Avoiding Disruptive Meta in GD-P while discussing Democratic Primaries

[MineralMan]

Here is the definition of what disruptive meta is, straight from the admins of this website and posted in a pinned thread in GD:

DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION
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]

1. By your own definition, this post is Disruptive Meta.

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]

2. No. I'm not complaining about anything.

I posted the pertinent definition from the admins. It's not a complaint at all.

"Complaining" is the operant word.

[morningfog]

29. Meta is meta. And you are complaining.

[kath]

11. He is the Great Wise Sage of DU.

shame on you for not knowing this.

[yourpaljoey]

26. :)

[demmiblue]

15. It is not disruptive Meta, but it does not meet the SoP for GDP.

A forum for general discussion of the Democratic presidential primaries. Disruptive meta-discussion is forbidden.

His post is not about the Democratic presidential primaries, but about the inner workings/rules that regulate DU.

[malthaussen]

3. Very tricky thing to determine, intent.

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]

4. Decisions whether to lock a thread are made

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]

5. Did you see the OP in question that was locked? 2 minutes after it was created?

You're telling me that in 2 minutes a consensus was reached? Come on man.

[malthaussen]

6. "By consensus of available hosts," Joe.

We don't know how many hosts were available to determine said consensus.


-- Mal

[Joe the Revelator]

13. 1 person isn't a concensus

con·sen·sus
kənˈsensəs/Submit
noun
general agreement.

Unless you only have to agree with yourself.

[malthaussen]

18. Stipulated, but what if there were two hosts available?

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]

19. When we use to have mods, some posts that were obviously needful of closing....

....would stay open in order to have more mods online to reach a consensus.

[malthaussen]

10. "Complaining" is easier to determine than "intent to disrupt," though.

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]

7. And yet some hosts just lock shit they don't like, and call it Meta. This post is also Meta and

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]

12. And just to be clear, I alerted on this as against the SOP and still here we sit.

2 minutes to lock the other one.

[In_The_Wind]

16. I am positive there is more than one SoP alert on this thread.

[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]

20. Ah, yes, you've been a host too, haven't you?

Query: if only one host is around, may he lock unilaterally, or is he expected to await consultation?

-- Mal

[In_The_Wind]

22. If the alert is obvious (like a duplicate in LBN) a Quick Lock is encouraged.

Most times we try for more than one or two votes.

[Lucinda]

8. knr

[kath]

9. baloney. there has been a clear bias lately in terms of which Meta OPs get locked, and which don't.

I've alerted recently on several Meta OPs that were pro-Hillary, and none of them were locked.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Since your entire premise is based on presumed intent, I have to presume this OP is intended to

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]

17. Egg shell season sees rules applied differently to different groups

and people

You are not a beginner at this game,

Oh and this is disruptive meta, but will never, ever, be locked.

[Fumesucker]

30. Yeah, MM is a real smooth operator

And hippos are great at parkour.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Here is you, MM, on Feb 16 announcing you will no longer post in GD P:

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]

23. This is DU, not an election. I changed my mind.

I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread, though.

[kath]

28. boy,wouldn't that have been nice.

Shucks, I was really looking forward to it.

[Joe the Revelator]

24. So two other threads are closed as 'meta' yet this one STILL stands

Come on guys.

[Joe the Revelator]

25. This is still open

[Purveyor]

27. Yep. This deck of cards is 'stacked'...

[cwydro]

31. I've been gone all day.

Any hints as to what this in reference to?

[In_The_Wind]

32. This

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]

33. Thanks.

That's pretty ugly.

Insulting volunteer hosts for simply doing their jobs.

Smh.