Now that we're beyond the beta review, does this group need hosts?

[Gormy Cuss]

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2011, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not a very contentious topic after all. I'm in favor of letting it be host-free because in the unlikely event that someone came in here to stir up trouble the alert system is probably sufficient to handle it.

When you get a chance, please put down the seed catalogs and voice your opinion on this subject.

[maddezmom]

1. probably doesn't need a host because of disruptors but would love NRaleighLiberal

to be the host because of his wealth of knowledge and could be a great host to the group.

[beac]

2. That's how I feel too.

[Gormy Cuss]

3. Other than blocking disruptive types, there's only one real advantage to having group hosts

and that's to pin threads. So for that reason alone there should be someone acting as host.

[Little Star]

4. I agree, for that reason alone every group needs a host...

But there could be other reasons also, like helping a new member find there sea legs in a group, etc. And just because there has never been a problem in a benign group doesn't mean there couldn't ever be one.

Lets remember, there were moderators in every single group on DU2 and Skinner must have had a reason.

I can't see how having a host could hurt.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. What made me ask is that Skinner wrote that groups could decide to do without one.

Even if a disruptor appears in an unhosted group there's the option of alerting on the OP and letting a jury decide. That would leave disruptors who only reply as an unresolved problem.

I do like your idea that the hosts can act like IRL hosts by showing a n00b the ropes.

[XemaSab]

6. What's that now?

[HopeHoops]

7. Yes. What if we get a Monsanto troll trying to smash the group?

I'll shut that down.