Environment & Energy

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)

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

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:41 PM

Dec 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

164 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"How did we get a host?" a locked thread asks? Here is the answer. [View all] kristopher Dec 2011 OP

Here's the deal: XemaSab Dec 2011 #1

Please clarify a couple of your views; when asked earlier you sidstepped the questions. kristopher Dec 2011 #28

One clarification and one additional question kristopher Dec 2011 #36

. XemaSab Dec 2011 #39

Why wont you answer the question posed? kristopher Dec 2011 #45

Err, Because it was the most popular option? Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #46

That has nothing to do with the questions posed to xema. kristopher Dec 2011 #47

You misunderstand, Kris. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #48

Why are you acting as xema's proxy? kristopher Dec 2011 #49

If you want to start a thread to form a new SOP, go ahead. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #50

He says after 4 posts diverting from the topic - Questions for Xema - kristopher Dec 2011 #51

You're still not getting it, Kris Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #52

You too are a very strong advocate for nuclear power, right? kristopher Dec 2011 #107

I prefer hydro offset by wind. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #155

Only 25% of the Democratic party supports your position on nuclear. kristopher Dec 2011 #104

Why not wait for evidence of malfeasance? GliderGuider Dec 2011 #2

The deceptive method of becoming host was malfeasance. kristopher Dec 2011 #3

Sorry. Nope. FBaggins Dec 2011 #5

Why was an end run around the process attempted? kristopher Dec 2011 #6

Because you desperately wanted to be the host of course. FBaggins Dec 2011 #7

So she didn't tell Skinner there was an ongoing discussion because I too volunteered to be host? kristopher Dec 2011 #8

As I said... disingenuous at best. FBaggins Dec 2011 #11

I actually have no problem with two groups Nederland Dec 2011 #24

The invitation is still standing. kristopher Dec 2011 #25

I completely agree Nederland Dec 2011 #29

And the invitation still stands... kristopher Dec 2011 #31

Do you understand that this thread has nothing to do with the scientific value of Jacobson's paper? GliderGuider Dec 2011 #32

That post explains my behavior - and questions your own. kristopher Dec 2011 #33

You're really going to take that route? GliderGuider Dec 2011 #34

I shared what I had already written. kristopher Dec 2011 #35

I will decline the invitation Nederland Dec 2011 #40

Of course you will kristopher Dec 2011 #41

Do you have absolutely no sense of humor at all? (nt) Nederland Dec 2011 #43

medical experts say that not understanding sarcasm Confusious Dec 2011 #44

Advocate for nuclear power. kristopher Dec 2011 #114

Is that suppose to be a degrogatory comment? Confusious Dec 2011 #145

A climate "skeptic" and a proponent of nuclear power. kristopher Dec 2011 #108

Even worse, I'm a Unitarian too... (nt) Nederland Dec 2011 #157

Heathen! Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #158

The personal insults continue Nederland Dec 2011 #162

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #163

Unitarian, eh? Same background for me. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #161

You are a nuclear supporter, correct? kristopher Dec 2011 #105

Are you serious? FBaggins Dec 2011 #120

Damned right it's relevant. kristopher Dec 2011 #123

Nope. And I note that you're dodging the actual relevant question. FBaggins Dec 2011 #124

This message was self-deleted by its author Nederland Dec 2011 #156

I have to agree with your assessement... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #53

"Emotional maturity" FBaggins Dec 2011 #4

I was about ready to swallow that emotional maturity argument and then I saw JPak as a host. Massacure Dec 2011 #19

There's a difference. FBaggins Dec 2011 #20

Seconded. AtheistCrusader Dec 2011 #26

"Reformed" advocate for nuclear power kristopher Dec 2011 #112

In my defense - I usually respond to vicious over-the-top personal attacks with real laughter jpak Dec 2011 #30

Advocate for nuclear power. kristopher Dec 2011 #115

Someone who imagines that that's relevant. FBaggins Dec 2011 #121

Good point Yo_Mama Dec 2011 #9

Advocate for nuclear power. kristopher Dec 2011 #113

There's already been several examples of malfeasance and abuse. bananas Dec 2011 #16

"We were reaching a consensus of no host" joshcryer Dec 2011 #17

Your bar for "malfeasance and abuse" appears incredibly low FBaggins Dec 2011 #18

Well, this is why I was a "no host" person all along caraher Dec 2011 #22

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #116

Yep. SpoonFed Dec 2011 #54

Two? Out of six. Confusious Dec 2011 #58

Where? Nihil Dec 2011 #60

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #110

That is a lie. Nihil Dec 2011 #125

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #109

kristopher, your behaviour in this thread is outrageous and disruptive. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #148

He's trying hard to get the thread locked and (he hopes) himself blocked as disruptive. FBaggins Dec 2011 #153

I admit, I was surprised at first to find we had a host OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #10

I figured that you would feel that way. FBaggins Dec 2011 #12

I’ll take it as a compliment (thanks) OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #13

I'm pleased with our Hosts. joshcryer Dec 2011 #14

So long as we burn fossil fuels E&E will be inseparable... hunter Dec 2011 #23

Yet another nuclear power advocate. kristopher Dec 2011 #111

My input as a member host on my assignment - pinto Dec 2011 #15

Some reading for those interested kristopher Dec 2011 #21

The hypocrisy is rancid Confusious Dec 2011 #27

I think it's clear that your ongoing vitriolic attacts against kristopher... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #55

Really, which would those be? Confusious Dec 2011 #57

I knew from the beginning E/E would face the most contentious discussion re hosts ... eppur_se_muova Dec 2011 #37

The chances of reaching absolute consensus across E/E... Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #38

Advocate for nuclear power. kristopher Dec 2011 #117

A noun phrase, not a statement about anything. eppur_se_muova Dec 2011 #143

Hosts and 2 groups bloom Dec 2011 #42

Thanks for your post... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #56

A nod to you and Bloom upthread Kolesar Dec 2011 #62

Alerted for continuation personal attacks from other threads as well as ... Nihil Dec 2011 #59

This "host selection" has been exactly contrary to the stated process in the DU3-Announcements-forum Kolesar Dec 2011 #61

Protip: don't believe everything you read on the internet XemaSab Dec 2011 #63

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #65

"The pronuclear temporary hosts that are on the list don't have my approval" makes that pretty clear FBaggins Dec 2011 #66

Sorry if my response to you came off as rude, that wasn't my intent XemaSab Dec 2011 #68

Welcome to DU3. There are still some things to catch up on. FBaggins Dec 2011 #64

I didn't know there are no moderators Kolesar Dec 2011 #67

Lack of "taste" can be dealt with through the jury system. FBaggins Dec 2011 #69

Tastefull and fair are not interlinked Confusious Dec 2011 #70

The OP is an accurate summary of what led to this. kristopher Dec 2011 #71

You need to go find yourself a hobby or something. Systematic Chaos Dec 2011 #72

I cannot express properly in words how disappointed I am... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #73

Lol! You must live in some sort of bizarro world. FBaggins Dec 2011 #74

Thanks for posting a good example of... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #76

You are entitled to an opinion. FBaggins Dec 2011 #78

Your entire premise is false, no one is suppressing anyone. joshcryer Dec 2011 #75

Straw man arguments in the past couple of replies... SpoonFed Dec 2011 #77

You seem to be confused about how DU3 works Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #82

"This one has been cleared by Skinner as a re-visit of "Do we need hosts?" = BS kristopher Dec 2011 #85

That was my reading of it Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #89

A self serving reading that is obviously not supported by the OP kristopher Dec 2011 #91

The option for user-created groups should be along shortly, if that helps. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #94

Sorry... no. It has been your reading that has been self-serving. FBaggins Dec 2011 #100

I think it is blatantly obvious to every reader of this thread exactly who is being "self serving". Nihil Dec 2011 #101

Yes it is "blindingly obvious". kristopher Dec 2011 #102

If you are going to use quotes, at least get the words right ... Nihil Dec 2011 #119

In other words you do not have a reason to oppose splitting EE into two groups. kristopher Dec 2011 #127

Nope. FBaggins Dec 2011 #128

Not at all. I want the science to lead the discussion kristopher Dec 2011 #133

And you insist that your interpretation of what "the science" says is the correct one. FBaggins Dec 2011 #136

Most of it isn't subject to "interpretation". kristopher Dec 2011 #138

Sorry. You're dead wrong. FBaggins Dec 2011 #139

You mean the IPCC, the IEEE journal, DOE etc. kristopher Dec 2011 #142

Nope... and it isn't a red herring. FBaggins Dec 2011 #151

Much as you might want it to be otherwise, you are still wrong. Nihil Dec 2011 #131

. kristopher Dec 2011 #135

Ah ... Nihil Dec 2011 #140

You said "the guy has a right to exist." Who is denying him that even with his disruptive behavior? joshcryer Dec 2011 #98

Advocate for nuclear power. kristopher Dec 2011 #118

Yes, well put. SpoonFed Dec 2011 #79

Please XemaSab Dec 2011 #80

Why didn't you tell skinner the discussion was ongoing? kristopher Dec 2011 #81

Personally, I thought it was wrapped up Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #83

What you thought has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked of Xemasab. kristopher Dec 2011 #86

I'm speaking for *my*self, kris Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #87

But I wasn't speaking TO you was I. I asked HER to explain HER act. kristopher Dec 2011 #88

Oh, I'm sorry. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #90

It wasn't a private message, it was a question specifically to Xemasab. kristopher Dec 2011 #92

If it wasn't private then anyone that wishes may reply to it. n/t GliderGuider Dec 2011 #95

What do you think this is, some sort of internet forum? Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #97

Once more: Why didn't you tell skinner the discussion was ongoing? kristopher Dec 2011 #93

OK Xema. kristopher Dec 2011 #96

You obviously think that a discussion is "ongoing" until you get what you want. FBaggins Dec 2011 #99

And you obviously think that stealing the postion of host is a legitimate act. kristopher Dec 2011 #103

Lol that you continue to claim that anything was "stolen" FBaggins Dec 2011 #106

Then why didn't she accurately relate the state of the discussion here? kristopher Dec 2011 #122

She did. FBaggins Dec 2011 #126

You have to be kidding. kristopher Dec 2011 #129

Nope. You've again confused "consensus" with "unanimity". FBaggins Dec 2011 #132

Really, OUR behavior Confusious Dec 2011 #147

You got that there are no moderators now, yes? Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #84

Groups can have from 0 to 20 hosts. I have a simple solution to resolve this thread. freshwest Dec 2011 #130

We already have anti-nuke hosts. Good ones. FBaggins Dec 2011 #134

Please link that statement, I've never seen it. freshwest Dec 2011 #144

Sure. FBaggins Dec 2011 #149

You're reading way too much into that. He's a nerd, thinks, talks like one. freshwest Dec 2011 #154

Please take a moment to read these two posts kristopher Dec 2011 #137

Reasonable suggestion. Nihil Dec 2011 #141

So if someone complains enough, we should give in Confusious Dec 2011 #146

OK, are we done with this puerile foolishness now? n/t GliderGuider Dec 2011 #150

Did kris get exactly what he wanted? FBaggins Dec 2011 #152

Maybe he can captain the pseudoscience forum. miyazaki Dec 2011 #159

Well, I'm going to alert on this thread. It's not about E & E, really. freshwest Dec 2011 #160

I'm locking this for now. pinto Dec 2011 #164