I am calling for an election for new hosts

[boston bean]

This discussion thread was locked by Neoma (a host of the Feminists group).

Last edited Tue Feb 14, 2012, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

The reason for this is because the lead host has breached the trust of this group, by sharing private conversations that she had with other hosts, to anonymous non hosts.

It feels as though the group is being run with a figure head while others whom we do not who they are know are or what their intentions are, are running the ship. I do not feel this is appropriate for this group or any group on DU.

Please list below your nominations. The election will be run for 3 days, starting now.

Please state your lead host choice first, then choice for co-host below that.

ETA anyone making a vote should belong to this group, please do not vote if you are not involved with the feminist group.

PLEASE READ BELOW


ETA: Only members who have been a member prior to today can vote in this election. We have had an increase in membership just today, and it may give some reason to doubt the election was fair.

And to clarify a majority vote determines who is lead host. For co host a minimum threshold of 25% of the total vote must be met to become a co-host.

[PassingFair]

1. I don't know that I am "involved" to the proper extent....

But I would vote:

Lead Host: Redqueen

Co-Host: Seabeyond

[wildflower]

3. I agree completely with this post

Those are my choices as well. I know I haven't posted often, but I've been subscribed for years and care a lot about what happens to this group.

[boston bean]

6. thank you wildflower

your votes have been recorded.

[boston bean]

5. Thank you passingfair

your votes have been recorded!

[MuseRider]

15. I read here more than post

but I would agree with those, they would have been my picks as well.

Redqueen Host
Seabeyond Co Host

I may not count since I am not here a lot but if I do there is my vote.

[boston bean]

19. Thank you muserider

vote has been recorded!

[Texasgal]

7. Okay..

Hopefully we can get this place to calm down a bit.

Redqueen- Lead host

Seabeyond- co-host

[boston bean]

10. Thank you Texasgal!

[wildflower]

8. Just to clarify

My top choice is redqueen...

and then I think there are 3 more host spots? I would choose seabeyond, laconicsax, and ismnotwasm (if she is still here).

[boston bean]

9. okay, thank you wildflower.

[wildflower]

13. Thank you for doing this

I think a fresh start may be the best thing.

[boston bean]

16. Thanks again, wildflower. I agree.

[Remember Me]

38. No, there are NOT 3 other spots. I vote we leave it at exactly those two for now.

They are known quantities, there is obviously support for them here, and leaving it at these two will give this place a chance to simmer down. In fact, I vote that absolutely NO ONE ELSE be added in addition for at least one month after this is finalized. Period.

Now, I have to warn everyone, it's my understanding that redqueen works and doesn't necessarily have much chance and perhaps not much access during the day. She also has family responsibilities. So -- again, according to my understanding -- she can't be here all the time.

[seabeyond]

11. redqueen host, seabeyond 2nd

laconicsax if he still wants to be a part of the group. texasgal. crispy q and anyone else that thinks they would like to give it a try. oh oho h

boston bean, scout, rememberme,

anyone else.

open.

cause redqueen gets her ass kicked if she walks again

[Remember Me]

39. No, seabeyond. See my other post just now

You and redqueen, period. PERIOD.

laconicsax has done nothing that I can see.

You and redqueen are getting support from the group-- let's let the place settle down. In fact -- to repeat myself -- I vote that NO ONE ELSE but the two of you be added as co-hosts for at least a month. AT LEAST.

[Remember Me]

54. YES on redqueen host and seybayond 2nd

[Lisa D]

12. Can you please clarify?

How many hosts will there be? I think all the hosts of this group should now be elected, not assigned by anyone.

[boston bean]

14. list as many as you want

If they get a certain percentage of the entire voting tally, I think they should be added.

What that percentage is, I am not sure. But I don't think 1 vote should do it. Possibly 25%.

I think the software allows up to 20, but I am not 100% sure about that.

[The empressof all]

17. Personally I think we should wait

I think we need to give this time before there is any decision about hosting here.

There is absolutely no reason to move on this now.


I have been lurking in this group for years and I could not at this point vote for anyone

I would like more time to consider all the options.

[boston bean]

18. I disagree.

I will not say more, in hopes of not derailing this thread.

[kdmorris]

28. She has been accused of hostage taking and stealing

why would she not be talking to skinner? I assume the admins are watching this matter pretty closely.

And you are right... it's not one person's forum.. though she (not Neoma) seems to think it is.

[Remember Me]

55. who accused her of hostage taking and stealing?

I've seen nothing like that.

Now, it wouldn't surprise me, mind you, but -- ?? Links, please.

[kdmorris]

94. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124046259#post38

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124046259#post47

Sorry - I misspoke - not "stealing", "squatting":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392827#post11

I will find more, if you need them, but have to go back to work now.

[Remember Me]

98. In context,

I have to agree.

In context, I see both comments as slightly hyperbolic, but in context, accurate nonetheless.

[kdmorris]

101. Fair enough

I do not agree with you, but you have the right to your opinion.

[boston bean]

33. seabeyond, please let the election take place here.

no need to rehash, people can make their feelings known with a vote.

[justiceischeap]

20. I'd just like to state the following

A lot of the same names are being suggested for hosts of the group. I think before all this happened there were issues with how this group was being hosted and I don't know that re-electing the same hosts for the group is going to solve the problems we have here.

Though this is a protected group, I've seen too many people claim that they feel unwelcome here. I've seen men, who may be feminists or support feminism be told they have no place here and these things are allowed to stand. People have been saying they have issues with this group long before Neoma took over as the main host (by virtue of the software, I know).

If we want things to improve here, I think this should be considered and discussed. Of course, to some, I'm not considered a "regular" (and I suspect some may even consider me one of those "disrupters" everyone talks about) here so maybe my opinion doesn't count but I'm putting it out there for what it's worth.

I think what is important for a host of any group is the ability to keep their head about them, not get so caught up in things that there doesn't seem to be any impartiality. I think it's important that a host be a feminist but I think it might be equally important that they not be so invested in the feminism that it keeps them from looking at things objectively or fairly (if that makes sense).

Anyway, those are my two pennies, take them as they are.

[boston bean]

21. I disagree.

[justiceischeap]

24. What exactly do you disagree with?

That the previous hosts were doing a bang up job?

That things should be handled by cooler heads?

That there weren't problems prior to this one?

Or maybe you disagree that people have said they don't feel comfortable here?

[boston bean]

25. no, that a non feminist should run this group.

I think that is wrong headed.

But please, let's take the discussion someplace else, this thread is really not the place for it.

There is an election going on.

[justiceischeap]

30. That's not at all what I said

and my post pertains to the election, thank you very much...

I think it's important that a host be a feminist but I think it might be equally important that they not be so invested in the feminism that it keeps them from looking at things objectively or fairly (if that makes sense).

Where in that statement did I say a non-feminist should be the host of the group?

[boston bean]

31. please pm me if you want to explore this more deeply.

[The Straight Story]

64. Hey now

Don't drag me into this The only thing I am good at moderating is a bottle of rum

[wildflower]

26. I think your feelings aren't incompatible with a vote

Because with a vote, you and others could register your desire for different hosts. IMO.

[iverglas]

104. before this happened

I think before all this happened there were issues with how this group was being hosted and I don't know that re-electing the same hosts for the group is going to solve the problems we have here.

Why can you not ever, not once, say what you mean?

What are these "issues"? If you saw them "before all this happened", why did you not seek to have them addressed then?

Let's call a spade a spade. Why have you colluded in the anti-democratic, non-conforming, illegitimate power grab that has happened in this group? Feel free to answer that question by saying you have not done that.


The hosting that was done before this happened was:

- I pinned a post at the top of the board asking visitors to notice where they were and to read and adhere to the SoP, and asking members to remind visitors to do that if needed

- Neoma wrote a post expressing her personal feelings (entitled "Breathe&quot and locked it to replies, and pinned it at the top of the board; I thought the pinning was inappropriate since her personal feelings were not those of the hosts, let alone the group, and unpinned it (and PMed her about the reasons)

- redqueen resigned, so Neoma rose to the top of the host list from the random order in which co-hosts had been entered

- the 4 co-hosts discussed the possible banning of three very obvious disruptive intruders last Tuesday; I believe two were banned from posting here as a result of that discussion

- Neoma removed me as co-host and banned me from posting in the group forum

- another moderator eventually removed the posting ban

- Neoma was asked to appoint redqueen as co-host again and then resign along with all the other co-hosts but redqueen, so redqueen would again be host (that having been the very clear original choice) and the original co-hosts (again, chosen after lengthy discussion) would be reappointed, in a different order

- Neoma disclosed PMs between herself and other co-hosts and gave unnamed other posters access to the site where the co-hosts had discussed the problems of Tuesday night involving the disruptive posters and the banning issue, without asking the permission of the other people involved or even informing them of what she had done

- Neoma refused to resign and pinned another vanity post at the top of the board announcing her intentions for the forum, did not reply to any messages addressed to her in that thread, and has now locked it to further comment


Where is Neoma? Hosting? I'm not seeing any evidence of it. Does someone want to let us know who holds her proxy now?


The host/co-host roster should be returned to EXACTLY what it was before redqueen's unfortunate resignation, unless any of that group of co-hosts does not wish to be reappointed.

I think it's important that a host be a feminist but I think it might be equally important that they not be so invested in the feminism that it keeps them from looking at things objectively or fairly (if that makes sense)

No, it doesn't make any sense. It is obviously an attempt to tailor words to keep redqueen out of the host position (and the other co-hosts out of those positions). It failed.

[Scout]

142. thank you. i concur.

redqueen = host
seabeyond next
iverglas next

[maddezmom]

22. I have no problem with your nominations but I also don't see an immediate need to do it now

maybe let things settle a bit and call for them next week.

I'd also like to say, 3 days isn't sufficient time, imo because not all members check in everyday.

Or maybe all the hosts should resign now until the new vote takes place.

[boston bean]

23. I disagree.

Some people have already expressed the need for a new beginning. I see no reason to wait.

I think three days is good, as it's not to long and drawn out. then we can get back to the issues that concern us all.

[maddezmom]

34. but some do see a reason to wait and if you going to insist on a vote now

Why does it need to be done in 3 days? I think giving it a week would be more inclusive to more members.

[Remember Me]

41. I totally agree with Boston Bean --

calls to "wait," and "no reason to vote now" only delay getting the forum (Group) back to normal. And IF things are happening behind the Group's back, there's a lot less chance for that to happen and bear fruit.

VOTE NOW.

[maddezmom]

48. I think it's going to take more than the vote to get things back to normal

And again, the 3 day time limit is too short.

[Remember Me]

53. Yes it will.

It'll take months, probably.

Three day time limit hell -- I vote to end this TODAY.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. And calls to vote now are an attempt to rush through a new main host when the current one is fine

with many of us. Frankly, the rush to remove her feels like a high tech lynching.

[Remember Me]

52. Oh, please

She's only the "main" host because of an accident. The co-hosts were added at random, without understanding how the software would work when someone stepped down. No one intended her to be "next in line" for main host.

edited to add: and when she did become main host, she did nothing (that I can see) other than abuse her authority and position.

[boston bean]

32. Thank you kdmorris.

[The empressof all]

35. If people insist on continuing with this

I would like to propose that all the nominees start threads to discuss their plans to make this group a better place and their goals for the group.

At this point we don't know what anyone really thinks about the place this group has on DU

I want to hear everyone nominated and interested in serving articulate their positions so I can make an informed decision.

[justiceischeap]

36. ^_^ This. nt

[Lisa D]

40. I agree.

I don't want to nominate people who may have no interest in hosting. That would be a waste of my vote.

[Remember Me]

42. Those of us who are regulars DO have an understanding.

[The empressof all]

44. I have read here daily since the group started

Frankly, I don't have a clue where people stand on inclusiveness and making this a welcoming home for Feminists.

Clearly there have been issues that have been brought up of many members not feeling comfortable here.

That concerns me. It should also concern the hosts IMO

[redqueen]

49. I wish someone would share those issues of not feeling comfortable here, in this group.

There are contentious issues surrounding feminism. Not all feminists agree on everything. This is not unique to DU.

The only thing I've seen people own up to feeling intimidated or scared off by is the infighting.

I tried proposing a way to end that yesterday and it lasted all of about an hour.

Without knowing what exactly is making people uncomfortable, it is hard to do anything about it. I am concerned about it, and would love to be able to address it.

[justiceischeap]

56. I feel uncomfortable when someone implies people aren't regulars

I feel uncomfortable when a few members of the group act as though this group is theirs alone.

I keep asking people to create a list of people they don't want here and post it. Put it out there in the meta thread, so we can see who truly isn't welcome here. That I have to ask that, makes me uncomfortable.

I feel uncomfortable because I feel that the LGBT community isn't really welcome here by some.

I feel uncomfortable when I see men who seem to be genuine get attacked within the group.

I feel uncomfortable that it appears that some don't want transparency within the group.

I feel uncomfortable with the speed of which this current hosting situation is being pushed through.

I feel uncomfortable that only a vocal few are going to end up deciding what happens within this group.

Finally, I feel uncomfortable when I get a wedgie.

On edit:

I'm going to feel uncomfortable when I'm attacked for posting this reply because my "feelings" don't have linkable proof.

[redqueen]

66. Regular participants are just that.

If someone doesn't post often but lurks, the idea that they'll get a suspicious eye cast at them from time to time is not unique to this group or to DU. As long as no one directly attacks someone as a disruptor I don't know if that's an enforceable rule, that no one be even made to feel as if they might be considered a disruptor. And taking into consideration the way this forum has been subjected to attacks and scorn, I think it's actually somewhat understandable that people here are sensitive to the motives of those who don't participate in discussions.

Do you think we could or should have a rule like that?


I'm not sure what you mean by "acting like the group is theirs alone". Again, there are people with that attitude all over the internet, and unless some specific commented is called out for being unfairly territorial or somehow limiting inclusiveness, again I'm not sure what to do about it. Do you have any suggestions?


I have asked repeatedly what it is that makes LGBT community members feel unwelcome here. I know there was one incident where one of the members here was called out in the LGBT forum and then blocked from there and it has resulted in bad blood there, but that does not reflect on anyone else in this forum, as far as I know. And that was one discussion. If there is some other issue then I'd like to know about it, but if it's based on that one altercation then I don't really know what to say besides it seems to have been blown all out of proportion.


I think we all feel uncomfortable when we see PEOPLE who are genuine being attacked anywhere. I think men who are familiar with feminist issues would be understanding that they need to be careful about how they participate in this group, and I don't know that any men who have posted here have felt they have been treated unfairly, save for one who was blocked for not participating along with the spirit of the SOP. If any men do feel they were treated unfairly who were participating in the spirit of the SOP I would hope they would make that known.


Not even going to address transparency. That is a huge mess at the moment and I don't wish to become involved any more than I already am.


The last hosting discussions were left open for weeks, so I can see the side of those who wanted it done faster last time and don't want to go through that again... especially in light of the fact that this group is being targeted by trolls. Very sadly successful trolls.


I take offense to your notion that a vocal few will decide what happens. No one is stopping anyone from speaking up. There's a saying that goes something like 'always speak the truth, even if your voice shakes'. The issues that are discussed in this group are taken very seriously by those that participate here.

Despite the fact that these concerns are roundly mocked in other groups on this site, that is a fact. If someone cares about an issue, they have a responsibility to speak up. Failing to do so and then complaining about the results is not an effective way to change anything. I can understand not wanting to speak up in GD or the Lounge, or anywhere else on the net that isn't moderated or populated by thoughtful people... but here? We need every voice here, and on issues such as discussions of rules and hosts, I would hope that everyone concerned would realize the importance and participate in those discussions.

[iverglas]

105. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I feel uncomfortable when someone wanders in here making intentionally vague allegations against unnamed persons on behalf of unnamed persons in unspecified incidents.

I don't feel uncomfortable, actually, of course, I just feel as peeved as I do every time you do this.


Let's start with this one:

I feel uncomfortable that it appears that some don't want transparency within the group.

Name names and substantiate the allegation or stop now.

[justiceischeap]

109. Redqueen: Here's an example for you

I don't feel uncomfortable, actually, of course, I just feel as peeved as I do every time you do this.

Why, out of all the posts, when Redqueen asked what made people feel uncomfortable was I singled out? Other's responded to her, yet it's my post that gets singled out.

On edit:
I'm noticing a trend as of 4:52 EST:

La Lioness Priyanka was the only other one to get a reply from iverglas.

[iverglas]

110. No answers?

Never have been, have there?

And never will be.

Just unsubstantiate allegations that we all know are not true.

World without end, amen.

[justiceischeap]

112. Actually there were answers, PM'd to Redqueen. n/t

[iverglas]

114. well fuck that noise, eh?

You made allegations in this thread, not by PM to anybody.

Substantiate them.

[justiceischeap]

116. It's in reply to Redqueen's question

So I don't see how this involves you really.

[Violet_Crumble]

171. I've used the word 'regulars' and I don't act as though I own the group...

Would 'frequent posters in Feminists' be better?

You know why I think it's important that 'frequent posters in Feminists' be the ones who make hosting decisions in their own group? It's because I feel really uncomfortable too, and it's because of suggestions that anyone who subscribes to this group must have a vote and watching the number of subscriptions skyrocket. It's because I've watched the fighting and bickering going on with some people popping in just to yell at someone else and not join in any threads where we're actually discussing feminism. I'm not part of any vocal group, but I don't see why my vote which is in the best interests of bringing some much needed peace to this group is considered as valuable as that of someone who has no interest in this group other than feeding some flamewars spread across DU. Yr a regular face in this group. Do you consider yrself part of the 'vocal minority' that will decide? I don't anymore than I'm part of anything other than a group of people who use this group for what it's intended to be used for...

Now, you should already be aware that I consider yr views on feminism to be the ones that are closest to my own and that I think yr a valuable member of this group, so don't go getting uncomfortable on me, okay? It makes me uncomfortable that you feel uncomfortable about LGBT feminists not feeling welcome (btw, I know yr not talking about some hypothetical situation when a gay guy turns up who just happens to be a misogynist). It makes me feel that in being a part of this group, I'm being seen as some sort of homophobe. I've got a simple rule of thumb for who should be welcome here. Anyone who's a misogynist or who disrupts the group after being warned not to should be blocked, and if they're LGBT or not doesn't even enter into it as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, it does bother me that you don't feel like yr welcome, because I certainly welcome yr contributions and know I'm not the only one who feels that way...

On the people with penises thing. I've heard a rumour that one of our hosts possesses one, and I'm someone who always believed I wasn't a feminist until a man I used to know quite a few years ago convinced me otherwise. I had no problems accepting he was a feminist, but resisted thinking I was one. If I see a man I think is genuine posting and he gets jumped on, I'll jump right on in and have my say and so should you...

I don't understand what you mean by transparency. Is this about how hosts communicate and stuff? I'm a host of a group and a forum, and the Hosts forum doesn't provide actual transparency. What it gives is the ability for hosts to discuss what goes on in there and the assumption is they use their common sense. I don't think all DUers need to see the back and forth and sometimes angst of a bunch of H&M hosts debating whether to lock a thread or not, mainly coz it'd be boring as all hell....

On this supposed speed thing, I disagree. The current situation has turned the group into a toxic zone and it needs to be resolved asap so this place can settle down. Why wait? My opinion isn't going to change if I have to wait a week, a month, or even a year...

Now I get to add something that is really making me uncomfortable and questioning posting here. I feel uncomfortable posting anything at all because I feel like I'm walking on eggshells trying to avoid offending someone somehow with something I've said, or that my posts in this group will be targeted for alerting, even though I'm pretty skilled at putting together posts that are solidly unhideable. But I don't feel that way when I post in the I/P group, which up till recently I thought was the most cyber bloodletting sort of place at DU, so I don't get why I feel like that posting here. It kind of sucks...

That wedgie feeling? Yr going to have to deal with that one on yr own!!

[The empressof all]

58. They have over and over again

If you would like perhaps we should start a thread to put this out again.

If people across the board report this feeling at some point you need to address it. Clearly you know that some people feel they will be attacked here by other members. As hosts you need to find a way to make the environment less friendly to those who use the group in a manner that is hostile and unwelcoming.

I didn't see your thread about ideas to end the infighting. That's a shame people didn't participate.

Maybe you need to reframe the discussion and solicit opinion and construct an expectation of non judgemental responses.

When groups brainstorm the participants refrain from naysaying and excuse making. Perhaps utilizing those techniques in framing your requests could garner better responses.

Please understand, I have nothing against any of the hosts past or present ...but there is a problem here that you all need to stop denying or blaming others for.

If you want to lead you need to understand that people aren't always going to be direct and you need to pay attention to what isn't said as much as what is.

On Edit: OK I found your thread. It wasn't clear to me that was an attempt to elicit discussion on how to make this a more comfortable home. Honestly I'm not interested in fighting and refighting this as a battle of bullies or LBGT against feminists battle. I think looking at it that way is short sighted and poisons the well so to speak.

[redqueen]

69. That is the only issue that seemed to be routinely referred to

as a problem.

There's also the infighting, but again, that was not a major issue before the trolls showed up.

Furthermore, those arguments that were started by the trolls could have been much better handled if there had been more communication, and less fingerpointing and defensiveness. All that did was serve to make things worse.

As far as paying attention to what isn't said as much as what is, I'm not sure what to make of that. I'm not a mind-reader. There are obviously some personal interactions that are problematic and I consider those to be between the people involved.

As people were so fond of telling feminists in H&M, perhaps they should put those people they find so disagreeable on ignore.

[The empressof all]

76. There are trolls showing up in every group

This group really isn't that unique. Have you ever been to BOG? Seriously....We aren't that important.

On DU no group or position is immune from disagreement but I think we should at least try to make conflict less disagreeable ....

[redqueen]

87. I'll check the thread views in the BOG and get back to you.

We seem to attract a lot of attention, disproportionate by far to the amount of participation that goes on.

As for making conflict less disagreeable, I agree completely. This is why I have such a big problem with people alleging that there are huge problems here when often it seems that the issue is actually something one person said, and they are extrapolating that to the entire group.

[The empressof all]

102. Please understand I say this trying to be helpful

You seem to deny there is a problem and then blame the people who are reporting they have an issue. The fact that you don't understand this contributes to the problem. I really don't know how to make myself clearer...There is a disconnect among members in perspective.

Sometimes understanding is not the first step...Sometimes acknowledging that people have a right to have a voice is a better first step. Understanding is difficult when people can not speak. If there are so many voices saying the same thing the fact you don't understand has little to do with it. You still need to hear it and be open to altering your own perspective.

I really don't feel any hostility or animosity towards you RedQueen but the problem here isn't the fact that people are reporting they have a problem yet that's what you seem to imply.

[justiceischeap]

103. I have to agree with this statement.

I gave examples to you Redqueen and I'm not feeling that those examples are really being considered. "Yeah, but" isn't really hearing my concerns. Again, I must reiterate it's all about perceptions. I'm perceiving that though I've given you examples of what makes me feel uncomfortable, they just don't seem important to you because, maybe, you can't see how they appear to others.

Just for transparencies sake, I PM'd my examples to Redqueen because I certainly don't want to be accused of starting some flamewar.

[redqueen]

108. I'm not saying "yeah but"...

I'm saying that I do hear your concerns, and that I also see it from the other side.

The problem is that people are not communicating with each other. They are suspicious and distrustful of each other. My only solution is more open and honest communication.

Instead of taking a statement as a slight, and wondering if it's aimed at you, just ask the person, and ask why they feel that way. I don't know how else to get past this. I don't think people here are operating out of bad faith (or if there are people doing so I'm sure it's very, very few)... and since I sincerely believe that I would hope that we all could try lowering our defenses and re-opening the lines of communication.

[redqueen]

106. I'm not denying there is a problem.

We're disagreeing on what exactly the problem is.

Where have I said that people don't have a right to a voice? If anything I'm asking that there be more clarity about these things.

I don't understand what your last sentence means. I didn't mean to imply that the problem is that people are reporting they have a problem. I think the problem is that it's all very vague what that problem is. As a result of that, there are all these misunderstandings and it's leading people to be even more defensive and distrustful, and that just is not helpful.

[The empressof all]

113. The problem is that people feel uncomfortable

There is no answer to the question Why. It doesn't matter Why. There is no ONE answer. Every woman who reports this has a different reason.

You can't just fix this through understanding this like it was a disease that needs medication.

It's a systemic issue for the group.

Everytime you request that people explain themselves to you it pushes them away. I think it would be helpful for you to start a thread to really listen to people without asking for reasons, proof or justifications for their feelings. No judgements on their feelings...and no expectations for the hosts to fix things either.

[boston bean]

160. I feel extremely uncomfortable with a lead host that

shares private conversations with other hosts, with anonymous non hosts for reasons that are not transparent.

I also feel uncomfortable with a lead host who will not discuss the issue.

I also feel uncomfortable with a lead host who is absent, conveniently, from these discussions.

[redqueen]

179. I feel uncomfortable that there seems to be a concerted effort

to label some behavior bullying, and other behavior not bullying.

The way I see it there is heated discussion coming from both sides.

[TriMera]

68. I have also voiced that I did not feel comfortable here.

When I did, it was attributed to what happened what another member (who also happens to be LGBT) said and the reaction to that in the Group Hosts and Statement of Purpose thread. Well, the reason that I feel uncomfortable has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that certain members make it very clear that this is "their" group and that only certain things should be discussed. Also, with all due respect, I don't think that a thread started with the intention of ending discord within the group should be titled "LGBT vs Feminists". I know that your heart was in the right place, but that's not the way to start a discussion; especially when there is much more to this than the title suggests, IMHO.

[redqueen]

73. What more is there? The trolls?

Seriously, tell me. Because other than personal squabbling and trolls and that discussion, I'm not seeing it.

Which members are making it clear that this is their group?

What things do you think are not to be discussed, and who's saying that?

I appreciate your criticism of the thread title, I would have done the same had you said so in the thread, and would have changed it to be more indicative of the subject.

[TriMera]

79. I did not say anything about the thread title

because I thought it might send the discussion in that direction (LGBT vs Feminists) and I did not want to do that. The handling (or lack thereof) of the troll situation has a lot to do with my discomfort. As I have said before, perception is very powerful. As for those claiming the group as their own, do you really want me to name names? I would rather not put myself in the middle of that shit storm.

[redqueen]

84. The trolls used very subtle slights.

I did not detect the transphobia in the comments, and the "lispy queen" comment was said "affectionately" and coming after weeks of being told that we were supposed to accept bitch and cunt because we should own them, I would hope the lack of sensitivity about that would be understandable.

If the trolls had been confronted then I think it would have gone a lot better. But then when one came back and it was confronted, people got defensive about the manner of the confrontation.

I think the lesson to take from all of this is that people in both groups are really on edge and defensive, and we need to check that, so that we aren't drawn into any more conflicts created by trolls.

Please PM me the names of those who claim the forum is their own, because I am really interested in getting this stuff sorted. I can do my own searching with the names and the terms to find out what I've somehow missed up to now.

[mtnester]

146. "and the "lispy queen" comment was said "affectionately"

What a fucking pantload.

My vote now goes to Neoma to stay as primary host. As a many year reader an Du2 (and I think DU1, not sure) and on here, that was some fantastic spin and denial.

[redqueen]

174. Are we claiming that this kind of comment is bullying,

or is it acceptable?

You can call it a pantload if you like. Perhaps if people didnt put so much emphasis on owning slurs there wouldn't be this confusion, but oh well.

[mtnester]

186. NO, I am claiming that saying it was said affectionately is a PANTLOAD

of spin.

[redqueen]

187. You're cursing at me and accusing me of spin and denial.

I think that qualifies as bullying, based on some of the other claims I'm seeing.

Regardless, those are not my opinions, those are the facts. The (now banned troll) said they were gay and were using the terms affectionately ... and it is a fact that for a long while leading up to that incident people on DU had told feminists that they should 'reclaim' anti-woman slurs, or that other members were reclaiming 'bitch' and 'cunt', so they didn't personally consider the terms offensive.

Maybe you can't see how that kind of crap muddies the waters, but I assure you that it does.

[mtnester]

188. Get a mirror, use it

and get back to me.

[Remember Me]

60. Well,I haven't read here daily and I DO have a clue -- a very good one

So ... ????

Many of the people are not comfortable here because of the tension and disharmony. I understand that. Some people -- an awful lot of them feminists - - just can't stand strife and such.

But there are others who probably won't be comfortable until they've taken over the place.

[Remember Me]

78. Actually, I should amend my statement

As I thought about it, the reason I have "a very good idea" is because I spent several recent full damn days of my life following all the threads (and participating in probably too many of them) -- all the way to Meta & Help and back, and back again, and back. Not pretty. Not pretty at all.

BUT, I learned a helluva lot, and what I learned is even less pretty. My personal observations of the patterns that were interwoven throughout left me with a very unsettled feeling about what's going on and what is likely to go on from here.

So, it's probably not fair to imply let alone think that everyone should know what I have learned, since not everyone took the same route I did.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. i agree. i also what to know what is the accountability process

who will you block out of the forum and why.

[iverglas]

107. why? why do you want to know this?

i agree. i also what to know what is the accountability process
who will you block out of the forum and why.

Why are you pretending that this has not been discussed at great length in the past?

Do you want to pretend you don't know my answer, just for instance?

Has anyone been blocked from posting in the forum who you think should not have been blocked?

Let us know. Or stop trying to make someone think that the existing/original hosts/co-hosts engaged in nefarious poster-blocking or gave evidence of any intention ever to do that.

Who would you block out of the forum and why, La Lioness Priyanka?

Can you link us to where you objected to Neoma unilaterally blocking me from posting? - whether because you thought that decision was a bad one, substantively, or because you thought the process involved in making it was bad.

Let's have some transparency, indeed. And accountability. And all that jazz.

Here's what I want to know.

What are the names of the posters who have discussed with Neoma

- removing me as co-host of the group
- blocking me from posting in the group
- deciding to remain as host of the group without consulting any co-hosts and against the wishes of her co-hosts and of many other posters

?

Let's have them, now. You go first.

[JustAnotherGen]

43. I think

I will let others vote on this. I read more than I post - quite a bit more than I post as I belong to several 'niche' online groups/forums focused on women. I don't have a dog in this race at all.

[Vanje]

45. ok

1.Neoma
2.Empress of all

[The empressof all]

47. No thank you

My plate is full

[Vanje]

159. Very well then.....

1.Neoma
2. Gormy Cuss

(Edited because my spelling sux.)

[Gormy Cuss]

46. I propose that we wait.

Rushing to throw out the current host is not needed. The last host selection was by consensus of a relatively small number of subscribers. It's pretty obvious that the process wasn't well executed, probably because most figured that redqueen would stay at the helm and the co-host order wasn't important.

I suggest that we wait at least a week and then hold a vote similar to the way it was done in the LBGT forum after they had a contentious host issue. First, members nominate themselves or others as host (and those others agree to act as hosts.) Assuming that we still want a host and four co-hosts, the next step would be for each member to post a list of who they would like to see as hosts, in order of preference. The person with the most first place votes becomes the host. The person with the most second place votes becomes the first co-host, and so on until five persons have been identified. This does require people to vote publicly and thus requires agreement that a members' voting preferences can not be used to criticize them at a later date.

I have no interest in hosting this group but I would be willing to manage the above election process and do all of the tallying and would welcome a second volunteer to confirm the tallies.

[maddezmom]

51. I support this idea and would support you handling the vote process

[Remember Me]

59. I don't suppor it.

[maddezmom]

62. okay n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

67. I don't support it either n/t

[maddezmom]

71. okay n/t

[PassingFair]

81. I don't support it either. nt

[mtnester]

147. I would support that as well

[Remember Me]

57. The current host -- WHERE THE HELL IS SHE??? -- nowhere to be seen except when

she posts one of her ultimatum-type posts and then runs for the hills.

Is THAT what you want in a main host?

Do you want a main host who will make unilateral decisions about ousting people? after an agreement that such things would be consensual among the hosts? And then she refuses to un-do the damage, or answer for herself?

She's been criticized a lot here in these boards -- WHERE THE HELL IS SHE? Don't you think she should be answering for herself in SOME way? Is THAT what you want in a main host? Is that how you plan to behave in the Group you host?

And are you comfortable with her sharing private communication with others -- how would you like her to share your PMs with others without your permission or knowledge? Doesn't matter if you said "nothing you're ashamed of," it's the principle of the thing.

Why wait a week? This place is in shambles. Waiting a week would just ensure that it all continue for at least a week.

[Gormy Cuss]

70. I want hosts who can look beyond their own personal allegiances and facilitate discussion.

As best I can tell Neoma is being hands off and letting us discuss it amongst ourselves. The lock on the thread calling for her to resign was done only after the discussion had carried on for quite some time -- a good lock.

Since you asked, I believe that any host should have the authority to oust a person who is violating the SoP. The other hosts can discuss the matter and agree by consensus to uphold it or reverse it. I also believe that the primary host has a special duty in that process, namely being the tie breaker if there is a mixed opinion.

I am comfortable with hosts talking privately about issues here. In fact, I'd wager that all of them have discussed matters of this forum with people other than their co-host. As for someone sharing my PMs with others without my permission or knowledge, there is no rule under DU3 to prevent that. We all communicate via PMs under an informal agreement that the message is private. Sometimes I've received and sent PMs with requests not to share. I've always honored my end of that agreement and hope that others have honored their end. That's the best to hope for. The mantra on DU3 is transparency after all.

As for waiting a week, there are too many people riled up at the moment, same as happened when the original hosts/SoP thread went up. After THAT calmed down we selected a host and co-hosts with little fanfare. I'd like to see something similar for the next hosting discussion, but as I've stated elsewhere I think this time we need to be a bit more formal and actually ELECT hosts.

[Remember Me]

74. You GOTTA be kidding me

As best I can tell Neoma is being hands off and letting us discuss it amongst ourselves.

That's not being charitable, that's being either delusional or deceitful or perhaps just completely ignorant of the situation at hand. Either way, a statement like that under these circumstances is sure credibility-destroyer for me.

[Gormy Cuss]

83. I assure you, it's none of that.

I'm also not terribly concerned about your credibility meter.

[boston bean]

80. by the bar you have set, you might not be the best person suited for the job either..

She's also been asked to stay by others.

Far from taking the group hostage she is publicly hosting in a way that is commendable and a number of us want her to stay on in the interim.

Neoma had the difficult challenge of becoming primary host while the group was in the midst of a prolonged battle. Take a deep breath, back away and look at what she has done. Yes, she blocked a member from the group. Anyone with an unjaundiced eye can see why a host would consider blocking that person at the time Neoma made the block. Rather than supporting this decision or starting a thread to discuss it, another co-host unilaterally made the decision to unblock that member. THAT type of manipulation doesn't belong in the group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124046259#post82

[Gormy Cuss]

88. I stated in this thread that I have no interest in hosting here.

but the quote above does no more to invalidate me as a host here than your opinions would automatically invalidate you.

[boston bean]

91. That is exactly what I am saying, yet someone wants to run a new election

not the one I started.

hmmmm...

[Gormy Cuss]

93. I suggested that as part of a disagreement with your call for an election.

Obviously it could be done without my involvement. I only volunteered so that there wouldn't be an argument that no one would want to put in the time to do such a tally.

[boston bean]

99. I have plenty of time, that is why I volunteered.

[boston bean]

61. I thought that I've volunteered for this, by just posting this, is there something wrong with me?

LOL

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. yes. you have clear allegiances here that makes you a very impartial person

to handle an election process

personally, i too would be completely unsuitable for it. so i am not saying you are a bad person or have a character flaw or anything like that.

i would prefer a more neutral person.

[boston bean]

75. really lioness?

because I think a host that shares private conversations with others is not acceptable behavior for a host, means I won't be able to tally up some votes and make and op.

Come on...

and ETA, I don't know what you mean by allegiances. I have no allegiance to any particular person here, I do however have an allegiance to helping this group and discussing REAL issues. Would like to see us get back on track. The sooner the better.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

77. ok. i dont think you'll deliberately screw up tallying at all.

but here is where i don't think you'll be good: determining how long to wait. creating a process of accountability. waiting till all parties state what exactly they'll contribute as host etc.

mostly with people who are so invested in removing neoma and replacing her, i dont trust that they will take the time to create a better alternative process.

to me managing this thing has nothing to do with accurately counting votes. sorry, if it sounded like i don't trust you to count votes. I do.

[boston bean]

85. I do think Neoma should go as host, that much is clear!

That doesn't mean I can't hold a fair election.

I have stated my reasoning for wanting to have an election, and I have given a time frame, and it will be open for all to see.

Not sure what more I could do.

I do think a week is too long, but it is me callling for an election, one you seem not to opposed to, except for the fact that I am the one requesting it.

The accountability is right here in this thread for everyone to see.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. i am opposed to doing anything this minute

i do think we'll have to go through this process but i think this is too fast

i think if we go through a new election process, we should first think about things like accountability/transparency etc.

i am opposed to electing someone else based on current popularity.

[boston bean]

96. Neoma is an unelected lead host

who has proven herself to be unscrupulous, heavey handed and unaccountable based on her actions, we cannot move on with her as lead host, even for a week..

If she wants to resign as requested this morning. I am open to waiting a week or so.

[Remember Me]

151. why is it too fast? no one has given a good reason for that

[Gormy Cuss]

90. No, but not everyone thinks we've agreed to throw out the current hosts.

Therefore, this thread isn't a selection. It's a discussion about selection.

[boston bean]

92. No, it is an election thread.

If you want someone to be host, vote for them.

[Gormy Cuss]

95. I'm deleted this

Last edited Tue Feb 14, 2012, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

because I was ticked off when I posted it. Sorry, bb.

[boston bean]

97. ah no, are you?

[Lisa D]

117. I support this.

And I really wish you'd reconsider serving as a host. I think you'd be good at it.

[Remember Me]

149. I propose that

we not let any further time elapse because it just allows time for more dissension. I for one have had enough. I want things to settle down.

I further propose that the Feminist Forum organize their own election without input or interference from those who are only here when something really interesting is happening, so they can add on.

And finally I propose that Boston Bean handle the whole thing.

I'll repeat my other proposal: that after the 2 co-hosts are elected, absolutely NO ONE be appointed or elected or dropped in, flown in, annointed, christened, whatever as a host or co-host for at least a month.

[Scout]

150. i do not support this idea.

i do not want someone as host of the group who shared private messages with outsiders.

and someone who was not elected.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. My vote and a comment...

My vote is just like it was in the vote this group already had - Red Queen...

btw, there are some who've been 'involved' in this group, and their involvement has been to flame away and not discuss feminism. I don't see why they should get a vote....

[Remember Me]

82. Boy, do I agree with that, Violet

And thank you for making the obvious explicit.

[Gormy Cuss]

89. If they're subscribed members of the group and they haven't been blocked, they should get a vote.n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

111. Totally disagree

Firstly no one. It the admin know who's subscribed where. Secondly I don't think it's right that anyone who's not a participant in this group or has only appeared here to jump into flamewars should have any say in a vote to reinstate the main host we'd all voted for not all that long ago.

[boston bean]

118. I truly hope that the objections about having this election now v a week from now

aren't being used to try to stack the deck of what someone might call a "member" or to rally troops to try and overcome the real will of the members of this group as it stands today.

People who have posted here prior and have been members here prior to today, should be voting. All others, I would hope that they would use their conscience and not try to stack a vote.

[Lisa D]

119. Someone suggested having a members' only vote

but that suggestion was ignored in the interest of rushing this vote process. We also still do not know who is interested in serving as host or how many total hosts there will be. I know you suggested that anyone who gets 25% of the vote should be a host, but other posters say it should be limited to two.

There is currently no consensus to this process, so how will these issues be decided?

[boston bean]

120. I suppose they will be decided in this thread.

if most people only vote for two, only two will be added. Then it is up to the lead host to add additional hosts.

[Lisa D]

122. So if a majority votes for two hosts,

there will be two hosts. If a majority votes for three hosts, there will be three hosts. Is that how it will work? I'm only asking you because you started this election process, but the parameters aren't clear to me.

[boston bean]

129. A majority votes for lead host

The co-host are elected in order of how many votes they receive..

But the threshold for becoming a co-host is at least 25% of the total vote.

I think some minimum threshold should be met for co hosts. Otherwise someone could get one vote and become a co host.

[Gormy Cuss]

121. Good point.

If admin can provide a list of subscribers as of yesterday or perhaps as of Saturday 2/11, which IIRC is the day before the blocking in question, that would be a way of addressing the issue you raised. There were 130 members when I check this morning.

I think asking people to use their conscience is good but I don't know how others feel about that.

[redqueen]

123. Wow. We've gained over 30 new subscribers since this started.

Interesting.

[Gormy Cuss]

125. So rolling back to before it started is probably in order, right? n/t

[redqueen]

126. I wouldn't say that.

Perhaps people who formerly felt uncomfortable have decided they have a stake and are interested in participating.

I wouldn't assume anything either way. I just thought it was a significant jump.

[seabeyond]

127. if you do not participate in the group. and you are not a subscriber before today

then of course your vote should not count.

could it be any more obvious

[boston bean]

128. I would definitely say that is beneficial.

We need people who are voting here to have confidence. And we need those who have been members here to know their vote is truly counted, and not bamboozled by a bunch of new comers who could really give two shits, except to roll an election.

[Lisa D]

124. It would certainly help dispel

accusations of "outsiders" or "disruptors" trying to sway the election process.

[Violet_Crumble]

130. You seem intent on making this whole thing difficult

Why the hell should someone who may be completely hostile to the group or someone who has only appeared to get into flamewars and not to discuss feminism have their vote counted? Also do you have any issues with red queen being lead host? I don't. I voted for her only a few weeks ago, think she's a great host, and I'm saddened that unlike the other cohosts neoma refused to do the reshuffle required to put things back how they were. I hope neoma puts the very poor judgment I've seen her display behind her and allows red queen back into the spot that we'd elected red queen to fill. I no longer trust neoma's judgment and strongly oppose her being even a cohost. I don't feel after yesterday's events that she has the best interests of this group at heart at all and feel she took me for a total ride over this whole thing. I want hosts who won't act unilaterally. This shit needs to be sorted out now and not left to fester.

[Gormy Cuss]

133. No, I'm intent on solving the problem in a way that will dispel any hint that the hosting selection

is not done in a way that MOST of the membership feels is fair and representative. This isn't about redqueen. It IS about the aftermath of her stepping down as host. Redqueen stepped down after having the responsibility for only a short time. That is the only reservation I have about installing her as host again. Her action started the events leading up to this mess. It's a;so obvious that the selection of co-hosts was problematic in light of their subsequent actions. For those reasons I think we need a complete do-over.

Because these last few days have been so rancorous I also believe, as I suggested, that we select hosts a bit differently this time. I threw the idea out there. I'm not wedded to it. I AM however adamant that pushing through a new host selection starting today is just going to set this group up for the same kind of failure.

This whole group needs a timeout.

[seabeyond]

134. redqueen, do you cross your heart, hope to cry, stick a needle in your

toe.... double pinky swear you will NOT ever ever ever do something so silly again. as a matter of fact, .... instead, you will go outside, look at the sky, listen to the birds, smell the roses and BREATHE. instead of walking away in a huff to only say

i am better than that

do you promise,

[Gormy Cuss]

135. That's the sweetest thing I've seen posted in this group all day.

[boston bean]

137. That was cute, wasn't it!

[seabeyond]

139. actually, with boys was.... tap your belly button with your toe....

it is a horrible thing we say to kids and let them say. lookie at those beautiful faces.... couldnt do it.

[boston bean]

136. Neoma needs a time out first Gormy.

That is the reason for this new election.

1. sending out private conversation with host to anonymous non hosts.
2. sending out private emails with hosts to anomynous non hosts
3. blocking a host unilaterally
4. refusing to have conversation with co hosts
5. refusing to step down to let redqueen back in after she made a bad decision on leaving.
6. locking a thread from further discussion stating she is not stepping down
7. locking my thread this morning from further discussion by our members, after a jury left it.
8. not even being interested enough to discuss the issue today. She is absent. A no show.

Hell there might even be others... I just don't know or care, the above is enough.

This group cannot move on with her as lead host. No one should expect people to put up with that for a week. Her staying as lead host will do NOTHING to help calm this down. It will only make matters worse. If you truly believe, and i think you are genuine, that what should be done, should be done by what is best for the group, you cannot disagree, that neoma needs to step down.

She is the only reason we need to have a new election quickly.

And if she won't step down, that doesn't leave any option but a new election.

[Gormy Cuss]

145. Neoma seems to be taking a timeout.

After she locked the thread this morning I haven't seen her. That show a tremendous amount of restraint given how the accusations against her have been flying all day. If I were her I would have burned my way to a PPR'ing by now.

Frankly, I wish the admins would step in and set parameters because this group is totally dysfunctional at the moment.

As to your list of points, most have been discussed here today, No need to rehash them.

[boston bean]

148. No, that is not what I meant

I think you know that.

She can't just sit perched in the lead host chair and lock threads with no discussion about her actions.

You are right things are totally dysfuctional and a lot of it has to do with Neoma, starting with her actions, and ending with her silence.

[Violet_Crumble]

138. No. Yr deliberately trying to complicate matters

I honestly don't believe anyone who insists people who have come into this group to get into slanging matches should have a say in an issue that shouldn't even be an issue has the best interests of this group at heart.

And stop pretending red queen is a new host. She's the one everyone voted for only a few weeks back. and there's no failure in how she hosted as main host. That's also why I'm voting for her now and think calls to wait are just trying to let things fester. Neoma should display the judgment she didn't show yesterdAy and remove herself as host. I sure wouldn't want to be host in a group wwhere members don't trust me

[seabeyond]

141. not to mention it was merely a month ago, or less, we already had this election. i have heard NO

voice objection to the original vote.

[Gormy Cuss]

144. Your first sentence is not supported by the evidence.

I also never pretended that redqueen is a new host. She was selected, she served, she stepped down. I only stated that given that progression and the aftermath that the members should have a say in whether they want her to be primary host again. I also stated that I thought the co-host selection last time wasn't quite as successful as we had hoped and thus we should do over the whole process. You and I disagree on this.

As for having a host who isn't trusted by other members, we've already had at least one host who fit that bill. Again, this is why I suggested having a cooling off period and a complete do-over.

[Violet_Crumble]

157. I'm afraid it is

The cries of we have to wait, the defense of a host who wasnt elected to be lead host and who has shown a complete lack of judgement and kicked it all off again after red queen had done such a good job of bringing calm to the group, and let's not forget the bizarre stuff about running to the admin and assuming for a list of subscribers, which I can tell you from experience in dealing with subscription issues is something that doesn't get handed out willy nilly to people.

It's clear from what I've read here from you that you have deep seated hostility towards at least one host. I'm not interested in all this petty bickering going on and just wish all of you would give it a rest. Why is that so fucking difficult?

Just so you know, unlike now when yr in this thread defending someone who betrayed the trust of members and possibly shared my email exchange with her with those who are playing a huge role in turning this group to complete shit, I don't approve of bad behAviour from hosts, regardless of whether I like them or not. The situation we've got right now is someone who refuses to cooperate with the other hosts, has gone out of their way to try to fuck up this group just when it looked like things were coming good, and who refuses to step down even though she knows she's lost the faith of most regulars in this group. You think that's not a huge problem that needs to be resolved ASAP? The admin don't need to be involved if the peoPle who have participated here discussing feminism are allowed to decide, and if neoma shows the maturity and common sense to stand aside, neither of which I see happening

[Scout]

143. that's exactly what is happening.

all these people who never gave a shit about the forum/group before are now all hot to come see the cat fight! hahahahahaha let's go watch the silly women, can't even run their own forum.

subscribers to this group had a big increase today ... wonder where they're all coming from? and of course the longer the vote is delayed, the more the troops are rallied from outside this forum.

you know it, i know, "they" know it.

[Remember Me]

152. No, because there've been 30 new subscriptions today

thanks to the involvement of someone not involved but "concerned" who posted a M&H thread which has over 300 posts and counting.

I don't particularly want anti-feminists voting on our hosts. Why do you?

[boston bean]

140. Got it!

Thanks Violet!

[Scout]

100. redqueen, seabeyond and iverglas as hosts n/t

[boston bean]

132. Thank you scout!

[BlueIris]

115. Lead host: redqueen. Co-host: seabeyond.

Polite, effective leaders who have shown they won't cave to disruptors or anti-feminists. These distractions must end so productive discussion can begin again.

[boston bean]

131. Thank you BlueIris.

[laconicsax]

153. My opinion and vote

I don't like the differentiation between lead and co-hosts. Being at the top of the list shouldn't carry with it any additional authority or privilege. All hosts should be co-hosts since. The only thing that the #1 host has over the other hosts is that only an admin can remove them as a host.

Before Neoma removed iverglas as a host an blocked her from the group, I sent a PM to the hosts of this group suggesting that we don't take unilateral action in blocking someone, adding or removing new hosts, or locking and pinning threads. Excepting for blocking the most obvious disruptors and locking off-topic threads, none of the hosting actions should be used willy-nilly by a host. We don't need a hierarchy of hosts to function as a group. Each host should be equal to another, matters discussed, and actions agreed upon.

Everyone who responded did so favorably, and then Neoma unilaterally removed iverglas from the host list and blocked her from posting over an off-site argument, and has locked and pinned a thread that has no bearing on the SOP. Iverglas has since been unblocked and reinstated and I have since PM'd Neoma asking her to unpin her thread, but she has flatly refused.

That said, I think we should return to the original hosting roster minus Neoma, who has clearly abused her authority as host. Without her, the host roster would be:

seabeyond
CrispyQ (if she's still willing)
laconicsax
Redqueen
iverglas

This is the group of hosts that the group initially selected and I think that tossing the lot and starting over is the wrong decision. We should restore the original host roster then add new hosts.

[boston bean]

161. I came to this position yesterday, and I am not averse to it.

After initially suggesting a re-vote on hosts.

However, the only recourse to purge a rogue host, who will not resign is to have a new election.

If Neoma will resign, I think what you propose is an acceptable outcome.

If not, we have to have a new election.

[Remember Me]

167. That's not the only recourse -- Skinner can remove a host

if there is reason and the other hosts say so and probably some of the Group. You'll have to get specifics from wherever such things reside if you want to pursue it.

[boston bean]

169. I have witnessed this with other groups

and the recourse had been new elections.

If someone here thinks Skinner will step in here, please contact him and see if he will, prior to us having new elections.

I have noticed that Skinner is not involving himself in these issues and is leaving it up to the group members to sort out.

[Lisa D]

162. The election process has already begun.

People have been voting all day and to suddenly stop the new election now, frankly, would look a little suspicious. Several posters advised that an election shouldn't be rushed, but that advice was largely ignored. It's too late now to reverse course without eroding the trust in the hosts/group even further.

[boston bean]

163. That is a good point.

[laconicsax]

164. There's no reason why the existing votes can't be reconciled.

I think it was a mistake to simply call for a new election without discussion of whether it was needed or even having nominations first, but since that's where we are, the votes here will have to be reconciled with the current host list anyway.

What I'm suggesting is removing a host who clearly abused her power, and adding new hosts. If we simply wipe the slate clean and start over with the winners of this election, what's to prevent a new election and clean slate next month, and the month after that? That's what Republicans try to do when they lose elections, and we should be better than that.

Starting over from scratch isn't necessary or warranted. We have hosts and people are re-voting for them along with others, lets add some new hosts and have a discussion about how hosting here should work.

[boston bean]

165. Laconicsax, neoma will not resign, she has stated that.

The only recourse at this time is to have a new election to remove her, for abusing her host powers and all the things I have listed and others have listed.

That is the recourse laid out by admin on this site.

It has happened in other groups as well.

[laconicsax]

166. Then we should have those as separate elections.

IMO, dealing with removing an abusive host should be done before and separately from nominating and electing new hosts.

[boston bean]

168. There is no other way to remove a rogue host.

This is the process.

[laconicsax]

170. You don't need to elect a whole new set to remove one.

We could simply have a vote to remove Neoma separately from electing a whole new batch of hosts.

If I'm wrong, please link the rules/F&G/meta thread where this is explained.

[boston bean]

177. Lac, start a thread about ousting her.

Please do. I went with what I believe to be our only options.

If people want to do it that way and if it can be done, please do it.

I had a thread locked yesterday by neoma demanding her resignation. It was similar to what you want to do.

You might be able to do a better job, I truly mean that, I am not being facetious.

Please do what needs to be done. I agree, she has abused her powers, she needs to go. If that is what you and others want to do, I see no problem with it. I am 100% behind you!

Again, please do it. I'll make my say in your thread about her breach of trust. I only want what is best for this group, as a member. If some feel I acted hastily, well, I can take that. But it was done in good faith.

All other groups that have had lead host problems have been resolved with a re-vote. I have doubts, that your way will work, but it might.

Please give it a good try!!!

[Violet_Crumble]

172. Has Neoma been in touch with any of you hosts?

I sent her a PM last night expressing my concern, as she'd initially contacted me last week asking for my opinions on how to settle things down, and I found it strange that she didn't answer my latest PM, but had time to pop in here and lock a thread that was critical of what she'd done yesterday. I've been reading stuff about her sharing PMs of members of this group with non-hosts, and not that mine had anything I wouldn't own publicly, but I'm concerned that my exchange with her which she solicited has been shared with non-hosts...

I agree that tossing everything hostwise because one's behaved inappropriately isn't the way to go. But I have a nomination for a co-host, and I don't care if they replace an existing host or are an additional one. I'm going to check with them first to see if they're willing before I nominate them in this thread as a co-host...

btw, not that I could make sense of much of the bickering about how this groups hosts communicate, but have you considered using the Hosts forum? As there's been stuff dragged from this group into H&M to stir up trouble and there's a lot of interest in the group from people who aren't part of it, you could do what another safe haven group did which was start their thread off by saying it was only for group members, though given some seem to think posting one post of flamebait makes them a member of this group, I'd say it was only for the Feminists hosts and say it's an internal issue that needs to be sorted. I'd say the vast majority of hosts of other groups and forums would have no problems at all in respecting yr wishes and letting you guys work it out on yr own.

[redqueen]

180. No, she has not contacted me.

And I agree that these discussions should take place in the Hosts forum. However I was also made aware of a situation which might have affected the decision to handle issues in that forum, so I can't really address the decision to handle them off-site completely as I am lacking some information about what might have played into it.

[Ms. Toad]

176. Whether it "should" or not

from a DU group structure point of view, there is a power hierarchy. Each host serves at the whim of every host higher on the list.

The group can agree to operate under different rules, but if anyone on the list chooses to ignore the informal rules, the DU group structure kicks in - so ignore it at your peril in setting up the order of the host roster.

[Remember Me]

178. This is important: whoever becomes hosts -- the software trumps your other

decisions on hierarchy, so be real careful about how you fill in those blanks.

[laconicsax]

189. My point was that hosts can choose to override that hierarchy by not taking unilateral action.

In the Atheists & Agnostics group, none of the hosts take action without discussing it with the others. SoP-violating threads can get locked without prior discussion, but the other hosts are always notified with objections and subsequent discussion being able to reverse the decision.

It's true that any host can choose to ignore the informal rules, and that's exactly what happened here when Neoma removed iverglas, blocked her from the group, and has since refused to consult with the other hosts on taking actions, but it's been my hope that we can all hold ourselves to a higher standard than that.

[Ms. Toad]

190. It would be nice -

but probably, unfortunately, also smart to plan for the worst.

[Remember Me]

154. I think I already voted, but I'll do it again

Redqueen and seabeyond.

[noamnety]

155. Lead host: redqueen. Co-host: seabeyond.

I'd be far more comfortable with that than the current situation.

[boston bean]

156. Thank you noamnety!

[mtnester]

173. My vote is Neoma

however, I think a cooling off period should occur instead of an anger vote

Since the vote appears to be rolling anyway, I want to make sure no one misses this vote, since my previous vote seems to not have received the thanks for your vote nod...busy thread

[Violet_Crumble]

175. I've got my nomination for co-host here...

I only nominated Red Queen and hadn't nominated a co-host yet, so I'd like to nominate JusticeIsCheap as a co-host. I think her contributions to feminist discussions in this group are really good, she's got a level head and has what it takes to be a co-host...

[JTFrog]

181. Redqueen.

seabeyond
CrispyQ
laconicsax
boston bean (not sure if she wants the job but she's certainly earned a spot)

As seabeyond will attest, I may not be a prolific poster here, but we've had many discussions about feminism and misogyny here at the DU. I subscribed to the forum a few weeks before all hell broke loose and I did send her an article that she posted here recently.

Although my vote may not be counted amongst the others, I think if we're going to count votes of those recently jumped into the fray, then perhaps my vote will be considered.

I'd also like to thank boston bean for stepping up and taking action with the new election. I understand that functionality of the software may not have been taken into account when the group was first formed. I would think that if someone were voted out as host, that they would defer to the groups wishes and not force the admins to step into the mix. This is why I think this should be handled as quickly as possible. This would allow the group to focus on the SOP of the group.

Thank you for listening.

[seabeyond]

183. i agree with your whole post, and love seeing you in here

Redqueen.

seabeyond
CrispyQ
laconicsax
boston bean (not sure if she wants the job but she's certainly earned a spot)

As seabeyond will attest, I may not be a prolific poster here, but we've had many discussions about feminism and misogyny here at the DU. I subscribed to the forum a few weeks before all hell broke loose and I did send her an article that she posted here recently.

and i love the suggestion of BB. if she would agree, lol. i think that is a ver good idea. did i clearly state that in my post? i better say it again, clearly. though i dont imagine it will be hard to fill in the slots. now that we better understand the process.

i really would like to see you in here more. you are so grounded.

[redqueen]

185. I'll vouch for your continued interest and participation in feminist discussions, JTFrog...

both here and elsewhere around the site.

[CrispyQ]

182. I've missed 98% of what's gone on the past week,

but this is not why I came to this forum. It's unfortunate that whatever has transpired has created such discord in this group.

That said, I feel redqueen has always been fair & in addition, she is an extremely vocal & articulate voice for women's issues in all areas of DU.

I vote for redqueen as host, seabeyond as co-host.

[seabeyond]

184. good seeing you again. and yes, you have been very busy with RL. that happens.

you are still of value in my opinion and i still vote for you, too. in time, when things calm down, i think this would be a good thing.

i am not here to acknowledge everyones post. but it so happens you post, and i wanted to say and JT posted and i wanted to say lol