Does the Group need/want a host?

[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...