posting on DU2 before I wandered off, so perhaps they'll show up and weigh in...

[krispos42]

12. Does side matter? It didnt so much during the trial period...

...even if the hosts were raving, shameless partisans, it was only for a couple of days.

But this is for real now. I think it's a 90-day term, unless the MIRTs vaporize a Host.

Should we wait for people from both side to weigh in?


I'm not sure, because I waited most of a day during the trial period before volunteering. I wanted to see if anybody from the "anti" side wanted a shot at being lead Host. But nobody spoke up.

I don't think anybody from that side of the debate asked to be a Host, either, and that thread was open for a day or more.

[petronius]

13. Side? I just meant "Aye" as in "Yea" or "Yes" or even "Yup" to your election

I don't think 'side' matters (we're all DUers)...

[krispos42]

14. I meant, should we wait for input from both sides?

Maybe I'm over-thinking it.

[pipoman]

17. I believe the 90 day thing is only

in the forums. I believe the groups are unlimited or determined by consensus.

[krispos42]

19. I re-read the post about it, and you're right...

...there's no inherent term limit in being a Group Host.


I could be GungeonMaster FOREVER!!! *cackles evilly*


Or until DU4 comes out in 2021.

[pipoman]

16. I agree that you would make a good first host.

I also believe we should wait for some of the more familiar faces to check in. I think it important at this early time not to disenfranchise anyone if possible.

[gejohnston]

10. I vote for Krispos too nt

[pipoman]

15. I think we should discuss community standards before

we decide if the group needs a host.

I believe that the gungeon is a very unique community, being no other like it anywhere on the web. The ability to actually debate this issue. Every other discussion I am aware of is populated by like thinking members whose only disagreement is in the minutia of the topic.

That said, this group is and has always been a magnet for trolls on both sides of this issue. I believe there must be some concise, yet liberal, guidelines for participation here. Also there should, as there has been for the past year or so, some inflammatory language/name calling which should result in posts being deleted and thus temporary bans as set forth in the rules of the forum.

All this said, I do believe it will be important to ultimately have a host(s) here who can be impartial and make good decisions without regard for the position of the poster being reviewed.

Just my $.02

[krispos42]

18. The debate here IS unique

As either position can be claimed by both liberals and conservatives, for their own reasons. The debates here are usually pretty interesting.

I would like to note that a Host only has control over the original post, the OP. Per Skinner, the Host's job is to judge if the OP meets the Statement of Purpose, and to act on posts that don't. A Host can also block DUers from posting in the Group.

Inflammatory posts, insults, group and personal attacks, copyright violations... those are all judged by juries, not by Hosts. If somebody posted a 15-paragraph article from "Guns & Ammo" on armed self-defense, the Host would not have grounds to lock it. Somebody would have to send the issue to a jury for a decision.

So it's not as involved as the old moderator post was.

[pipoman]

20. Good point..

I did read Skinner's post about that too. Can the rules set by consensus in the group go to the jury as well? For instance if we decide "gun nut" and "anti freedom advocates" are inflammatory, can the jury see these guideline to make a decision?

[petronius]

21. I haven't seen any way that they could; I think the community standards referred to by

the jury system are supposed to be DU-wide standards and jury members are not chosen with any reference to group activity or subscription. I think what a group could do is discuss its own standards and pin the discussion - alerters could reference that thread in their alert explanation, and jurors could look at it (and be influenced by it) if they chose...

[krispos42]

22. I understand that in the alert, you write your own note about why you're alerting

I would assume that you would put in the alert note. "Hey, in this post here we agreed that 'gun nut' isn't allowed here". The jurors would see that and take it into consideration.


The GHost could lock an OP unilaterally, but could not act on any replies that contained an offensive term.

[MicaelS]

23. krispos42 would make a fine Host I vote for him n/t

[Logical]

24. I have thought of being a host here...Any feedback......

I am pro-gun and pro-ccw but also anti-NRA and not an open carry fan.
Not much on "from my cold dead hands" mode.
Do not think Conceal Carry can be proved to reduce crime but it sure does not increase it.
Understand why people think guns are a problem in this country.

[Upton]

25. I'm not sure if you want this feedback..

I respect your opinions and all Logical, but from my point of view you appear to be primarily anti gun unless it involves something to do with yourself.

[Logical]

26. No issue with you saying that, thanks for the feedback, but....

I am pro gun ownership. If you have a post where I am anti-gun ownership or anti Concealed Carry I would love to be reminded of it.
I think the NRA is 90% promoting the GOP agenda. Not a fan.
I think Open Carry hurts the cause more than helps it.
I am SURE CC license holders are more law abiding than the average citizen.
I do not think it should be legal to shoot a guy leaving your neighbors house with his TV.
What have I said that is anti-gun?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

30. I could be wrong -- but, I think to some people

a couple of your statements could be construed as "anti-gun" specifically:

I think Open Carry hurts the cause more than helps it.
I do not think it should be legal to shoot a guy leaving your neighbors house with his TV.
Understand why people think guns are a problem in this country.

Some people on here could take issue with those statements.

With that said, I still think you are open-minded and "logical" enough to make a good Host.

Since Krispos already has some experience both in DU2 and DU3 I still cast my vote for him to continue.

just my .02

[Logical]

32. Thanks for the feedback. I guess I think you can be pro-gun but against some gun proposals. Like....

someone can have wide ranging views on religion, immigration and abortion.

I do appreciate your feedback.

[Upton]

31. What have you said that is anti gun?

Just for starters..

You oppose open carry...

You only support CC because criminals have guns too, at least that's the reason you always give, and as I referred to in my previous post, it's your issue, otherwise I get the distinct impression you'd oppose that as well..

You oppose using a gun to defend your home..

Look, you and I have been over much of this same ground in the past. You just share too much in common with the gun control advocates for me.

[Logical]

35. Wow, you are projecting......

I think Open Carry causes bad reactions in people scared of guns. It does not help the pro-gun cause. Just like the open-carry idiots who packed guns at an Obama speech! You think that made anti-gun people respect us more? CC causes very few issues.

Also, saying "You oppose using a gun to defend your home" is really misleading. If a guy breaks in your house and you shoot him, no problem from me. If he kicks in your front door, shoot away! I am fine with that. But if he is stealing your tires off your car in your driveway and you open the door and shoot him, I think you are wrong!

Wow, you are one of those people who either someone is either 100% on your side or 100% against you.

[pipoman]

36. I'm not seeing how this effects

his ability to act unbiasedly as a host. We all have our beliefs, every host will. I can't think of another person, including my lovely bride, who I agree with 100%. Frankly, I believe iverglas could be a good host here if she wished to be a host..there are few in this group I disagree with more than her, but given group agreed upon guidelines believe she would perform her hosting duties honorably.

edit..if we don't allow people with diverse viewpoints on this topic to serve as hosts, I believe the group could become an echo chamber...which would be a shame. Diversity of viewpoints and freedom to express those view points is debate stimulating.

[krispos42]

27. No problem from me

The issue we're debating is who is the first Host. First host appointed is the senior host and has the post until retirement, tombstone, or is revoked by the Admins.

I'd like to be the first Host, but of course, in an active forum like the Gungeon there would be a need for several hosts to offer 24-hour coverage.

[Logical]

28. I am 100% OK with you! No issue at all! Good luck!

[Hoyt]

37. For what it is worth, you seem to have a reasonable outlook on this topic.

Seems to me a "host" should understand both sides of an issue.

[Logical]

38. Thanks!

[krispos42]

40. Not necessarily

The host's duties are to make sure the group stays on topic. Since the topic is the discussion of gun politics and the use of firearms for self-defense and in the commission of a crime, it really doesn't matter if the Host is a LaPierre or a Brady, as long as they aren't partisan.


For example, I would not mind seeing iverglas as a Host in this forum, because I know that, regardless of her positions on civilian ownerships of firearms, she has been careful to keep the Gungeon on-topic. In fact, her attention to detail resulted in the statement of purpose of the DU2 Gungeon to be re-written.

[pipoman]

42. I agree.

I posted about iverglas up thread. IIRC, she once said that she had turned down mod positions because she felt this forum should be moderated by US voters, I may be wrong about that, if I am she will likely correct me.

[Hoyt]

43. I think a person with a "reasonable outlook" can do that just fine.

BTW -- Not implying you or anyone else would be a poor choice.

[krispos42]

44. a "reasonable outlook" on gun laws shouldn't be a consideration.

It's arbitrary, and doesn't speak of the person's ability to keep the postings in a Group focused on the purpose of the Group.

That's the issue of being a Host... keeping things on topic and locking things that don't belong in the Group.

The jury system takes care of flame-bait, firebombs, etc.

[pipoman]

29. Another concern

The 'first host' system essentially creates a person who the membership has little or no control over. If that person chooses to only use their own judgment on questions of enforcement of our agreed upon guidelines for the group, and many in the group do not agree with that judgment over a series of decisions, should the group be allowed to vote that person out, or vote to overrule? or update our stated rules?

Also, should there be a term limit? For instance, after a year the #1 host retires him/herself after placing another agreed upon person in the #2 spot?

This isn't about any doubt I have about krispos, I could see how groups could become dictatorial resulting in disenfranchisement and less participation.

[krispos42]

33. I think if it became a problem with the first Host, and the first Host refused to retire...

...it would take an Admin to correct the problem. Even if the first Host promised to term-limit himself, who's going to enforce that promise?




The Admins.





I think I have a record that shows when, given power over posts and members, I used it in an even-handed, productive, and non-abusive manner.

[pipoman]

34. I don't disagree about your history or doubt your ability

my concern comes from years of membership in churches, clubs and groups. Without a mechanism for evolution, many wither. They sometimes turn into a clique and are unwilling to consider progressive change which drives away membership. Again, this isn't about you personally, it is about creating an entrenched leadership regardless the group..

[petronius]

39. Maybe we should think about what a host would/could do within the group

As I understand, a host can really do three things:

1) Pin threads - I actually think this may be the most important, if only to pin up an ongoing thread where we discuss our community standards beyond the Statement of Purpose. Those standards, IMO, will never be binding in any way, set-in-stone, or finished, but they'll just be an ongoing conversation among group regulars that we can adhere to or not, and perhaps a resource for jury members. I would think that a pinned standards thread would also be a good place to talk about a host's performance.


2) Lock threads - this has the most potential for abuse, but the abuse would be more transparent that in the past. A host will need to make judgement calls about threads that violate the SoP, which will probably tick off everyone once in a while, but I do think that keeping the Group on topic is a worthy goal.

Other reasons for locks would be to clean up dupes (which I think will be less necessary in DU3, since I don't think there's a mechanism to move threads, and members can self-delete dupes on their own).

My suggestions on this point would be that we ask any GHost to interpret the SoP broadly, add a post with explanation before locking a thread, and default to not locking internal meta-threads (about the group, about locks, about hosts, etc). I would prefer that a host not lock threads based on our evolving internal community standards; I think those should be guidelines rather than rules.


3) Bar members from the Group - I expect this will be unused, really. As I recall, no one was ever banned from the DU2 gungeon, and I'd be startled if it became necessary here. (Perhaps the only use for this would be for those DUers who 'accidentally' posted on a Guns post from Latest, and then waxed on about how appalled they were at the existence of the Group and how they' never come in by choice - those DUers can be banned if they want, to eliminate the temptation or risk.)


Regarding your point about controlling the GHost, I think the only real mechanism (as Skinner has alluded to) is a gentleperson's agreement that the host will behave the way the Group wants, followed by an appeal to the Admins if the host proves unsuitable. Given that, I'm less inclined to develop criteria or time limits - I'd rather agree on one person that seems least likely to develop into a complete jackass over the years (Krispos fits that bill but I can think of others, including you) and let them run with it until we become unhappy...

[pipoman]

41. I think 2 and 3 are interesting..

understand, I amn enthusiastic about the possibilities with this new system. With the gungeon being the massive group it was, the largest group on DU by far iirc, I believe it can be a true view into both sides of the gun issue. It would be too bad to loose any ground and would like to see some initial discussion from everyone here, not about the gun issue, but about the liberal guidelines concerning your point #2 and 3 to impart to the hosts. This, I believe, is what Skinner etal. wish for in designing this revolutionary new forum system. We should all know the rules and have input..I really believe we can reach consensus and should remain open to revising our rules if they result in unintended consequences.

My opinion on your point 2 and 3 is to keep things essentially the way they were on DU2. One ongoing problem on DU2 was bomb throwers. I define a bomb thrower as 1 someone who rarely participates in other peoples threads or even their own, 2. they don't participate on any other groups or forums on DU, 3. they post controversial commentary. There have been posters fitting two of the three for years, on both sides of this issue. I would like to see, maybe, a three strikes rule, three OPs deleted for the same violation over a period of time, say a year, and the person is banned from the group.

[krispos42]

45. I don't think those committees are really analogous to the Host's duties, though.

The Host's job is not to think of new ideas or admit new members or start projects. It's to keep the people that have ideas and opinions and facts broadly on topic. I don't think that requires the continual refreshment and new perspectives that committees does to be productive.

For what it's worth.