I support you on this decision and hope that sometime in the future if needed we can revisit any issues of hosting with calm and clear heads

seems like we're making some headway due to redqueen's earlier thread in the group.

I agree it should be done calmly.

The main host has to be decided by the group. Since I did not add the co hosts in any particular order this means a new host has to be decided by the group, same as last time.

Frankly this whole kerfluffle could result in our losing all our hosts. Skinner has suggested that before.

We are best served to give this some time and let things settle down a bit.

I don't think we need to feel pressured to act right now.

I agree with that too, I just wanted to state that about the rules regarding appointing a host.

Frankly, If I were a host here I would have banned you long ago.

Sometimes serendipity is a good thing.

Neoma is the lead host for now and I don't have to defend that to you.

I would submit to the rest of the hosts that anyone who behaves as you have just done should be asked to step back and return in a week when they are capable of behaving in a decent manner.

Neoma is the lead host purely by virtue of squatting, and all of you know as well as the rest of us do that there is only one reason why she has all this "support". There's a thread in H&M about the term that applies at the moment.

The young 'uns sure have learned how to manipulate for fun and profit -- although hell, I have yet to figure out what the fun is, and how they expect to profit. But what e ver.

To any jurors looking in: please read the post I am replying to and consider how measured this response is.

So much for all the getting along stuff I saw in another thread. Seriously, I wish you'd all quit it with the attacks and the focus on other duers. Each and every one of you (I use that word generally) should be fucking ashamed of yrselves. This crap is scaring people off and very few seem to care

order.

neoma wanted to do in the host forum and since all the people in there are the ones attacking the feminist forum, we said NO. no wonder she was so insistent we have our discussions in the forum. then she would not have to pm them what we said. they could just read it.

is there a head slapping thing.

Not exactly the way to do that...

But I know you, and you complaining about someone else's "appalling behavior" is like the Republicans calling someone else obstructionist.

this is a safe haven for our members from attack.

Sorry but you weren't voted in as lead host and got it automatically when the lead host took a break. Unless she no longer wants the role I think you should step down to allow the shuffling to happen so she can be lead host and u guys can be brought back in as cohosts

I'm sure many people here share that goal.

You took unilateral action against iverglas for personal reasons (as you shared with me via PM). That's inappropriate in the extreme.

The unilateral action was entirely against the joint agreement all the co-hosts had made that such things would be handled by consensus. Again, inappropriate in the extreme.

You let all the disharmony continue -- until FINALLY redqueen stepped in and locked today's thread and re-established some semblance of peace (short-lived, perhaps).

You have a weird idea of what the Feminist Group should be about -- your believe therfe's too much discussion of gender in the Feminist forum????

None of these are appropriate for the main Host. I doubt if any of the other co-hosts have any trust or faith in you. If they DO, if all of them feel your staying is okay, then I won't object.


And btw, on a completely different note: I didn't get a chance to address this, but someone in another thread suggested me as a possible co-host. Thanks but a big no thanks. Absolutely not a job I'm willing to do. Certainly not here. So, just wanted to make sure no one thinks my opposition to Neoma has anything to do with any "ambitions" of my own. I have none.

provided you won't be maintaining the secret host site the prior host maintained to avoid transparency. Sunlight is an excellent disinfectant.

The private forum iverglas set up for the Feminism hosts. Would you like screencaps?

I don't recall seeing anything but there's a clear pattern emerging in that yr posts are focused on iverglas.

It's really none of yr business how hosts in any group or forum choose to communicate btw

supportive feminist discussion to occur on DU. I posted a few times on DU2, and quickly got the idea that the group was a very closed circle and only a very narrow definition of feminism would be tolerated. It's a new forum, and I'd like to see things run better because I do think it's in the interest of the forum as a whole to have a healthy discussion that reflects the breadth of feminist thought and experience.

Here are the sum total of your posts in the Feminists forum at old DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=341&topic_id=4510

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=341&topic_id=4742

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=341&topic_id=4606

That last one -- wowsers, how did you survive all that meanness???


Three threads in the space of a month. What happened in September 2005 to make you so afraid?

as I recall more posts than that.

In addition, as I said the last time you asked, I'm a woman and a feminist and a longtime user of this website. I don't have to justify either my identity as a feminist nor my use of this group to you.

then you break the SOP rules, just like any other safe haven group on this site.

if your only posts are attacks, call out and disrupting, and not talking about feminist issue, you break the very WEAK rules we have here.

right.

I really wish you'd try participating here by joining in some of the threads that are about feminism rather than just bickering. If everyone stops this crap then people like me and others who are uncomfortable with all this won't end up leaving.

Btw on what shouldn't be tolerate here I think there should be no tolerance for personal attacks on group members from blow ins

the info. she gave people private pms. she is not working for our forum, but against our interest. why should we trust her as an host.

and what does it matter if we found a more convenient way to communicate than pm, between four people. is that against the rules?

its for the rest of us too.

its not against the rules to communicate differently, but the fact that you chose to make it so private makes me not trust any of you at all

Would you like to reproduce here the thread from the Hosts forum that they LGBT hosts told everyone else to stay out of?

It was quite the little showpiece.

Did you make sure that everyone who has ever posted in LGBT was shown the contents of that thread, and of every PM exchanged among/between hosts about the conduct of the group?

Great big fucking dirty black pot, kettle.

Some other people have a decent respect for persons and do not behave like that.

and the only time i blocked someone i not only listened to two hosts but three regular posters, so i get that too. still, not seeing the gotcha you all think you have

Some of us are pretty good at this internet thing.

so stop blaming her for the link getting out

Fer chrissakes.

Talk about fucking transparent.

There is no confidentiality required amongst hosts. That was done away with when the mods went away. The hosts are not moderators.....

no pms?

none?

no just between hosts?

really?

i started a thread in the host forum asking any tips on how to go about it. no one mentioned having conversation on the forum so everyone participated

Did someone say there is confidentiality required among hosts?

Interestingly, however, the Hosts forum is not open to public view ...

Confidentiality is not required.

Trustworthiness is expected.

If Neoma thinks there is nothing wrong with passing along PMs and links to internet sites that she was given in confidence, let's have her come here and say so.

If she thinks it's so fine and dandy to behave that way, let's ask her why she thought it best to do it secretly and not inform the people who had trusted her discretion.

I wouldn't be putting my eggs in that basket if I were some people I can think of.

Please do pass your screenshots on to the people whom the hosts discussed in private. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know the world and its dog is now viewing the discussions.

Or at least I'm sure they'll say they are.

People may post things that we might not like but no one is slamming the Feminists. There are personality conflicts that have to do with individual members...It is not about all of us.

If someone goes and says something offensive in another group...they don't speak for me and likewise if a member of another group comes here and says something offensive they don't speak for their group.

This isn't the school yard. We need to smash cliques not encourage them

and does not particpate in what this forum is about.... they are disruptors per the SOP. that is clearly a rule violation

There are also posters attacking and calling out Neoma, with no proof that I have seen. Is that also a rule violation?

Or has nobody given you the links?

The people whose banning was discussed were not parties to this ongoing attack. They were just lone attackers. You know, how feminists spend too much time talking about gender. (You'll notice that Neoma thought that was an eminently reasonable complaint ... the problem of hating men because they're men and so on ... certainly a major feature of this forum, we'll all agree.)

No cliques involved. Sorry.

But really, if you haven't got that url yet, you don't seem to have made it into the real clique.

Ask Neoma. I'm sure she'll pass it on.

I have caps of the offsite forum you set up to discuss which DUers you wanted to ban from Feminists without having to listen to anybody who disagrees. Since you're a new convert to transparency would you like to post a link or should I host screencaps?

Hosts of forums discuss banning individuals from forums.

What did you think hosts do?

Perhaps you can explain to me how doing that privately is not nice, while doing it publicly (WHICH THE LGBT GROUP HOSTS DID IN THE HOSTS FORUM) is perfectly charming?

You're not the only one with screenshots.

There were discussions of banning three individuals, I recall. At least one or two of them were then banned. By at least majority vote of the hosts. They were banned for VIOLATING THE SoP OF THE GROUP.

Anybody you'd like to ban? Just tell Neoma. She'll be happy to do it for you. She'll be happy to do just about anything some people want, from what I can tell. Does somebody actually think she came up with the idea of removing me as co-host / banning me from posting all by her lonesome?

There are hundreds of groups and forums on this site. Why focus on that one?

Could it be because it is the hosts of that group who have instigated and participated in and permitted vicious deceitful personal attacks on women from this group, in the LGBT group forum and in the Hosts forum?

I wonder.

That's not an attack on this group. If anything that's defending this group from malicious disruptors posting under false guises. In any case it's an awfully strange thing to be sore about, unless you condone that sort of behavior.

regarding you and I stand by my comment:

maddezmom

19. her record here mirrors her record on DU2
she was always near or at the top of the disruption leader board when she was participating(she leaves the site for weeks, months at a time) and was up for a nuke vote more times than I can remember. I really think this is up to Admin and I hope they take a look at her hidden posts, other posts defending transbigotry and TOS violation regarding circumventing the system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=43295

and fwiw, I think you have a lot of life experience and knowlege about a mulitude of subjects but you can't seem to conduct yourself in a civil manner when others disagree with you. I'd have hoped you would have taken your block and all your hidden posts as a signal to reflect.

and to the fact that you have just provided the evidence of what I said.

sorry, I was speaking to your record before DU3 or anything that has happened here.

I'm sure your intent was good but frankly this line of discussion does nothing but give fodder for ammunition in this stupid battle.

All of you please cut it out. Me included....

right?

you have the authority as a host to do something if you feel it's needed. I'm not sure what tools you and the other hosts have in place since I'm not a host here but don't put it all on her.