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

[kristopher]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

muriel_volestrangler then posted this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skinner's reply:

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

My reply to Skinner:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here we are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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