2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAvoiding Disruptive Meta in GD-P while discussing Democratic Primaries
Here is the definition of what disruptive meta is, straight from the admins of this website and posted in a pinned thread in GD:
Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.
Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.
The same definition applies here. That is the definition the forum hosts use when making decisions about compliance with the GD-P Statement of Purpose, the only thing hosts decide about. All hosts follow that definition.
NOTE: I am not currently a forum host. I have been in the past, though, and will be in the future.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's a thread "complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted."
Precisely. On every point. So avoid it.
Who made you Grand Poobah, MM?
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)I posted the pertinent definition from the admins. It's not a complaint at all.
"Complaining" is the operant word.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)shame on you for not knowing this.
demmiblue
(36,885 posts)His post is not about the Democratic presidential primaries, but about the inner workings/rules that regulate DU.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)If we are referring to the same recent wave of posts/hides in GDP, we can agree that the ones subsequent to the original fall under the prohibitions so described (while ignoring, for the nonce, the question of whether these prohibitions are not more often honored in the breach than otherwise). The original post and lock, however, can only fall under the "intent" definition. I disagree with the moderator in his judgement of that intent. Which leads one to a question: what does one do if he disagrees with the judgement of a moderator? Of course, that is a "meta" question, but the prohibition is only for meta questions with the intent to disrupt, which I assert (for the record) is not present.
-- Mal
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)by consensus of available hosts. If there is no consensus to lock the post isn't locked. In all of my terms as a forum host, that was the rule. It still is. Only the starting post of a thread is at issue. Nothing that happens later in the thread is considered.
In an ideal world, which I'd prefer, every post that violated a forum's SOP would be locked by the hosts. That doesn't always happen, since a consensus is required to lock a post. I strive for objectivity when I'm serving as one of the hosts, though.
"Complaining" is a pretty simple word, really. Normally, it's easy to decide whether a post is complaining about one of the prohibited things. Occasionally it's less clear, but not often.
Again, I'm not currently a forum host, but I soon will be again. And, again, I'll be working hard to do that job objectively, as always.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)You're telling me that in 2 minutes a consensus was reached? Come on man.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)We don't know how many hosts were available to determine said consensus.
-- Mal
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)con·sen·sus
kənˈsensəs/Submit
noun
general agreement.
Unless you only have to agree with yourself.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)It is quite possible that a consensus could be reached in two minutes under those circumstances. Now, the question is: supposing only one host is available, may he proceed unilaterally, or is he expected to await another host?
-- Mal
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)....would stay open in order to have more mods online to reach a consensus.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Do you not agree? And be assured, I am not calling into question your performance as a host. Information about the process is always welcome.
-- Mal
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)takes the side of the locking, it is not a neutral post it is Meta with a very strong agenda. Double Standards for everyone.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)2 minutes to lock the other one.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)[img][/img] I'm not a host now but I will tell you that it only takes one Leave It vote to keep a thread from being Locked.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Query: if only one host is around, may he lock unilaterally, or is he expected to await consultation?
-- Mal
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Most times we try for more than one or two votes.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)I've alerted recently on several Meta OPs that were pro-Hillary, and none of them were locked.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)defend the partisan locking going on around here and that makes this very much Meta which is in fact complaining about those of us who don't care for the mood around here. You are also as usual attempting to do so under the color of nonexistent authority.
Skinner's little brand here is not in healthy shape.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and people
You are not a beginner at this game,
Oh and this is disruptive meta, but will never, ever, be locked.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And hippos are great at parkour.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)At this point, I'm going to leave the primaries completely
up to the voters and stop commenting on them in GDP. I will, instead, focus on the general election and the need to GOTV to elect Democrats to all offices, not just the presidency."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511247798
You in GDP Feb 22:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1309577
I have to say your consistency is very reflective of that of your candidate.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread, though.
kath
(10,565 posts)Shucks, I was really looking forward to it.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Come on guys.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Any hints as to what this in reference to?
The 1st OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511417073
The 2nd OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511417114
and finally, not in GDP http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280135386
cwydro
(51,308 posts)That's pretty ugly.
Insulting volunteer hosts for simply doing their jobs.
Smh.