Forum Liaison Update

[The Philosopher]

I had a PM from Skinner about the liaison position. Apparently I was under the wrong impression that it needed to be discussed and fleshed out. The only power the liaison would have is the ability to block people from accessing the GLBT forum. Nothing more. All he's waiting on is our decision on who that person (or persons) would be.

"To reiterate, here's what is being offered: a position called forum liaison which would have the power to block members from the GLBT forum. That's the only power the forum liaison (or liaisons) would have. This will prevent "undesirables" from wandering into your forum and interrupting your discussions. All you have to do is let me know who wants to serve in this capacity, and I will make it happen."

I told him that would only address one of the three concerns of this forum. I wrote, "The two that it doesn't address: how GLBT topics are handled OUTSIDE the GLBT Forum; and the image--whether accurate or not--that there are some moderators who use the rules in order to attack some or all GLBT posters (aka, bigoted mods)." I saw the Forum Liaison as addressing these two by selecting which mods didn't work in the GLBT forum or address GLBT topics outside the forum and by acting as moderators themselves. And I'm sure many of you had ideas as well. However, Skinner replied, "Respectfully, I don't think what you have proposed will adequately address all three of those concerns either." He didn't elaborate, but considering DU3 is about to be released, I'm sure he has better things to do.

I'm sorry if I caused a ruckus with my misinterpretation of what Skinner was agreeing to. I certainly didn't mean to step where I wasn't supposed to. Hopefully DU3 does as Skinner claims and we can see a stronger, healthier GLBT Forum and watch our numbers grow without worry.

If anyone is still interested in filling the position, let me know and I’ll pass it along to Skinner.

[Pab Sungenis]

1. I told you.

And I'm sorry to discover I was right.

There's no point in filling this post because it will do nothing, and the "liaison" will be empowered to do next to nothing.

I think we'd be better off just letting the bigots have the place and moving on.

[The Philosopher]

16. Yes, I know

but it had to be done. I have a feeling the conversation isn't over.

[xchrom]

2. Sigh. Well - such as it is - what about yardwork? Nt

[Pab Sungenis]

3. What about you?

If the position has no real responsibility, anyone could do it.

Fuck, why not me? I promise the first action I will make is to lock everyone with a "moderator" flag out of the forum unless they've been an active participant here in the past three months.

[xchrom]

4. i think you'd be great -- i just thought from your previous response you

wouldn't interested.

i'm not computer savvy enough to do much of anything.

i don't think this forum should have straight mods -- that's for sure.

if the last years haven't shown that to be the case -- i don't know what to say.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. I'm half joking.

There's no way I would be allowed to be the liaison, even if it's a toothless position. I've called the Admins out on the anti-gay shit here too many times. I even got banned from ATA because I kept asking when they were going to start applying the rules evenly.

[xchrom]

6. see -- i think that's why you would be great.

we have to be pretty pest like to get heard here --

makes me feel like a little kid -- but there it is.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. I got heard, all right

so they closed their ears because they got tired of hearing me.

[xchrom]

8. lol -- yeah -- i know what you mean. nt

[yardwork]

18. You're very kind, but I can't take this on right now. Also, I'm not the right person.

Instead of banning people, I think that we should be allowed to deal with them. We would have no trouble dealing with disruptors if we were allowed to do so. Some of those disruptors would become supporters, too. I've seen that happen here on DU.

Banning people goes against my instincts. Most people are not vicious trolls, and the few who wander in do get taken care of by moderators. Our biggest problem is the under-the-radar nastiness that only regular readers can detect.

[xchrom]

9. whadya know -- invisible rec, huh. nt

[Sub Atomic]

10. Does that mean that we can also block the mods out?

Just askin'.

[Pab Sungenis]

11. Nope.

The Philosopher's response from Skinner suggested that the liaison won't be able to exclude certain moderators from the forum, which completely defeats the purpose.

[The Philosopher]

17. That's my understanding, too.

I doubt he sees moderators as being "undesirable."

[ThomCat]

12. Did you really ever expect even the slightest progress

on problems involving mods? Did you really?

There's an automatic filter in place. The mods are always right, and authoritarian behavior is not only accepted, but appreciated.

[The Philosopher]

15. It did not matter what I expected

I decided to try anyway.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. And believe it or not

it is appreciated.

[stevenleser]

13. I'm wondering if a compromise might be possible.

Seems like I saw an OP not too long ago where LGBT mods all checked in. How about only those folks be authorized to be Mods here plus the addition of a forum liaison?

Would that work for everyone?

[The Philosopher]

14. It would not work for Skinner.

What you suggested was in fact already proposed. What I posted was his response.

[yardwork]

19. There are many straight posters on DU I would embrace as mods here or anywhere.

Being gay or straight does not guarantee anything. Is Phyllis Schlafly a feminist?

[stevenleser]

22. Well, most DUers who belong to various discriminated against classes aren't the Schlafly/Thomas type

You don't see African American members of DU acting like Clarence Thomas or Female DU'ers acting like Phyllis Schlafly, etc., in terms of their own groups at least. I don't think DU appeals to those kinds of people.

In general though, your point is right on.

[yardwork]

20. Thank you for looking into this. I appreciate your efforts.

btw, now that we know what DU3 is going to look like, I have to say I don't like the sound of it. So members of various forums will be allowed to ban posters? That will create lots of little echo chambers.

[dsc]

23. Thank you for looking into this

I would suggest that if we do fill this position it be with a morning person and an evening person so all hours are covered. I do think the major problem is outside this particular forum and namely in GDP.