Host Poll

[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]