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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

 [ send green star]

"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]

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]

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]

Feedback?

 [ send green star]

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]

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

 [ send green star]

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

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.

 [ send green star]

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]

Hare Hare KrishnaHare RamaRama Krishna Hare Hare

Krishna

Love,

LilDarlin

This thread is being closed.

Please go here to continue.

 [ send green star]