The Reason I Have Been Silent.

[Neoma]

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

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 04:39 AM - Edit history (1)

To warn you, the entire flame-war is so very convoluted that it's very hard to explain even a nutshell, without posting a novel. If you've ever wondered why moderators take so long in taking action, it's because they have to read novels and write novels to find out why there's a battle, and how to fix the battle. I cannot guarantee that the posts I point out won't be self-deleted. I took lots of screen-shots, so please ask if needed. To begin:

I have had other circumstances due to my emotional and physical health, total disruption of my vacation with my parents who lives 8 hours away, the travel time home, it being a holiday yesterday (on VALENTINE'S DAY, when I wanted to spend more time with my husband!) I had all ready said that I was waiting for an admin to respond to one of the co-hosts, and I have complete lack of trust in my co-hosts.

Now, a little about myself and how this got started. I used to only hang around LBN and goofed around in the lounge. Went away for long periods of time, but only because there was nothing to really fully attach me to this website. I didn't have any friends here in other words. The closest person I would have considered a semi-friend doesn't remember me. Then I subscribed to the feminist forum after I read a few books that angered me. I was revved up and ready to rumble! So they took notice.

Then I was told to go into the feminist forum to become co-host. I was surprised, but thought "Why the hell not?" I became co-host within the same day. Now, this part is very interesting to me. Tell me, who actually voted, and who is doing the voting? http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391225#post1 The only people who has voted for me, are current co-hosts. CrispyQ and seabeyond. The entire thread wasn't really a vote, it was more like an agreement of who should be hosts by Redqueen and the future co-hosts. I wasn't co-host or host very long at all before the flame-war. I was still on vacation, visiting my parents.Then redqueen quits, and they knew of the hierarchy. I did not get a PM asking if I would step down as host for someone better until they realized I could not be pushed around.

Now, for those of you that has been around this week, you know how this started. iverglas' defense of 'Gynergy Vampires', then her saying 'pearl clutcher', and then defending herself say 'but to call it a spade is a spade.' Oh yeah, almost forgot, "LGBTQILOLWWBBQ?" Now, I honestly don't know what these phrases mean, or their background history. Not only that, but I haven't even heard those phrases within my lifetime, and I'm not exactly sure if everyone else knew either. I thought iverglas' posts were getting a little out of hand, and seabeyond and laconicsax agreed via PM. Part of the reason is that she became very outraged at the personal vendettas against her. And so, she kept posting these kinds of posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1937
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1933
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1958
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1959

If you look on her transparency page and read her 17 hidden posts, I think you'll get the idea.

This post also shows her hatred of the entire LGBT forum. Not a few basic members, all of them. She also said in that post, "And yes, demanding that people who were born male be embraced by feminists as women in all senses of the concept, and setting the wolves on anyone who doesn't play along..." She elaborated on that, by showing a quote of a conversation between her and seabeyond. She means that she does not believe she should embrace trans women. Her PM to me about that, frankly scared me. And since I completely forgot about how you can alert PMs, I do believe that incredible PM should be seen.

To backtrack a little, she invited everyone to the H&M flame war. I don't believe that's appropriate, as it fed the flame-war into something much further than it should have gone. As iverglas was accusing people of character assassinating, I did a lot of reading, and that took a lot of time. (Admit it, all her posts are pretty long.) At this point I ask her to cease and desist. If there was foul play involved, I believed ceasing to post completely to see firm proof of their alert sniping and vendetta, as she calls it,would have helped end the flame war. She refuses, I state my case again, and I receive no reply. The first time this happened, was after I posted and pinned the thread Breathe. iverglas unpinned it, then pinned this thread up. At this point I don't exactly trust seabeyond. She said she supports me, then she flips. I don't exactly know when it happened, but maybe it's this.

Then I became very distraught over this thread most of all: New group request: Feminism & Diversity

I am saddened and outraged that they feel so unwelcome in our group that they feel as though they need to make another group, and everyone I talk to seems very burnt out and sad too.

laconicsax was barely online during the first end of the flamewar and I had to catch her up to the current point as to where we were. So I wrote a PM that took 6 grueling hours to write to her. I trusted her to do something with the information after she familiarized herself more with the flame-war and insert herself more into this and communicate more. Well to be frank, I didn't get a dose of helpfulness. So I start messaging people to find out what they thought of this flame war, went to gather information, asking for advice, and getting general emotional support for being pinned down with someone out of control and made this group into a small membership club when it's no such thing.



This is the type of behavior I will not tolerate, from a co-host or from anyone else. Nobody should post that someone is or isn't a man, or is or isn't black, or is or isn't white, or is or isn't a woman, or anything like that without some sort of proof. It's offensive to say that your opinions are invalid because you aren't a woman. It's highly inappropriate, especially for a co-host.

On to the gathering of information: How was I to know that this feud between the LGBT forum and the Feminist forum has been going on for years? That is the the pathetic part about this. I've heard of people holding grudges but whoa. I can only speculate on what happened to start this, because there's more than one explanation for it.

Now as to why I decided to remove and ban iverglas at the time that I did:

I was given the notion by all the co-hosts that I had to have votes to kick someone out and ban them, and if I did so I would somehow be breaking the rules. So I felt all this time as if I were in a bind, and I even almost felt guilty, but this is getting ahead of myself. Iverglas attempted to apologize for a lot less than she should have been, something about reduced duties because of her broken leg, and then strongly recommended not going into the Forum & Group Hosts thread because of all the LGBT hosts. She then gave me a link to an off-DU forum website. I really thought it was a bad idea. You are unaccountable on off-site forums and it can get nasty. I recommended to set up a chat room, because I figured two things. 1. Screen shots are easier to make on a chat room. 2. I thought our real problem might be because we cannot get information to each other fast enough, since we're also being separated through PMs. Maybe they wanted to start a process of diplomacy? I registered, I wanted to know what they wanted to say. Seabeyond and iverglas were all ready there. I only have one clear screen shot and two bad ones off my iPhone.



As there is no accountability, this is a clear case of a she-said, she-said situation. As I predicted it would be. I can only say, that instead of getting to the nitty-gritty, seabeyond and iverglas talked about who to ban in this forum. she called me a co-host, then said something to make me very angry with her. So I banned and blocked her, then she banned me. And so, the fireworks towards me began. Hilarity ensues, but only because you have to at this point.

Let's talk a bit about the rules on Democratic Underground, and how Democratic Underground works.

"About Group Hosts

Group Hosts perform a similar role to forum Hosts, but they have additional powers. 1) They can lock threads which they believe violate their group's stated purpose; 2) they can pin threads to the top of their group; 3) they can block out members whom they believe are not adhering to their group's purpose; 4) they can make other members Hosts of their group; and 5) they can remove any Host of their group that became a Host after they did."

There is nothing about votes. The only time they discuss votes is under how the jury system works. The group hosts aren't just here to help the admins with their jobs, they are here to do their jobs. As mentioned by a very special contact. I do not believe the juries are unfair. After this fiasco, I trust DUs rules and purpose a lot more heavily than I ever had.

Redqueen came out of the blue. Laconicsax gave me a message that redqueen wanted to join as a co-host. Well, I had nothing particularly against it, but I wasn't very clear headed about it either. I don't know redqueen, and very early in the flame-war I asked if she wanted her position back. Maybe she would handle the position better? She declined. I added her very close after the time I removed and banned iverglas. Before I had a chance to think about how I want to approach redqueen with what had happened, coup. I apologize that I do not provide screen shots of this happening, if the Forum & Group Hosts members wish to see them or any point I've made without evidence, please send requests. I would be happy to bury myself deep within my inbox. Though that may take a lot of time.

Redqueen: "As the only main host who was ever fairly nominated and agreed on, I am making this decision unilaterally, due to the fact that I was told the decision to block her was made unilaterally by the new host who was made so automatically as a function of the software."

I'm not sure I have to tell you how insulting this is. To how hard I've worked to end a feud that has been riling up people for too long. I have been goaded, insulted, pissed upon, lied about, tricked and not been treated fairly within my circumstance. I will not join a fight when I'm trying to calm it down. I have seen no effort by the current co-hosts or ex-co-host to even attempt to help me in public view to either calm down themselves or calm the flame war down. I have lacked administration support for many days, I sought advice, information and emotional support elsewhere, and now my co-hosts and ex-co-host have purposely directed the flame war onto me. You probably have no idea why or how I am resilient. But I'm not here to tell my life's story.

To those who are concerned about rule breaking! I shall quote Skinner's post, from the Forum & Group Hosts forum:

"Welcome Forum & Group Hosts! And thank you for your help!
This discussion thread is pinned.
First of all, thank you for volunteering. The New DU is all about getting our members involved in helping run the site, and serving as hosts in our forums and groups is a great thing you can do to help out.

You don't need a bunch of special knowledge in order to serve as a host of a forum or group. What you need is a good attitude, good judgment, and a desire to help out your fellow DU members. If you act in good faith and take responsibility for your actions, you ought to do just fine.


The Forum & Group Hosts Workspace

Whether you are serving as a host in a forum or group, you would be wise to take advantage of the wisdom of your fellow Hosts who also have access to this access-restricted workspace. Ask lots of questions, solicit other opinions, and share your own thoughts.

Please note that only Hosts have access to this workspace, but it is not a completely private forum. Hosts with access to this forum have not signed any confidentiality agreement, and Hosts are free to discuss with other people what goes on in this workspace and how Hosts do their job. As long as you remain professional and polite in your postings here, you shouldn't have any problems.


Forum Hosts vs. Group Hosts

Hosts can be assigned to either a forum or a group (or both). If you are a Forum Host, you only have one power: locking threads that violate that forum's statement of purpose. Group Hosts have additional powers, including the ability to lock a thread for any reason, pin threads in the group, block people out of the group, and add or remove other people as Hosts.

In short: Forum hosts have very limited powers. Group hosts have very broad powers. But regardless of whether you are a Forum Host or a Group Host, you would be wise to use your powers carefully and thoughtfully. Solve problems, don't create problems. And most of all, act in good faith.


Your Job

The job of a Host is to help a forum or group stay true to its purpose, which is reflected in its Statement of Purpose. As you do your job, you should be mindful of this Statement of Purpose, which can be found in the following places:

* On the "About" page for your forum or group, which can be found by clicking the button at the top of the forum or group.
* Under the Forums & Groups tab, listed along with the name of your forum or group.
* On the posting form whenever someone starts a new discussion thread in your forum or group.

This Statement of Purpose provides guidance for what posts are appropriate to be posted in your forum or group. However, you are not a robot who must mindlessly enforce that Statement of Purpose to the letter. Instead, you are empowered to use your own best judgment -- consider the Statement of Purpose, but also consider the feelings of people who are using your forum or group. How do they want to use the group? What can you do to help make the visitors to that group feel welcome and happy? It's okay to permit a little meta-discussion or off-topic stuff in any forum or group -- as long as it is good-natured, non-disruptive, and does not serve to overwhelm the group or distract from its primary purpose.

So, you should only serve as a Host in a forum in group where you are yourself a regular participant. If you participate in the forum or group you are hosting, you will have a better understanding of the norms, standards, and culture of that forum or group. Which will help you make better decisions about how to do the job.


Abuse of power

The DU Admins understand that this is a tough job. We know that sometimes a Host might make a different decision than we would, we know that sometimes things go wrong despite your best intentions, and we know that sometimes people make honest mistakes. That's totally fine. What matters to us is that you are doing the job in good faith, and trying to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, there may come a time when a Host does not do the job in good faith, does not have the best intentions, or exercises consistently bad judgment. If you think one of your fellow hosts is not doing the job in good faith, please let the administrators know immediately. You can send us an email, or you can click the Alert Abuse on a post here in the Hosts Forum.

The DU3 system is based on trust, and we believe it is absolutely necessary that everyone in a position of power does their job in a good-faith way. If the DU Administrators believe you are abusing your power, or exercising consistently bad judgment, we will remove you as a Host. We may even revoke your posting privileges. And, on that cheery note...


Thank you

Thank you, again, for volunteering to serve as a DU Host. We are grateful for your help.

The DU Administrators."

To my concerns about the co-hosts:

The DU Community Standards state: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." Members who demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior over time and end up getting too many of their posts hidden by the jury (measured by raw number or percentage) may be found to be in violation of our Terms of Service. If you seem to be ruining this website for a large proportion of our visitors, if we think the community as a whole would be better off without you here, if you are constantly wasting the DU Administrators' time, if you seem to oppose the mission of DU, or if the DU Administrators just don't like you, we will revoke your posting privileges. Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck.



Now my dear co-hosts, I am removing all of you, but I will not ban you or anyone else unless it is very clear to do so because of verbal abuse, bullying, provoking, etc. (This goes the same for people who are not hosts.) I am giving you a chance. I am locking all threads that has caused disruption. And I wish to make something clear. I have not harmfully provoked you. I did not re-pin my Breathe thread. I did not re-ban iverglas. I did not remove seabeyond along with iverglas, I did not un-ban Creekdog, I did not ban redqueen immediately after she staged a coup. If I have done any crime, it is to re-pin my thread announcing that I am not resigning at this time repeatedly to the top after you have un-pinned it.

I have tried to have patience with all of you, but I'm sad to say, none of you has been good co-host material. Since I have worked on this thread from 9am to 11:20pm, I will wake up tomorrow hoping that this has cleared up questions. Hoping that I am not repeatedly attacked for attempting to promote peace between both parties, If only for a short while... and to bring up the point of 'both' parties, everyone who comes into this group is part of the group. It's disrespectful and rude to bring this into every comment you disagree with.

Peace.


Edit: PS. CrispyQ wanted to quit, I asked if she wanted to catch up on what's happening, and she has not responded since. I see no harm in removing her as well, if she wanted to quit anyways.

[laconicsax]

1. By removing all cohosts, you have brazenly abused your power.

Additionally, by locking the thread calling for a vote to remove you as lead host for abusing your power, you further abused your power.

The Feminist group is not your personal fiefdom. This behavior is unacceptable.

On edit: I see you have locked boston bean's thread calling for new hosts too.

[PassingFair]

2. This has launched into insanity.

At least we found Neoma.

The horror, the horror.

[hlthe2b]

3. I subscribe to this forum, but have purposely followed this debacle in only a very superficial way..

I find this whole series of episodes very distressing. I can't judge right or wrong in all that has transpired and I can not tell who started out in the "right". But, I have no problem stating that the unilateral decisions made by the lead host in removing all other co-hosts IS a grotesque abuse of power.

I urge each of the co-hosts to take this to the admins if the host will not reconsider. This is abhorrent.

I can not judge the host or any of the co-hosts on past actions and will not. But, Neoma, I find this to be a level of dictatorial behavior that just should not be tolerated. I urge you to reconsider. Reinstate your co-hosts and convene an arbitration review with 3 or 4 objective hosts from other forums. I sincerely believe you need outside assistance in clearing the air. To refuse to do so, is to allow the situation to merely continue to fester. Do the right thing.

[laconicsax]

4. Neoma recently PM'd me to say that she had admin approval for her actions.

Somehow I doubt that, but won't explicitly say so for fear of being blocked from the group.

[hlthe2b]

10. If you have reason to doubt, I would urge you to PM Skinner directly. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. Sir, keep in mind that admins do not sit in judge and jury on

personality conflicts. They set up this forum after years of whiteboarding.

I can advise as well as you can on how to work within the system. but at the end of the day, admins do not pick sides, they work within the system.

[boston bean]

65. And this host has circumvented the system

I think you know that other groups have had similar problems and a re-vote was necessary. However, neoma, has decided to lock the election thread.

That is an abuse of power. She does not have that kind of power. She should not have that kind of power.

[femrap]

221. This situation is

embarrassing. Feminists having to run to the admins....2 dudes for approval for what?

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this to-do over Feminists v. LGBT? Wow.

It's called 'DIVIDE AND CONQUER' people. The patriarchy is laughing at us.

We are to be in alliance against the oppressors of the patriarchy....not fighting amongst us.

I just don't get it.

[seabeyond]

222. i do believe there was a male instigating it, yes.

bit when one concern prevails over another, you can damn well bet it will be the women that speak out that are forced to shut up and thrown under the bus.

[Lisa D]

224. Women have been speaking out

on this forum for weeks, but were ignored or called "outsiders" or subject to possible banning. I'm sorry that you seem unable to see this. Perhaps your anger about the situation (which I understand) is making it difficult for you to consider the viewpoints of other people on this forum.

And as for throwing people under the bus, the fact that you declared (when the election was almost over) that only the votes of "regular" posters would count in the election, I would say that was throwing women and feminists under the bus. Especially when it was stated that these so-called "regular" posters didn't even have to be members of the group.

[seabeyond]

225. no. you dont understand lisad. not even a little.

it is evident in every one of your posts to me. it is evident that regardless of what i say, you dont listen to what i say. you ignore it.

so, please, know, that you do not understand.

thank you.

you take care of yourself. i wish the best for you

[Lisa D]

226. I do listen to you, Sea.

And I have said that I feel badly about what's happened to you, redqueen, laconicsax, and Crispy Q. I don't agree with Neoma de-hosting you.

But when you say things that I know aren't the full story, I'm going to try to fill in some of the blanks because I believe in transparency. For instance, I was all for an election of new hosts until I found out that not all the votes were going to count. That's one instance of when I disagreed with you.

When you said, in H&M, that the software was the only reason Neoma was lead host, I countered that not only did redqueen, laconicsax and Neoma herself acknowledge that she would be lead host when redqueen stepped down, but that you endorsed Neoma as lead host. That is the simple truth and that's what I stated when I replied to you in that thread.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and although I may not agree with all of them, I respect them. All I ask from you is that same respect when I post (with links as evidence) the full story. You don't have to agree with me--far from it. But don't try to invalidate my opinion by saying I don't listen or that I don't understand what's been happening in this group. That is not fair.

I wish you all the best. Truly. And you may certainly put me on ignore if you have no wish to hear my opinions or read my posts.

[seabeyond]

227. you endorsed Neoma as lead host. That is the simple truth

in your simple truth do you also explain that the reason i was willing to do that is because of the SoP thread adn the continued effort to compromise and appease those that "felt uncomfortable" knowing how much iverglas and i are disliked. so in my saying that she would be the best, it was to once again, try to do right by you and your group, as we promised we would. and as we have yet to have acknowledgment for. that in appeasing, we had a weak SoP and we did not have a strong leader.

is that EVER in your TRUTH. you know, that simple truth.

i stand by 225, lisad. you gave a perfect example of what i was saying.

[Lisa D]

228. Then let me clarify.

I've always believed you were trying to do the right thing with the SOP. I absolutely agree that you were very concerned about people's issues with the SOP and listened to them with a fair and open mind. And I commend you for that. I'm sorry that I haven't made that more clear.

I believe you were trying to be inclusive by allowing Neoma to step into the lead host position. It doesn't bother me in the least that you changed your mind about her. What bothers me is that people have blamed the software for her becoming the lead host when the hosts were aware that's what would happen and didn't have a problem with it UNTIL she banned iverglas. So when I mention that link, it's because people may get the wrong idea of exactly how Neoma became lead host. That doesn't mean I endorse her. It means I believe in transparency. I'm sure that you do also, but like me, you probably don't state it in every post you make.

I have never "endorsed" Neoma as lead host. Please link to that post if I am wrong. I didn't vote for her in the election thread either.

I did wish her good luck when she first became host, when she said she wasn't going to resign AT THIS TIME. But when I saw the animosity her posts were causing, I agreed that we should have an election to elect a new host.

You can read boston bean's election thread to see my participation there. I NEVER said we shouldn't have an election for a new host. All I wanted were some rules or parameters about how the election was going to work. I did agree that it might be smart to wait until we could get a list of forum members from the admins, so the votes could be from forum members only. It disturbed me when I heard that some of the votes weren't going to count and that fact was never revealed or explained in the election thread. That DOESN'T mean that I think you were hiding something or doing something bad. It means that I disagreed with how the votes were going to count in that election.

I am not your enemy just because we disagree. Most of the time, I like what you have to say and I think you bring a valuable contribution to this forum and DU.

[seabeyond]

229. do YOU understand the lesson? iverglas was fuckin RIGHT in all her hard ass.

WE were WRONG and failed the women that trusted us in weakening our SoP and putting in a weak leader to ACCOMMODATE.... you, and the others, that regardless of what we did, it would NEVER be good enough.

do you get this lesson.....

we failed, because we tried to work with you

we FUCKIN FAILED our members, because we tried to take the high road.

what part of that ironically sick fuckin twist do you not get.

[justiceischeap]

230. So being INclusive weakened the SOP? nt

[seabeyond]

232. by having NO rules... is what weakened the SoP. every time we wanted a rule in it, we hear EXclusive

so we wouldnt put in protections for the group

[Ruby the Liberal]

231. Perception is reality.

[seabeyond]

233. wtf are you talking about ruby. you dont know shit what went on. you admit

never went, dont know the issue, dont care, you just like the entertainment value... quote from ruby

[William769]

234. Leader doesn't look so weak to me.

She looks like someone that can't be bullied and their lies the problem.

[seabeyond]

235. Leader doesn't look so week to me. she has not been in there for 7 days, so a week

it doesnt make. the dictatorship.

[Lisa D]

236. I don't understand.

How did the SOP lead to what's happening now?

And yes, you absolutely listened and worked with people in this group so that the SOP would be inclusive. But I don't understand how working with all the members of the group weakened the SOP or led to the current mess.

Can you please elaborate?

Here's the old SOP:
The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

Here's the new SOP:

A safe community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together, without having to defend the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

[seabeyond]

238. you are right, the SoP doesnt matter because the lead host does not have to honor it anyway

lisad, i am sorry i missed the opportunity to spend more time with you, and listen to what you had to say. one of the things i was looking forward to, in the initial working of SoP was listening to you and a couple others.

now, really, i am done.

take care

[Lisa D]

240. You take care too, Sea.

Get some rest and re-energize, because as I said before, you are valuable to DU.

[Rex]

219. Yes it is.

With bodyguards even!!!!

[LeftyMom]

5. Thank you for removing bullies from positions of responsibility.

I support this decision and know it was not made lightly.

[laconicsax]

6. How were redqueen, CrispyQ, seabeyond, or I bullies?

Do tell.

[LeftyMom]

8. If I do one of you guys will immediately alert it as a call out.

There's a whole forum full of examples of a small clique trying to chase out anybody who might disagree with them about the slightest thing. You can't possibly miss it unless you're trying very hard not to see.

[laconicsax]

11. I give you my word that I won't alert.

Juries don't hide call outs anymore anyway.

Please cite some examples of redqueen, CrispyQ, seabeyond, and me being bullies.

[LeftyMom]

14. You've all been trying to chase Neoma out of the forum for days.

And before that backing up known trolls in their attacks on lesbians and trans people was definitely bullying behavior, as is the continuing effort to claim that La Lioness Priyanka isn't a real feminist because she also identifies as a lesbian and a person of color.

[bicentennial_baby]

15. +1

[Starry Messenger]

17. +2

[William769]

19. +3.

[TeeYiYi]

21. +4

TYY

[pacalo]

28. +5.

[Old and In the Way]

32. +6

[laconicsax]

39. What a complete fabrication!

I have made no effort to "chase Neoma out of the forum," nor wish her gone.
I have backed no trolls in any attacks on lesbians or trans people.
I have never claimed that La Lioness isn't a real feminist for any reason, least of all because she's a lesbian of color.

How about you, or any of the (currently) 6 people who agree with you pony up and link to a post where I've done any of that. How about any of you link to a post where redqueen has done any of that? How about CrispyQ?

Hell, CrispyQ has barely been on DU for about a week because she's been too busy. How on Earth can she have been trying to "chase Neoma out of the forum" when she's barely been online?

You need to substantiate your claims, or admit that they're false.

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. You do good work here, friend, but let this particular one rest. nt

[laconicsax]

50. Why should I?

I've been falsely accused of some pretty serious things and I'm not going to just let it stand. I have done none of what LeftyMom alleges.

The most I can be accused of is starting a thread calling for an election to determine whether Neoma should be removed as lead host a couple days after she abused her power and refused to discuss the matter with the other hosts. There's nothing improper in that and I stand by my actions. Had she been voted out, I would have been open to her returning as a co host and had she been retained, I would have dropped the matter.

[Ruby the Liberal]

57. Because you are on the wrong side of the attacks

that have been permeating this board.

You could have been a hero by putting a stop to it, but you doubled down against those who would.

You may very well win this and the attacks of the main +socks will continue. Part of me wants that for the entertainment value. Is that your goal as well?

[seabeyond]

58. me wants that for the entertainment value.

wow

[laconicsax]

60. Again, I did no such thing.

I was too busy to do much of anything last week and I spent much of the little time I did have working with Neoma to try to find a solution to the problem. Four days ago, she brought up one aspect of the problem, I suggested what I thought was the best way to deal with it and she said that she was waiting to hear back from Skinner before doing anything.

That's hardly doubling down against those who would put a stop to it. Sure, I could have come in, guns blazing and tried to force an end to the problems, but I wasn't prepared to act without consulting the other hosts first. There had already been a bunch of animosity over hosts acting unilaterally, and I wasn't going to add to it. The hosts of a group can't do much if they're too busy bickering with each other.

I'm getting really tired of having to defend myself against false accusations.

[rug]

168. Imagine that.

[Lisa D]

48. But one of the hosts of this forum did do those things.

I noticed you didn't mention her name in your post. And she apparently did so with the approval of the other hosts, as nothing was done about it. A host in this forum decided to wage war against LGBT members and the LGBT forum in this group. There are lesbian feminists who are members of this group and to have this kind of vitriol directed at them in a safe haven got to be too much for too many members, both gay and straight.

And the apparent answer to this problem: the hosts decide to go to an off-site forum and decide who to block/ban from this forum. And the person baiting and insulting LGBT feminists was running that show.

When some of these targeted members thought the answer was to create an additional forum called Feminism & Diversity and brought up the subject in H&M, they were told by some of the hosts of this group that they shouldn't be allowed to use the term Feminism in their group title. And people wonder why some members of this group feel unwelcome? They want examples--when there are posts after deleted posts full of examples.

I can see why the co-hosts and some members of this forum feel outraged by Neoma's actions. I can see why some members of this group say they feel unwelcome. I can also see why Neoma believes she's looking out for feminist members of this forum who have been the target of this vitriol and were unprotected by the other hosts. Add to this mix all of the allegations, half-truths, accusations and insults from all sides, and the truth is buried underneath the pile.

I can see that this whole thing is a shit storm that stinks up the whole place and now everyone involved has some of that stink on them.

[laconicsax]

52. The solution to that was to remove the offending hosts or get them to resign.

I discussed the building feud between this group and LGBT with Neoma by PM before this latest shitstorm started. She suggested removing two hosts who she felt were making matters worse and I agreed that doing so should definitely be considered. She said that she had asked Skinner for advice and was waiting to hear from him before she did anything.

Fast-forward a couple days and she removes ALL hosts and shuts down discussion on adding any new hosts.

[Lisa D]

55. I am very glad to hear that some of the hosts were aware of the problem.

And I truly do appreciate how difficult it is to be a host and I believe that most of you are trying your best to do this thankless job.

I think the problem was that it appeared as if nothing was going to be done about it--even if that wasn't the case. The two trolls exacerbated the problem and it looked as if some of the hosts were defending them, which only added more fuel to the fire. And it's been burning out-of-control ever since.

[yardwork]

115. Point of clarification. There is no "feud" between this group and LGBT.

There was an obvious, sustained, concerted effort on the part of a small number of people in this forum to create a feud, not just with LGBT, but with several other groups on DU as well. That's where I came in. I've avoided this group for years precisely because I disliked the dictatorial manner in which it was run and the snooty attitude of its self-appointed leader. I got dragged in when these recent efforts to start a "war" (her words) with LGBT spilled into the Meta forum.

I'm relieved to see that a strong leader is taking control and putting a stop to this pettiness. I don't blame you for anything, laconicsax. As far as I can tell you have stayed out of this mess, and I respect you for that. But don't refer to a "building feud" between two groups when no such feud exists. Let's stop that nonsense once and for all.

[laconicsax]

206. I agree. I misspoke when I mentioned the feud. n/t

[yardwork]

210. Thank you for clarifying that.

[seabeyond]

214. yes. you misspoke. it was one sided. attacking feminist forum.

we have always been a small group. and from the beginning most men and many women didnt and dont support feminists. and yet still.... they got us the vote.

[FloridaJudy]

169. + a brazillion

[Jamastiene]

40. +7

[CreekDog]

42. +8

[UnrepentantLiberal]

61. +9

[obamanut2012]

80. +1

[DURHAM D]

105. Plus 1000. nt

[yardwork]

109. Oh well said. Well said, Ma'am!

[redqueen]

137. Expressing dissatisfaction with her as host != chasing her out of the forum.

Nice loaded language, though. Very blamey and victimy, too. Well done.

Also, nice job characterizing the failure to understand the attacks on lesbians and trans people as "backing up known trolls".

the continuing effort to claim that La Lioness Priyanka isn't a real feminist

Evidence of this "continuing effort?

[Vanje]

161. + infinity

nt

[NCTraveler]

163. +1

[Cameron27]

166. +1

[rug]

167. +10

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. Dear sir, several of you publically and loudly called for a coup.

The leader of this forum called your bluff, so my suggestion (if this is the direction you choose) is to counter.

Don't be surprised if members you have never heard of speak up in order to stop the toxic waste that this forum has not only become, but spread to other forums here.

[seabeyond]

33. having an election is a coup. having no votes and declaring victory is honorable. this is the world

us feminists have been living in for the last two weeks.

[William769]

36. You all discussed it before redqueen stepped down

And you agreed Neoma should be main host. Would you like the link?

[seabeyond]

37. we had an election twice, and voted redqueen and that is a coup. she has NO votes

and she is honorable. this is the screwed up thinking we have dealt with for a week.

[William769]

38. You didn't answer the question. Would you like the link?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

62.

[snooper2]

104. You know, I just had an idea, I'm going to put that as my on hold music LOL

I wonder how our customers would like that as well as their default hold music

[msanthrope]

156. I am soooooo stealing that....nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

114. if you have the link, may i see it

[seabeyond]

116. you said you were uncomfortable with the group. i made the suggestion so you and others

would be comfortable in our forum. i know that you and others do not like me and iverglas. i wanted someone neutral, so you and others would be more comfortable. i worked at being INclusive, rather than EXclusive as you suggest.

if you use this as a means to further vilify us, then you would be wrong.

[justiceischeap]

157. Just FYI, I like you just fine sea

I've got no issue with you other than we don't agree on some things. I don't want to mistake my disagreement with you as not liking you. I often don't agree with you but there's miles between that and not liking.

[William769]

121. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391743#post15

[maddezmom]

125. hmm, illuminating n/t

[seabeyond]

126. yes maddez.. it is. trying to work with people that said they wanted to be a part of our

forum yet did not like iverglas or myself. i thought it would be a positive choice to have someone in there that others did not have issue with.

i know that on this board, having the best of intentions is silly. we need to watch our backs. but continually, i trust in the better person that we are.

foolish. maybe. but i can also say, the intent was for the best.

edit... foolish.... obviously

[yardwork]

130. The point is that you supported Neoma as lead host. It's right there.

You and others were asked if it was ok for Neoma to become lead host and you agreed. Your post is right there at that link. Yet you've been posting on this board for days that Neoma is an unelected host who took over through some kind of coup.

Your own words, your own post, prove that that is not true. You DID elect her.

[seabeyond]

131. yes... the point is i was trying to make this an environment to welcome all. i get that. i failed

neoma is not capable of doing the job. hindsight is a wonderful thing. i did put forth the effort though. intent counts

[yardwork]

134. The point is that you have been saying that she was not elected, and that's not true.

You've been posting all over this board for days that Neoma usurped the role of lead host in an unelected power grab and now here is evidence - your own words - that you discussed Neoma's election as lead host and you and others agreed to it.

[seabeyond]

135. she was not elected. she was assigned. did you see votes from the forum? nt

[obamanut2012]

148. When the keystone of an argument is proven to be invalid

It follows that the rest of the argument is also proven invalid.

Debate 101.

[seabeyond]

133. this is not a tough one. a business hires an employee. some dont always turn out to be

a good employee. the employer fires the employee.

because i wanted this place to include you is a good thing. because neoma could not handle the job, means we need to look elsewhere. we had an election. this group has chosen redqueen, again.

[obamanut2012]

146. I haven't seen that before

Interesting.

[yardwork]

151. It's right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1772

[obamanut2012]

155. Thanks for the info

[Ruby the Liberal]

46. 2 weeks of toxic sludge, seabeyond.

Which side of this do you want to be on?

[seabeyond]

47. i dont do dishonest.... it is not my thing ruby. nt

[William769]

49. I still have that link if you want it.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

63.

[laconicsax]

41. Neoma abused her power as lead host.

She removed a host and blocked her from the group over an off-site argument.

Boston bean started a thread calling for new hosts as an attempt to start cleaning up the group and fixing the problems that have been going on. Neoma was among those nominated and voted for, but she locked it anyway.

I started a thread calling for a vote about whether to remove Neoma as lead host because of her abuses of power. Neoma locked it.

[Ruby the Liberal]

51. I don't blame her.

The rest of the hosts are acting like they are 5 years old.

Not only on the topic, but the administration of discussion on the topic.

Thanks - but I like her instincts on this.

[DURHAM D]

107. + 1

[redqueen]

138. Please tell me how I was acting like I was 5 years old.

I have explained my one unilateral action. It was taken to reverse a previous unilateral action.

Based on the discussions that we had before we even elected hosts, it was agreed that no host would make such decisions.

This was due to the significant amount of worrying that was done about being blocked. People were stating that they were afraid of participating, lest they be blocked. We agreed not to do.

[justiceischeap]

158. I don't think you're acting like a 5 yr old

but in all fairness, people were tearing Neoma apart for making one unilateral decision (prior to this whole thing) and yet, you make one (even if it was meant to correct the other) and no one seems upset with you at all.

If unilateral decisions are bad for Neoma, they're bad for you too as I would expect them to be bad for me or any other random person if they were hosting (I've no intentions in that field by the way).

[redqueen]

160. Why the emotive language? ("tearing Neoma apart")

She was harshly criticized, not just for one decision, though.

Apparently she and the other co-hosts were not able to work together, and instead of starting threads here to open up discussion to the group, or in the F&GH forum, she apparently took her problems acting as host to people who don't even participate here for advice.

How do you think that made the people who regularly use this group feel?

Regardless, I don't wish to discuss this issue further.

[musette_sf]

170. + 1

thank you

[patrice]

7. This isn't right. Not what should be going on here. All of it pretty disappointing.

People talk about Feminism around our Occupy. It's an important NEW time for women and, hence, feminism, NEW feminism.

There are important things to be done, not this uh, ... whatever it is . . .

[patrice]

13. All, as in, I'm not singling anyone out. Everyone needs to do what it takes to get along. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

24. +1.

[Starry Messenger]

9. Thank you for this thoughtful and well-researched response.

I appreciate all the work that went into it.

[The Doctor.]

12. Wow.

That's all.

[DonCoquixote]

16. OK, I may be male, but

I say this is wrong. Note, I liked the idea of another group on here, indeed, the more, the merrier. This is cyberspace after all. However, to kick out people who have been here since the early days is disgusting. Note, at first, I got lept on by some, but it was folks like redqueen and seabeyond that actually welcomed me. Now if iverglas did slam gay people, she can be called to task, but there was noreason to ban redqueen and sea, neiother of whom strike me as hating LGBTs.

Of course, it is behavior like this that gladdens the hearts of the right wing.

[Remember Me]

123. She didn't slam gay people

There is a LOT of misrepresentation and, I'll be charitable here and say it's based on a LOT of misunderstanding.

[justiceischeap]

159. You and I must have different definitions for slamming

http://bit.ly/zV1Mhk

I would post a quote but the thread was hidden so it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. I'd say if that little rant wasn't a slam, it was damn scathing.

[Jamastiene]

204. Yes, she did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=2516

It has been known since DU2 that "Mann Coulter" is not to be used on DU. It IS transphobic. Not only that, iverglas (and several other ex-hosts from the Feminists Group) acknowledged that "pearl clutching" is a misogynist phrase. Yet, iverglas uses that phrase repeatedly. When someone politely tries to point out that the phrase is homophobic as well, Iverglas' defense is that the phrase is misogynist and used against women a lot. Why is Iverglas using a misogynist phrase to begin with and why so much vitriol toward the GLBT community? You don't think THAT made GLBT feminists feel unwelcome in this group? It did.

[William769]

18. Words of wisdom from a lovely lady.

First thing I want to say is I don't believe there is any animosity between this group and the LGBT group (I think both our groups make a great pair).

Second thing is I am a ardent supporter of Feminists, I wish you all the very best.

I am so happy to see this group on a course where all are welcomed to participate for a common cause.

I'll leave it at that.

Everybody have a great Day!

[Violet_Crumble]

20. WelcoMe to the dictatorship people!

Naomi's you can't just sack the other hosts. We voted for them. This isnt yr group and as you have such an aversion to working with other hosts you should have mentioned control issues when whoever
Made the mistake of nominating you for cohost initially did so.

I'm assuming all dissent to yr power grab will result in the person being locked out of the group? If this is what the group is feel free to block me

[Ruby the Liberal]

29. I thought we got past the "power grab" nonsense a few days ago.

As in it was system generated, so there is no "hostage" or "power" issue, or are you wanting to resurface that, cuz I'm game.

PLENTY of reasons to complain. No need to make up shit out of whole cloth, sis.

[laconicsax]

43. Removing all other hosts and shutting down discussion on the matter isn't a power grab?

Neoma removed redqueen, CrispyQ, seabeyond, and me as hosts leaving her alone as host and has locked the two threads about host elections.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Unilaterally sacking every other host IS a power-grab...

I dunno. Maybe you've missed all that? Or don't think it's a problem for one host to sack all the others because she's annoyed that someone unpinned one of her pinned threads, and it's a sign of a host who values their membership by refusing to communicate with the other hosts (at least they were before she got rid of them) and members of the group?

No, I leave it to others to make up shit out of whole cloth, sis!

[redqueen]

139. So you thought that was settled on Tuesday, did you?

What on earth gave you that impression?

[Ruby the Liberal]

162. What, the "power grab" accusations?

This subthread did: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391743#post15

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. Neoma, I have privately apologized to you for my past disrespectful comments to you, but please

allow me to take this opportunity to publically apologize as well so that I don't break SOP by altering posts that I am not to alter.

Wow.

This is the post of a proactive leader and I commend you for taking the reins and responsibility for this drama.

Most would not.

I also commend you for calling out (positively) a member of this forum, who is not only educated, but well versed on this topic, and that is rrneck, whom I am quickly developing an unhealthy crush on, based on these posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124041815#post39

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124041815#post98

Yes, long, but worth the read, and even moreso, worth attaching as a response to this OP.



Yanno - At the end of the day, I will always know and remember you for this phrase: Feminism is for equality for BOTH sexes.

I know that sounds simplistic, but the meaning spans eons, Neoma.

Thank you for that, and I wish you the best. I would lie if I said I had no doubts, as admin has been silent on the persistent vitriolic, vile, multiheaded troll entities, but I think you have the moxy to handle this in ways that others have shrinked from addressing.

Happy 2012.

[mistertrickster]

25. "It's offensive to say that your opinions are invalid because you aren't a woman."

Hallelujah. A voice of reason.

[pacalo]

26. Neoma, do you REALLY want to be a host of this group after all that's unfolded?

After all that I've read in H&M, I think the best thing for this forum is that there be NO HOSTS. The problems seem to stem from the need for control. You all need to concentrate on healing, & that will be easier to do if no one is seen as the one "in control".

Let the leaders evolve through positive, constructive, enlightening messaging -- providing that is what the forum members are seeking.

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. If there ever was an argument for a host

in a contentious forum/topic - she nailed it, IMO.

[pacalo]

35. I totally AGREE, Ruby. But why would she WANT it?

Neoma has what it takes to be a good leader, but do the other members have the generosity & selflessness to see it?

[Ruby the Liberal]

53. I have no clue.

But lets stick with her and see what she does with it.

Lord knows, it couldn't get worse, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Hey, pac. I don't agree with you at all given her unilateral sacking of all other hosts today...

Being a good leader means listening to people, talking back to them, being open and honest with them, and treating them with respect by not intentionally misleading them. So, no, there's no sign of showing any great leadership there.

btw, I think the admin should remove her from hosting this group because I'd rather have no host than be in a group that's run by a series of decrees pinned to the top of the group...

[pacalo]

181. But Neoma is understandably in the defensive mode at this point.

This is the first time that I've read about Neoma's point of view & it's got substance. I give her credit for not parsing every post here in this thread for the sake of contentiousness; that she doesn't bicker about small things shows that she isn't argumentative. That does say something about her maturity & level-headedness.

[CreekDog]

205. +1000 !!!

glad people are noticing.

she took on an impossible situation, carefully tried to solve it and explained in great detail to everybody what she was doing and why.

it is actually a great example of hosting in a hostile and out of control environment.

[BlueIris]

31. Appalling.

The abuse of power here is beyond anything I thought I would see, even after the nightmare which unfolded in the group these past few days.

I really think you should step aside now. No one who would treat others this way should be the host of any group.

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. Please define "abuse of power". Thanks!

[laconicsax]

44. Are you kidding?

Removing a host over an off-site argument?
Blocking that same person from the group?
Removing all other hosts because Neoma felt that she didn't work well with them?
Locking the two threads about who the group wants as its hosts?

Did you miss all of that?

[Ruby the Liberal]

54. Is this a joke?

[laconicsax]

56. You tell me.

[JTFrog]

150. + infinity

I have the utmost respect for your opinion given that you have been very actively involved in this group since it's inception at the old DU.

[musette_sf]

171. + 1

Thank you

This is ridiculous.

see and iver and red and you, are the core people who kept the Feminists group on the old DU going. I have NO idea who this "Neoma" is and it appears that this person did a bald power grab in a group in which said person never said Boo in on the old DU.

I may get my post nuked for saying this, but the new DU has NOT been friendly to feminists. And considering how the old DU was to feminists, that's saying A LOT. This group isn't a safe place to talk feminism and associated issues and concerns. I see people here who hardly EVER, and mostly NEVER, posted on the Feminists group on the old DU, attacking see and iver and red and you.

I do NOT have the time or inclination to try to untangle all this mess and figure out who the players are, and figure out how see and iver and red and you became considered Persona Non Grata in a group that owed a great deal of its very existence on the old DU to see and iver and red and you.

What IS this insanity? How the HELL did this stranger sweep in and crap all over see and iver and red and you?

[yardwork]

209. She was invited to become a host by them. And she was made lead host by them.

[musette_sf]

194. Agreed

[ellisonz]

59. Having observed all of this...

...I think you need to resign and the Feminist Group needs to go without hosts for a couple months before holding new elections within a set of by-laws determining appropriate procedures.

Please resign and let the jury system do the hosting for awhile.

P.S. A coop is what you keep chickens in, a coup is an attempt to overthrow an authority figure.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Another thing. The host you sacked who you called a 'she' is actually a 'he'..

And how did the election thread cause disruption? Because things weren't going yr way? That's not an excuse to lock a thread...

[boston bean]

68. Tell us why you felt the need to cirumvent your hosting duties

to your co-hosts by sending out private conversations you had with them to anonymous non co-hosts.

Tell us the reason why you sent out their PM's to anonymous non co hosts.

Who are these people?

You breached a trust and that is why you should no longer remain host of this group. You did not work in good faith. You are no innocent bystander just trying to do the right thing. You should really take a look in the mirror, and tell us what you did wrong. Tell yourself what you did wrong. You are not host material neoma, and you have hijacked the group, that is clear by your actions. You went outside to other people who were not elected hosts of this group, shared private conversations, for advice and support to take actions, and make decisions you couldn't make on your own. Essentially giving them control of the group, with you as figure head. People who were never elected.

We can't just look at this through one prism, at this point it is important to remember what you have done. What you did that caused havoc in this group.

[quinnox]

69. As an outsider to this group, this OP very much impresses me

I have to recommend it. In my opinion this OP shows sensitivity as well as leadership qualities. That is my two coppers.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Yes, the bit where she sacks the other hosts coz someone dared unpin her post is a highlight...

I was also very impressed with the bit where she posts what the hosts role is and says there's nothing in there about voting, which is enforced by her locking the voting thread where we were voting for a new host.

My question is if the admins approved of what she's done, then why didn't she post that in the OP? It's this secrecy and high-handedness that's got me very uncomfortable....

[quinnox]

72. things are in flux

I expect we will soon find out if Neoma will continue as primary host and lead this group with her best efforts or be removed because of her recent actions, and hopefully either way the group participants can move on and upward by giving the outcome, whatever it may be, a fair chance.

[boston bean]

77. You think a lead host should just unilaterally remove co hosts?

You think a lead host should lock threads where members of the group are discussing her hosting?

You think a lead host should lock an election thread?

Come on. Let's get real honest here. You would like this to be occurring in groups where you are a member?

[quinnox]

82. She is making the argument that she had no choice

She was faced with what in her words, were untrustworthy co-hosts who seemed hell-bent to be trying to depose her at every turn, without really giving her a chance to perform her new job of being primary host. She accepted the job on good faith and then before she could barely get started, was faced with an insurrection. I will admit I find sympathy with her point of view and the way she has presented her side in this OP.

[seabeyond]

85. would that be when she refused to talk to any cohosts from saturday evening on? we would be the ones

responsible for her silence and unwillingness to address issues?

again, the topsy turvey world. how are four hosts at fault for not being able to deal with a stone wall?

i dont see how i or any other host were suppose to be able to sort things out when no posts were answered.

[quinnox]

92. That is something for Neoma to answer but

I can speculate a bit and say maybe she thought at that point it was useless to communicate any further with co-hosts who may have demonstrated their only real interest and objective was to get rid of her as primary host ASAP and wouldn't budge to try and work with her or back her up in any case while showing no loyalty to her or willingness to give her a fair shake as main host. Maybe she thought what is the point of trying to offer an avenue of communication when it was going to be dismissed out of hand.

[seabeyond]

93. we can create any story that we want as a supposition. saturday night she quit talking to us

and started making independent decision with no voice from the others. she stopped communicating completely. she would not address pms sent to her. we kept it out of the forum. we had not even considered challenging her position. there was not a thought of challenging her host position. not until monday morning when we failed to hear anything. monday mid day we found out she had sent our posts to people outside our forum to cause unrest. monday evening we found out she link to off site and state falsehood about that situation. trust was broken.

facts matter. we cannot make things up and put it out as a possibility.

[Remember Me]

124. As you know, they probably weren't "independent" decisions --just independent from you

and the other co-hosts.

[seabeyond]

129. true that. nt

[CreekDog]

208. you banned her from the host forum you set up

it's well documented in various threads.

and those screen captures that others have posted, they show her speaking to you on Sunday right up until you banned her.

please, please do not argue about fairness and fair treatment of hosts when you sought to exclude a host from your discussions and decisions. please, please don't criticize her for not talking to you when you silenced her by banning her from the forum you were using to communicate.

it's just too much.

[seabeyond]

71. misrepresentation and fabrication impresses you? it is easy to make something look pretty

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2012, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)

when you are not challenged on the truth.

[quinnox]

73. I understand why you might be peeved

about this OP as it directly quotes you and puts you in a bad light, but we all have our own opinions, and I'll leave it at that.

[seabeyond]

74. what part puts me in a bad light? that i quoted a post that said "you fucking bigots"? or

a post that neoma claims i hate men? which post put me in this bad light?

did neoma post this post.... or any of the zillion other post that i stand up for men and boys? you do not see a misrepresentation in this?


seabeyond
8. i really try not to come in this forum, but this post is really about us.

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2012, 02:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

and i think this is so important to say.

feminists, me, i am a mom with two sons. i have a husband i love very much. a father, two brothers and 5 nephews. two nephews i am close with and are dependent on me as the mom figure. all of these men and boys are very special and i love them, care for them and want the best for them.

as a feminist, why would their interests NOT be the highest priority for me. they are no less and they are not loved less, than myself, or the few nieces i have in my life.

what is healthy and balanced, grounded, authentic for men, well only enhance a womans life. and the same works the other way.

allowing each individual to have the control over their own empowerment is beneficial to all.

it is only when we try to make one less, that things become imbalanced and issues arise.

in the many gender issue threads i have been in, my sole purpose is the health for all. the best for all. because ultimately that creates a win win win. win for me (woman). win for you (man). and win for us (society). i hope one never finds in my post that i have ever deviated from that goal. it is the goal i hear from most all feminist. i think the message is often ignored or contaminated to continue a battle between the two genders. i think it is ignored to create feminists as the evil of all evils. i cannot imagine any feminist being successful without the belief that we all must be equal.

raising two boys and spending a lifetime with mostly boys and men, i see a lot of issues with the male gender (as i see a lot with the female gender). i address them often, because without those healed and recognized, women dont have much of a chance, either. it benefits us all.

now, i will try to stay out of your guys business, again, lol. but, it is something i feel so strongly about. this issue is my top priority in my RL today. and i couldnt let it go unsaid. and i was not hearing it from others.

[quinnox]

75. I think you may be taking this too personally

When I said put in a bad light, I meant the way Neoma framed her argument against your post. She obviously disapproves of your post that she quoted. I'm not taking a position on who is right or wrong in their interpretation, as it really isn't my business and not something I want to get involved in anyway. And this time I will stick to my word and leave it at that.

[seabeyond]

76. this is my point. putting together a balanced and fair representation of facts does not matter. it

looks pretty, it makes me look bad (regardless of facts) so neoma wins?

my head has been spinning the last week in the statements being made on this site to smear the women in this forum

a post above you claim the co hosts attempted a coup. neoma was victorious.

we have an election and the women in this forum vote for redqueen and that ='s a coup. neoma has no votes, makes independent decisions and she wins.

what sense is this? how does one react to this?

[tammywammy]

79. Neoma had votes too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=3304
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=3098
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=3117

[seabeyond]

81. mtnester, kdmorris, vanje have never made a post in this forum

vanje might have, on a couple occassions. but it was not to discuss feminist issues. it was to be a part of a flame.

[tammywammy]

83. So, their votes don't count?

I also don't think everyone voted, I know I didn't, but then maybe my vote wouldn't have counted either.

[seabeyond]

88. why would people who do not participate in our forum, or are not members of our forum's

vote get counted? are you suggesting we open our group vote to all of du?

[Lisa D]

91. I can't believe you just said some votes wouldn't count.

That fact was NEVER disclosed in the election thread. And you were/are a host in this group, so I'm assuming that other hosts agree with you that not all the votes would count. Where is the transparency? Why wasn't a clear voting process established in the beginning?

[seabeyond]

94. lisa d, do we open up the vote to all people on du dscussion board for our group host? nt

[Lisa D]

96. Do the hosts have a list of subscribers to this group?

Because people suggested we wait to get a list of subscribers, then have them participate in the vote. But the voting should have waited until we had that list. What you are suggesting gives the appearance that a certain few members will decide who is a "regular" member here and who is it not, and that only those votes will be counted. That is the problem. I really hope I'm wrong about this, but since this election process has never been fully explained, it looks suspicious.

Transparency. That's what DU3 is supposed to be about. Why isn't it happening in this group?

[seabeyond]

98. or, the voting happens and it is there to see. i dont have that info. but as many said, there is

no reason to wait and see. i doubt many will vote knowing they do not participate and they are not members. i tend to see the good in people. not to mention, that seems reasonable. so we have an election. people know if they participate. people know if they are members.

whomever is handling the other end, however they handle it, will have the votes.

[Remember Me]

127. The subscriber list swelled by 30 in one day with the ugly M&H thread

saying that the Feminist Group "has a host problem." THOSE are going to be filled with a good number of anti-feminists and rubber-neckers. No, the subscriber list is NOT an appropriate indicator. A history of Prior posts to the group ON FEMINIST ISSUES (not just flame wars) is.

[obamanut2012]

153. Every Group is open to all of DU

[Lisa D]

86. More than one member

suggested that we wait on the election to get a list of subscribers to the group from Skinner so that the voting could only be among subscribed members. But no, the election had to be done IMMEDIATELY. So fine, people started to vote. Then some people (including hosts) said only "regular" member votes should count. So tell me, who exactly are these "regular" members. Would ALL the votes in that thread have counted if the election had continued, or only some of them? Because there were several people voting for Neoma.

And there was another problem with the election. Why was there no clear process on how it was going to work, how many hosts were going to be selected, etc.? It had to be done "right fucking now" to get rid of Neoma without knowing any of these things.

And it all started when Neoma had the audacity to ban iverglass, who's been waging a war in this group against LGBT feminists and the LGBT forum. Since none of the hosts stopped her, it gave the appearance that she had their approval to continue baiting and insulting LGBT feminists as much as she pleased.

[tammywammy]

90. I agree, who are the 'regular' members?

I've seen that phrase often in the last couple of weeks.

[seabeyond]

95. people who post in the gorup discussing feminist issues and people that have membership

prior to the day elections started. does that sound fair?

[Lisa D]

97. Actually, no, it doesn't sound fair.

People who have a membership in this group should be allowed to vote. But also adding the votes of "people who post in the group discussing feminist issues" (but who apprently aren't members) makes it much too subjective. There needs to be a clear-cut voting process. Because an election that consists of: "this non-member can vote, but this non-member can't vote" would be both unfair and undemocratic.

[seabeyond]

99. it is clear who participates in the forum. it would be EXclusive, something we avoid, having been

accused repeatedly that we are EXclusive when in fact we work very hard to be INclusive. we could not deny the people who participate in this forum a voice in the way it is run.

it is easy to see if people paticipate in the last handful of months. we do not need to make this harder than it is.

it would be so wrong, to tell people who regularly use this forum, that others have decided their voice cannot be heard.

[Lisa D]

100. So who approves this voting list of non-member participants?

How far back did they have to begin posting? How many posts did they have to make? Did they have to agree with certain members about certain subjects? What if they posted in the Feminists group on DU2 but not here? What if they participated in the group, but were accused of being a troll, disruptor, or outsider by a member or host of the group? What if they participated in the group, but one or more of the hosts said or implied that they weren't a feminist? What if they participated in the Feminists group on DU 3, but not DU 2?

And who, exactly, makes and/or approves this voting list?

So, I'm sorry, but it's not clear who these voting, non-member participants would be. Not clear at all.

I don't expect you to answer all these questions, Seabeyond, because how can you unless this was a group-wide decision. Is there another off-site forum where these decisions are being made or decided?

My point is that it's not fair to say that "regular" posters of the Feminists group who are not members can vote when it's so difficult/impossible to clearly define who qualifies as a "regular" poster.

[seabeyond]

101. i havent participated in that and i have no desire to. i only speak to what i know.

hey... i did a thread in host to ask that question you asked me. if you would like the responses i will get them to you. it will take time to put together, there were many responses. or i can give you a brief take on what was said.

[Lisa D]

112. Yes, thank you.

I would like the responses. No hurry.

[maddezmom]

102. good questions since it's been said numerous times by different people here

non-members shouldn't have a vote. Who decides which people are non members and what is the criteria to be considered a member here?

[seabeyond]

103. again, i think it is pretty simple to see if a person participates in the feminsit discussion in

our group

[tammywammy]

108. It's apparently not

If a non-regular votes will they be notified their vote doesn't count?

I've been hesitant to post much, but I have posted so am I a member? Does my lack of participation on DU2 disqualify me? Part of the benefits of DU3 is the increased exposure of groups, the admins have said that all along.

[justiceischeap]

113. Just so I'm clear

People who are members but don't participate in discussions shouldn't get a vote? I only ask because you used the word discussion.

[maddezmom]

117. go ahead and put it out there then. What is the criteria?

number of posts? number of OP's?

And if someone only posts infrequently or lurks but wants to be a member in good standing what do they need to do?

[RobertBlue]

177. +1 n/t

[UnrepentantLiberal]

149. Cool.

I can vote in the election. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002262529

I cast my vote for Neoma.

[yardwork]

122. Sounds like the phrase "regular women" that has also been tossed around this forum lately.

[redqueen]

141. No, it doesn't.

It sounds like people are curious why people who are supposedly interested in this forum only show up to engage in this nonsense.

[yardwork]

144. I was dragged into this nonsense by the disruption that spread from here to other parts of DU.

The repeated efforts of a handful of self-appointed leaders in this forum to start a "war" with a group to which I belong brought me here. If you don't want "outsiders" coming into the forum, tell your leaders not to go picking fights with other people.

[redqueen]

147. You're talking about one person.

Did she barge into that forum waging war?

Or did someone there post a thread about something she said, and then when she responded she was blocked?

Should we have commanded her not to respond?


I get that she has a lot of hidden posts, and that she says rude things. A lot of people here do that, and some of them are co-hosts on other groups.


I never said I didn't want "outsiders" coming here. Please stick to reality.

[Scout]

154. yeah, someone came and held a gun to your head and MADE you come post, uh huh

and butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.....

[Remember Me]

128. No on using the subscriber list

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=3841

[Lisa D]

152. Actually, the suggestion was to have

members who had subscribed to the group before the fiasco of the last few days. That's also why it was suggested to contact the admins so a list of members and the date they joined the group could be used to facilitate the election. Those suggestions were immediately shot down by some of the same people who now want to decide who can elect new hosts.

So, yes, using that subscriber list is definitely appropriate. Composing a list of eligible voters that host or group member deem "regular" members, even if they've never actually subscribed to the group, is not appropriate, fair, or democratic.

Transparency, anyone?

[kdmorris]

143. We were not allowed to participate in DU2 without a star

I have posted in this forum...and about feminist issues.

ETA: I voted for you for co-host, so if my vote for Neoma doesn't count, I guess we also count the vote for you for co-host. Saves me from having to self delete, anyway

[musette_sf]

174. As the OP was an outsider to the Feminists group on the old DU,

5 screens of screed is not needed if one has a leg to stand on, or if one had actual qualities of "sensitivity" and "leadership".

[boston bean]

78. I notice once again this host is MIA and unaccountable to the group members.

She says something and then no further discussion from her.

There seems to be a pattern here.

Possibly, she writes something up and then let's others fight her battles for her.

Wow what a great leadership skills, in the sense of true unaccountability.

Speak to your members. Answers their questions, for yourself, neoma.

[tammywammy]

84. She said she was going to bed in the OP

It's 7:42 where I am, and I wouldn't be up if I didn't have to go to work.

[boston bean]

87. ah yes, but this is habit we got going on here.

she only makes op's, doesn't respond in them, won't partake in other conversations, and then just locks stuff she doesn't like when people question her hosting.

[snooper2]

111. So you didn't even read the whole OP?

[seabeyond]

89. yes. and i was up until 3 in the morning dealing with this.

and she said she had reasons to be away since saturday and i have spent days on this board trying to solve this.

as have other women on in this group.

[yardwork]

136. Hosts aren't employees. They aren't required to punch a time clock.

Neoma is doing a fine job as host imo. She may not be doing it the way you would do it if you were host, but you didn't get elected host. Neoma did. It says so right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391743#post15

[boston bean]

142. If she doesn't have the time to even speak with the members

maybe she shouldn't be host.

Her post pinning fiats leaves much to be desired.

[yardwork]

106. You go girl!

[CrispyQ]

110. Please remove me as co-host.

I don't have the time to read or write novels.

[Scout]

120. don't worry, you were already removed. n/t

[DURHAM D]

118. This is leadership.

Thank you.

[Scout]

119. YOU have made this forum suck. You need to resign based on your own misconduct.

"I have tried to have patience with all of you, but I'm sad to say, none of you has been good co-host material."

and revealing private conversations to other DUers, who aren't even members of this group, yeah, that's just great host material!!



priceless, just priceless.

[musette_sf]

192. + 1 K

[redqueen]

132. My response:

I don't know redqueen, and very early in the flame-war I asked if she wanted her position back. Maybe she would handle the position better? She declined. I added her very close after the time I removed and banned iverglas.

No, you did not. Not according to the automated PM I received.

laconicsax re-added me.

Before I had a chance to think about how I want to approach redqueen with what had happened, coup.

I was told that you did not discuss "what happened" with your current co-hosts at the time.

Why would you approach me with something you didn't approach the current co-hosts about?

Redqueen: "As the only main host who was ever fairly nominated and agreed on, I am making this decision unilaterally, due to the fact that I was told the decision to block her was made unilaterally by the new host who was made so automatically as a function of the software."

I'm not sure I have to tell you how insulting this is. To how hard I've worked to end a feud that has been riling up people for too long. I have been goaded, insulted, pissed upon, lied about, tricked and not been treated fairly within my circumstance. I will not join a fight when I'm trying to calm it down. I have seen no effort by the current co-hosts or ex-co-host to even attempt to help me in public view to either calm down themselves or calm the flame war down. I have lacked administration support for many days, I sought advice, information and emotional support elsewhere, and now my co-hosts and ex-co-host have purposely directed the flame war onto me. You probably have no idea why or how I am resilient. But I'm not here to tell my life's story.

What do you think you've done that qualifies as working hard to end this alleged "feud"?

You add a lot of nasty words for how you feel you've been treated, where is the evidence? A few people are dissatisfied with how you've handled your hosting duties. I wasn't privy to what went on at that other site, but nobody "pissed upon" you, Neoma. People have opinions and people aren't shy about sharing them, anywhere on this forum.

Who lied about you? Please let us all know what exactly that is in reference to.

Who tricked you, and how?


And guess what, now I'm insulted that you're sitting here telling people that nobody did anything to calm anything down. I did, and it was working, but then you posted your pinned thread about how you weren't stepping down.

You were answering one or two people who had suggested that you do resign with a pinned thread. Does that sound logical to you?

But you got a result with that action didn't you? Was that part of your effort to calm things down? Because what actually happened was that made everything worse. How could it not? You weren't participating, you had made unilateral decisions, and you allegedly were saying stuff like we focus on gender too much in this group. That's not the kind of focus people expect from the host of a group intended for "discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society"


Note this part:

In short: Forum hosts have very limited powers. Group hosts have very broad powers. But regardless of whether you are a Forum Host or a Group Host, you would be wise to use your powers carefully and thoughtfully. Solve problems, don't create problems. And most of all, act in good faith.

Your Job

The job of a Host is to help a forum or group stay true to its purpose, which is reflected in its Statement of Purpose. As you do your job, you should be mindful of this Statement of Purpose, which can be found in the following places:

And again, the purpose is to discuss problems inherent to women.

Did you even say that, about discussing gender too much? I was told this but I want to give you a chance now to deny it or explain it... because you need to consider how such a statement reflects on your ability to host this forum. Keeping discussions on track about the problems inherent to women is your job. If you say we discuss gender too much, don't you think that will understandably raise some eyebrows, at the very least?

So, you should only serve as a Host in a forum in group where you are yourself a regular participant. If you participate in the forum or group you are hosting, you will have a better understanding of the norms, standards, and culture of that forum or group. Which will help you make better decisions about how to do the job.

Now my dear co-hosts, I am removing all of you, but I will not ban you or anyone else unless it is very clear to do so because of verbal abuse, bullying, provoking, etc. (This goes the same for people who are not hosts.) I am giving you a chance. I am locking all threads that has caused disruption. And I wish to make something clear. I have not harmfully provoked you. I did not re-pin my Breathe thread. I did not re-ban iverglas. I did not remove seabeyond along with iverglas, I did not un-ban Creekdog, I did not ban redqueen immediately after she staged a coup. If I have done any crime, it is to re-pin my thread announcing that I am not resigning at this time repeatedly to the top after you have un-pinned it.

Excuse me? How exactly did I stage this?

I have tried to have patience with all of you, but I'm sad to say, none of you has been good co-host material. Since I have worked on this thread from 9am to 11:20pm, I will wake up tomorrow hoping that this has cleared up questions. Hoping that I am not repeatedly attacked for attempting to promote peace between both parties, If only for a short while... and to bring up the point of 'both' parties, everyone who comes into this group is part of the group. It's disrespectful and rude to bring this into every comment you disagree with.

So this patronizing, condescending tone is part of your good faith effort to promote peace.

Right.

[musette_sf]

190. + One Million!!!!

[Kellerfeller]

140. This is ugly

I'm not a member of this group but as an outsider, I can say co-hosts should not be unilaterally be removing the other co-hosts. If a group of co-hosts had been trying for a coup, they could have just ousted the co-host they were trying to, er, coup. But they didn't. So I am more likely to give their side more credibility.

Clearly there are two distinct factions and the emotions run high on both sides. I propose a simple solution.

Why not break into two groups? Yes, it is not ideal. But this is a digital realm and it would be easy. Obviously we don't want this happening on a regular basis and Skinner can easily limit that, but this is a rare occurrence for it to get this ugly. Odds are, one group will wither on the vine and it can eventually be killed. If both groups thrive, great. That is what the board is for.

Just my 2 cents.

[JTFrog]

145. Unsubscribed.

Good luck with this group.

"Remember: DU is supposed to be fun - don't make it suck".

Fail.

[hlthe2b]

164. Neoma: re: Skinner's statement on responsibilities of a Forum or Group host...

Per your own post, Skinner has emphasized that "whether you are a Forum Host or a Group Host, you would be wise to use your powers carefully and thoughtfully. Solve problems, don't create problems. And most of all, act in good faith."

Skinner also emphasizes: "Remember: DU is supposed to be fun — don't make it suck." and..."consider the Statement of Purpose, but also consider the feelings of people who are using your forum or group. How do they want to use the group? What can you do to help make the visitors to that group feel welcome and happy?" and finally, "The DU3 system is based on trust, and we believe it is absolutely necessary that everyone in a position of power does their job in a good-faith way."



Yet, you take unilateral action that only serves to add to the strife. You post incredibly condescending comments to your fellow group members like "I have tried to have patience with all of you, but I'm sad to say, none of you has been good co-host material." I was absolutely aghast to read that.

I am an infrequent member of this forum and I bring no preconceived notions of who has been right or wrong to date. But I find your actions as host of this group appalling. I find your indifference to fairness, good faith, and building of trust to be inexplicable. It seems apparent to me that in your decisions, actions and comments, that your primary goals are most certainly NOT to build a group where the very important issues of the day for women can be discussed, but to exact retribution for the personal slights you feel you have experienced. That is NOT leadership.

At a time when women's very equality is under political attack as never before, personally I think you should be able to put the interests of the forum before your own self-interests. Perhaps you will take that thought to heart. If not, you will succeed only in driving away the very people who should be working together to fight back against the political interests that serve to harm women in this country. And, that would be shameful.

[musette_sf]

172. + 1

I've been a visitor and poster to the Feminists forum for as long as I have been on DU - going on 8 years now. And I have NO idea where this "Neoma" person gets off. Heck, I don't even KNOW this Neoma person from DU2, and now this person seems to have bullied themselves into being the ONE and ONLY "host" for the forum???

"Neoma" seems to deliberately trying to MAKE this group NOT FUN.

[DonCoquixote]

165. OK, Keep the Right wing happy

It has often been asked "why does the left keep losing?" The answer, cold and hard as it is, is that we love infighting, while the right moves in lockstep goosestep. Yes, we know that all those gray creeps that rant about how much they hate Romney will vote for him, because they hate Obama, just like they would hate Hillary if she won 2000.

I have never said I want to be like them, but dammit, can we have somewhere that is not an extreme? If this liberal male may humbly offer a point, it is that women, and I do mean all women, of all the variants, should be able to share enough experiences that they could form a common ground, Let's face it, it does not matter whether you are a white woman, black woman, heterosexual, homosexual, transgendered woman, or any variant beyond and between.

The males that run this country still think of you as uppity (censored), and they plan to "put you in your places" while you engage in your infighting. Frankly, even though I am a male, I actually want you to win, because right after said males hang you for being (censored) they will hang my brown ass. To quote Ben franklin, "if we do not hang together, we will all hang separately" and if you do not think they have the lynch mobs ready to go, check out a Tea Party rally. These creeps already know they got to shoot Gabby Giffords out of office, and you know that even though Jan Brewer is a female, she sure as hell is NOT after your interests. They have big, big plans, and they know that is it far easier to be a Vulture that swoops in to feast after a civil war than to actually do the dirty work themselves.

Yet, we had people, on this forum, backstabbing and infighting, all over what amounts to an EGO TRIP, you know the ones that Males tend to have when their testosterone poisons their brain tissue, the sort that women often have to clean up after.

If you like or hate me, sad to say, it does not matter, because I would rather be the person that helps you come to your sense then simply watch as you drive off drunk.

[CreekDog]

176. I thnk it's completely unfair and unkind to equate this action with being right wing

in recent days before this, people were being denigrated here for their status as transgendered. the people using derogatory terms were defended many times, right up until DU adminstration revoked them!

do you think it was right wing to make sure that would not likely happen again?

[DonCoquixote]

211. Read what I said

I said kepp the Right wing HAPPY. If you are under any illusions that fighting among the left keeps the right wing happy, I invite you to listen to right wing talk Radio. They know full well that the Right was won because the left does the circular firing squad like no one else. Can you deny that?

And if you use right wing means to "make sure would not likely happen again?" Then you allow more and more right wing tactics to enter in, until there is no moral high ground to fight from: (see Patriot Act, Guantanomo Bay.) It was right wing to throw RedQueen and Seabeyond out, regardless of what the offensive poster did, and now all you did was make the anti LGBT person a martyr to those who sympathize with her views (which admittedly, were rather nasty. I never denied she needed to be reprimanded if not tombstoned.)

But unfair and unkind? if you act like a right winger, you get treated like one, and that most certianly includes shady coups.

[CreekDog]

212. You just argued that you didn't say she was right wing and then...

you say, "if you act like a right winger, you get treated like one, and that most certianly includes shady coups."

calling her a right winger again.

completely undermining your protest that you didn't call her a right winger, yes, the previous message it was implicit.

now you are calling her a right winger, explicitly, while denying that you are. thus, your argument has no credibility.

[DonCoquixote]

213. if you act like one

If I were to bite someone, I would not be a dog, but it would still be vicious, and I would not be able to claim in court "I am not a dog, therefore I could not have bitten someone!" if I act like something, I m doing the harm of that something.

And your heroine is the one with the credibility gap throwing out people just because they did not punish someone to their satisfaction.

[musette_sf]

173. YOU seem to be working to make this group NOT FUN.

I have no idea who you are, and I surely don't remember you from the Feminists group on DU2 any time over the last 7 years.

see and iver and red and blue, among others, were the heart, soul and core of the Feminists group on DU2. Having read their posts over the years, I find all of your lengthy accusations in your diatribe to be highly suspect.

WHAT is your deal???

[DURHAM D]

175. Well, I have never heard of you...

[musette_sf]

178. since you only posted twice to the Feminists group on DU1,

I suppose that's why

[yardwork]

179. You may have missed it.

This forum is under new leadership. We no longer have purity tests. Posters no longer have to present their genitals and posting history to be inspected before they are allowed to participate here. This forum is now open to all people who identify as feminists and are interested in discussing feminist issues. Welcome back. You'll be seeing a lot of new faces.

[musette_sf]

182. Like Wisconsin is "under new leadership", it seems like to me.

Where, pray tell, were all these ardent "feminists" on DU1? Because there were no "purity tests" in that forum. Just feminist discussion.

This is a power grab, and it seems to have been orchestrated by people who did NOT participate in the DU1 Feminists group. Some of their supporters, I recognize as MRAs from my DU1 Ignore list.

[tammywammy]

193. You had to be a donor to post in groups on DU2

Part of the benefit of DU3 is people have more access to groups and the admins at encouraging more participation in groups. Just because someone may not have posted on DU2 does not mean they should be discouraged from posting on DU3.

[yardwork]

197. Nobody's orchestrating anything. The previous hosts of this group made Neoma the lead host.

If you read this thread, you will see that the previous lead host resigned, and the group discussed who would become the lead host in her stead. They chose Neoma.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1772

So you see, in your absence the "regular members" of this group invited a new member, Neoma, first to become a co-host and then to become lead host.

The rest of us came later. Hi!

[CreekDog]

199. can I ask if calling the action a Republican style action is the meme of the day?

you are one of a handful of posters doing this in this thread.

[DURHAM D]

184. Ok - you are really in on the know. I'll bite -

What is DU1?

[musette_sf]

185. ......

[DURHAM D]

186. LOL

I am sure someone will be along to explain what is wrong with your post.

[musette_sf]

187. What is wrong with it?

You're being snarky and I post proof that you're being snarky, and that's wrong?

[obamanut2012]

180. Nor me

[musette_sf]

183. And you never posted on DU1 at all,

and certainly not in the Feminists group.

Power grab.

[Lisa D]

198. It appears that poster didn't join DU until 2011

so how could she have posted on DU1? She may not have even known DU existed back then.

I've been a member of DU since 2004, but couldn't afford to donate for years, making me unable to post in any groups. Does that mean I'm not a feminist? Does it mean I don't belong here?

I certainly understand that you're angry and upset about the events of the last few days. Many of us are. But this "insiders" and "outsiders" mentality is divisive and hurtful. No one should have to pass some kind of DU feminist group litmus test to be welcome here.

[Shining Jack]

200. You never posted on DU1 either.

"We became DU2 on July 6, 2003..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2468945#2469295

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/du...

[obamanut2012]

201. I promise to as soon as I build a time machine

I would also like to travel back and meet Eleanor Roosevelt.

[justiceischeap]

207. I'm just curious how this is a power grab for obamanut2012

when she is not in any position of power? Nor, that I've seen, has she asked to be placed in a position of power? How is this a power grab?

And I'd just like to point out, Skinner is not stepping in to stop this, so one could concur he approves of this action.

[DURHAM D]

188. I think you will need to pee on a stick before

she/he accepts your credentials.

[musette_sf]

189. Excuse me?

What the hell are you talking about?

"Credentials" are not my point here.

My POINT is that I see the DU members who were the stalwarts of the Feminists group on DU1 getting trashed and a blatant power grab made to attempt to silence them. And I don't recognize the power grabber, nor the power grabber's supporters, from the Feminists group on DU1.

And now I think I am seeing the power grabber's supporters ganging up on anyone who happens to notice the above very obvious FACT.

[William769]

191. Lets make a long story short.

Redqueen resigned as the main Host, the other hosts knew who would become the main host and did not have a problem with it.

This makes Neoma the main host. and speaking of power grabbers lets discuss the one's that tried to run Neoma out of her position.

DU1 is history, DU2 is history, Du3 is what we have.

All members are welcomed in all Groups as long as they have something worth while to contribute to the Group and for people who cannot and will not grasp this, thats just tough, get over it and move on.

Bullies come in all shapes and sizes male and female.

I hope this clears up some things for you.

Have a great day!

[musette_sf]

195. Doesn't look that way to me.

What I see, is a blatant power grab deliberately intended to marginalize the DU members who were the heart and soul of the previous Feminists group.

"Neoma", whoever that is, did a blatant power grab. ANY "host" who would even POST anything like the below, is only out for his or her self.

"I have tried to have patience with all of you, but I'm sad to say, none of you has been good co-host material."

The above is a LIE, because the DU members who were the heart and soul of the previous Feminists group are more qualified than this "Neoma".

People in this group are viciously bullying the DU members who were the heart and soul of the previous Feminists group.

[William769]

196. Oy vey.

[obamanut2012]

202. Every time you put Neoma in scare quotes

I lol.

[Tumbulu]

217. You are correct

this is just ridiculous.

[DonCoquixote]

215. If I may ask you this

If the person that made the anti-lGBT remarks was asked not to do that, would you have been angry?

[sufrommich]

203. I have to ask. Why do some equate hosts with "leadership"?

A hosts job is pretty cut and dried according to DU rules. There are no "leaders" in groups and implying that the feminist group needs to be "led" seems a little insulting.

[Whisp]

216. I am out of the loop in all the happenings here

and reading back would be like taking on War and Peace 3 times, so that's out.

I think you are trying your best, Neoma, and wish you luck. Being a host shouldn't have to cause pain such as this unfortunately has for some.

[Tumbulu]

218. I do not approve of your decisions or tactics used as stated in your post

Thank you for trying to explain your reasoning, but this is not what I expect to see happening on a DEMOCRATIC site.

I hope that there will be an election of hosts.

[laconicsax]

220. There was an election underway when this was posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11393056

[Lisa D]

223. Unfortunately, that election

was rigged. When the election was almost over, it was revealed that not all votes would count. Instead, only the votes of "regular" posters would count. "Regular" posters was never actually defined, but it did include posters who were not subscribed members of this forum, while some subscribed members of the forum were apparently not considered "regular" posters.

And we still don't know who would have done the actual vote counting. I'm assuming it's the same people who were going to unilaterally determine who qualifed as a "regular" poster in the FG.

So, while I agree with you that an election of a lead host and all co-hosts would be fair and democratic, the link you posted above was neither.

[laconicsax]

237. Rigged? If you say so.

PS: how do you know who has subscribed and who has not?

"Regular" posters was never actually defined, but it did include posters who were not subscribed members of this forum,

Do you have access to information about the site that isn't generally available?

PPS: Having been involved with other safe haven groups, I can say with some certainty that not everyone who subscribes does so with, shall we say, the best intentions. Simply subscribing to a group says nothing about a person's support for its statement of purpose.

[Lisa D]

243. I think we agree more than we disagree.

I agreed there should be an election for a new host. But I was quoting a former host who, when asked who could vote said: "people who post in the gorup discussing feminist issues and people that have membership
prior to the day elections started. does that sound fair? "

While I agreed with the part about having prior membership, I'm not sure how this poster knew who had membership prior to the day the elections started.

In the interest of transparency, here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11393533#post95

I was perfectly willing to accept the results of the election, even without any clear parameters about how many hosts would be elected, etc., until I learned that not all the votes would count, something that was NEVER mentioned in the OP of the election thread. That caused concern, because I think elections should be transparent.

And I also agree with you that not everyone who subscribes has good intentions. That's why it was suggested by more than one person in the election thread that we wait until the admins could provide a list of members who subscribed to the group BEFORE all this brouhaha happened. That seems like the fairest way to hold an election, doesn't it? But those suggestions were ignored by the people running the election.

The truth is, the election result might have been the same no matter how the votes were counted. But fairness, democracy, and transparency should matter. Especially in a group that's supposed to be a safe haven.

[laconicsax]

244. I agree completely.

[Tumbulu]

241. well then have another one if you think that was the case-

this is very disturbing.

I object to the cancelation of that election and the fact that there has been no new one set up. And what is with all these male cohosts?

[laconicsax]

242. Discussing elections is off-limits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11394537