Religion
Related: About this forumReligion host vacancy.
This discussion thread was locked by Renew Deal (a host of the Religion group).
I have resigned so now we need to find a replacement. According to the agreements of this room we need to replace me with a believer or a poster who is clearly sympathetic to believers.
The role of the hosts in this room is more hands off but you do have to make a judgement if a SOP or Statement of Purpose alert comes in. You will get those throught the mail and it is usually discussed in the host forum that you will get access to if you are made host. There are very seldom times when the discussion turns to banning a member. This does not happen often and the new rules about 5 jury jides and you go on vacation have saved the hosts a lot of issues.
Please nominate anyone you think would be a good choice here. It might be a good idea to get their permission.
I officially nominate with permission Okasha.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1218. This is the about this room link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)to say how they would like this group to be hosted.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I think any candidate should have to make a statement about what they want this room to be like before being approved. Or to say that they don't care, as long as there are no SOP violations.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I was actually thinking anyone who didn't like the status quo could offer a new vision of how we do things.
New host. New hosting era. Just a thought. I'm a host, and I like to think of myself as serving the people who enjoy the Religion Group.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)There are no set requirements, but it would be nice to know what kind of tone they'd like to set. This is a contentious, factionalized Group, and there may be some merit to hosts here taking a more active role than in some other Groups.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)or do we Religion hosts have areas where we can improve?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that there seems to be a great deal of dissatisfaction with the direction the tone of the room has taken recently. How much hosts can influence that under our current system is an open question, but there's nothing wrong with at least considering a greater role for them.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)We used to do temporary bans, but being objective and always fair was very difficult since it is a subjective situation. So when Skinner said the software automatically temporarily bans people after so many jury hides, I advocated for the Religion hosts to stop banning anyone, since the software would do it for us.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)but I believe there has been one believer and one nonbeliever blocked, and both may have been blocked twice, and then unblocked. One of those users may no longer be a DUer. I don't think anyone is currently blocked.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)No one is currently blocked
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I guess I was wrong.
rug
(82,333 posts)The one that wrote: "there seems to be a great deal of dissatisfaction with the direction the tone of the room has taken recently".
Heddi
(18,312 posts)at one point
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)So that's a 2:1 believer:atheist blocking ratio
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)there's nothing inaccurate in my posting. I remember well when Humblebum was blocked. It was a great day for Atheists who were tired of being called Stalinists
Response to Heddi (Reply #86)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #96)
Heddi This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Heddi (Reply #101)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #104)
Heddi This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Heddi (Reply #107)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #110)
Heddi This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Heddi (Reply #116)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #118)
Heddi This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Heddi (Reply #121)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #123)
Heddi This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Heddi (Reply #127)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #128)
Heddi This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is this whole advisarial thing that sometimes I don't think.
From the bottom of my heart I am sorry I upset you.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)It takes a big person to say "sorry."
I'll delete my posts above if you do, deal?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Is it ok to leave it up?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)if you choose to take it down, I understand. If you want to leave it up, then that's awesome as well.
Shake hands and agree to disagree on most things ? 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And again I am sorry.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Much like the place that awaits me when I leave this mortal coil, most likely. 
Hell: a never ending subthread in Religion....
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I hope there is more after this life for us all. If not and there is nothing then that is that.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)plus all my friends will be there.
There is a place
Reserved
For me and my friends
And when we go
We all will go
So you see
I'm never alone
There is a place
With a bit more time
And a few more
Gentler words
And looking back
We will forgive
(We had no choice
We always did)
All that we hope
Is when we go
Our skin
And our blood
And our bones
Don't get in your way
Making you ill
The way they did
When we lived
There is a place
A place in hell
Reserved
For me and my friends
And if ever I
Just wanted to cry
Then I will
Because I can
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)home brew...I make cider at home. High potency but smooooooth as a baby's bottom
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I will bring some Gin and Tonic.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)bye!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Have a great night.
Response to Heddi (Reply #116)
rug This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #104)
Heddi This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Heddi (Reply #113)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #114)
Heddi This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Heddi (Reply #119)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Heddi (Reply #113)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)depending on alerts and juries to police things has turned out to be a dicey proposition. No blame for anything that's happened in the past, though. And I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for thinking that doing to much hands-on policing here would be more of a job than they want to tackle.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)don't think hosts can affect that. Only individual posters can.
Sure, hosts can start deleting things, but I'd rather read things that made me angry or uncomfortable than seeing everything deleted all the time.
I prefer the hands off approach, but I'm certainly not as regular poster as many others, so I'm happy to let people who regularly post have more say, as well.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)we have locked three (3) for that reason
I think it would be unwise for hosts to promise never to lock any OP except for SoP violation, since one cannot predict what sorts of future disruptions might occur: current hosting practice here guarantees that the forum is hosted with a very light hand
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)So if a candidate says they don't think the room should be policed for anything but SOP violations, that would be something to consider.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)with a top host who generally does not get involved
Host action (such as locking OPs or banning posters) is not taken without host consensus. Since December 2011, we have so far IIRC locked three threads as not meeting the SoP, and we have not locked any threads for any other reason. In the same time period, we have also given two posters here each two temporary bans from the group, based mainly on their history of posts hidden by DU3 juries
Whatever people here think the situation should be, DU3 hosts do not have most powers of DU2 moderators: we cannot delete individual posts in threads, for example
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Justin took cbayer's seat, and she has never outwardly identified as a theist and had, on occasion, rejected that label.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I would like an explanation of how that is possible.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)in the January host replacement thread:
The arrangement that group participants agreed on early in DU3 for this group was for a couple of hosts broadly sympathetic to each of the believer and non-believer factions in the group, and the lead host to be serenely above such divisions. I want to retire from being a host in this group, so a replacement non-believer is needed.
IMO cbayer was regarded as "broadly sympathetic to believer factions" at the time we originally thrashed out the hosting
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Maybe combined with a poll on group members opinion about the group? Kind of like a customer survey so that the host can better meet the needs of the group as a whole?
edit: Nvm I misunderstood what you said
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)I STRONGLY disagree with the nomination of okasha - he/she is not likely to maintain any sort of composure, and I see it ending badly.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin was a "theist host" who replaced the previous "theist host" cbayer. Is that correct?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I asked a simple question about the spot you are vacating.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Assuming, of course, that skepticscott is unavailable to host.
longship
(40,416 posts)hrmjustin was a believer. That would rule out SkepticScott (or me, if it came to that).
Just for clarification.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)My main comment on hosting is that I think that any OP from a right-wing source (religious-right or otherwise) should be declared against SOP, unless it is posted as an example of what should be opposed.
There haven't been too many such threads, but occasionally it happens.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)was somewhat along the lines don't post wingnut shizz unless you're debunking it
I am sorry to say DU3 has no such global rule
One difficulty, with trying to enforce such a rule, is that many people have rather muddled political philosophies, which include a variety of influences. This is true, for example, of libertarians who may simultaneously see nothing wrong with either gay marriage or with businesses discriminating against gays. As another example, let me mention that some sectors of the Catholic church may hold very conservative views about sexuality and very liberal views about the importance of a social safety net
So defining "rightwing source" much of the time is a murky judgment call. The general DU3 standard -- and it is reflected in DU3 jury decisions, in my experience -- seems to be debunk it in thread!
That being said, I expect that the Religion group hosts, with whom I have worked, would probably be amenable to blocking a poster from the group, if that poster egregiously produced OPs here that pushed obviously rightwing views -- but I also suspect such a poster would likely be snared by MIRT, the account flagged for review software, or the automatic 5-hides time-out. If you see posts you consider offensively rightwing, you should send them to a jury; if you see a pattern of rightwing posting by a poster here, contact Administration. You can also contact the group hosts, but we have no special utilities for searching posts here, so if you want hosts to take you seriously, you really need to do the detective work yourself and provide us with the evidence and your argument
trotsky
(49,533 posts)She has a history of viciousness here in the Religion group and has displayed behavior that indicates she could in no way be trusted to be unbiased.
rug
(82,333 posts)
rexcat
(3,622 posts)trusted and unbiased is not how I would perceive okasha and fairness would also be an issue.
eomer
(3,845 posts)For the same reasons you gave.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Okasha has proven to be less than honest on more than one occasion.
longship
(40,416 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)As HMRJustin & Struggle4Progress have stated numerous times in previous threads, a host's only jobs are to:
1) lock threads that do not adhere to the SOP
2) block members from the room that are disruptive
S4P mentions here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218122578#post5 "Hosts here have never locked an OP for reasons other than SoP violation: since December 2011, we have locked three (3) for that reason"
and
since the 5-hides=90 day ban rule takes care of blocking disruptive members from the room, it seems as if my point #2 is taken care of vis-a-vis software changes by admin, and #1 is taken care of because it's not really an issue. Certainly not an insurmountable issue that one single host couldn't take care of.
As S4P and Justin have reminded us repeatedly: hosts here rule with a gentle hand.
Of the 2 duties they are given, 1 is unnecessary and 1 is redundant.
So I say get rid of hosts for the Religion group aside from RenewDeal.
Frankly, none of the theist-supporters who post in this forum are unbiased towards Atheists, Agnostics, and others who identify as non-believers. There is outright hostility towards us, and the idea that Okasha is a member who promotes open and welcoming debate with Atheists, Agnostics, and other non-believers is, frankly, laughable.
I have not seen *ONE* persuasive reason why there should be hosts in this forum. I would even go as far as to say that recent activities have not only shown that hosts aren't needed, but that those who ARE hosts cannot be trusted to "behave as good stewards" of the forum they are hosting.
Get rid of the whole bunch. Unneeded and unnecessary, as 1 current and 1 former host have repeatedly proclaimed over the last several days.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)in two threads
with a combined total of about 28000 views and about 300 posts in response. The proposal there was adopted with about 90% of respondents (26 votes) in favor, about 7% (2 votes) for "no hosts," and one further "whatever" vote
Heddi
(18,312 posts)surely there could be no change of opinion in 2 years and 4 months
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Alternatively, we could ask for hosts that have nothing to do with the group, that are simply on DU frequently so that they could be alerted to lock non-SOP threads if needed.
Since as you note s4p and hrmjustin have told us, that is all hosts are expected to do in this group, I don't think having a regular participant is a requirement, nor given recent developments, maybe even desirable.
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)
I have no objections to either Okasha or Xchrom
okasha
(11,573 posts)I am willing to serve if selected. I would also like to state that I see no reason to change the present rather loose style of hosting in this group or reliance on the five-hide rule to determine whether the group would be well served by a given poster's taking some time out for reflection.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)I appreciate your confidence.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)We need hosts who can get along with the often contentious contributors.
I fully support your nomination.
okasha
(11,573 posts)to you, also. Your fair-mindedness as host sets a good example for us all.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)that he would be willing to serve if selected
rug
(82,333 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)I agree with Trotsky's comments and would add okasha's inability to be fair to the atheists.
longship
(40,416 posts)You see, I am not threatened by somebody who disagrees with me. I do not take it personally.
My take is that neither does okasha.
But both of us will argue our position. There's nothing wrong with that.
A religion host has to be willing to be impartial. Not necessarily in opinion, but in the ability to be just. Some here do not seem suited to do that. Okasha is one who does.
That's good enough for me.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)bring up. She has never posted anything, to my recollection, that can even be construed as willingness to understand the atheist POV. She routinely yucks it up in posts involving FFRF and issues involving separation of church and state.
She accused A/A posters of returning to being anti-Gay bigots when we stop being bigots against Christians.
She is not impartial in any way, shape, or form.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)being threatened because of disagreement with her. xchrom, whom I have nominated, is a Christian and one of the smartest, most passionate, and kindest people I know on DU. We disagree completely when it comes to religion, but I still put forth the nomination because I want a good host.
rug
(82,333 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)and everything about being fair. It would seem that you and I disagree concerning okasha's ability to be fair. I have seen nothing in her posts that would indicate that she as the ability to be fair but it seems your standards are lower than mine.
rug
(82,333 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)who's toxic personality? I think toxic would be a fair description for okasha but that is my play on it.
rug
(82,333 posts)What you perceive as unfairness to atheists is actually an unwillingness to let the most disruptive and ad hominems stand untouched,
An inability to be fair to toxic persons is a virtue in a host.
It's not about atheism at all and the toxic personality is not hers.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)there are toxic personalities on both sides and she is one of them. I learned early that having a sensible disagreement with her is useless given the type of exchanges she and I have had in the past. In my opinion her posts are not worth countering given the grief that usually accompany it.
rug
(82,333 posts)But I find her posts to be fair, temperate and knowledgeable. Rarely have I seen her respond not in kind.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)obtuse at times but not toxic!
mr blur
(7,753 posts)But then it takes one to know one.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)This poster has shown, through their own repeated words, to have hostility towards Atheists, Agnostics, and other Non-Believers, and has accused us (in addition to other things) as being bigoted towards LGBT individuals, without having a single shred of evidence of that whatsoever.
longship
(40,416 posts)I am a life long atheist and I support okasha as host.
Hell! I have some hostility towards theism. But I set that aside here because this is a discussion forum, not World War III. Some here want it to be a war. I prefer peace. Passionate discussions are fine. But with respect.
That's why I support okasha. She's just the kind of person to host.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)She wants war. Making okasha a host would send a clear message that civility and positivity are not the goal of this group.
longship
(40,416 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thanks for the personal jab instead of addressing the topic at hand.
longship
(40,416 posts)My question is...
What do you really want for the Religion Group?
My feeling is that it should be a place where people of all beliefs should be able to discuss religion, as either believers and non-believers with a modicum of respect.
Yes, I am a lifelong atheist. But in a world like we live in, I do not look at people who disagree with me as my enemies. I will argue my point with great vigor, but I do not descend to personal attacks merely because of a disagreement.
I do not care what others believe. It is their actions which tell the tale. That's where I have something to say. And I will say it, and have done so here.
I think discussing religion is an important, maybe the most important, cultural enterprise. That's why I frequent this group.
I would ask you this... Why do you? What do you want to achieve?
This is the Religion group. There are those who will disagree with atheists, Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, etc. But a discussion forum is to discuss, not win at all costs. I guess I just don't have the blood lust you do.
I apologize if I have offended.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Do any believers?
okasha is a divisive personality. She has flung insults and snide attacks with impunity. If you can show as much opposition by believers to my nomination as there has been from nonbelievers to okasha, then I will yield.
xchrom is a far better candidate.
longship
(40,416 posts)And will do so until she is turned down.
I cannot and will not oppose a host merely because of disagreements.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Please stop stating that falsehood.
I am opposed to her because of her documented behavior and hostility.
Find believers who oppose my nomination. Keep this discussion clean and respectful, longship.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Correction I told you you should run.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Or behavior and hostility.
I do not care what you believe, Trotsky. I only judge people by their actions.
I always post respecting people's opinions.
I will consider your nomination.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)okasha's actions do not speak well. Can you quit making this personal about me? If you cannot, you should remove yourself from this discussion.
I support xchrom, and unless you can find believers who oppose him as nonbelievers oppose okasha, he is a better candidate. There is far too much animosity in this group. The selection of someone who has been so hostile to non-believers would be a bad message to send.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)and having any further discussion with you concerning okasha would be futile.
longship
(40,416 posts)I just see an ideological opposition.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)and I see opinions as neither true or false.
longship
(40,416 posts)I would not like somebody opposed merely on a disagreement of opinion. After all, this is the Religion group, where people disagree -- hopefully respectfully, regretfully not enough here. One notable thread this week bears testament that some just like to stir the pot. That is unacceptable.
But I will support anybody as host who will fill the role of helping to bring peace to this group.
Enough is enough. People need to stop throwing chairs into these forums. Disagree, but with respect. There's not nearly enough of that going around.
What do you want the Religion group to accomplish? I see it as a discussion group at the confluence of religion and politics. It certainly is not a forum for ad hominem attacks or schoolyard nay-saying, which is what I've oft witnessed here.
So yes! We need hosts in order to herd the cats here.
Regards.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)She's engaged in ad hom attacks, and schoolyard nay-saying. My candidate has never done that, to my knowledge.
Why not go with someone that has support from everyone? Plenty of reasons have been given to oppose okasha. Give one to oppose xchrom.
longship
(40,416 posts)You do not have a clean record yourself in that department, my friend. So you will forgive me if I discount your opinion somewhat. And we both know these things get going and take on a life of their own. That's neither here nor there.
You've made your opinion patently clear. Just like on the hosts recommendations.
I will take it all into consideration with all the seriousness it deserves.
Regards.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Please refrain from INCREASING the animosity and chair-throwing. Can you be a better example of the behavior you'd like to see? Stop throwing chairs if you're going to criticize others for doing it.
Let me put it this way:
What do you think makes okasha a better candidate than xchrom?
longship
(40,416 posts)I just would like her to have a fair chance and not be subject to all sorts of personal attacks which is, after all, where you began in this thread, my friend.
So let her have a chance. She has agreed to do it. Let your personal disagreements go and let her try. I am sure she'll be just fine. She has the other hosts to help. And nobody has unitary power. Thanks to there being multiple hosts.
Please.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Why do you keep repeating that falsehood?
It is about how she has behaved in this group. Judge her on her behavior. That's what you've said you're all about, right? Let your personal disagreement with ME go, and let's discuss who makes a more qualified host. (Also, I request that you stop calling me "friend" because you have NOT treated me like one.)
Compare okasha's behavior to that of xchrom. I find it very telling that you cannot give any reason to oppose xchrom, but many individuals have weighed in to oppose okasha.
I think the bottom line is, do we want a host that will cause more tension, or less?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that my classification of the religionistas in this room is spot on. And that longship, as one of them, is being deeply dishonest about his reasons for wanting okasha as host.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you have continued to repeat falsehoods in order to make your case for okasha being a host. Why would that be, one wonders, if you actually had legitimate reasons and justification, and not just your own empty assertions. You have been given the opportunity to make an objective case, with actual evidence, and to counter the fact that okasha is regularly snarky and hostile to certain posters here and has done nothing to promote and encourage civility in the room.
And in case you're going to try to make this about me, I'm not a candidate for host, so don't weary our ears.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Here, borrow this----->
rexcat
(3,622 posts)Okasha has shown no respect for those who disagree with her. I have been on the tail end of that one. Okasha, in my opinion, will not bring harmony to this group. I think her influence will be disruptive as a host for this forum.
We all get our underwear in a bind at times. I have but for the most part have been able to come around and respectfully disagree with those who I have had issues with and vice versa, including cbayer, rug and hrmjustin. That has not happened with okasha. I try to avoid discussing anything with her at this point, it is not worth the effort.
There are a few in this forum who like to have it both ways and I think that is one of the problems. When someone calls another out for hypocrisy it can get contentious. I have seen some posts that just amaze me and would like to respond but I don't because the ensuing argument is not worth the effort.
As far as this forum is concerned it is more than the confluence of religion and politics. Anytime religion is in the mix it is going to be contentious. For the most part the political side is less an issue since people at DU tend to lean left of center and there is a common "enemy."
Just being an atheist can provoke some and it does not matter what the political persuasion of the person is, be they conservative, liberal or in-between. Religious people, for the most part, have issues with atheists. I have encountered that here at DU and in my personal dealings with people over my lifetime. There is a lot of bigotry when it comes to atheists. I see that in the DU3 jury system. Theists are treated differently than atheists in a negative way and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I understand your position. At least you took the time to lay down a case.
I agree that this is more than about religion and politics. I tend to focus on that mostly, however, with an occasional dip into the Bible, or other miscellany. I also am a very strong science advocate, so that will get my focus here, too.
I am not afraid of having people disagree with me. And I am not afraid to admit error. Neither is an affront to me. I try to argue my case rationally, but sometimes with passion, never in anger.
I am nearly always available for a good discussion. That's fun.
But ad hominem has no use in such things. There's been far too much of that going on here at DU recently. It's ugly and serves absolutely no purpose.
I am not sure juries can tell an atheist from a theist here. They seemingly often cannot tell a troll. 
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that have convinced you that she would be the best choice as host. Tell us anything about her that would make you choose her, other than the fact that she is vehemently hostile towards the same people you are.
Are you willing to defend your nomination with objective evidence?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)Having unhidden another member to see the full extent of okasha's posting in Religion, I think she would be an awful choice. They are confrontational, insulting, and cliquish.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)she shows as much respect to the non-believers as I do to her and her kind - none at all. She is a bad candidate for host for exactly the same reason as I would be.
The remark I made was actually a joke, as any fan of Father Ted would know.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's the closest thing to a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that I've seen in this room.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not tied to this room, or the status quo?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)There is no impartiality on either side.
Nominating and appointing Okasha will make a clear note that Atheists, Agnostics, and other non-believers are not welcome in this group, despite the SOP stating as such. We have seen with previous religious-sympathetic hosts (Cbayer, HMRJustin, and S4P) a blatant bias against Atheist/Agnostic posters, to the point of being purposefully antagonistic towards A/A posters.
I recall no A/A host being as divisive and nasty towards the religious as the Religious hosts have been towards us.
Or, of Okahsa is made a host, then I think the SOP should be amended to reflect that this is NOT a place for believers and non-believers to come for dialogue, because that will not be the case. It's barely the case now. This is not a welcoming place for Atheists/Agnostics, and I truly feel that the Religious and their Pro-Religious posters in this group will not TRULY be happy until this is a Religious and pro-religious poster ONLY group,....because 10 others just isn't fucking enough.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I think having no hosts is perfectly acceptable. Should we as a group decide that we want to increase host responsibilities to set an example of expected behavior, or ban posters, we could always change things again.
But for now, yeah, hosts seems awfully pointless.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)If we go with hosts, I want xchrom. If we don't, then it doesn't matter. I want it known that despite the lies some keep spreading, I don't hate all Christians. There are some that truly to try to walk the talk. I can respect that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think a pm to him saying what is being proposed is a good idea.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Why the secrecy? If he wants to, then he'll post here and say yes. If he doesn't, then he'll post here and say no. No need for PM's
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think he should let him know there has been a new proposal. It is up to him.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Oh here! Let me PM Trotsky and let him know that I voted in his poll OTHERWISE HOW WOULD HE KNOW.
Should I then PM you and let you know that i PM'd Trotsky? Otherwise how would YOU know that *I* let Trotsky know that I voted in the poll??
HOW DO DISCUSSION BOARDS WORK THIS IS CONFUSING
Heddi
(18,312 posts)that I read your post and am going to respond to it, okay. Otherwise, you might not know.
at this point you know I'm fucking with you, right?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)to let you know I was going to PM you about some PM's
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)I forget, what was I supposed to forget? Can you PM me and let me know? THen I'll PM you back and let you know I remembered what I was forgetting.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)If we keep hosts, I think he would be a wonderful one. A great example of what Christians claim to be - not someone who engages in snark and attacks and blames others for making him do it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I really don't know him but I am not against him.
It looks like we are keeping the hosts anyway.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)so we've chatted over dinner at various local DU meet-ups
I think either he or okasha would make a fine host
He hasn't responded to my DU Mail a few hours ago asking him to check into the thread to confirm that he would be willing to host. Maybe he's just not on DU right now -- but I have some (possibly false) memory of him declining to help host this forum in the past
trotsky
(49,533 posts)He said yes.
Look at the support xchrom has from non-believers. Not a single voice against. Nor from believers. He is a superior candidate.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)My candidate has not.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If we are to move past the hostility, the aggression, the name-calling, and all that...
who better to nominate than someone who has NOT TAKEN PART IN IT?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)My candidate has not.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)It bears repeating. My candidate has not been involved in the hostility. Yours has.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I guess it comes down to whether we think hosts can help set the tone of this group.
If not, then it doesn't really matter.
If so, then we should get someone that hasn't engaged in the vitrol and nastiness.
IMO.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)It would appear your actions do not match with your words.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I thought it was best to step back from it.
The last few days have not been my best here.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I think you're concerned she's too good at it.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)If you want an atheist friendly group, there's one here on DU.
This group is about religion, not atheism. Some atheists have an interest in religion, although we do not believe. Myself, I find the confluence of religion and politics very troubling. Where else to discuss such matters than a religious forum? I find the discussions interesting and it helps me understand the dynamics of this cultural milieux, the above mentioned confluence. In my months here I have found plenty of common ground with my theist friends. Who wouldn't want that given that we have a common political goal?
If I wanted everybody to agree with me I would be going to the Atheist forum (where I've never been, BTW). But I imagine there's as much hostility there as there is here. (Atheist vs agnostic would be a good one.)
I like it here when people play nicely. But I like it here. And I am proud to be a host here. I want this group to succeed. That can only happen when people stay on topic and let go of ad hominem and other fallacious attacks.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)I've only been here as a registered poster since October, 2001 (not that anyone's keeping track).
But I truly do appreciate you telling me what the Religion forum is, and what it isn't. Without that helpful note I'd have had no idea!!! It's not like I've been posting here for 13 years.
Thanks for the info!
longship
(40,416 posts)I was merely expressing my feelings on how I see this group.
My observation was merely an attempt to find some common ground, where from your response, I can see apparently no common ground was desired. I apologize deeply. How can one make amends?
I thank you for your over a decade of service to DU. Certainly you then understand that this community should be united and find some common ground. And that interminable infighting does absolutely no good whatsoever.
The GOP has Ayn Rand, Jesus, and whatever other purity of essences they spout as their true ideology. We have rather a rabble. When we fight amongst ourselves, they win. Pretty much always. As you've been around for some time, you've seen it.
What good do personal attacks accomplish? None that I can think of.
Yet there have been so much mud flinging around here on DU recently that I am sometimes ashamed to be a member. Are you proud of that?
Where can we begin?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Or not.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I've never seen any kind of declaration either way.
However, my experience with xchrom has been very positive and it doesn't really matter to me where s/he stands.
Much as I would like to, I can't support okasha. There is too much overt hostility towards her and I think it would be used to make her job impossible.
I think elbryanto would also be a good choice.
I am absolutely opposed to any significant change in the current structure or roles, unless the current hosts agree on a change.
It works well, it's fair and has not been at all problematic.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/121831699#post3
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Thanks so much for that.
I have a lot of respect for xchrom and am happy to support him/her if willing to serve.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Or is she merely an innocent victim of the evil atheist cabal who targeted her for absolutely no reason?
It is difficult for me to see the world in such stark shades of black and white as you do.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That people would think the ONLY problem is just an evil band of atheists who are attacking innocent, kind-hearted believers.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)trotsky and the rest of us atheists in this forum are evil. At least we are honest about it! 
rug
(82,333 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)I am not familiar with the recent posting history or positions of Xchrom.
I am fine with the status quo on hosting policies and number/type of hosts. As has been already stated, the issues is not about atheists or theists, the issue has always been for me about toxicity.
Let the mud sling and the fires burn, and the toxic is different and more than readily identifiable.
I, too, agree that Okasha has the necessary requirements to be supportive of all religious and non-religious perspectives while also effectively dealing, fire with fire when necessary, with the toxic anti-theists that disrupt these discussions.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Do you have any more evidence for that than longship? Can you show us some of okasha's recent posts that back up your assertions about her qualifications? Are you willing to put some of her uglier posts out there too, and make a case for why they don't disqualify her?
Are you actually interested in a rational, fact-based discussion here, or are you and certain others just hoping to ram this through?
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)I have also said before, however, that it might be a good idea to have at least one host who is a believer from a faith other than Christianity.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)and i said yes.
i appreciate the good thoughts.
i am not here very often and limited hours on DU.
and my last disclaimer is i am an Episcopalian.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)I'm reading this thread and it's giving me DU2-moderator-forum flashbacks. I see people comparing how many people have been blocked from either "side." I see people complaining because hosts actually participate in the discussion. I see partisans painting their side as somehow unfairly put-upon by the mean-old biased hosts. I'm shaking my head in disbelief. I've seen this all before.
The most annoying threads I have read in this forum in the last two weeks are the ones complaining about hosts or discussing who is going to be a new host. If you get rid of hosts, you'll kill all this needless drama.
There is no need for hosts in this group. It's not the end of the world if an off-topic thread slips through once every three months. But this squabbling over hosts and locks and blocks is disruptive and annoying. I've already trashed other religion-related groups, I would prefer not to have to trash this one too. Let's cut the meta and get back to discussing religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It is not the hosts that are exhibiting the behaviors that you note in this group, it is non-host members. To the hosts credit, they have been fair, thoughtful and really stayed above the fray.
The issue of locks for SOP is not a big deal, but occasionally the behavior by some members becomes so outrageous in this group that they really need to be blocked. They jury system doesn't address that problem.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but letting this group devolve into even more of a Lord of the Flies arena that it already doesn't seem to be it.
OTOH, I have devised my own personal way of making this group worthwhile, and it works great for me, so I'm going to support whatever it is the hosts of the group decide, even it that means no hosts.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)not moderators. the need is limited. I don't see what the big deal is, and I think Skinner is right. It's basically unnecessary. And why are we letting something unnecessary cause friction?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and I would never advocate going back to the mod system.
My suspicion is that the friction will not be decreased by this or pretty much any other change, but I am not opposed to any changes, as long as the current hosts agree. And I truly hope that my suspicions about the outcome are entirely wrong.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)It's a free for all. Always has been.
Though I think that it's less so than in other areas of DU, and even some of the most contentious posters here have some affection for their nemeses.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are those that hold no affection but only animosity.
You do not seem to be one of those people.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)I admit that I was initially attracted to the religion forums years ago bc I thought there might be interesting discussion regarding politics and religion. But I gave that up ages ago, and, usually when I check in, I do so because I think there might be a dustup. (I liken the experience to rubbernecking.)
I am religious (Roman Catholic) and a female, but I don't take offense easily. (I was raised with a million male cousins who talked crap about everything, so I guess I don't take it too seriously.) I used to engage in debate here, but now I find myself reading topics and wanting to meet snark with snark.
Having said that, I do skim the Interfaith and the Catholic group often to see if there is interesting news. I rarely contribute, though, so part of the lack of activity is my fault.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and religion here. You just have to wade through the muck to get to them sometimes.
Rubbernecking gets old for me. It just ties up traffic and keeps people from getting where they need to go.
I like to challenge intolerance and strive for more unity among believing and non-believing liberal/progressive democrats who I feel have more in common than they do difference. I think religious intolerance is a bad thing except when religion is being used to impinge on the rights of or harm others.
I would love to see people like yourself participate here more, but I understand that it's a loud and frenetic place and can be very hard to navigate. There are ways to adjust your experience here, but not everyone is interested in taking those kinds of steps.
Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)my daughter has been sick this week and out of school, so I've had a lot of time at home...... and I've been more of a prolific reader and poster. This week, going on vacation (Florida for Easter!), so I doubt I'll be around much.
But I do hope to participate more. Thanks, cbayer.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Enjoy the weather. Hope you are going to the beach and not Orlando, lol.
Always glad to see you around, DG.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)My problem is that I have no confidence that struggle4progress can make an unbiased judgement any more; and I don't think okasha would be able to, either. This opinion seems shared by a lot of other group regulars.
If we had no hosts, then any alerts would go to admin. If everyone knew that, then I think people would feel happy that decisions would be fair.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I could be entirely wrong about the outcome…. and I hope that I am.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If that gets chosen please lock this thread.
Thanks for replying.
On edit I agree with cbayer that the hosts are not the issue.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
TM99
(8,352 posts)and will simply link back to here from there.
I have been thinking about this quite a bit today. I have looked through the entire Religion & Spirituality Topic, and I wondered why do we even need the Religion group anymore at all.
Seriously. Every belief and non-belief that we could imagine is covered by any and all of the sub-groups from Buddhists to Atheists & Agnostics to Catholics & Orthodox to Interfaith which is a catch-all, etc..
All members of any persuasion or belief may post in any and all sub-groups as long as the rules are followed and any safe-haven restrictions are respected. Removing the Religion Group solves the biggest problem that I see. It is an open group without boundaries, with anemic hosting requirements for such a contentious group, and host whom neither believers nor non-believers seem to agree are worthy of their positions. Removing hosts altogether doesn't solve the tribalism and the incredible toxic environment that seems to be apparent now in all discussions of religion. This is not DU2 so there are no moderators to even crack the whip in such an environment.
Removing the Religion Group complete does. The same topics that have been posted here can be done so elsewhere whether in Atheists or Buddhists or Interfaith. All of those groups are open to all members and yet any anti-theists who wish to debunk or mock in any way they see fit will only be allowed to do so in the Atheists & Agnostics sub-group. If it gets out of line, then the hosts and community there must be the ones to directly deal with it. They would not be able to communicate the same way in the other sub-groups.
But likewise, if there are any believers that are wont to speak ill towards atheists (whether anti-theists or not), there will be no need now to do so. Theoretically, they could try in the Interfaith group but that group is open to all and such topics as this would be against the SOP of that group. All tribes have their own corner and the removal of the Religion Group gets rid of the playground or battleground (your choice of metaphor!) that allows for this constant back and forth. Any and all toxic individuals, no matter their believer status, would lose the arena in which they thrive.
The DU3 jury system will identify and deal with any DU TOS issues or the extremely over-the-top posts that trigger such an alert. The sub-group's TOS's will coral any possible ongoing believer versus non-belief bickering. Everyone has their own safe place to communicate as they choose. Adults can choose to participate or not without fear of the constant interpersonal conflicts.
I will use myself as an example. If I have an issue with a member, as I do with SkepticScott, I do not have to engage him. If I want to discuss atheist and agnostic issues, I know that if I choose to do so in that safe-haven then I must respect it and avoid direct confrontations. Otherwise, I simply choose to post elsewhere with more like minded invidividuals.
Likewise, he would certainly be free to post in any of the other groups including Interfaith for instance. But any insulting communications or constant need to 'debunk' would be curtailed thus avoiding increased conflict between believers and non-believers. I have only used myself and he as examples as it must be obvious to all that we do not communicate well with each other. He doesn't particularly like me, and I don't particularly like him. Put us in the free-for-all religion forum, and he and I will go back and forth for eternity. Remove that arena, bolster the safe-haven's, and add any other sub-groups as necessary to insure that all voices are equally represented, and he and I have no choice but to drop it. This would work for other contentious interpersonal conflicts in the Religion Group.
If you are willing to consider the radical act of simply doing away with hosts, hell, take it a step further and remove this arena. I hope you will give your feedback on this proposal, and I do want to know what the community thinks of it as well.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This group is where threads on religion are supposed to go. I mean the ones in GD. They don't want GD to turn into this forum so generally religious general posts are to go here. If you get rid of this group then those parts are back in GD. And you can't just say to post then in the specific groups because those are safe havens.
I get your point but it just isn't pragmatic for DU as a whole.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Is it not possible to shuttle these GD posts to the appropriate sub-forum? If it is a topic on Pope Francis which is therefore on Catholicism, why not to the Catholic Group? If it is a post on the H.H. the Dalai Lama which is therefore on Buddhism, why not to the Buddhist sub-group.
Though it does seem like it puts all of the onus on a sub-group to deal with the heat that may be a 'general discussion' even if it involves religion.
If it isn't pragmatic or doable, that's fine. It was simply a suggestion.
Thank you for pointing that out.
On edit: I have raised another suggestion below in response to a post by Rug.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)because those sub-forums are all safe havens so it would not be acceptable for people to be critical in there. As it should be. There needs to be a general forum that isn't a safe haven for the religion topics to be funneled down to.
edited to add: I have rug on ignore and don't feel like opening an incognito window to see what he has written. I'm sure it was profound.
TM99
(8,352 posts)in that sub-thread if you have him on Ignore?
If not, given the amount of non-believers whom I suspect have him on Ignore, I will re-post it here in reply to you. It is another suggested option that would not funnel GD posts to sub-groups. I don't even know if it is feasible, and I still thought, what the hell, throw it out there as an idea.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)is that once the ignored makes a post, I don't see anything in that sub-thread that comes after as far as responses even it if it a non-ignored member. Not the best way to do it in my opinion but I get the reasons why they went that way.
That would be cool to do it in reply to me and then those that ignore the other member will see it.
TM99
(8,352 posts)though I agree it isn't perfect. I rarely use the ignore function.
Here is my reply:
This is a battlefield group with two sides, and while both can get into it, it does not have to be as toxic as some make it.
We stick with 5 hosts. Two are chosen by believers only to represent them. Two are chosen by non-believers only to represent them. A 5th tie-breaking & neutral host is chosen and agreed upon by both parties.
Then give the hosts greater moderating powers. Allow them to enforce a stricter TOS and SOP here in the Religion Forum. For instance, obvious insulting words like 'religionistas' or 'militant atheists' would not be allowed. Hosts would be allowed to step in and ask posters to self-edit or risk locking or temporary suspension. Set certain guidelines with regards to challenging either side. Believers could no more suggest that all non-believers are without morals than non-believers could suggest that all religious people suffer from a mental illness. Neither of those belong in an adult discussion on religion even if everyone has their own unique take on life, the universe, and everything. Again, hosts would be allowed to step in and ask posters to self-edit, self-delete, or risk locking or temporary suspension. This is really no different than what hosts within safe havens have available to do them, we simply give this power to a non-safe haven that needs it to be exercised in a similar fashion.
Obviously the DU3 jury system is still applicable. Any poster can still alert and a jury of peers can decide on a particular thread. But if that thread or individual post also involves agreed upon TOS or SOP violations, then a host can intervene regardless of jury results.
This maintains the Religion general forum so that GD is not thrust back into chaos. It allows for both parties to have a neutral and well-controlled arena to discuss heavy and sometimes difficult topics. The hosts are not full blown moderators but do have more skills for intervention when necessary to maintain 'a civil tone' as the meme has developed. The DU3 alert/jury system is still available and applicable. All interested groups still have safe-havens for the most intimate and non-contentious discussions amongst themselves with input from all but lacking the conflict of the general forum. Hosts represent all members equally without prejudice or discrimination. Everyone wins and gets what they want. And while some just don't want to see it, there are a few very toxic individuals that do need reigning in. They push buttons constantly. They need that ego stroke. And they truly do disrupt the chance for dialog. This suggestion sets boundaries such that they have little opportunity to act as they have been allowed to act. The stage is removed.
Don't be surprised if I don't respond for a while, I have to shut myself into a dark corner without internet access and get my taxes filed. 
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Tell you what...when you're ready to acknowledge that you fall into that "some", you might have a little more credibility on the subject. Under your new utopian guidelines, would terms like "little shit disrupters", "psychologically immature", "antagonistic punk" or "bigot" merit a warning to self-delete from the hosts, and suspension if not done? Or would they be justified (as you and others have tried to do) by claiming that they're true, deserved, or only wielded in self-defense?
Regardless of that, here's the fact...none of those terms had to be used. People chose to use them. Most people who come to this room choose not to use such terms, and those who do, whatever their rationalizations, are not in much of a position to preach to others about civility. An end to hypocrisy and self-righteousness would go a long way towards clearing the air in here.
rug
(82,333 posts)Certainly one person uses them routinely. That person is not one of these: "Most people who come to this room choose not to use such terms, and those who do, whatever their rationalizations, are not in much of a position to preach to others about civility."
Leontius
(2,270 posts)suspension is a total non-starter for me.
TM99
(8,352 posts)within safe-havens? If someone is violating the safe-haven, they are asked to stop or edit a post. If they continue to violate the safe-haven, then the offending poster is suspended or barred from posting in that group? Alerting and juries are still used within the groups as well.
I am suggesting a modified safe-haven type rule-set. That was all. And as I have said, I am just throwing out ideas and suggestions for resolution of the conflicts.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)But it should. And there should be two distinct types of places. One where view points are protected so discussions can be focused and few from disruption, and one where view points aren't protected so discussion can be critical. Regarding religion, that can get very personal. So those that don't like that can go to the safe havens. We have plenty of safe havens including one for religion in general. That's enough. We need one that isn't a safe haven, too. And over we go down the path of controlling content like you indicate, things like this thread will only be worse.
TM99
(8,352 posts)the moderator model is most here seem to be. I find that boundaries actually increase the likelihood of more open and free discussions. I recognize that I am decidedly in the minority.
Now with regards to this quote:
Regarding religion, that can get very personal. So those that don't like that can go to the safe havens. We have plenty of safe havens including one for religion in general. That's enough. We need one that isn't a safe haven, too.
So if this true for the believers, then it must also hold true for the non-believers. There is a safe-haven for atheists. Non-believers who can't handle some push back, some challenging of the worst of the toxic communication, and outright fights over the spurious arguments like all religion = mental illness, can go back to the safe haven as well.
If this will remain an arena where tempers and discussions may flare up to even nasty proportions some times relying on the alert/jury system alone to squelch the worst of it, then this must be acceptable for both sides. Your post on S4P seen in this light is a bit disingenuous. Host or not, he has no moderator role therefore he is allowed like anyone else to loose his temper and push back. That is assuming of course that your perspective of his communication was accurate. If the alert/jury system did not deal with it, why would you bring it up to the community? What more could, should, or ought to have been done?
The same will hold true for those that use insulting words like 'religionista' and the like. If they can't handle the consequences of stating such tripe, then they too will need to retreat to the safe haven if it becomes untenable.
Another reason why I am sorry to see Hrmjustin step down is that whether Okasha or Xchrom is chosen, it will not change what has been and will continue to go on in the Religion forum.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Allowing any single host to do this is wrong.
TM99
(8,352 posts)reticence. I am apparently more comfortable with the older moderator model of forums as opposed to the alert/jury free for all that some like the Religion forum can be.
While in theory it sounds like it works and there is a freer exchange of ideas and frank discussion, both critical of believers and non-believers, alike, in practice it does seem to allow for a toxic few to dominate with extreme anti-theistic views.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)biased to pass a judgment on whether my posts are out of line.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I still remember when moderators were held to a neutral stance so that members would not have to worry about biases during the enforcing of TOS or such. I just don't think that is possible now in this group given its history.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is that we've had it before.
More than a year ago, many of the exact same people were voicing the same complaints about the tone of this Group and that they couldn't have the kinds of "civil" and "meaningful" discussions of "faith" that they wanted to, because Mean People were hijacking all of the threads. That's why they petitioned the Admins for the creation of the Interfaith Group (even though there was already a similar group in existence that was going virtually unused). And they got exactly what they said they wanted, over a year ago. So why are we going round with this again? The people who begged for Interfaith as an alternative to here can't make anything out of that Group, so the answer is to trash Religion? What kind of sense does that make?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that if you really wanted discussions that were only civil and respectful, you could have all of those you wanted in Interfaith, without any interference from people you deemed "toxic" or "little shit disruptors" or "antagonizing punks", or any of the other labels you flung out in your campaign for civility. You declined, and made a series of excuses why you didn't want to participate there.
Here's what you said about Interfaith in response to that:
I was not asking for a 'safe haven'. For me, Interfaith really is just for those of faith. As I am not one, I would not find that forum as interesting for discussions.
Nothing has changed since you said that, so I have to wonder if you agreed all along and were just being combative. But hey, if you'd like to try to make Interfaith a Garden of Eden for civil, intellectual discussion, knock yourself out.
I would point out to Skinner that no one is forced to come into Religion and endure an atmosphere they don't like. This Group may be contentious, but no one participates in the threads here unless they really want to. As has been pointed out before, there is no discussion that people complaining about this Group could have here that they can't have in Interfaith. Not one. But there is a reason why this Group is still so active and Interfaith is not. Because people like it in spite of, or even because of, the tenor of the discussions. Whether they admit it or not, the theists and the "nice" atheists here love a good dust-up as much as anyone else. If you want more evidence of that, just check the recent threads in Interfaith, and you'll see that pretty much all of the ones with more than a handful of replies are meta threads bashing what's going on somewhere else.
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Why was it when the rules were formed that there would be 2 pro-religion or believer hosts and 2 irreligious or nonbeliever hosts, that it was decided that both believers and non-believers got to vote on both sets of hosts?
If this was about pure representation I would think the best way would be to only have the believers/pro-religious vote for their hosts, and vice versa. Such a system would allow for the strongest of supporters; however, this system would allow for there to be people extremely biased for their particular group to be nominated.
Conversely, one could have it where only nonbelievers/irreligious vote for the religious host and religious/believers can only vote for the irreligious host. This would provide a system where hosts who might be overly biased could be weeded out, but has the weakness that the hosts might not be that strong of a defender of the faith.
The current system seems to be a hybrid that allows for member of either faction of the group to get hosts that are strong advocates for them, but allow the other faction a "veto" if you will. For this particular nomination, it seems that Okasha would definitely be a very very strong advocate for the religious here, but the other side has an equally strong objection, and proposed an alternative nominee. The second nominee does not seem to provide any objection but does seem to lack the enthusiasm of the believers.
I was just curious if this type of situation was discussed and the rationale behind the voting.
For full disclosure, the way this group is run I don't think it will make much of a difference whether its either candidate (though I would argue for the sake of peace xchrom seems the best choice) and I'm personally in favor of both Heddi's suggestion (or with Trotski's change thrown in), or barring that Skinner's suggestion. The way the group is run seems to make hosts rather arbitrary and an unnecessary bone of contention.
rug
(82,333 posts)Otherwise it would become Cyprus.
TM99
(8,352 posts)so to speak, and this group is highly contentious, why can the Religion Group not become a more moderated sub-forum?
Your photo here is metaphorical with regards to the current and apparently ongoing conflicts here.
This is a battlefield group with two sides, and while both can get into it, it does not have to be as toxic as some make it.
We stick with 5 hosts. Two are chosen by believers only to represent them. Two are chosen by non-believers only to represent them. A 5th tie-breaking & neutral host is chosen and agreed upon by both parties.
Then give the hosts greater moderating powers. Allow them to enforce a stricter TOS and SOP here in the Religion Forum. For instance, obvious insulting words like 'religionistas' or 'militant atheists' would not be allowed. Hosts would be allowed to step in and ask posters to self-edit or risk locking or temporary suspension. Set certain guidelines with regards to challenging either side. Believers could no more suggest that all non-believers are without morals than non-believers could suggest that all religious people suffer from a mental illness. Neither of those belong in an adult discussion on religion even if everyone has their own unique take on life, the universe, and everything. Again, hosts would be allowed to step in and ask posters to self-edit, self-delete, or risk locking or temporary suspension. This is really no different than what hosts within safe havens have available to do them, we simply give this power to a non-safe haven that needs it to be exercised in a similar fashion.
Obviously the DU3 jury system is still applicable. Any poster can still alert and a jury of peers can decide on a particular thread. But if that thread or individual post also involves agreed upon TOS or SOP violations, then a host can intervene regardless of jury results.
This maintains the Religion general forum so that GD is not thrust back into chaos. It allows for both parties to have a neutral and well-controlled arena to discuss heavy and sometimes difficult topics. The hosts are not full blown moderators but do have more skills for intervention when necessary to maintain 'a civil tone' as the meme has developed. The DU3 alert/jury system is still available and applicable. All interested groups still have safe-havens for the most intimate and non-contentious discussions amongst themselves with input from all but lacking the conflict of the general forum. Hosts represent all members equally without prejudice or discrimination. Everyone wins and gets what they want. And while some just don't want to see it, there are a few very toxic individuals that do need reigning in. They push buttons constantly. They need that ego stroke. And they truly do disrupt the chance for dialog. This suggestion sets boundaries such that they have little opportunity to act as they have been allowed to act. The stage is removed.
rug
(82,333 posts)That or no hosts. What the juries don't get, Admin will.
Otherwise, okasha as the new host,
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 08:18 PM - Edit history (9)
By my count
Okasha-8 votes (29.6%)
hrmjustin, rug, longship, leftishbrit, tm99, No Vested Interest, Leontius, Jim__
Xchrom-15 votes (55.6%)
Trotsky,Warren stupidity,SecularMotion, Skepticscott, Goblin monger, cleanhippie, Passing Fair, Cbayer, LostOne4ever, Heddi, Rob H, Bravenak, eomer, muriel volstrangler, EvolveOrConvolve
No one-4 votes (14.8%)
Mr Blurr, skinner, Iggo, Dorian Gray
3 posters in this thread have posted in a way in which I am not sure of their position (though at least one has stated opposition to okasha):
Struggle4progress, zombiehorde, , and rexcat
Provisional:
Lost, Heddi, and muriel will go to none should that become feasible
Dorian Gray will go to nominee with the least objections should the vote between two candadites become close
I originally supported No one, but since it appears that position has little support I am throwing my support behind XChrom.
This look correct to everyone?
No Vested Interest
(5,297 posts)Heddi
(18,312 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Updated my tally!
Rob H.
(5,851 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Vote in favor of xchrom. Or no hosts. Either one is good.
eomer
(3,845 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Until then ill have us all in favor of xchrom.
Is that okay?
muriel_volestrangler
(106,211 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,850 posts)If we must have a host, I'll vote for the host that is the least divisive.
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)Should the vote start to get close ill move you to the nominee with the least objections (which at this point would be xchrom) in my unofficial tally.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Jim__
(15,222 posts)Xchrom would make a fine host, but Okasha was nominated first, so I vote for Okasha.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)No Vested Interest
(5,297 posts)We all know that not everyone check in daily, much less comment.
struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)No Vested Interest
(5,297 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)struggle4progress
(126,150 posts)of the people it supposedly represents; and I have no way to check how many of those subscribers ever visit the forum or are even active here at DU
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)But the about page says 241
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1218
No Vested Interest
(5,297 posts)243. -There is no telling how current that figure is, but it's as good a round number as any.
That helps put a little perspective on the comments above.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)group before.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)More people want xchrom. And nobody is opposed to him like they are okasha. Not the result you wanted, I know, but it is the result. It's not going to change. All the regulars have chimed in.
Heddi
(18,312 posts)until we get the host that some people want? Should we just vote for a year?
Or can we pretty much assume that between Friday at 4pm EST and Monday at 8pm EST that the "regulars" of the forum, those that post and read the most and kind of have the most to win-or-lose by whichever host is chosen, have made their views known, or if they haven't, it's because they don't care enough to make a post?
Can we just close this vote and appoint the host with the most votes?
rug
(82,333 posts)I can eat my dinner in a fancy restaurant
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have not heard from the hosts. I will pm renew deal.
Renew Deal
(85,151 posts)I want to sort through it. Thanks