So nobody here at the moment has the pinning superpower.

The more of our folks we can get to advance our agenda in positive constructive ways, the merrier.

And the House of Reps and the Senate are great places to have Occupy voices..

...and actually it seems to be working out very well. We have had one poster who decided to come in and cast asparagus at unionworks and at Occupy but when I called him out on his nastiness he did not respond. I think it goes to show that the best way to deal with those who wish to disrupt is to confront them on the issue rather than ban them and thus add fuel to the fire. The system that has been talked about would have greatly handcuffed hosts in terms of the DU3 features so that no member could just be banned willy-nil, you would have to go great lengths to have your thread locked or be banned.

How's everyone feeling about this group so far?

You're right. Everything seems to be working just fine with no hosts.

I'd support keeping it that way or if we do decide to add a host to do things like "pinning" that they be a purely administrative-assistant host with no unilateral power who simply does things like pin things and remove the inevitable spam-post that every message board gets eventually.

Maybe at some point here soon we'll draft something to that effect and pick a host or two. Group hosts cannot remove spam posts but the MIRT can do so. If you see spam alert on it and identify it as such; hopefully the jury will delete it. Also if anyone ever alerts on a post for being an attack on OWS make sure to cite the SOP that clearly states "anti-Occupy Wall Street rhetoric belongs in other forums," such a thread or post is "disruptive."

I think maybe DU wore itself out kvetching over the basics of Occupy.

I'm off to Saturday lunch with the fam and errands, take care Chan790.

I guess we could just keep kicking the idea, I'm easy to get along with!

EllisonZ asked me if I wanted to reconcile the drafts of the proposed hosting guidelines. I was worried about doing so and then having no discussion or consensus on the resulting thread. But that wasn't the reason for the delay in returning to EZ's draft -- I was caught up in pressing real life concerns this past two weeks, and barely had time to check in on the other forum I'm active on.

The original proposal for hosts was to allow pinned threads and operate General Assembly threads for creative debate, and secondarily to serve as a check on possible future issues related to unmoderated groups, although I think OU is doing fine with little moderation but that was the strategy originally suggested to have the hosts (if any) take a hands off approach.

One of my main concerns is that Occupy not lose steam, I am worried that opponents of Occupy simply do not feel it is a threat any more. I recall no sooner than a month ago someone posted a thread about a heartwarming story at the site of a "former" Occupy -- the media defined it as the "former" site of the Occupy encampment as many of the campers had been removed, even though Occupy was still there.

I'll post a thread on the subject of the guidelines, to take a temperature check.

I'm cool with whatever the group feels is best. But I guess if EZ still wants to propose the guidelines I need to finish making the edits he requested I make, otherwise there's no "original proposal" to look over... (i.e. we were trying to work in changes suggested by various people to the original proposal.)

I'm pretty pleased that we even have this group!

Will stand by and continue to be supportive of the direction we take.

Without a host, there are some things that nobody can do, but I agree that if we have hosts we should be pretty hands-off, work by consensus, etc.

I think we can probably go with something simpler as there have been only really minor attempts to disrupt this group.

I'll be around pretty intermittently this week as I have a bunch of family stuff going on and some work-related stuff.

Aloha.

That might mean tonight, but we don't have to rush things especially with your brother recuperating and all.

(I promised ellisonz I would try to reconcile the various drafts of the principles for future hosting -- if any -- of a General Assembly style group.)

Easter services, Easter dinner with family, and Game of Thrones, which I hope won't be bloodier than that Mel Gibson film.

I know it makes me uncomfortable. Since OWS is "non-partisan" it would seem to defy the principle of the movement to start promoting candidates.

Would think "Politics 2012" would be a good place to pin post for them, though. Or, perhaps start a group forum to support them.

Valid point acknowledged.

I was thinking that Dem candidates who openly and publicly support Occupy might be OK to promote here, but it's not a big issue for me; there is lots of other space at DU to do something like this rather than make anyone here uncomfortable.

We don't have a SOP yet so it's open to what everyone else thinks.

you voiced a nagging concern/reservation I had about it also, and while I thought the idea might be constructive, I wasn't overly attached to it for the same reason(s) you stated.

But then I thought, sure, Alan and Elizabeth's campaigns are important, too, but you make a good point, KoKo.

Candidates forum, hmmm, actually, a Florida member contacted me suggesting something along those lines except that his idea is for a 2016 progressive candidates forum.

Politics 2012 might be a better place for that.