START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
 
 
This thread is closed.
Host Functions/Duties... January 08, 2006 1:36 PM

These are some extractions concerning host functions/duties from this thread.

The thread in question has been dormant for over a day. This thread is being initiated to keep this thought process active in the community.

The general consensus seemed to be that policy had to be established before any hosts or committees were put in place(If this was not the general consensus please let me know and I will retract this statement).

If we wish to create a series of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) for host functions/duties for a community supported group then we cannot let this subject go by the wayside.

With that said, here are the inputs:

Stepping in to mediate a conflict ... a good host steps in when they sense that a conflict may be forthcoming. 

Adding topic content when the place is dead or stimulating conversation .  

HOSTS SHOULD DO NOTHING!
Except delete as directed by Care2 staff or by a consensus of the membership.  

The co hosts would/could guide the actions within the thread 

a Host has to be able to delete abuse and violations of the CoC and ToS. 

Why not give co-hosts all abilities except for the ability to block members  

the less "hands-on" this place is with strict rules in place, the better.  

people could "nominate" deletions and then all the co-hosts gather to vote whether it will be deleted or not, and all the members could put in their 2 cents 

No flagging, no anonymous, no camels. Delete or block only OOCA's.


If there has been any inputs that have been left out from the thread linked above or any other thread please list them as well.

Refinement is necessary.

 [ send green star]

 
anonymous no host January 08, 2006 1:40 PM

just the owner  [report anonymous abuse]
 
 January 08, 2006 2:01 PM

No flagging, no anonymous, no camels. Delete or block only OOCA's. This I can easily agree with. I would not be in favor of any other actions, especially doing something the members as a whole are not in favor of at any given time.  [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 2:03 PM

Naw, Lil......less is best I agree. However in case some stupid idiot posts something in the group that NEEDS to be removed there has to be a half way decent chance someone will be around to deal with it. No one person can be expected to be able to do this.  [ send green star]
 
Charlie ... January 08, 2006 2:29 PM

What's "camels" and "OOCAs?" 

I also don't like the "members as a whole" thing ... I've seen too many witch hunts and people jumping on the popular bandwagon around here.  I think if you're a host, you need to be able to make a decision.  Otherwise, what's the point of having hosts? 

 [ send green star]

 
I'm not saying that members' opinions should be considered ... January 08, 2006 2:32 PM

just that a host should make the ultimate and final decision.  If one host decides that he/she wants to make a decision by polling members, fine ... if another decides on his/her own, that should also be fine. 

Personally, unless it meets the legal definition of public lewdness or something< I don't think anything, no matter how objectionable, should be deleted.  And only then because it's an open group. 

I thought the whole idea here was to see if we could act like ... not idiots. 

 [ send green star]

 
I mean ... January 08, 2006 2:33 PM

... shouldn't be considered ..."  [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 2:35 PM

Knate kindly clued me in on this one. OOCA=Out of control Azz-holes

I think I will leave it for someone else to explain 'camels' however. Remember I am very innocent. What I mean by hosts taking action based on members input is that I would not like to see any host, revolving or otherwise thinking they are above the membership at larges wishes.

 [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 2:37 PM

I agree Uno----see forthcoming definition of Camel, hahahaha. I too would hope nothing else would be deleted and that no one ever acted in a manner worthy of being banned, even (shhhhh I know what I am saying, Donna)  [ send green star]
 
Come on, Charlie ... January 08, 2006 2:37 PM

tell me what camels is ... you won't offend me or anything. 

Right ... the members ... that's where I disagree.  A host has to have the 'nads to make an unpopular decision because he/she knows it's right ...

I can cite some examples, but it might rile people up ...

 [ send green star]

 
In other words ... January 08, 2006 2:39 PM

I don't think the majority is always right ... people sometimes act like

I'm probably really killin my chances of being a host here, but whatever ...

 [ send green star]

 
 January 08, 2006 2:57 PM

If you can't rely on the majority, then what can you rely on?

There are many different people in this world, and assuming that your intellect trumps a majority cannot be the way.

Is this what we want our community based group to be about? Do we want someone who just overrides the majority decision because he/she thinks they know better than everyone else?

As a community we could decide that hosts will not have deletion ability and that would solve this issue. Then the responsibility would go to the owner or care2 to delete only threads which are in clear violation of CoC.

 [ send green star]

 
 January 08, 2006 3:01 PM

Uno...here is an example of what I am trying to say. Suppose I was a host for the week or whatever and some someone came in here with a Swastika? My knee jerk response would be to delete anything they posted and ban their sorry ass. Having said that, I am hoping this group will be such that the members not the hosts decide what is ok and not, aside from TOC or COC stuff.  [ send green star]
 
True, I understand what you're saying ... January 08, 2006 3:03 PM

I just keep thinking of those situations - usually in feedback - where a lot of people got irate about stuff that wasn't completely understood.  It's happened on a number of occasions ... usually having to do with accusations made about someone that were only speculation.  Personally, I hate that, and I hate it when people act like that. 

And I suspect that because some of those who are loudest appear "morally" correct, that those who might otherwise disagree will keep quiet ...

Maybe an alternate, then, would be to use anonymous polls ...

I don't know ... I just don't always think the majority is fair these boards ...

It's just my opinion. 

 [ send green star]

 
 January 08, 2006 3:05 PM

They aren't always fair, agreed. But we can't have it both ways. A group run by and for the members and then give others the power to ignore the membership, or can we?  [ send green star]
 
That's a good point, Charlie ... January 08, 2006 3:05 PM

I would delete the swastika but not the person.  And I wouldn't feel 100% right about deleting the swastika but for the fact that I know what it represents to a lot of people ...

Flame me. 

 [ send green star]

 
My response above ... January 08, 2006 3:07 PM

was to the swastika thing. 

I'm just submitting my opinions ... I'm not the type of person who feels that it has to be my way or the highway.  I do want to state my opinions, though. 

 [ send green star]

 
anonymous Owner doesn't have to be there January 08, 2006 3:11 PM

Every second. and if ya want a person or post deleted that quickly, then most likely it would be without the propossed group vote, and that could end up being rash ....

So i still believe all you need is one..As the rest of us become a group of co host with the power to delete in our votes...which should be with a 51% unanimous vote.

Management  its a hard road to hoe....But when someone was deleted or banned we would know who did it...

Just another opinion.

LilDarlin

 [report anonymous abuse]
 
anonymous No rash moves January 08, 2006 3:13 PM

Rash moves are harder to make when we have to take some measured time to think about it.

Go slow, Be Patient, Has its rtewards.

LilDarlin

 [report anonymous abuse]
 
 January 08, 2006 3:14 PM


Ted has received 119 new, 865 total stars from Care2 membersTed has been awarded 40 butterflies for taking action at Care2 Ted K.

....and what about something like this? If offends me to no end. In any other group I would ban the member until they changed their avi. I am less sure I would want this to happen in this new group however unless the majority wanted it as well.

 [ send green star]
 
I think we're getting ... January 08, 2006 3:17 PM

into personal philosophies too much, maybe. 

I have opinions and thoughts, but I'll go along with whatever is the general consensus ... unless I feel it's really unfair or something, in which case you'll not hear anything further from me, I'll just quit. 

I don't anticipate that happening here.  So far, I sense fairness and a willingness to hear all opinions. 

 [ send green star]

 
Buck January 08, 2006 3:18 PM

To your comment "If you can't rely on the majority, then what can you rely on?" I don't think "The Majority" is a guarantee for reliable hosting. and of course I agree with Charlie. ar  [ send green star]
 
I'll go along with anything Amos proposes ... January 08, 2006 3:19 PM

 [ send green star]

 
Oh Uno... January 08, 2006 3:22 PM

...and I'm not the majority! ar  [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 4:03 PM

As a group we must make choices and someone(s) has to monitor them. For example, one of the choices we have to make is if freedom of speech and expression should have more value than than common-ethics. Once we made the choice someone has to control it. I don't think it is possible to have a "limitless" group but I also don't know where the limit should be, I only know where mine is. ar  [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 5:48 PM

"To your comment "If you can't rely on the majority, then what can you rely on?" I don't think "The Majority" is a guarantee for reliable hosting."

Then what is?

If we want to make a community run group, we cannot have anything but the majority making the decisions.

I would love to hear suggestions on how to do it otherwise though...

We could have a set charter of rules in place, and vote on a host and that host has to follow those rules or risk being removed.

the group as a whole would have to police this...

 [ send green star]

 
anonymous  January 08, 2006 5:57 PM

I vote that you continue to be the owner of the group.  But start with cohosts this week ... maybe some of those who you see as being major contibributors so far to start it off, and those who already said that they are interested, (not like me is has nooooooooo interest in it) and
then give them 5 days to do things here and within that time they can hold an election of the next set of people to cohost.  That is just an idea, throw it in the hat....
        
 [report anonymous abuse]
 
 January 08, 2006 6:07 PM

well, on second thought it might work. We'll never know if we won't give it a try. Personally, I wouldn't want to host it. The host will be in a servant position and will have no authority to make any (constructive) decisions. There is more in running a group than just keeping the rules. I'm not trying to negative, I'm only brainstorming. ar  [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 6:56 PM

I stated before that my concern about going with the majority votes about deleting, etc., is that it is too much like post flagging was.  Granted, it's a larger group voting, but if folks are in a mood and feel like going after someone they just don't like, it could be a rerun of the same issue.

I actually think this is one of the biggest hurdles we have to face.

 [ send green star]
 
Thoughts about hosting January 08, 2006 7:20 PM

The situation as well as some problems that I see are....

There are at least three groups with quite differing ideas about what is acceptable/desirable.

As well as some members who are pretty flexible. Fortunately !

Some of the people in each of these groups seem more intent on seeing that they sabotage the other groups than they are in developing and expanding their own.

Some feel there are those who look for the slightest remark to claim offence etc

 Some who want to claim they don’t insult etc will disrupt (and abuse) by spamming etc.

Some have no problem with insults and find them amusing, even when aimed at themselves.

Some enjoy and look forward to the humor and less aggressive bantering and don’t consider it abusive. 

Some people do appear quite vulnerable and seem to be very easily hurt or offended.

Others feel they are too controlled and limited by those who are so sensitive and have left groups or seldom participate in groups that demand such delicate posting.

These differences will make it very difficult to keep things congenial.

These differences are, of course, not unique to this organization. I have found it everywhere.

If there is truly a desire for commination then a compromise could be reached wherein some tone it down some and others toughen up some.

At this point I see a greater determination, by too many, to get it MY WAY.

To me this sadly shows an absorption with oneself that undermines an ability to further the good that can be had/done through Care2 and a very difficult task for any host.

 [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 7:34 PM

Feedback?

 [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 7:39 PM

well.....I think this can be done. It's about bringing forward the best ideas, and implementing them in a way that empowers all and diminishes none.   [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 7:48 PM

Charlie, I agree with you, but that is a pretty lofty goal, and I think that Annie is pointing out some of the real obstacles in the way.

That's why I hope we don't rush into this.  I think we should take our time and really hash things out before we present this as a group to the community at large.

 [ send green star]
 
 January 08, 2006 7:51 PM

yup, take our time is the best course!  [ send green star]
 
Annie ... Feedback ... January 08, 2006 8:26 PM

Yes ... those are the recognized problems.  Got any ideas for solutions? 

 [ send green star]

 
 January 08, 2006 8:55 PM

LOL Now you're really pushing it, Uno..      [ send green star]
 
anonymous just keep the owner January 09, 2006 3:55 AM

It will Be a Real Drag voting every week......By the time the vote is over at least half the week will be gone....

Keep just one host>> the owner

Why mess it up?

LilDarlin

 [report anonymous abuse]
 
 January 09, 2006 4:00 AM

All this stuff has never affected any of my groups. We just express love and appreciation no matter what. People looking for a fight go away disappointed.

      sarvo2f.gif sarvo3f.gif sarvo1f.gif

 [ send green star]
 
That makes sense to me, Sarvo ... January 09, 2006 5:12 AM

But a lot of people don't have the ability to let blow perceived slights off.  It's a good way ... just not everyone's way. 

 [ send green star]

 
anonymous HARE HARE KRISNA January 09, 2006 5:22 AM

Hare Hare KrishnaHare RamaRama Krishna Hare Hare

Krishna

Love,

LilDarlin

 [report anonymous abuse]
 
 January 09, 2006 8:37 AM

This thread is being closed.

Please go here to continue.

 [ send green star]
 
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct

 

This group:
Care2 Community Circle
82 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences