Vote on whether to remove Neoma as lead host.

[laconicsax]

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

We need to have a vote over whether to remove Neoma as lead host. She has been asked to resign by multiple hosts and has refused.

Here are the facts of the matter; they are not in dispute.

A vote was held in the Feminists forum naming redqueen as lead host. Five other hosts were also chosen as co-hosts and redqueen added them to the host roster. Those hosts were (in order):

-Neoma
-seabeyond
-CrispyQ
-laconicsax
-iverglas

Redqueen later decided to leave DU and resigned an host, leaving Neoma as lead host. When redqueen later returned to DU, she was reinstated as a host with full support of the other group hosts.

In response to a series of disagreements over pinned threads and how to deal with the growing problem of disruptive behavior and flamewars in the group, I sent a PM to each of the other hosts, the text of which read

> This message is being sent to all of the feminist group hosts,

Since we never had a chance to really settle into our jobs hosting the Feminists group, there are some things that should be discussed and taken care of.

The main thing is that while there's no official rule against it, no host should use their host superpowers unilaterally. This will minimize conflicts between hosts and make it easier for us to know and understand what's going on in our group. It'd be ideal if all five of us can agree on a course of action before a thread is locked or pinned, DUer blocked, or host removed or added. Since the PM system here is woefully inadequate for that, it may be best if we discuss these things in the Forum & Group Hosts group (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1243). As long as all of us make sure to check that group regularly, we can all stay informed and up-to-date on whatever's going on and needing to be addressed.

So in the future, please don't lock or pin/unpin any threads, block/unblock a DUer, or add/remove a host without getting input from the other hosts. While it may not be possible to get everyone's input every time, we should still try to avoid taking action without at least a majority of hosts on board.

About locking threads, one of the changes with DU3 is that only juries (or admins) are supposed to lock threads for being flamebait, offensive, etc. As hosts, we're limited to simply locking threads for not conforming to the SOP. We do have the authority to post our own additions/alterations to the group SOP and any other posting guidelines as pinned threads, but not to lock threads for reasons outside of the SOP (including requests by the OP to lock their thread).

Thanks for your time.
laconicsax

Of the four other hosts, only seabeyond and iverglas presented objections to what I was proposing. Seabeyond was concerned that it could take too much time to reach an agreement if there was a blatant disruptor or inappropriate thread, but was not opposed to the idea of not taking unilateral action without any discussion. Both she and iverglas also voiced concerns that since some of the flamewars involved hosts of other groups, the Forum & Group Hosts forum may be a less than ideal venue to discuss those issues. As a solution to this, iverglas took the initiative and set up an off-site forum where the hosts of this group could discuss those matters without consideration that those discussions would be open to individuals identified as DUers to potentially block.

In a discussion on that forum about whether to block a DUer who was violating the group SoP, Neoma and iverglas got into a disagreement on the role of gender in feminism and when iverglas suggested that Neoma decide whether she agreed with the group SoP, Neoma removed iverglas from the host roster and blocked her from the group.

I PM'd Neoma to ask if she would be willing to reconsider her actions and she replied that she may in the future. In the meantime, redqueen unblocked iverglas from the group. No one has yet reinstated iverglas as a host. At this point, calls began for Neoma to resign as lead host for abusing her power by removing a host and blocking her from the group without cause. Neoma has adamantly rejected these calls and has declined to discuss the matter with any of the other hosts.

I have PM'd Skinner for advice concerning the options available to the group to deal with this issue, but he has yet to reply. Boston bean, in the current thread about electing new hosts suggested that the only way to approach this is to vote on whether to remove Neoma as lead host, so here's the thread to do that.

Again, these facts are not in dispute. I believe that Neoma has abused her power as host by removing iverglas as a host over an off-site argument and by blocking iverglas from the group for the same reason. For this, I vote that she be removed as lead host.

I want to be clear that have nothing personal against Neoma. I simply believe that she has abused her power as lead host and should be removed from that position.

[laconicsax]

1. It should be noted that immediately after I posted this, Neoma removed me as a host of this group.

[Neoma]

3. I also posted a very long thread.

[wtmusic]

2. Yikes.

Seems like admins should appoint lead hosts, if there are going to be any.