Host Poll

[Renew Deal]

This discussion thread was locked by Renew Deal (a host of the Religion group).

This is the poll that was requested...

This is to either replace the "believer" position (pick someone or another action).

18 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Poll closed
	Texas Towlie
	5 (28%)
	AtheistCrusader
	2 (11%)
	No One (leave the hosts as they are with no replacement)
	2 (11%)
	No One and remove all hosts but renew deal
	9 (50%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I pass because I don't really understand the purpose of hosts. nt

[cleanhippie]

2. No one does, which is why all but Renew Deal should be removed.

[rug]

35. That's illogical. If no one understands, there would be no host.

[Dorian Gray]

221. I've probably MILDLY disagreed with this sentiment

the last few times this issue has come up, but totally agree now. I don't think there is a need for hosts.

[Renew Deal]

4. Depends on the group.

Here the role is to lock off topic threads which almost never happens.

In other groups like the Obama group, it is a fan club (I am a fan and I mean that positively). If you are less than a fan they will block you. In I/P they have "guidelines" on how and what can be posted. Generally people don't have run-ins with the hosts.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. Hmm.

If I ever posted in the O group (or the Clinton one) I would have done so in what I considered to be a neutral comment, so I suppose I'm lucky I didn't get removed for not being fannish enough.

[okasha]

185. Has anyone asked you if you want to be solely responsible

for hosting?

Just personally, I think it's terribly unfair to dump the job on anyone 24/7/365.

[Dorian Gray]

222. Honestly

when does an issue come up? The one time every other month, will it kill us to have a post unocked for a few hours before the host gets to it?

[okasha]

224. As I recall, the last time a thread went totally out of control

it took the lead host way too long to lock it. It was the nominatation thread for Pinto, that ended with RD appointing him as Host in spite of the very same types of posts we see in this thread.

[Dorian Gray]

234. That may be true

but this is a discussion thread about the topic.

Well, I voted for keeping just RD. I'm a Roman Catholic theist. I don't see why people are digging in their heels at all here. Follow the votes.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. I think a run off until there is a majority opinion would be a good idea.

[hrmjustin]

5. I support TexasTowlie! I think he would make a fine host.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. He/she is great in the Texas group

[font face=papyrus size=3 color=teal] I just don't see the need for more than 1 host here. Having to wait for consensus from 5 hosts makes the system horribly slow especially if all the host do is lock OT threads.

The only benefit I see to the current system is it prevents bias and even then it comes down to RD if there is a believer/nonbeliever split.

I don't even know what side RD is on but I have not seen him show any bias which is a good thing. I have been told he is the ultimate in impartial judges, to which I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

It also seems to me that this would be a way to avoid contentious host votes in the future.

Just my $0.02[\b][\font]

[hrmjustin]

13. I understand your view point but i never really found ut a problem to wait

for consensus.

[LostOne4Ever]

15. 4 sure

[font face=papyrus size=3 color=teal]I get that. Just thought if we all put our opinions out there it might help someone reach an informed decision.

Why do you feel that staying with the current system is best? Is there a particular reason you don't want just RD? What do you see as the pros & cons?

Let's get all of our thinking out in the open to make the best decision possible.[/font]

[hrmjustin]

18. I think 5 people for such a contentious group is needed.

Different views are needed imo. More opinions make mistakes less likely.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Aside from the recent host malfunction when was the last time a post was locked here?

When was the last time somebody was blocked?

Those are rhetorical questions. The answers are "who the fuck knows, it hardly ever happens", and "never". OPs are either in the SOP or they aren't. We've never had reason to block anyone. That is all hosts are concerned about and really there is no need for a host at all, the admins could readily deal with both non-existent problems.

As we have seen, having "host powers" results in the occasional host malfunction. That is an easy problem to fix: less hosts = fewer host malfunctions.

[Dorian Gray]

223. I think

this is a good argument and I've come around on it. I agree with this, and hope those who are opposed to no hosts (or only Renew Deal) will consider it.

[okasha]

184. I think "preventing bias" is a good thing.

I think you probably agree with that.

So why not have a panel of hosts to do that instead of shifting the whole load to just one person?

[cbayer]

188. This really doesn't have anything to do with hosting at this point.

It has to do with winning.

People are voting who don't even participate here. And one of the most partisan people in the group is running for the position.

It's a schoolyard game, nothing more.

My idea is to let them have it. I trust Renew Deal. If it doesn't work out for him, he can come back and ask for it to be changed.

[Goblinmonger]

194. That's why posting this in Interfaith is just as bad.

It gets people that don't participate here voting. Which is why you don't see a post by a host of A/A posting it there.

And before you even say it, you might want this and/or perhaps lay off this

[cbayer]

198. No it doesn't do that at all.

You are in a terrible bind, aren't you? You can't really be nice to me. The risk is way, way too high.

I don't envy you, but I am done with you.

I think your group should get their way. I'd prefer a compromise, but that is not possible in the current environment.

You have done absolutely nothing to resolve this….. but you really can't, can you? It just wouldn't be tolerated.

You can take your smilies and their implications and go on a long walk. I think your students would probably act more maturely.

[Goblinmonger]

201. As I've discussed, I have compromised

I would prefer, like Skinner, no hosts. I voted for one host. That is a compromise of my position. Just because it wasn't enough of a compromise for you doesn't change what it actually is.

I could do whatever I want and I'm sure that the friends I have here would not have a problem with it. We would likely discuss it and they might disagree with me, but they wouldn't stop being my friends here. I think it is kind of scary what that says about you and your friends, frankly.

[Goblinmonger]

209. And, btw, "let them have it"?

When the vote is pretty clearly that is what is desired, that's very magnanimous of you.

[cbayer]

6. I have a question for you.

Are you willing to be the sole host? I am assuming that you are or you wouldn't have offered it as an option.

[cbayer]

7. Sorry, just saw your reply in the other thread.

So, I have another question. Rarely, but on occasion, the hosts have discussed blocking individuals from the group. What is your position on doing that?

[Renew Deal]

133. We stopped that practice when the 5 post suspensions started

The hosts felt like that solved our problem. If they're OK for DU according to the admins and MIRT, then we won't question.

[cbayer]

136. Did you make a decision that blocking was off the table?

[Renew Deal]

138. At the time yes.

I don't see any reason to second guess it. If someone is that bad, the admins will get them.

[cbayer]

140. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I have no data to show it would be otherwise.

[Goblinmonger]

155. How did we ever survive?

So it seems you are the one who wants to change from the status quo.

[cbayer]

158. How did we ever survive what?

I don't want to change the status quo unless there is a good reason to do so.

If the hosts have agreed to handle things a certain way, I'm fine with that. They also have the option of doing it differently and have not locked themselves in.

See, here is the bottom line. I trust them to be fair. People arguing that they should be dropped apparently don't.

Ask yourself what the real agenda here is, why don't you. Without any evidence of prejudicial or biased behavior, why would a small but vocal group of people want to change things.

Be honest.

One last point. The fact that there is not a lot of need for host intervention may actually speak to the fact that the current system works pretty well. Go back and read Lord of the Flies. At least there is a small group that I truly believe are working for the common good. What might happen if they weren't around at all?

[Goblinmonger]

160. You said you don't want to live in a system where hosts don't block.

That's the system we have now. I told you before that is the system we have now, but you told me I was wrong. The status quo is that we have a system where hosts are not going to block members and leave that up to juries. You want that to be different. Apparently we should have "consensus" on that change.

The biggest problem with your interpretation is this:

Without any evidence of prejudicial or biased behavior,

Problem is, that isn't what happened. The last host to resign, pinto, resigns because he was trying to protect you. Or him. Either way, it was biased behavior. The host before that resigned because they tried to intimidate a non-believer into self-deleting a post that they didn't like. So there is evidence of prejudicial or biased behavior. Notice none of this has happened from a host toward a non-believer. So you have a flawed assumption to start your argument.

Lord of the Flies? Are you serious? Um, you really need to stop using literary allusions. Sweet Jesus. Is that what you got out of Lord of the Flies? So who's piggy in this group that the "small group" "working for the common good" is going to kill? On second thought, keep up with the literary allusions. It's good for a laugh.

[cbayer]

165. I was mistaken, but I still think they have the option and I would expect them to use it.

I don't know why you put scare quotes around consensus. It's a perfectly legitimate use of the word.

I would love to cast Lord of the Flies for you, but I am certain that the hosts would break their current protocol and block me from the group if I did.

The small group working for the common good was a reference to the current hosts. Sweet Jesus, you need to stop reading with your blinders on.

I'll stop using literary allusions….. never. I am here only to entertain you.

[Goblinmonger]

167. And in the Lord of the Flies there was a small group working for the common good.

That didn't turn out so well. That you are saying that the current hosts are that group seems to undercut your point.

ETA: Perhaps Lord of the Rings would be a better allusion.

[cbayer]

173. You continue to completely miss my point about the current hosts.

I think they prevent a Lord of the Flies. In this kind of environment, one can not underestimate the need for some kind of oversight.

I don't know, Mr. Monger. Maybe you've been teaching the story to children too long.

[Goblinmonger]

177. Or you don't get it.

The kids in Lord of the Flies mirrored what they learned from the adults. The ones that would have been overseeing the kids. The point of the novel was that generally we are bent toward being shitheads toward each other. The island was a microcosm of our own world and the things we do. Allegories tend to be that way. The British tend to understand totalitarianism a little better than we do over here in the states.

[cbayer]

178. And being shitheads towards each other is a particular problem in this group.

Taking away what little semblance of supervision there is is highly unlikely to make the problem better.

[Goblinmonger]

179. Well, again, I would argue that using LotF for that

means you don't get the novel. It's about problems that come from centralized power like that.

But what I do I know. I just teach the novel. You're probably right.

[cbayer]

181. Keep teaching the novel. I could not care less.

It's a story I read in high school. I have my own take away and like the analogy.

You have to keep teaching it year after year after year and have your own perspective. I am sure that you have more expertise on the novel, so you get a point!

But I'm sticking with my analogy.

[Warren Stupidity]

199. literature is like the bible, you can just toss out the bits you don't like,

make up your own interpretation of the rest, and nobody can say you're wrong. Not. Like. Any. Lit. Class. I. Ever. Took.

[Goblinmonger]

207. That's pretty much all we covered

in Analysis of Literature 1 and 2. Kind of silly to have two classes for it, actually.

[rug]

211. This is why a new host is needed.

He staggered to his feet, tensed for more terrors, and looked up at a huge peaked cap. It was a white-topped cap, and above the green shade of the peak was a crown, an anchor, gold foliage. He saw white drill, epaulettes, a revolver, a row of gilt buttons down the front of a uniform.

A naval officer stood on the sand, looking down at Ralph in wary astonishment. On the beach behind him was a cutter, her bows hauled up and held by two ratings. In the stern-sheets another rating held a
sub-machine gun.

The ululation faltered and died away.

The officer looked at Ralph doubtfully for a moment, then took his hand away from the butt of the revolver.

“Hullo.”

Squirming a little, conscious of his filthy appearance, Ralph answered shyly.

“Hullo.”

The officer nodded, as if a question had been answered.

“Are there any adults—any grown-ups with you?”

[Renew Deal]

132. I'll do whatever the group wants

I prefer to have the help, but I am confident I can handle it.

[cbayer]

135. I am confident that you could handle it as well.

You are very neutral and I think you are respected and trusted.

One of my concerns would be that you don't really participate in the group. If a situation came up in which there might be some historical information that would be helpful, how might you approach that?

It's not always a black and white issue.

[okasha]

189. One of my concerns

is that "believer" posters currently have no believer host that posts in the group. With all due respect to RD, having just one host with a limited presence is not a good idea.

[cbayer]

190. It doesn't make any difference.

This entire thing is a straw man.

Nothing at all will change. Not a single thing, except there will be less opportunity for feeding the rage machine.

Seriously.

If people are willing to go out and recruit non-participants to vote in this meaningless poll, it's all schoolyard stuff. If someone is willing to run as a joke, it's even more juvenile.

Consider letting it go, taking the high road and moving on.

[trotsky]

193. "If people are willing to go out and recruit non-participants to vote in this meaningless poll"

Do you have any evidence this is occurring, or are you just throwing it out there as a way to smear people who voted differently than you did?

[Goblinmonger]

195. Well there was that thread in Interfaith.

Probably not what she's talking about. Because sides.

[trotsky]

196. Oh right, it's OK when her team does it.

Because reasons.

[Goblinmonger]

197. And when specific people do it

Because integrity

[okasha]

208. Likely true.

But I want certain things on the record.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. I'll tell ya what....I'll be the sole host.

You'll all love me because I will be the Warren G. Harding of DU hosts.

I'll do little or nothing, except appoint my friends to high places and fleece the Religion group's savings accounts.

I just don't give enough of a shit about all these silly arguments (been through them all YEARS ago) to do anything, so as a Host I will be perfect.

Not to mention I am dashing, witty, fun at parties and I like dogs.

I'm also hung like a Shetland Pony, but that's for another thread.

[AtheistCrusader]

236. Hey hey hey now.

That was *MY* platform!

[A HERETIC I AM]

238. The operative word there is "was".

I swiped it.

That's just the kind of dirtbag, don't give a shitnick I am.

[NeoGreen]

244. So, in other words...

...you want to be considered for the part of Gollum, to AC's Frodo?



Are you willing to run around in a loin cloth for days on end?

[Goblinmonger]

250. You talk like he doesn't do that now. n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

255. DAMMIT, MONGER!

You probably have video too, don't ya?

God dammit all to Poughkeepsie.

My old loincloth ...er.....um.......disintegrated, so I am using an English bar towel that says "Woodpecker" on it.

[NeoGreen]

256. Well, as long as the towel doesn't read...

..."Meat Henge"*... then you are in the running for the part.



*obscure reference to Journey Quest

[hrmjustin]

9. Don't we need consensus to change the rules?

It seems most of the Atheists in prior host elections chose to get rid of all but one hosts, but most of the believers were against changing the rules.

Unless things change in this poll are we going to change the rules based on majority rules or consensus?

Are the other hosts willing to give up their positions?

[Goblinmonger]

10. If this poll says we should just have one or none

isn't that kind of consensus?

[hrmjustin]

12. No. Consensus to me would be both sides agreeing the rules need to be changed.

[Goblinmonger]

14. So it's never going to change, then?

Because I don't see both sides agreeing on this.

[cbayer]

19. This, imo, is a partisan battle in which two sides are likely to be highly invested

in the result, even though it really makes little to no difference.

The bat sign has obviously gone up and the votes shows exactly how partisan this is.

I don't really care. I like and trust Renew Deal and believe that he could handle this on his own just fine.

I have asked his opinion on blocking members, which has come up from time to time in the past, and am holding back until I get a response on that.

Can you answer the question that you put to Justin, btw? What do you see as the advantages of having one host and/or the disadvantages of having 5 hosts?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. "The bat sign has obviously gone up"

Just about every post of yours in this forum is you trying to pick a fight.

We recently saw the obvious disadvantage with multiple hosts: host malfunction.

[Goblinmonger]

25. In a non-safe haven group, there is no need to block users.

The jury system does that.

I think that was Warren that put that question to justin, but I'll give you my answer: Fewer hosts means less chance for the idiocy to happen here. And there is no need for hosts at all, but if RD is willing to do it, then the very few SOP problems won't go to admin to get solved. There is no need to block anyone.

[cbayer]

29. I disagree. Members have been blocked from this group previously.

Non-safe is not what this is. It is not considered a "safe haven" but it is not a "non-safe haven". If someone comes in and is repeatedly and flagrantly disruptive, they may need to be blocked. Once in awhile someone comes in and is so disruptive right off the bat that they may need to be blocked while the jury system or MIRT gets to them.

If the reason that we only want one host is because there will be a policy that no one will ever get blocked, then I can not support that. To be clear, I am adamantly opposed to any decision to never block anyone as a matter of policy. Unless I recall incorrectly, you strongly supported some blocks in this group, or do you only remember the blocks of your friends? What has caused your change of heart?

What idiocy are you talking about? I will absolutely not support a hostless group, but I could be persuaded to support a single host.

[Goblinmonger]

32. And I'm fine with one host where I would rather have none.

See...compromise. Even I'm not completely unreasonable.

Maybe I'm forgetting something, but when was the last time someone was blocked? Have there been people blocked before the 90-vacation policy? Have I lobbied for a block of someone since the 90-day vacation policy? I really don't think I have but I could be wrong.

I don't want one host just because I don't want blocks. It just seems unneeded and causes too many opportunities for partisan decisions. As we just saw. Any benefit from them can be taken care of through other means on DU.

[hrmjustin]

33. Scott was the last one blocked. for one month.

[Goblinmonger]

39. When was that?

Was that after the 90-vacation rule?

[hrmjustin]

47. No before. After the 90 day rule came in we decided to just let the software work its will.

He was banned in 2013.

[cbayer]

34. That's not a compromise at all, unless you are compromising with your

own group of buddies.

It has been a while since people were blocked, but it was definitely since the 90 day vacation policy.

I'm really not convinced at this point and may just vote for the status quo because I can. While I don't object to a single host, I see no compelling reason to change the system.

Pinto made an honest mistake which was corrected quickly. No harm, no foul.

I truly believe this is a partisan battle that is without significant meaning. It's just about winning.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Of course it's a compromise.

I and others don't think we need a host. You and other think we do. Let's just have one. How in the world is that not a compromise?

So you really don't have an example of when the last time was I was arguing for a block of a member, then. Justin says the last person blocked was Scott. So I guess neither of us has an idea of the last time I actually called for a block on a member.

[cbayer]

45. It's a compromise with those who want one host, not with those that want to

keep the status quo. A compromise would be, say, 3 hosts.

Here is team A: one host

Here is team B: five hosts

Here is an outlier called you who is actually closely affiliated with team A: 0 hosts

Your "compromise" is no such thing.

I will not support a system in which there will be no blocks by policy. If you do, I would only advise that you might want to be careful what you wish for.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Last block was in 2013 as per Justin above.

So, as I indicated, once the 90-day vacation policy went into place, blocks weren't really a thing anymore.

3 hosts would be a compromise, too.

Glad you have to work so hard to indicate that what I am saying is not a compromise. At least you are above all this "sides" stuff.

[cbayer]

55. I'm not sure, but I will concede that you are likely correct.

That doesn't mean that it could not occur and I will reiterate - I will not support any system that does not allow for blocks.

I'm not above all this sides stuff at all. Why in the world would I be? I mean, that would be really stupid, don't you think?

[Goblinmonger]

57. So we keep RD

I don't think we need any hosts since we've gone over a year without having to block, but fine, keep RD.

[cbayer]

60. You are so funny. You are again acting like you are making a big compromise.

I think I see this for exactly what it is and I'm voting for TT.

But, if you really want to compromise and have 3 hosts, I'll compromise too!

How's that work for you?

[Goblinmonger]

64. I'm already compromising.

I don't want a host. I voted for RD as a compromise. I don't have to compromise yet again to get you to compromise.

Vote how you want.

[cbayer]

65. I reject your "compromise" as a farce.

Vote how you want.

[Goblinmonger]

67. I reject your "compromise" as you on a power trip.

I voted long before you did.

[Goblinmonger]

71. Additionally, though you dismiss it as the bat signal

(Though, as an aside, I think it is awesome that you use a Batman reference to refer to atheists. So, following through on that, the atheists are the group in the middle of an overly corrupt system that is completely falling apart and riddled with deranged people controlling it. You may want to stop with the pop culture references since I don't think you really get them.)

You might want to actually consider the reality that perhaps your side so clearly benefits from the status quo and that is the reason you are so vehemently holding on to that system.

[cbayer]

73. I'm not referring to atheists at all, but you knew that.

And here you go with the insults, which is so predictable. Thanks, I will stick with the bat signal. It's so apt.

There is no benefit to anyone here. The hosts of this group are as fair as they can be. I respect each and every one of them and trust them to make the right decisions. That doesn't mean mistakes won't be made.

And I'm not vehemently holding on to anything. I told you that I would support a single host if offered a compelling reason to do so.

This is all about winning. There is really nothing else here.

So how do you feel about 3 hosts? Compromise enough for you?

[Goblinmonger]

75. So what did you mean with the bat signal going up?

The poll choice you referred to is primarily selected by atheists.

You are vehemently holding on to it. What is the reason we need 3 hosts as compared to one? The blocks that haven't happened in over a year?

No, 3 hosts isn't enough of a compromise. It just the same thing we have no with 2 fewer people.

And you do know that your buddy longship would be the one to go for non-believer hosts if we went down to 3, right?

[cbayer]

79. I love it when you are coy!

It's adorable.

The choice I refer to is primarily selected by atheists with specific beliefs. That's a phrase from one of the recent articles that I really like. That group shares some specific beliefs but in no way do they represent atheists here or in general. They (you) are a subset.

LOL, so your argument that an increase in number leads to an increase in the possibility of errors is completely bogus then, right? Because if that were your argument, then this would be a very acceptable compromise.

Let me say this one more time. I will not support anything that will prohibit future blocks. Full stop.

I have no stake in who stays or leaves. I like all of them and trust them to make the right decision in general and in this specific case. That you think I would change my mind because my "buddy" might be on the line is very telling and I suddenly have a much better insight into what this might be all about.

Thanks!

[rug]

96. Batman is also male, white and economically privileged.

[cbayer]

99. And he has a cave!

[rug]

104. But he has only one sidekick.

He has a loyal butler so there is that.

[Goblinmonger]

110. Well, that is just showing how little you know about Batman.

[rug]

112. Who did he have besides Robin?

It would be insulting to call Batgirl a sidekick.

[Goblinmonger]

118. I guess it depends on how you define sidekick.

I think Batgirl is bigger than you think. But, OK. Catwoman functions as a sidekick on many occasions. There have been several Robins. Nightwing was a number of character, though, certainly Grayson started it.

[rug]

121. What's the consensus definition?

I'll have to look into Nightwing.

[Goblinmonger]

125. Well played

If you haven't, read the current run of Batman. Snyder does a great job of writing and shakes a lot of things up.

Nightwing is kind of antagonist yet support. Kind of like they do with Catwoman (well, not exactly like that). It's cool.

[Prophet 451]

233. Depends which Batgirl

Cassandra Cain was very much a sidekick. There have also been four Robins (five if you count Carrie Kelly) and Huntress.

[Goblinmonger]

100. And yet he fights for the poor and downtrodden regardless of race or gender.

ETA: You probably don't want to go into Batman mythology with me; I'm going to guess I've read more.

[rug]

102. I'll give you comic books and you give me the New Testament.

How's that for a compromise?

[Goblinmonger]

105. I'll give you New Testament only on being currently involved with it.

But I am much more versed on New Testament than you are on DC Universe mythology would be my guess.

[rug]

108. Here's one: Without googling, what was The Atom's superpower?

[Goblinmonger]

113. That's a good question to decide understanding. Kudos

I think he had two, actually, but maybe they are related. He could change his size down to the atomic level (I think that's why Ray Parker (Palmer?) got the name). I also think he could manipulate his weight. But perhaps that is connected to his size manipulation.

[rug]

116. He is my all-time favorite superhero.

And operating at the subatomic level is my all-time favorite superpower.

[Goblinmonger]

120. He may make a comeback?

I am more of a Marvel guy, but Ant-Man is going to be in the next Avengers movie, so there's hope for the small.

[rug]

123. I hope.

I went through about 300 comic books at a garage sale before I found an old copy of The Atom to show my son.

[Prophet 451]

232. He's turned up on the small screen now

If you watch "Arrow", Ray Palmer has brought up what's left of Queen Consolidated and is working on the Atom suit.

[rug]

237. I'll have to look that up.

Thanks!

[Prophet 451]

408. NP, dude

Always nice to talk to a fellow fan.

[tradewinds]

351. What is the difference?

[rug]

355. The intelligence of the reader.

[tradewinds]

377. You're right.

One whom would read the comic books and forgo the other, would probably have far more intelligence. And , most likely a better grasp of reality.

Good job.

[rug]

395. But would not grasp the elements of grammar and spelling.

[tradewinds]

396. Of course, the truly intelligent of us know there is only so much value to

things such as grammar and spelling. How petty.

[rug]

397. The truly intelligent would know when to use the first person plural.

And when not to.

[cbayer]

109. But does he discriminate based on someone being a religious believer? Or a supporter of religion?

I guess some analogies can only go so far.

Then again it's a comic book fantasy where those who are being menaced by fictional bad people need to put out a sign that they need help.

I'm sticking with it.

[rug]

37. In Groups that are not safe havens, chronic disruption occurs.

This Group is no exception.. Chronic disruptors should be blocked. Juries do not address that at all.

[Goblinmonger]

42. So when is the last time that has happened?

How often does that become a problem?

And I'm fine going down to one host and let RD deal with the hypothetical instance of when that happens.

[rug]

44. The one to whom it last happened is currently vacationing on his transparency page.

Which underscores the "chronic" in chronic disruption.

There is nothing in the least hypothetical about it.

[Goblinmonger]

54. Last block was in 2013

It's ridiculous how often people have to be blocked in here. How did we possibly make it through 2014 without a block given the "chronic disruption"?

[rug]

59. There's ten days left.

For some these days are the most intolerable of the year.

[Goblinmonger]

63. And there are some people only a hide or two from a vacation.

So those that are the biggest disruptors (because, those that are the biggest problem probably have the most jury hides, right?) may get a vacation before the year is out. Problem solved. No need for a block.

[rug]

81. Oh there's a big difference between your weaselly worded alerts and what he does day in and day out.

[Goblinmonger]

84. I've alerted on only 1 of your hides.

The "bullshit" on. I wish I could take credit for all 4, but, alas, I can't.

Though, I like how you take no responsibility for your 4 hides. It's just the weasels alerting on you that got your 4. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[rug]

86. And how many of your alerts have failed?

Not to mention those of your compadres you refer to as "we".

You fool no one, gm, except an occasional juror.

[Goblinmonger]

88. You're right, rug, you have 4 hides not because of what you have done

but because WE tricked some jurors into thinking that you are something that you aren't. It isn't because of who you are. It isn't because of how you post. It's because jurors are stupid and can be tricked. For christ sake, rug, take SOME responsiblity.

[rug]

91. So, do you have the data on how many failed alerts were sent?

[Goblinmonger]

98. On you? None. I'm 1 for 1 with you.

Going back to June, I am also one-for-one on stone space, I'm .500 on el_bryanto (during the Interfaith kafluffle where even "fuck you you fucking fuck" couldn't get hidden. I have two alerts that didn't work. One on NYC_SKP and one on Leonitus.

That's my data set.

[rug]

106. Anectdotally, I've received jury results on eleven failed alerts to every hide.

But that is anecdotal.

[hrmjustin]

114. Yeah I got several alerts I was alerted on throughout this years as well.

Not so much the psst month.

[rug]

117. Wait, the election's not over yet.

[tradewinds]

264. Are you to be the arbiter of who is/is not a "chronic disruptor"?

That would not be good.

[hrmjustin]

266. That is the hosts job.

[rug]

276. Yes.

I'll be more than happy to point it out.

Are you going to be the supporter of chronic disruption?

[Goblinmonger]

163. So are you going to tut-tut Justin for sending up the bat signal

in Interfaith?

[cbayer]

168. I'm not aware of that having happened, but interfaith is an open group.

And the bat signal for your little tribe doesn't happen in an open group.

I do hope you are able to grasp the difference.

I know you really believe that the small group that frequents interfaith has some kind of system in place similar to your own, but they don't. They don't need it, they don't want it, and, frankly, they are not that…. well, I'll refrain from saying what I really think.

[Goblinmonger]

169. So, basically, it's OK when your friends do it. Got it.

There has been no "bat signal" for "our group" anywhere. I know you will scoff at that.

[cbayer]

171. I will absolutely scoff at that.

I said upfront that this was going to be a partisan battle where the main point was to win.

It should surprise no one that the two sides are rallying their troops. Justin just got to it a little later and he did it up front and with integrity.

May the best man win, but be cautious about who you let tend the fires.

I know, I know! I've made another threat.

[hrmjustin]

170. Can you explain what you mean here?

[Goblinmonger]

175. Cbayer said it was crappy because she thought atheists were rallying the troops.

I wondered if she would think the same thing was bad when you did it in Interfaith.

Personally, I have no problem with it. Just wondering if she was being partisan in her condemning of people. The answer is yes, btw.

[hrmjustin]

176. Oh ok.

Enjoy!


Warren took rug off ignore so the fun is starting now.

[rug]

215. I bet they need klieg lights for that.

[AtheistCrusader]

239. Like you didn't know.

Also, LOL, abusing your host powers here to attack Heddi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12645804#post8

Plug the poll one last time (bat signal) and lock your thread within 14 minutes of the first dissent, which is of course, not a violation of ANYTHING in your safe haven SOP.

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

Nothing in that post even TOUCHES on that SOP.

You suck as a host.

[hrmjustin]

241. Your opinion is noted.

Btw she was unbanned this morning and I never attacked her.

[AtheistCrusader]

242. "As a host your comment is under review. i will let you know."

You know, by the by. Just casually letting you know. Routine procedure, you see.

[hrmjustin]

243. That is not an attack.

[AtheistCrusader]

245. At the very least, it's a threat.

And not just to Heddi.

[hrmjustin]

247. Oh please! a threat? stop being dramatic.

She knew where she was posting and she knew what my reaction would be.

[AtheistCrusader]

249. Yes, because your use of host powers is eminently predictable.

Particularly when posting something that has ZERO to do with the SOP of the safe haven.

[hrmjustin]

251. Your opinion is noted. i disagree.

[AtheistCrusader]

253. It's cool.

Enjoy your echo chamber.

[hrmjustin]

254. I will.

[cbayer]

180. I said no such thing. Are you ever going to stop distorting what I say?

I didn't condemn it or say it was crappy.

I noted it. I made an observation. Here is my direct quote.

The bat sign has obviously gone up and the votes shows exactly how partisan this is.

Now go tell your buddies you got a "hypocrisy" point. They will believe you, I promise. i

BTW, I am indeed partisan. Most of the people who have voted with you here are on my "No Jury" list and a great number of them are on ignore. Is there some reason you think I should not be partisan? Do you honestly believe that I should be neutral under the circumstances?

[Goblinmonger]

182. Well, I got a hypocrisy point, but not for what you think.

You are the one saying that things shouldn't be so partisan here. But you don't ever see or acknowledge that you are one of the largest contributors to that attitude. As you state in your last paragraph.

And when we give out hypocrisy points, it isn't for low hanging fruit like the bat signal. That would be amateur level.

[cbayer]

183. I would love for things to be less partisan, but they are partisan and I am definitely

on the enemies list of your party.

You want me to make nice nice with your friends? Really?

I may contribute, but I am far from one of the biggest contributors to the problem here. In fact, by putting a whole slew of people on ignore, I stay out of the worst of it and you know that.

What would you have me do? Seriously? Do you seriously think the dynamic of this group would change for the better if I stopped participating?

I am not afraid of you and your points and I won't respond to the endless taunting. And that just makes some people insane. That's my major contribution to the madness.

[Goblinmonger]

206. I don't know. Honestly. I don't know what changes it.

I think if you actually called believers out for doing things that you call out atheists for, that would go a long way. I know you like to think that people complain about you for anything, but if you really stepped away from it, you would notice that most of it falls into the same category. That of hypocrisy.

I have no idea why you would think I want or expect you to be afraid of me.

As for you and I, there are less than a handful of posters here that I know I would never get along with and could spend zero time with. You aren't in that category. I don't think that you are someone that I would go out of my way to spend a lot of time with (and I would imagine vice versa) but more so because we are different personalities than any religious reasons. But I am quite sure that if we met in real life and didn't know who we were, we'd get along fine.

[cbayer]

301. So are you saying I deserve the treatment I receive here from some people?

Is what you see as my hypocrisy so heinous that I have earned that kind of treatment?

I have a pretty clear position and I stand my ground. I challenge people when they appear to be intolerant, prejudiced or hateful of others just because of their having religious beliefs or not having them. I object to or do not participate in the things I thing are put here for the sole purpose of poking a stick in the eyes of others.

This whole idea that I should call out believers for behavior that I don't think is problematic is fascinating. I am not a hypocrite and I am not malicious.

Let me know the next time you take any of your atheists with specific beliefs to task for, well, anything. You don't even enforce the rules that you yourself created.

People in glass houses, planks in your eye, those without sin and all that. You really have no right to sit in judgement of me.

[Goblinmonger]

306. You asked what I could do.

I gave you a very specific problem that people have.

When have I not enforced our new rules. Rug alerted on a thread involving something from Interfaith, I locked it about 13 minutes later, we talked about it as hosts and left it locked. I think A/A has been pretty true to the new rules since we posted them.

If you were serious about calling out people that appear intolerant and prejudiced and hateful, then you would have called out stone space (who has been given a vacation, btw) at some point along the way. There are others, too. You let that stand here and in Interfaith. So stop with your claimed desire to have peace. You want those you don't like to stop but those you like to continue unabated.

The way your desire for a host willing to block comes off, given the perception above, is that you want atheists permanently banned from Religion. Not any of your buddies that are equally as nasty. Yeah, I'm an ass sometimes. I get that. So is rug. And we go back and forth plenty. I'm fine with that. But when you single me out and not him (as an analogy for the experience here as a whole), it gets hard to take you seriously.

And the next time I call out one of my friends? Why? I don't call out anyone other than to deal with the way they treat me. I, unlike you, don't go out of my way to try and moderate the tone here.

[rug]

307. So now you're telling someone else I'm an ass?

This is twice within an hour you've tried to insult me to a third party.

What's your problem?

[Goblinmonger]

308. I said I was an ass, too!

We are asses to each other. Is that somehow wrong? I thought it was our thing.

[cbayer]

310. You didn't answer my question, but I didn't really expect you to.

I give up on you and I do not trust you in the least. Go sit in judgement of someone else.

[Goblinmonger]

311. "Go sit in judgement of someone else."

You do that all the time, you know. Just sayin'.

[Warren Stupidity]

280. "What would you have me do?" - well that is an interesting question.

1. Don't start off a dialog in a thread with which you disagree with "Created Flame Bait?" or something similar. If you disagree with a post, state your disagreement, don't attack the poster for posting it.

2. When a new non-believer shows up in religion please stop taking it upon yourself to admonish that new poster with odd warnings about bad things that may happen if the poster continues down the path of posting from a non-believer's perspective. Again, if you disagree with a post, state your disagreement, don't attack the poster for posting it.

I think if you followed this simple two step program there would be a dramatic reduction in tension here.

[hrmjustin]

20. Well i don't make that decision but yes I think we need agreement on both sides to change the

rules of this room.

[Goblinmonger]

26. I don't. Because that will never happen.

If more people want one thing, then we go with that. I thought we should have zero/one host last time we needed a replacement. I didn't have the majority position. So be it. I lived with it. Now that there is a position open again, I thought it was fair to revisit. If that position doesn't win again, then so be it. Why can't those that want 5 hosts take that same position?

[hrmjustin]

27. I am not going to start a revolt if my side loses.

[Goblinmonger]

28. I didn't think you would, my man.

I don't always agree with you, but you certainly come across as much more level headed than that.

[hrmjustin]

31. Lol i guess an elf and a dwarf can get along.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. "none of the above" is not changing the rules.

It is just not replacing a host. Nor is eliminating all the extra hosts changing the rules, it is just eliminating the extra hosts. The rules specific to this forum are:

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

The rules for hosts are the same for all forums:

Group Hosts have the following abilities in their assigned groups:
•Lock thread (Reason: Violates this forum's Statement of Purpose)
Locks a thread when the OP is not on-topic for the group. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP explaining why the thread was locked. The thread can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

•Lock thread (Reason not specified)
Locks a thread for an unspecified reason. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP, but no reason for the lock will be provided. The thread can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

•Pin & lock thread
Pins a thread to the top of the group and simultaneously locks it. An automatic notification will be dropped into the OP, but no reason for the lock will be provided. The thread can be unpinned by any Host, but can only be unlocked by the Host who locked it.

•Pin thread
Pins a thread to the top of the group, where it will remain until it is unpinned. The thread can be unpinned by any Host.

•Block a member from the group
Blocks a member from posting in the group. The member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can be unblocked by any Host.

•Make a member a Host of the group
Creates a new group Host. The selected member will be automatically notified by DU Mail. Members can only be removed as a Host by Hosts who are listed above them in the hierarchy.

•Remove a Host of the group
Removes a Host. Hosts can only remove Hosts who are listed below them in the hierarchy

None of those rules are changing or can change.

[Renew Deal]

21. Vote in the poll

[hrmjustin]

22. I did.

[cbayer]

30. When you get a chance, would you please answer my question above.

Thanks.

[Renew Deal]

40. Sorry. Which one?

[cbayer]

48. My question above about how you feel about dealing with blocking members

if you were the lone host.

[okasha]

205. Hmmm.

The rules are pretty clear that only a senior Host can remove junior Hosts. No provision for voting Hosts or Host positions off the island.

How does this poll fit into that context?

[Renew Deal]

403. Just seeking feedback at this point.

[rug]

36. No. DU consensus means no strong objection.

[Goblinmonger]

43. So where is it indicated that we need that definition of consensus to make a change?

[rug]

46. That is the definition of consensus. What you're now saying is change without consensus.

An internet poll, particularly an internet poll with a Pat Paulsen candidate, posted in a fractious group is clearly not consensus.

[cbayer]

49. That alone says legions about what this is all about.

[Goblinmonger]

56. Where in the rules does it say we need consensus to change hosting?

It isn't unnoticed that you ignored that question.

And the definition of consensus is "general agreement." Ridiculous definition of the word by some in the Host forum aside, I think we can come to general agreement.

[cbayer]

61. You think we can come to general agreement? What do you imagine that agreement to be?

[rug]

62. Where in the rules does it say it's done by polls?

What the rules say is that it is the hosts who make the rules. The expectation is that it will be done in accord with the consensus of the Group they're hosting.

So, let the hosts decide and if anyone doesn't like the decision we can have a two-day OP-posting tantrum like we just saw.

BTW, MIRT, which makes far more serious decisions than Hosts, uses the definition of consensus I posted.

[Goblinmonger]

66. Then that is a MIRT definition. Not how the word is actually defined.

Hosts get to decide what they want.

When we decided last time to not get rid of hosts, I don't believe those of us that supported it went on a tantrum. Though, as a side note, the person that was put into the position just resigned after doing a shitty job. So, take that for what it's worth.

[rug]

82. Oh no, the foot-stomping tantrum was just days ago.

And that definition is how consensus is used on DU.

[Goblinmonger]

85. There was no tantrum that I saw.

Clearly pinto agrees that what he did was wrong. So those pointing out that something was wrong before the person who did it admits it was wrong is a "tantrum"?

Or, do you agree with what pinto did? Maybe that's the point you are trying to make.

[rug]

87. Of course you didn't. It's what you consider discussion.

From what I know of pinto, he's a much kinder soul than you or I. He took that faux outrage seriously.

[Goblinmonger]

90. Oh come on.

IF Zombie had come in to a thread and did the same thing to protect on of US, you wouldn't have a problem with that. Yeah, just keep pissing in my ear and tell me it's raining.

So, you are just fine with pinto locking that thread? That's a simple yes or no, answer, rug. No need for anything else in the next response. Stop avoiding that question. Are you OK with pinto's lock of that thread?

[rug]

93. He didn't, now did he? He doesn't disrupt. Especially out of manufactured pique.

I gather you approve of that episode.

[Goblinmonger]

103. Do you approve of pinto's lock of that thread?

It's an easy question.

[rug]

111. No.

It was woefully late.

[Warren Stupidity]

142. you can't even bring yourself to answer a simple question unambiguously.

[rug]

151. Ambiguity is the stuff of life, Warren.

You wouldn't be getting personal now, would you?

[Goblinmonger]

157. Why should a host be able to overextend their powers?

That's ridiculous.

[Warren Stupidity]

143. carefully avoiding an explicit personal attack is important at this point.

[rug]

152. Ah, is that why you modified your alleged ignore list?

[pinto]

227. I'd like to ask that I not be used any further, specifically, in this manner. Please stop.

My statements on the issue were simple and as straightforward as possible. They are all somewhere in the various discussions. It's a done deal, imo.

If I am going to be tried and retried in the court of the group's opinion, so be it. Please don't hold other members to task, in any way shape or form.

[Goblinmonger]

235. Couple things.

This is a thread that exists because of what you did. You can trash the thread if you want.

Secondly, my discussion in this subthread with rug is about how this group should be moderated. It needed to be clear if he thinks that actions that caused this are ones that he thinks are good. Personally, I have no problems with you. This particular action was not good. I can hold both those opinions in my mind at the same time. Rug can, at the same time, really respect you and think what you did is not something a host should do.

But that he thinks you should have done what you did even early is far more telling about him than about you.

[rug]

286. Do tell, monger. What is telling about it?

I'll wait.

[Goblinmonger]

289. I'm sorry. I was talking to pinto there.

Remember when you told me that it isn't right to come in the middle of a conversation between two people? Your etiquette rules are only for others? You have no desire to follow them?

[rug]

293. I'm sorry. I thought you were talking to pinto about me there.

I must have been mistaken.

Nope, there it is. Rather rude, too.

Oh well, since we're both here: now, what was telling?

[Goblinmonger]

295. No more admonishments of people interrupting, then.

You seem to want an autocratic group (read: cbayer's Lord of the Flies reference) controlling this group. They should be able to do what they want even when it is not in their proscribed list of duties and abilities.

[rug]

299. There won't be any admonitions if there's no more trash talking of other DU members.

No matter how slyly worded.

As to your supposed point, the key word in your statement is "seem" (a safe word to couch your thought in).

Since that is not visibly near anything I posted, I'll leave that odd paraphrase with you to ponder.

[Goblinmonger]

302. What does your support of his action--

no, actually a wish he had done it sooner--an indication of then. What do you want hosts to do?

And your concern about trash talking of other DU members is HILARIOUS. Thanks for the laugh.

[rug]

303. Ah, you just can't help making personal attacks.

What is in fact hilarious is that it's predictable when your point is failing.

I doubt you're laughing.

[hrmjustin]

92. Yes there was a tantrum. one of our members decided he needed to do three threads over the issue.

[cbayer]

94. Really? I think that pretty much defines a tantrum.

[hrmjustin]

97. I cleared out my ignore list for the fun.

It was just too much fun over a lock.

[Warren Stupidity]

141. I have a thing about abuse of authority.

I suggest however that I did not have a tantrum, I conducted an effective campaign to reveal and undo a host malfunction. Each new op was a consequence of learning new information. The result of my so-called tantrum was, as we know, that Pinto admitted he had acted on his own, unlocked the op, and resigned. I'm sorry if the way it all played out spoiled your evening.

[hrmjustin]

145. Yesterday i got truly upset for the first time here ever. i needed to take a break.

It caused me to have an asthma attack and set me off bad. I would have stayed away for the day but news in NY brought me back.

You may piss me off plenty but you never spoil my day.

[rug]

153. The rules have a thing about abuse.

[Warren Stupidity]

192. Rules can't actually "have a thing" but please elaborate.

Which rules that relate to hosting this forum were abused, and by whom? Please feel free to give examples in that thread of this rule abuse you are alleging.

[rug]

200. They can and they do.

You can do better baiting than that.

[cbayer]

68. This is the bottom line. This poll is nothing more than advice.

The current group of hosts will have to make the decision. And I fully anticipate another major meltdown.

The Solomonic thing to do would be to compromise (and I don't mean that in some kind of farcical way) and have 3 hosts.

[hrmjustin]

70. Yes I expect a meltdown by a few but i think most will move on.

I trust the hosts to make this decision.

[Goblinmonger]

72. I'm really tired already of you calling my plan a farce.

I don't want a host. I am not alone. Go back to the thread last time and you will see that. I realize that many people here would have problems with that (notice I don't talk about meltdowns and tantrums--I just recognize that people won't like it and don't try to attach those feelings to childish reactions). As a result, I've voted for one host as a compromise.

That you continue to call it a farce is insulting.

[cbayer]

77. Aww…. is it ok if I tell you all the things I am really tired of?

It's the "compromise" that is a farce. As I pointed out, when you make a "compromise" that lands you right in the middle of your own camp, that is not a good faith compromise.

Don't be silly.

Now, if you took a position that was truly between the two camps, that would be a compromise. I don't have any reason on earth to anticipate that. It's way too risky.

But I would form an alliance with you to do so. You made the argument that the more hosts there are, the more opportunity there is for a bad decision. I don't agree with that, as I think the more people you have, the more likely you are to refrain from taking an action at all, as the likelihood of someone objecting increases.

However, I will compromise with you and go for 3 hosts. Deal?

[hrmjustin]

80. I don't believe this is a compromise either.

[Rainforestgoddess]

373. 2.5 hosts is the true compromise!

I demand bisection of one host. Perhaps they could draw straws? :-P

[cbayer]

374. Love it. We currently have 4, so we could keep RD and cut the other three into halfs and

take half of each of them and have 2.5

Utterly solomonic.

[Rainforestgoddess]

375. Glad I'm not a host!

For a few reasons.

[cbayer]

376. I'm glad neither of us are. I personally like being in one piece.

I did my time and it was a thankless job in which the usual shit was just piled on in spades. Not a good position at all for someone who is already a lightning rod.

I give great credit to anyone who is willing to do it and a great deal of understanding to those that resign.

Whatever happens here, it will work out just fine. The people there now are all good and very trustworthy.

[Heddi]

394. If you're happy you're not a host

then why were you on the GD host waitlist (until you were removed for having a post hidden)? If you are so glad not to do it, then why have you always been a host of at LEAST one group since the implementation of the host position when DU2 went to DU3??

[okasha]

210. Didn't see your post before posting #205.

I'm with you on this. If the rules are self-enforcing, by all means let's abide by them.

[hrmjustin]

50. Yes. i think to change the rules we shoukd have consensus.

[tradewinds]

269. Define "consensus"

[hrmjustin]

270. Very simple! In this room consensus is both the majority of believers and non-believers agreeing on

changes.

[tradewinds]

275. No, that is just majority rule.

Consensus is something different.



One could agree by "consensus" that majority rule should prevail, but majority rule is not consensus.

[hrmjustin]

278. The fact is the hosts have the final say what really happens here.

[tradewinds]

281. So, consensus is out of the question, then?

Beginning to see why a lot of posters do not want a "host".

[hrmjustin]

283. Hosting is not all that hard.

But they do make tge final decisions but they ask the membership what they want to get an idea what is the best course.

It is a democracy but the hosts have the final say.

What will happen here I don't know.

[tradewinds]

285. "its a democracy but the hosts have the final say"?????

That would be a benevolent dictatorship, at best, not a democracy.

[hrmjustin]

290. This is how the site is set up.

[tradewinds]

291. Not a democracy.

[hrmjustin]

292. Well it is in some respects but not in others.

[tradewinds]

294. So, then it is not.

[hrmjustin]

296. Well in this instance i think the hosts will go with a majority vote.

[tradewinds]

297. Magic 8 ball says: No.

[hrmjustin]

298. Why?

[okasha]

328. So complain to Skinner.

The same rules are in effect in all groups.

[cbayer]

305. This site never has been and has never intended to be a democracy.

It would actually be closer to a benevolent dictatorship, as you point out. Did you see something somewhere that led you to believe that it was supposed to be a democracy?

[tradewinds]

314. Only some "word salad " posts here.

Any reason lead you to believe I was talking to you?

[cbayer]

315. Uh, oh. Did you not know it is an open board and anyone can respond to anything?

Look up word salad and show me a post that exemplifies that, or just keep using terms incorrectly.

Up to you.

[tradewinds]

317. Sure. Respond away.

Did you know that not only can I pay no heed to your inane posts, I also do not have to like you. You seem to be very territorial with your posting. Something I see often among those who have no facts, or even so much as a coherent thought. But that is just an observation, I'm sure you in no way resemble that.

[hrmjustin]

318. Cbayer is one of our best posters in this room.

[cbayer]

320. This is not Mark Charles, by the way. Even Mark Charles does it better.

[hrmjustin]

321. Agreed that he is not Mark.

You know who I think Mark is and mirt knows as well.

[okasha]

335. No, it isn't.

But not every poster realizes that s/he is possessed of a thing called an "idiolect," which is distinctive.

[cbayer]

337. Idiolect - I like that!

I don't think I could create a believable sock or zombie if I wanted. I know my style is distinctive.

[tradewinds]

322. That would be your opinion.

My opinion differs. Posters sometimes lay claim to threads, then urinate on them at every turn as if to lay some sort of claim on such. The term "bullying" comes to mind when thinking about such posters. They seem top get some sort of rush by chasing off those who may wander into a thread.
My opinion is that these posters are folks with little or nothing else in their lives other than the tiny corner of the internet that they have chosen to stake out as their own. Somewhat pathetic, in my view.

[hrmjustin]

323. And you based this on being here for a few days and at one of this rooms low moments?

[tradewinds]

325. This is not the only rodeo.

But then, someone out of touch with the world outside of this message board would not realize that.

[hrmjustin]

326. Is that an insult at me?

[tradewinds]

330. Of course not. Why on earth would you think that?

I do not know you nearly well enough to insult you. Seems if you are feeling insulted, you should take a look at just what is making you feel that way. I have made no reference to you, only speaking hypothetically, based on my observations of territorial posters in general.

[hrmjustin]

332. Well in general I think people in this room have a wealth of experience in real life.

[tradewinds]

334. In general?

I tend to disagree. I stand by my "territorial posters" statements.



Sad, indeed.

[hrmjustin]

339. You haven't been here long enough to know that.

[tradewinds]

342. Like I said, this is not the only rodeo.

You are aware that there are a great many discussion sites on the internet, right?

This behavior is not unique to this site. Anecdotally, this site seem a bit more "territorial" than most.

[hrmjustin]

343. You picked the most contentious room to post in.

[tradewinds]

344. Discussions involving fantasy often are.

[hrmjustin]

345. Lol well we disagree on religion.

[tradewinds]

352. ..

[tradewinds]

268. Please define "strong objection"

Be concise, as we will need a benchmark.( Also does that very definition require" DU consensus" ?

[rug]

274. Google the site.

[tradewinds]

277. OK, but seems silly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+site&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[rug]

282. Maybe you should buy a star.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=search

[okasha]

340. And a clue.

[shenmue]

38. I like Texas Towelie

Because of the kitteh picture.

[hrmjustin]

74. Me too!

[okasha]

219. I'll vote for kittehs every time!

[trotsky]

51. I would like to know if there has ever been a situation where the current hosting arrangement...

worked better than if there had only been one host, or none.

The last two host "retirements" have been due to those hosts - both on the "believer sympathetic" side - abusing their power. So there are two examples of sticky situations that could have been avoided with just one host, or none.

Although given the irresponsible abuses of power have been on the "believer sympathetic" side, I can see why that side wants to keep the current hosting arrangement.

[hrmjustin]

52. Who abused there power?

[Warren Stupidity]

69. seriously? I don't think that is an honest response.

[rug]

95. I don't think this one is.

[Warren Stupidity]

144. ok - what was dishonest about my response?

[rug]

150. I must check a calendar. Lent seemed unusually long this time.

What was not honest about the post you answered?

I love the Christmas cheer this time of year brings out in people.

[Warren Stupidity]

172. So you have nothing. What a surprise.

If you make an assertion that somebody has posted something dishonest, and you are asked to back that up, at least have the integrity to do so.

[hrmjustin]

174. I see you took him off ignore.

[rug]

203. Not for the first time, I'm sure, lol.

[hrmjustin]

204. He missed you.

[rug]

202. Oh I have plenty, Warren

You just answered my question about the poster you called dishonest.

If you make an assertion that somebody has posted something dishonest, and you are asked to back that up, at least have the integrity to do so.

Yup. you had nothing.

[rug]

58. Selective reminiscences of the past are not confined to "Known and Unknown: A Memoir".

[Renew Deal]

404. The only solution I don't like is no hosts

And the group has constantly agreed. Skinner asked what the harm was if an off topic thread got posted. I think that's a legitimate point. My worry is that if it is left to the admins, the perception of action or inaction will be bad. They are of course very used to this kind of scrutiny. I think the hosts have helped in small ways. We have kept the group open. Most people have had friends they can reach out to. It has also spread out the scrutiny.

I don't think the number of hosts matters if people trust the group. The advantage of multiple people is multiple points of view and distribution of the scrutiny. Also the hosts as a group have been helpful at addressing difficult situations (the "on-topic" homophobic thread we locked comes to mind).

[pinto]

76. I voted.

[hrmjustin]

78. .

[rug]

101. I think AC will be a worthy successor.

We need someone with equanimity.

[AtheistCrusader]

387. I appreciate your vote of confidence.

I think it dovetails nicely with my campaign platform.

[trotsky]

83. Should current hosts be voting in this poll?

Given their vested interest in maintaining the status quo, that is.

Kudos to ZombieHorde and RenewDeal for remaining neutral.

[hrmjustin]

89. They hsve the right. They participate here.

[hrmjustin]

107. This should be called the free floating hostility thread in honor of George Carlin.

[Goblinmonger]

126. Or the Festivus Airing of Grievances.

[hrmjustin]

127. Even better. I am keeping my ignore list clear just for fun.

[Renew Deal]

405. lol

I wish I thought of that.

[LeftishBrit]

115. I suggest choosing a believer in a non-Christian religion...

Jewish; Hindu; Muslim; or anyone prepared to do it.

[cbayer]

122. I think that is a great idea.

I would like to see more participation from other religious groups here, and that might help do it.

[unrepentant progress]

226. Excellent suggestion

[Renew Deal]

406. We've never questioned

But that's a good suggestion.

[hrmjustin]

124. Who resigned over abuse of power?

[Lordquinton]

129. Well, Pinto, and I forget who he replaced

but it was over a similar kerfluffle. Trotsky says it was abusing the title to try and force people into compliance with what he wanted (or her, I don't remember) I self deleted because I read the poll a second time and didn't see replies until after I hit the button.

[hrmjustin]

131. Struggle4progress left because his work hours didn't let him post here as much as he used to.

I resigned because i was not suited for the position.

Just because he said it was abuse of power doesn't make it so and we want our believer positions intact thank you.

[Lordquinton]

186. No, I agree with him on that

as do many others. This poll is showing that the claim of a "Small group of disrupters" is actually coming from the a small group who caused this recent disruption. I feel that the believers have shown they can't be trusted with the power, and use it to intimidate nonbelievers that don't tow the line here.

[hrmjustin]

187. Lmfao!

[okasha]

213. Oh, yup.

It was a believer who posted multiple enraged threads.

Pinto made him do it.

Sure.

[Goblinmonger]

419. Are you fine with what pinto did?

And the "enraged" threads were dealing with different realities as they surfaced.

It was a believer host that fucked this whole thing up and caused this vote to have to happen. Unless you think he was justified.

[trotsky]

128. That is correct.

One for locking a thread to protect his personal friend, and one abusing his position as host to try and get someone to self-delete.

Interesting that atheists are blamed for disrupting this group, yet it's the believer-friendly hosts who have engaged in the most egregious host behavior.

[Lordquinton]

130. Atheists get the blame

while a small group does all the disrupting. (Self-deleted after re-reading the poll, and before i saw replies).

[hrmjustin]

139. Nobody here said it was only the atbeists here.

I admit i am not perfect.

[hrmjustin]

134. Ho resigned to get someone to try and self delete?

[A HERETIC I AM]

137. "I love it. God help me, I do love it so"

You people fucking kill me!

[rug]

154. !

[longship]

146. I voted.

However, I might suggest that this thread, and many recent others, may serve as exemplars of why we might need more hosting oversight, not less.

I will not comment further on it.

[hrmjustin]

147. Well said!

[trotsky]

148. Good, you shouldn't comment further.

As a current host, it is not surprising that you would vote to retain your power.

I am pleased other hosts have had the integrity to abstain from voting.

[hrmjustin]

149. He could comment all he wants.

[longship]

159. I rest my case. nt

[trotsky]

161. Excellent.

You have indeed demonstrated some of the problems with the status quo. I thank you for that.

[longship]

162. Oh dear. QED. nt

[trotsky]

164. So far, you've posted three more times (one self-deleted) after saying you had no further comment.

I suggest that as a current host, you stand down. Let this group's participants decide.

[hrmjustin]

166. I suggest you leave him alone. He doesn't answer to you.

[rug]

217. Stand down!

What is this, the Battle of the Jutland?

[Warren Stupidity]

191. The last time we had this discussion:

Skinner
My suggestion is that *all* the hosts resign.

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218122578#post208

[longship]

212. If I thought that this would help, I would support it.

But I am very concerned that the personal differences here strain things too much. There are far, far too many personal attacks by many, on all sides. Too many people apparently come here with personal grudges, and whose posts seem to only wish to nurse those.

I have zero personal animosity toward anybody here. However I may defend my position with passion, it is not without respect.

What I suggest is that we settle this damned thing peaceably, and be quick about it.

And then, let us all cool down and be friendly. Stop the personal attacks. Argue the topic, not the person.

That is the way we get to keep the Religion Group. It's not worthwhile the way it is now and I would not blame the Admins for trashing it at this time. That is why I did not want to kill the hosting here. This Group, above all needs some oversight. Apparently, DU rules do not allow hosts to have that power. So be it. That means we have to do it ourselves with the jury system.

What say you? (Not just Warren...)

I promise that I will do my best.

[Goblinmonger]

214. They are never going to trash this group.

If they did, all the religion posts would go into GD and they have made it very clear that they DO NOT want that to happen. Religion, Guns, Israel...those all have a group for posts that would FAR WORSE in GD. We're here to stay.

But I agree with you. Let's just get this done. It is clear that the majority of people posting here just want one host. So let's do it and move on.

[longship]

216. Well, you have a point there, re GD.

Last edited Mon Dec 22, 2014, 03:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I am still concerned about the believer contingent who post here. Even as a lifelong atheist, I don't think we need another atheist group. My interest here has always been religion, not necessarily atheism, although I defend that here, too. But I am very serious about stopping the personal attacks. They make this place suck.

I promise my help.

[LostOne4Ever]

228. I have no problem peacefully discussing this

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]So lets discuss it. To me, the question seems to be:

[center][font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]Does this forum really need 5 hosts?[/center][/font]

Lets start by establishing what it is that the host position does and does not do. It is my understanding that a hosts main purpose in this group is to lock OT (offtopic) threads. It requires a consensus of the hosts to lock the thread (or it is supposed to).

The host used to also block disruptive members, but after the 5 hides ban rule was adopted by DU it seems that the hosts of that time (iirc Renew Deal, Struggles4Progress, Zombiehorde, and hrmjustin) decided to leave it up to the system software.

So how does having 5 hosts help? The obvious answer is that it prevents bias. But, If that was the case why 5 hosts? We have 2 pro-religion hosts and 2 pro-sketpic hosts and 1 neutral host. If we had a contentious thread and the believer hosts wanted locked and the nonbeliever hosts opposed who does the decision come down to? The neutral host. Same thing happens if the situation is reversed.

Either way, you end up with RD deciding the issue. How is that different from him doing it by himself? If you are worried about bias then shouldn't there only be either 4 or 2 hosts and in any time there is a tie the motion is struck down? Either way, it seems both sides seem to think RD is pretty fair and impartial.

On top of this, I would think that having more hosts should be a benefit. But the way the system is set up, it seems like the opposite is in fact true. Off topic threads are left up as the host discuss things and only closed after a consensus is reached. This means that an OT thread can potentially be left open for hours after it has been noticed.

Under this system, the more hosts that are added, the slower and more inefficient the system becomes. The system is only as fast as the slowest host. Three hosts (as mentioned above) would be more efficient (assuming the slowest host was not left), and 1 host more so than that.

So it seems to me, that there are no real benefits to having 5 hosts, and in fact, that it only slows the moderation in this forum down. Up thread I see people saying this is about winning, but I don't see it that way at all. What does either side have to gain by going to one host? A faster and more efficient moderation of OT threads? What does either side have to lose? Contentious host battles?

To my knowledge this has been brought up two times before. The first time it was no hosts and was very unpopular. The second time it was more popular but still a minority position. Now, with the position changed to only renew deal, it seems to be the majority position for once. Seems like the majority of the group now thinks that the current arrangement needs amending.

At the very least couldn't we try it on a probationary period? Like 90 days or something? See how things are working and how the participants of this forum feel at that time? If they don't like it, we could return to the current system and fill in pinto's spot at that time.

But like I told Justin, that is just my $0.02.

What pros and cons do you see to each position? What does having 5 hosts add to this forum in your opinion? What are the cons to only having RD? [/font]

[okasha]

229. LGBT, which is a paragon of decorum compared to Religion,

has 16 hosts. It seems to function in a timely fashion.

Even Pets has two hosts, and it's 99.999% controversy-free. (I qualify that number because I may somehow have missed a Hamster-Gerbil war.)

[LostOne4Ever]

231. Both of those groups have significant differences from Religion though

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]LGBT is a safehaven, and actually blocks people. Further, based on the blocks I have seen, they don't require host consensus.

The way it is set up, LGBT actually gets a benefit from multiple hosts.

I have never been to pets, but the subject material sounds a lot less contentious. Except for that Hamster-Gerbil war thingy. Of course that whole debate is silly. Guinea pigs are better than both. Though I personally have a soft spot for dwarf rabbits:[/font]
[center]

[/center]

[okasha]

348. I'll go with the bunnies.

They look sweet, but that's deceptive.

One attacked my Samoyed once. Terrified him.

[longship]

230. Thank you for your input.

I will support the consensus, however it comes out, which at this time looks like one host.

[rug]

218. "Let's cut the meta and get back to discussing religion."

[hrmjustin]

220. Imagine that!

[hrmjustin]

225. Words were exchanged!

[NeoGreen]

240. Would it be possible...

...to revise this poll to add the option for the group to have no hosts at all?

I think that option is relevant and missing.

(Just askin', not demandin')

Thanks
NG

[cbayer]

246. I would also like to see an option for 3 hosts.

Those making the case for one host are saying that the risk of error or abuse increases with the number of hosts involved.

While I disagree and think the opposite actually happens, I think a possible solution is to reduce the number to 3 and see if it changes anything at all.

In addition, that would be a true compromise. The partisan lines here can not be clearer and I think a solution that grants neither their wish but provides a compromise could be a reasonable position.

OTOH, I think it truly makes zero difference and all that matters for many is that they get the win. In light of that, I am willing to support a single host - Renew Deal, and that is consistent with the majority vote.

[AtheistCrusader]

252. How is 'let juries handle it' partisan?

We can see how the votes are rolling in a biased manner, but how is the outcome somehow beneficial to 'us'? It would be nice if someone could spell that out.

[Goblinmonger]

257. Do you have an indication that those voting for just RD

would now vote for 3 hosts?

And do you not see the irony of "all that matters for many is that they get the win" when you are still pushing your option. Not that I have a problem with it. You are certainly allowed to do that. But you are doing that which you condemn.

[cbayer]

259. Heavens no. You think that coalition is going to break ranks in order to reach a compromise.

Never. They would rather fight than quit (Tareyton was my first brand of cigarettes).

OTOH, that individual who had one post 2 years ago to a Mark Charles thread but suddenly rose from the dead to vote might. Reminds me of the Daley years in Chicago.

Can you not see my vote for some reason? The option I am pushing is not mine, it is a suggested compromise. A true compromise, not a farcical one.

Face it, you have a problem with anything I do. You have to. It's your script.

Stop with the accusations of condemnation please. I don't condemn. I might challenge and I might disagree, but your repeated use of the word condemn is only done to make what I do look like something horrible.

Frankly, I'm really not very interested in getting into with you today. Your position is clear. You will not break from the ranks and that will surprise absolutely no one.

[Goblinmonger]

260. The option I really want isn't even up there, either.

Yet, I, too, voted. Others have indicated a desire for my favored option of no hosts, as well. But it's still not up there and that's fine. I get that a lot of people are hesitant to go hostless at this point. That's what I've taken a compromise position and voted for 1 host. I'm not going to keep bringing up my favored option. I know you say my compromise is a farce but I'm going from no hosts to actually having hosts. That a pretty big jump. You still get to keep the hosts you think this community needs. One might argue that my compromise is the bigger jump.

Are we going through each person who voted and deciding if their vote is worthy? Is it not OK for people that may read Religion a lot but not post to vote? The Interfaith troops were rallied and the vote is still clear. Perhaps its not a position that over 30 people feel pressured into supporting but perhaps over 30 people feel it is the best option. Deal with it.

[cbayer]

265. So, it the poll is changed to show "no hosts" as an option, are you going to change your vote?

I doubt it. Splitting the coalition vote would not be in your best interest.

Yes, you are the great compromiser, as long as that "compromise" doesn't upset TPTB.

Not going through each vote at all. Just looked at this person I have never ever heard of in all my years here and thought it was remarkable that he had risen from the dead to vote.

Don't tell me to Deal With It. It's unnecessarily hostile. I recognize what is going on here and encouraged others to go with it. You can't even give me credit for that.

I trust Renew Deal and at this point would rather he be the only host. It's one less thing for you to whine about.

Oh, no. Check that. You can still personally whine that you really wanted no hosts.

[Goblinmonger]

272. Wait a minute. I thought I was TPTB.

God damned atheists. Always changing who's in power and never letting people know. You're a pope of the atheists one minute and the next minute you're just a plebe.

I recognize what is going on here and encouraged others to go with it. You can't even give me credit for that.

Again, how magnanimous of you to realize that the vote is very clear one way and to then tell those that don't agree with the vast majority to go with it. You are the Ghandi of your generation.

I haven't said a word about wanting no hosts since the last one resigned and this latest one fucked up. I haven't whined about it at all. Seemed like this was the time to bring it up again. And, as it was last time, it wasn't overly popular (though more popular this time) so I went with the options that presented. I have no desire to talk about no hosts until RD brings it up if he even does. I don't want there to be a no host option at this point because I think far too many people don't want that to happen. I'm happy compromising my position to go a different route more acceptable to most people here. I really am trying to be reasonable, your attempts to paint me as a lunatic aside.

[cbayer]

284. Oh, no, you are clearly not TPTB.

See, you have to put me down for encouraging people to recognize what is happening and basically concede. You have to make that an opportunity to strike at me. What is your problem?

And stop bullying pinto. He's a good guy. He's better than either one of us could even hope to be. He made a mistake, he corrected it, he apologized and he stepped aside. Let me know if you ever, ever do anything remotely similar.

Yes, you are the great compromiser, the Henry Clay of our time. You are so comfortable with your compromise that you won't even consider your actual position. Lunatic is not at all what I think of you.

[AtheistCrusader]

262. Oooh, 3+RD instead of 4+RD, what a fucking compromise.

You are a fount of generosity.

That's like, literally not even meeting halfway.



Meh.

[okasha]

357. 2+RD=3.

Simple arithmetic.

[AtheistCrusader]

358. Still not half of the former 5. (Counting RD)

So yea, 'simple'. Apparently.

[okasha]

364. Whom do you propose to split down the middle, Solly?

You do realize why an odd number is necessary?

[AtheistCrusader]

367. The hosts aren't necessary.

So no I don't 'realize why an odd number is necessary'. The correct answer can only be: "It isn't."

[okasha]

369. Same reason SCOTUS has 9.

Not that hard.

[AtheistCrusader]

370. Try looking up the history of the court.

It's had 6 and 10, at times.

"Not that hard"

[okasha]

371. And an odd number was eventually settled on.

Indeed, not that hard.

[AtheistCrusader]

372. settles on FOR NOW.

Congress can change that at any time.

And your analogy doesn't hold, again, as the hosts here are unnecessary.

[Warren Stupidity]

263. "I don't condemn" - well sure you did and do.

You started out with your "bat sign" post, irate that BAD AHTEISTS were voting the way the were and interpreting it as some sort of conspiracy (and it is the bat signal not the bat sign and the atheist vote is actually split across all four options). Now you are pretending that your weren't doing that. That's a dishonest argument by you. Why you bother when anyone who cares can just read your posts escapes me, but whatever.

The vote is overwhelmingly in favor of one host.

[Goblinmonger]

267. And of those voting for Texas

One has posted in Religion once in July of 2013 and another has a total of 5 posts in Religion on DU3.

So what's your point?

[cbayer]

273. I want you to consider something here.

There is a definite partisan split going on here.

What the poll has shown is that the members of one party very significantly outnumber the members of the other party.

It may be that those that want to support the status quo are doing so because they feel it protects them. Again, they are outnumbered, not only in numbers but in organization and forcefulness.

It may also be that those that want to change it to provide less general oversight and less diversity of opinion want to remove what protection there may be for the other party. Some may see an opportunity to conquer.

There is an opportunity here to understand the dynamic of what is going on and possibly reach a true compromise between the two groups.

It would require leadership on both sides and a willingness to say that nobody gets exactly what they wanted, but everybody wins.

It could be a brave new day.

[AtheistCrusader]

279. What a crock of shit.

[Warren Stupidity]

287. What exactly are they being protected from?

Since we went to 5-hide vacations, the only lock here was pinto's malfunction, and he was one of "their" hosts. Nobody has been banned. The auxiliary host's only role in evidence at this point is to fuck up, and renew deal's only role is to clean up after the latest fuck up.

This is just sour grapes about losing the poll so badly. CBayer should take her own advice from the interfaith "call to arms" thread that Justin self-locked: admit defeat and embrace the new order.

[LostOne4Ever]

300. There have been a couple

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Here is one where a host actually posted in said thread about an hour within it being made and it went on 8 more hours before being locked.[/font]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218128992

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]This one took 7 hours to lock:[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218133751

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]This is another thread in which a host noticed an OT thread and it went on long afterward till the OP selfdeleted rather than getting locked. It lasted 11 hours.[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218129510

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]There are not many, but the ones I have seen all left me less than supportive of the current system. The way they have it set up the moderation is only as fast as the slowest host. Meaning the more hosts the slower and more inefficient the system is.

The latest incident just makes me even less supportive of multiple hosts here.[/font]

[Warren Stupidity]

329. Ok I take it back, every now and then an actual off topic post goes up.

This enormous workload could easily be handled by zero hosts - see skinners comments on why that is the best choice.

[AtheistCrusader]

309. I think they *want* hosts to wield the banhammer.

One can guess why.

[LostOne4Ever]

312. To ban those who follow the SoP?

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] Or at least threaten them with it?

Naw. No one would do that...[/font]

[hrmjustin]

313. Not me. This is not a safe-haven and at this point I expect what I see in this room.

This is why I no longer post ops in this room.

[Warren Stupidity]

331. So what do you think you need a committee of hosts for?

[hrmjustin]

333. With more hosts you get different perspectives.

[AtheistCrusader]

360. "Different"

[hrmjustin]

363. Yes.

[Goblinmonger]

316. Because I'm a Thor geek, I get to post this

[LostOne4Ever]

319. ...

v

[Rainforestgoddess]

381. I approve of both the Thor image and the Loki response

I'm happy to look at the pretty mans.

[LostOne4Ever]

393. Im happy to be of of service!

v

[Rainforestgoddess]

409. Too pretty, that one

But I appreciate the thought.

[Goblinmonger]

288. To some extent, yes, there is a split.

But there are atheist votes across of of the option.

I really don't buy the organization and forcefulness point. You have no evidence that the atheist vote is organized. And you won't find any because it isn't. The only organization for votes occurred in Interfaith (I know, he did it with "integrity&quot .

It feels like you are arguing for atheist privilege existing here. Which is ridiculous.

I really believe this is a true compromise. You make it seem like the past year and a half has been hosts locking threads and blocking disruptors. It has been made clear that blocking hasn't even been considered since the 5-hides rule. And, for the most part, the locking of posts has been just fuckups. Those two things, the things hosts can do, aren't being done. So what protection is being lost if RD is the only host?

And really, why not just run literary allusions by me before you use them. "brave new day"? Was that a purposeful Huxley allusion because I have no desire to bring on Huxley's view of the Brave New World.

[cbayer]

304. To some extent there is a split? Some extent?

There are few places on this site where the split is deeper or more obvious.

Stop with the compromise BS. I don't give a shit whether you think it's a compromise or not, and I don't give a shit what the outcome is at this point. If I were to really have my way, it wouldn't look like any of these options, but I have no expectation of that happening.

And for god's sake stop putting me down about simple and insignificant phrases I might use. It was not a purposeful allusion, it was just three words that I chose. Your arrogance in suggesting that I run anything at all by you is embarrassing. Pulling your knowledge of literary allusions out to try to one up me does not make you a bigger person, quite the opposite.

[Lordquinton]

338. But, you can't prove the atheist orginization doesn't exist!

Therefore how dare you

[okasha]

349. I'd like to see the 3-host option, too.

[cbayer]

350. It is the compromise position, despite other things being

proposed as a compromise.

It could be a good thing for the group to agree on a compromise.

[AtheistCrusader]

248. Option four has that effect.

[NeoGreen]

258. I read it as retaining RD...

...as host.

Nothing against RD, for my part, but I would like to see an option that completely abolishes the position(s) altogether.

[AtheistCrusader]

261. I could be wrong, but I think someone has to 'own' the group.

[Warren Stupidity]

271. See Skinners reply from last time. No hosts is fine.

All SOP alerts go to admins. End of host drama. But RD is fine too, he has been extraordinarily even handed and low impact.

[Renew Deal]

407. That's a good point

I can't believe we missed that. I copied heddi's suggestion as typed. I think we've had that one in the past and it didn't do well.

[NeoGreen]

410. Yes, I read options #3 and #4 as the same...

...in effect.

I think it might clarify the "sentiment of the room", to see how many would change their vote from the current #3/#4 options to the proposed #5 (no hosts at all).

And if that is the majority, then give it a go for a period of time (6-months?).

Let the collective "will of the members" prevail, and let them see if it works out and if they like it.

And if that option fails, fine (it is not written in stone), hold a new vote.

Heck, during that trial run, a "rolling series of polls" might occur for awhile, debating the issue, which might not be a bad thing.

[NeoGreen]

413. Ok, I stand corrected...

... options #3 and #4 are not the same.

I only recently searched out and read the details in the "about this group" tab.

Apologies for my ignorance & subsequent confusion.

NG

[NYC_SKP]

324. I'm glad to have you hosting and I support Texas Towlie as a great new nonpartisan host.

I'm looking at the replies and the usernames of those voting in each category.

One can't help but take these matters into consideration, and I hope that your decision balances the "popular" selection with wisdom.

The two don't always coincide and as host you aren't necessarily held to abiding by sheer numbers of votes for one decision over another.

(I'm clearly biased in favor of civility and side with members who have been very civil in the past and served as DU moderators)

Cheers and thanks for the efforts!

[Goblinmonger]

327. Solid. I was a mod.

Good to hear.

Though I wonder if you would be so quick to advocate for someone to do something when you were in the majority. Oh, of course you would. I'm just being silly.

[NYC_SKP]

336. I was a mod but I wouldn't recommend myself to host this particular group.

While my personal spiritual choices are loosely defined and I like to think of myself as more tolerant than most, I can still get emotional when I see silliness that borders on hostility, and swarming and bullying and insulting.

Clearly, these behaviors are not limited to discussions in the Religion subgroups, but the passions are definitely pronounces hereabouts!

[LostOne4Ever]

341. While it is true that what is popular is not always wise

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It is also true that people have often tried to justify their actions thinking they are smarter than the will of the people. One should be very very sure of their position before effectively telling the community that they are wrong.

I also don't think it is very civil to imply that someone should ignore the will of the people over something like this or to suggest that the majority are not being wise. It is condescending to the opposition and does not lead to feelings of cooperation.

Many of us have supported similar positions in the past and accepted that we were in the minority when we lost. None of us tried to ask for the host to ignore the will of the members of the group. But now, that we are in a majority position, it seems like all manners of accusations are being thrown out to try and delegitimatize that position.

I don't think that is very fair or polite.

That said, I am empathetic to your feelings and want to say, hopefully this decision will help lead this forum to a more harmonious future for the group.

Cheers to you too!
[/font]

[NYC_SKP]

346. I'd like to kick this thread for more votes with this humorous little Tosh.0 clip.

You may have heard it before, on the matter of spirituality:



Oh, NSFW.

[Goblinmonger]

347. I'd like to call the question, so to speak.

I think we've gotten all we are going to get out of this thread.

[cbayer]

353. It's not an up and down vote, but I second a call to close the debate.

The hosts can then decide what they want to do next.

[Goblinmonger]

354. So when those of us that wanted no hosts last time were in the minority

we were just supposed to go with what the majority wanted. And we did.

Now that you aren't in the majority, you think the hosts should "decide what they want to do next" and the vote is just advisory.

You're a piece of work.

[cbayer]

356. Do you ever stop?

It is now in the hands of the hosts. I will respect and abide by any decision they make, just as I have in the past.

I am indeed a piece of work. So compelling that you and your pals just can't quit me.

Just a heads up, I don't think you ever asked why I took you off ignore, but I recognize that it puts you in a very untenable and uncomfortable position for which you are particularly ill suited.

As it seems that all you can do is insult me and find fault with virtually everything I say, I really see no point in continuing to force you into this position.

You've made your bed. Sweet dreams.

[okasha]

361. He can't.

He's riding the tiger.

(I apologize to all kittehs great and small for the comparison.)

[cbayer]

365. He is indeed an aristocrat of the soul.

[Goblinmonger]

398. Nope. I'm like the damn energizer bunny.

Except when I sleep the sleep of the dead in my really comfortable awesome bed.

[Warren Stupidity]

359. A person of superior intelligence once wrote:

Let's take the high road. No harm done and one less thing for the rage machine to grab on to.
Plus the poll shows where the yank is. Let them have it.
It will make not one iota of difference.

I'm not clear about that whole "where the yank is" bit, an odd phrase that, but since it "will not make one iota of difference", why the big upset?

[hrmjustin]

362. Lol i wonder if we will get to 500 posts in this one.

I trust the hosts judgement here.

[okasha]

366. I hope not. I'm on a desk 'pute now,

but I don't think my phone can take it.

[hrmjustin]

368. I hope they decide tonight.

[LostOne4Ever]

378. Well

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]We could always spam one word posts (maybe a song) till we reach 500.

For instance:[/font]

post1: Never (nt)
post2: Gonna (nt)
post3: Give (nt)
post4: you (nt)
post5: up (nt)
post6: Never (nt)
post7: Gonna (nt)
post8: Let (nt)
post9: You (nt)
post10: Down (nt)
post11: Never (nt)
post12: Gonna (nt)
post13: Run (nt)
post14: Around (nt)
post15: and (nt)
post16: desert (nt)
post17: you (nt)

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Not that I would eeeeeeverrrrrrrrrrr do something like that...

/whistles innocently[/font]

[hrmjustin]

379. lol I love it.

[LostOne4Ever]

380. We would probably be the first people blocked here since the jury change though

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]if we did that[/font]

[hrmjustin]

382. I think people would find the humor in it. lol.

But we might get a time out.

[tradewinds]

383. I'd think that through, again.

Seems to be a pretty humorless crowd, well, half of it anyway.

[LostOne4Ever]

385. All the more reason to do it. You want in?

Edit: [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Nevermind. Another day maybe. [/font]

[tradewinds]

390. Sure

[tradewinds]

391. ,why

[tradewinds]

392. not.

[LostOne4Ever]

384. What song do you want to do?

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Ill google the lyrics and follow your lead.

If nothing else it will be nice to see two posters from opposite sides coming together to troll the religion forum as a whole

I just think we need to make sure to put (nt) or (no text) next to each one to avoid people clicking on our post thinking there is more to it than that.[/font]

[hrmjustin]

386. lol. maybe a different day.

0skinner is probably watching this thread.

[LostOne4Ever]

388. Another day then

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Maybe.....Friday?

YES I AM THAT EVIL!!!![/font]

[center] [/center]

[hrmjustin]

389. Lol. we shall see. i think on second thought you might be right.

It might not be a good idea.

[Goblinmonger]

399. This thread is getting a lot like a Rick Roll. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

400. I just wanted post 400

[hrmjustin]

401. I got to 50,000 today.

[A HERETIC I AM]

429. You realize that is almost 50 per day for every day you have been a member?

I appreciate that you are passionate about this subject and this message board, but almost 50 a day is.....remarkable.

I mean...I've been here 9 years longer than you and I'm not even to 14,000. That's barely 3 a day.

And FWIW, I've been reading DU almost every single day since I joined.

[hrmjustin]

430. A lot of it was my NY room posts. I posted a lot of updates in there.

Finally i burned out.

I went from 9500 in 90 days to now 2200 in 90 days.

Btw i was a member in 2001 .I lost my password in 2005 and for several years debated whether to post or just read. The 2007 and 2008 primary detered me from joining up. Finally in 2012 I decided to join again.

The funny thing is that shortly after the 2012 election I found my old password. But by that point I decided to stick with this user account.

[A HERETIC I AM]

431. I don't know what "NUY" is, but neither here nor there.

Knock yourself out. You aren't the most prolific DU'er, not by a long shot.

[hrmjustin]

432. Typo sorry. NY room posts.

[Warren Stupidity]

440. I give up what is a "NY room post"?

[hrmjustin]

441. You forgot the s.

You know that i posted a lot in the NY room.

[Warren Stupidity]

442. Oh, by "room" you mean "group" or "forum".

For some reason I had this picture of you locked in a room in NYC with nothing to do except pound away on the keyboard.

Now I understand.

[hrmjustin]

443. I have escaped from time to time.

[Renew Deal]

402. Seems like people have had enough of this.

Let me kick this around with the current hosts. We pretty much ended up 56-44... So we have to figure out what that means.

[haikugal]

411. .?.

Would you please explain where those numbers come from? Thanks.

[LostOne4Ever]

412. it is the Only renew deal option (56%) vrs everything else put together (44%) (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

415. That is an odd characterization of the results.

"Only Renew Deal" won over every other category by a wide margin.

56-25 over Texas Towlie. 2-1
56-8 over Atheist Crusader. 7-1
56-6 over No one. 9-1

It wasn't even close. The results were not 56-44.

[AtheistCrusader]

424. Yeah, a vote for me should be in no way translated as opposite the 'no hosts' option.

[trotsky]

414. RD, I object to the way you have stated the results of this poll.

A clear majority picked one course of action. 56-44 implies there were two choices. That is not the case.

Otherwise one would say that Bill Clinton lost the presidential election of 1992, 43-57%.

[Renew Deal]

422. Goood point

And I did over simplify

[rug]

426. Maybe you should ask him to resign.

[Warren Stupidity]

416. If you are confused by the results you could hold a run-off between the top two.

However, as there is a clear majority choice, why you would do that instead of accepting the results remains a mystery. The only plausible reason I can come up with is that you are uncomfortable with being the only host. If in fact you are uncomfortable with being the only host, as Skinner noted the last time, the admins are fine with taking over: remove everyone and then remove yourself.

Otherwise you really need to explain what the problem is.

[trotsky]

417. And a run-off is generally only used when no option got a majority vote.

But in this case, one did. If the end result of poll is that it's ignored, and the status quo (which in the last two cases of host misbehavior benefited the "pro-belief" camp) remains, I'm calling bullshit.

[Goblinmonger]

420. To interpret this as anything other than a clear indication of just you as host

is to ignore the results. I don't see how anybody can look at the results and see anything differently.

If this ends up without just you being host, it is going to be a clear indication that the voices of small minority hold sway over the clear majority.

[Dorian Gray]

433. I understand why you think that

but what if Renew Deal doesn't want to be the only host?

[Goblinmonger]

435. I believe he said up above he would.

I don't think it will really be that much work. They hosts haven't even considered blocking someone since the 5 jury hide rule and there are very few SOP alerts sent from what I have heard.

[Dorian Gray]

436. But it's totally a thankless job

and anytime someone gets pissed that something wasn't removed soon enough, who gets the blame? RD!!!

I wouldn't touch the host position with a ten foot pole!

(I was never a moderator either. Didn't want the power to piss people off!)

[trotsky]

437. In which case, we can just do as Skinner himself suggested, and have no hosts.

I really don't see what the big deal is. The current system has failed, with hosts abusing their power to silence people or protect their friends.

[Goblinmonger]

438. Absolutely

I think everyone just needs to realize that a non-SOP OP might take a little bit to be removed. And that life will go on if it does. Though it isn't like the current group of hosts locked stuff up right away. They waited for consensus before locking it rather than doing a temp lock and then talking about it. Which is fine and up to them, but it's not like we are going to go from quick locks to slow locks.

[hrmjustin]

421. Good luck with the decision. n/t.

[Curmudgeoness]

423. You seriously have to "figure out what that means"?

Anyone can see that, with the options that were available (and all options were not presented), a large majority wants only one host, with that host being you. Even adding all the other options together to get your 44 results, there is STILL a majority in only one option.

Kicking this around with the current hosts is going against what the majority wants here. Just do the right thing and remove all the other hosts. This is what the voting said should be done.

[Dorian Gray]

434. Good luck

Renew Deal and the rest of the hosts. I think that there has been enough hand wringing and arguing. I'm happy with whatever you guys decide.

I think that since people are clamoring for you to be the only host, it's really your choice as to whether you want to be in that position. The rest of us should respect that choice.

(And I am fine with just you... or no hosts... That's the way I voted. But if you want backup, no arguments from me.)

[mr blur]

418. Why have a poll and then ignore the resuts of that poll and try to fnd ways

to view the results in any way other than the obvious?

Unless, of course, the result isn't the one you wanted?

Shame that what the majority of respondents wanted isn't what you 'd prefer, but there you go...

[Renew Deal]

444. No one has done anything like that.

I should have locked thread and asked for a couple days to sort this out. I guess I'll do that now.

[Metatron]

425. I vote for no hosts at all.

But since that wasn't an option my second choice would be for just Renew Deal as host. I don't post much anywhere on DU anymore, but do lurk and read everyday.

I haven't been a fan of the position of hosts from about the first week on DU3 when there were some crazy machinations occurring around a self-appointed host in the E/E group.

When there was the original vote for hosts in the Religion group, I don't think I voted for anyone because I thought there should be no hosts at all. I believe MIRT does a great job ridding DU of trolls and think that the jury/alert system should be used for posts in this group (or any other) to combat incivility.

Just my two cents.

[rug]

427. Whatever you do, and the rules are clear it is entirely the hosts' decision,-

you should instantly lock the inevitable tantrum threads that will follow.

"Let's cut the meta and get back to discussing religion."

[hrmjustin]

428. Agreed! It is the hosts decision.

I will accept their choice and I hope others do as well.

[Capt. Obvious]

439. Sorry I'm late

It was foggy here so I didn't see the bat sign until now.