I think these changes to the GD SOP are a positive change.

[Warren Stupidity]

RELIGION
•Threads about current events related to religion, and threads about church-state issues are permitted under normal circumstances.

•Threads about the existence/non-existence of God, threads discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in general, and threads discussing the truth/untruth of religious dogma are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Religion.

•Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

GUNS
•News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.

•Local stories about gun crime and "gun porn" threads showing pictures of guns or discussing the merits of various firearms are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Gun Control and RKBA Group.

•Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

[MineralMan]

1. They are essentially the same rules most hosts in GD

have followed all along. Since the launch of DU3, the SOP has been the same, and Skinner has frequently written that he wanted something along the lines that are reflected in the new, expanded rules. For most hosts, that was understood and followed in discussions about locking posts.

Most, but not all. And, since consensus was often interpreted in a way that a single host could stop an OP from being locked, posts that would have been locked under these new rules were often left to turn into flamewars. Now, things are better explained, and in text that can be looked at any time there is a conflict. That part is good. Otherwise, I see little change.

N.B.: I served as a host in GD for a very long time, starting with the launch of DU3 and continuing until the beginning of this year. I withdrew from that after minor conflicts in discussions led to frequent inaction on threads I believed were not in keeping with the SOP. My reaction to that was to withdraw from acting as a host, rather than to engage in lengthy and sometimes bitter arguments.

[hlthe2b]

3. I still think interpretation of "consensus" as = "unanimity" needs to be addressed....

But, it will be interesting to see if having only 30 official hosts (and far less ACTIVE) will make a difference--along with this increased clarity in the SOP.

[MineralMan]

4. Well, since I can't see the discussion, I assume that the admins

have said more about that to the hosts of the new system. I'm on the Hosts waiting list, so in a few months, I'll probably get a chance to see how it's all working. As long as I don't get any posts hidden, anyhow. I haven't had a hidden post, though, for a very long time and don't expect to start now.

[hlthe2b]

5. Same here...

One thing I do sort of question is whether it is appropriate to have DUers being on MIRT concurrently with forum hosting. I can't say I feel strongly about it, but if the goal is to try to make hosting and MIRT more inclusive to more DUers, that certainly further diminishes opportunities for more DUers to participate.

[MineralMan]

7. That's up to the Admins. We've always had MIRT members who were also

serving as hosts. Usually, they were active in both roles. And being active is, in my opinion, the most important qualification of all. There used to be many hosts who were on the list of hosts, but who never interacted in the Hosts' discussion area at all. I assume that the new list of 30 will include mostly people who will actively participate. That will be a very good thing.

[hlthe2b]

8. I think it goes without saying. ALL of this is up to admins..

Hopefully these changes will solve some problems.

[onehandle]

2. 'Guns; viral political content from social media or blogs...'

'...that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.'

Bookmarked.

Embedded gun trolls will be seeing their alerts go for naught.

[Eleanors38]

13. I've got plenty of those, too...

should one-issue authoritarians seek to tilt the scales on "likely be of interest to a large majority.."

Who knows? This may open up whole new vistas of how a local incident gets leveraged out to "gone viral."

From "reputable" sources, of course.

[MineralMan]

6. A more important change than that is the requirement that

all hosts maintain 100% eligibility to serve on DU juries. In general, that will mean that only those who are habitually civil in their discussions on DU will be able to serve as hosts. Even a single hidden post will disqualify that host, who will be replaced by the next person on the waiting list. That will keep argumentative and uncivil DUers from participating in hosting. That, I believe, will be a very positive change, and it's one I support wholeheartedly. Looking at the current host list, though, I don't see anyone who is prone to having posts hidden.

Such has not been the case in the past, when some hosts actually ended up hitting the 5 hidden posts in 90 days level before not being able to host. Not many, but some. Further, 100% jury duty eligibility is only available to Star members, who have a stake in DU as donors. That was also not always the case.

Host eligibility, I think, is the most important change that has been made.

[FSogol]

9. Except the change didn't address all the troublemakers in "Cooking and Baking" or "Frugal Living"

[hlthe2b]

10. Don't tell me they've restarted the infamous fried chicken wars!

LOL

[MineralMan]

11. Oh, my. Well, I never venture into either of those two hotbeds

of dissent and ill will.

[femmocrat]

12. I appreciate these clarifications for the purpose of jury duty.

Sometimes it's a gray area as to what is off-topic.

[KamaAina]

14. Oh. I thought you were talking about the SD GOP.

[Eleanors38]

15. For now, I object to the expression "gun porn" as it

equates, using old religious/prohibitionist language, something vulgar to a visual explanation of objects for edification of those who don't wish to see or even understand things, and to people using things in lawful and popular ways. On that note, a question:

Would the image-based "gun porn" include the raft of repetitive and dated cartoons depicting spittle-flying, pin-headed, big-gutted unsavory-types in an NRA cap using guns?

Would "gun porn" include literary allegories involving "penis?"

[Eleanors38]

16. I appreciate your attempts to establish equity in GD

regarding gun OPs. As to the last condition: Open discussion will continue until "heavy coverage" by "all newsmedia" is no longer "heavy," or when heavy posting in GD ends? I note the expression "all newsmedia" as opposed to "reputable" sources. Was this an oversight? Further, is there a consensus among GD's hosts on what "pro-gun" sources are reputable? Please provide some examples. If any.