That's where you are. Please read the Statement of Purpose.

Too much has gone on behind closed doors; this would be the entire point.

An outhouse coup, one might call it.

I'm sorry. I don't like this one bit either. but we have a host who has committed a betrayal. Then locks the thread she posts telling us we are stuck with her. And to basically go fuck ourselves.

This is just wrong. I tend to speak out loudly about wrongs committed and no matter what anyone else has ever said on this subject, sending out private conversations to others crosses a line.

needs to get TRANSPARENT.

Needs to offer some justification for supporting a squatter who has usurped the position of lead host of the forum without consultation with its members.

And let's get real TRANSPARENT.

Let's everybody who had secret communications with Neoma, without the knowledge or input of the other hosts of the forum, about anything having to do with the hosting of this forum, stand up and name themselves and report to the group on those activities.

So let's include all the communciations in the off-site host forum as well. This entire episode has created an atmosphere of distrust that is toxic to the Feminists group.

I don't care what has happened in the past.

This thread is about neoma taking those private discussions and ferreting them out to non hosts. For nefarious reasons.

That is the betrayal I am discussing.

And it shows she has no hosting capabilities and cannot be trusted as lead host of this group.

I draw a line there.

She must resign right now because of this.

Answer some direct questions.

Is it improper for the hosts of a group to communicate among themselves about hosting issues, in private?

Improper to do it by PM?

Improper to do it in the Hosts forum where other DU hosts, but not Feminists group members, can see it?

Improper to do it at another location which is convenient for the hosts and where the privacy of the people the hosts are having to discuss is protected?

If the answers are no, no and yes, kindly explain.

What is toxic to this group is the underhanded manipulation going on by people who have never been given any legitimate authority to exercise any powers of any kind in this group.

Now let us know what you think about THAT, if you wouldn't mind.

unless things are said that the many in this group would find objectionable or offensive. I have no idea if that is the case, which is the reason I agreed with you about the need for full transparency.

went to people outside this forum to take action against us?

I was one of the hosts who held some brief discussions in private about disruptors in this forum and whether to ban them.

That has nothing to do with what Neoma did, which was to provide others with directions to the location of those discussions without informing the participants, the OTHER HOSTS of the group, and to disclose the content of private communications with herself, without disclosing THE AUTHORS of those communications, and conspire with non-hosts of the forum to install herself as the lead host without consulting other hosts or other group members in any way.

There is no need for "transparency" of discussions held by hosts about hosting issues.

There is a need for transparency on the part of everyone involved in the underhanded manipulation and deception that have led to the current situation.

and forum that have hosts have pms going back and forth or a conversation in the host forum about what actions they should take if any. and NO ONE is demanding to hear all of their communications. how silly is that. yet for some reason, people are outraged because we chose to create something, so it would be easy and people could speak and understand what each are saying. as if that is nefarious.

i expect everyone that demands those communication to be for the public to then go back to their groups and forum and emand the same from their hosts. then listen for the laughter.

but... it is a nifty way to take the responsibility of someone who betrays a persons belief in privacy. thinking they are talking to someone in privacy. to find out those communications are being given to someone, who is trying to do harm

But Neoma was banned from there, even though she's a host.

There is no "betrayal."

iverglas closed the site. you haev issue with that? adn who talked on that board that was not a host?

Now I'm really confused. I thought the issue was the need for the hosts to have privacy to discuss rules/issues in this group. Why were non-hosts also posting? Can a host who was involved please address this?

Good luck getting it.

Again, in the spirit of transparency. I've seen Neoma accused by more than one person of betraying the group, but haven't seen any proof of that allegation either. Transparency would also prove the truth of that allegation.

"Why were non-hosts also posting?"

Now, how do you propose that anyone answer that?

I'll answer that one if you'll answer mine:

Why haven't you stopped beating your dog?

Were non-hosts included or did they participate in this off-site host forum?

Are you actually suggesting it has not been answered, repeatedly?



I'm leaving for a hospital appointment.

the host forum that was set up for host to discuss what was happening on du, in a convienent setting had no one on that were not hosts, as far as i can see. and many others now, who are not hosts, or members of this forum, can see.

i dont have the link. once neoma unilaterally decided to take away host privileges and block iverglas from the board, iverglas locked the forum and i took the site off my forum.

ask around. i am sure you can find someone to give you the link

Neoma unilaterally removed me as host, so I was the non-host.

Neoma didn't pull her dirty trick until after the discussions were held at the hosts place.

So whoever is saying otherwise needs to offer their proof or withdraw their false claim.

Or own up to playing the game that my post welcoming visitors, posted after Neoma removed me as host, is what they're talking about. That would be a pretty silly game, but that must be it.

and proceed to converse with those outside this forum.

Now.

Let's have your screenshots, sparky.

If you make a claim, no matter how little sense it's making to me right now, back it up when yr asked to. It's all about sincerity and wanting genuinely to resolve issues, y'know!

I posted a welcome mat for all the visitors. That is all.

I banned Neoma for purely symbolic reasons. Just so she can look at her name and see "banned" and enjoy it. I know I do!

this is having a discussion about our lead host and that hosts behavior.

Should I bring it to Meta? I will have to if this gets locked.

that way you don't have folks wandering over here... and it seems an issue more suited as a Meta discussion.

that is fine with me.

look, i've been completely honest. I saw it on latest threads, thought it merited an alert and did it. Where it goes from here is up to you.

have a great day!!

and i really don't know the day-to-day's of this group.

I hope it all works out well.

I would say, after reading a few responses to other similarly minded members, that if you don't want the rest of DU coming to "your" forum that perhaps there should be some *rule* that posts don't post to latest threads...

That may mean that less new people visit you. But, apparently you don't seem to want that anyway.

to take the discussion to Meta. It's an issue with how DU works, right?

So, I guess for now, I will leave it here.

they do it within their group.

You wanted it stopped last night.

It is no one else's business.

This is the Feminists forum. Please read the Statement of Purpose for this forum.

If you need some clues to answer your question, please look at the post that this thread is about.

The person being "called out" is the self-appointed host of the bleeding group, and this thread is about the group's business.

The members of this group will conduct our business as we choose, if it's all the same to you.

Thank you.

stumbled into this the same way. I'm sure you know that every thread is posted into latest threads. When I saw a latest thread attacking a DU'er I stepped in. I obviously lack the history to make a judgement call, but it should be noted that everyone else can see this as well. This is not some insular universe. This type of internal dischord can ring through multiple forums.

That being said, I hope you all figure it out. I am no figure here, and I'll leave. But know, strife here is no real battle, and victory is no battle won.

Maybe I read too much fantasy growing up?

a host that was not elected unilaterally making decisions for this group with no discussion with anyone else in the group. one person running the show with no input. but you have decided that we dare to discuss it, and we are the bad guys.

so the post remains and the issue remains. I feel at this point I've only strengthened your position.

I saw, in latest threads, a Du'er being called out by name which I considered a breach. If it's not or if it's warranted makes no difference at this point since a post can't be double flagged, right?

If anything, I agree with the sentiment.

and the noise carries throughout the rest of the house.

Your forum isn't really an isolated island. Subject lines of forum are presented by default to the Latest Threads page. Your forum's internal struggle is spilling out of your forum. When behavior that violates DU rules of decorum (calling out a DUer by name for criticism) spills out onto Latest Threads it gets noticed.

That is all.

coming in and creating chaos. so it doesnt spill in the rest of du, members of this protected group should..... shut up?

tell me what the answer is?

and either abide by it or leave.

This is the Feminists group's forum. Please read the Statement of Purpose for the group.

This is a protected group.

If you are not a member of this group, you will be well advised to leave the group members to deal with the issues raised in this thread and elsewhere in the forum to be addressed and dealt with by the group members.

Feel free to read the related threads in the forum.

Thank you.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This post directly calls out and criticizes another DUer.



You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 14, 2012, 08:19 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This group is having an issue with host appointments. Stifling discussion of the group's governance controversy by labeling criticism of the host, by calling it a "call out", is an attempt to stifle criticism of the host, which is the very point of the controversy. This group needs to work this issue out and, yes, it will involve posts which are about the people in question.

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I wish I knew the back story here. If the alleged behavior indeed took place, then a resignation would seem to be in order. However, it is impossible to construe the post as anything other than a call-out, and I voted accordingly.

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Right now, I don't think there's a way to discuss this in public other than by a post such as this. For that reason, I'm going to vote to let this stand. In the future, if other ways of reviewing the performance of a host are created, I may vote differently.

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Completely inappropriate.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I'm not sure how else this matter can be resolved if it can't be discussed by members of the Feminist Group. There has to be a way to address an issue with a host who is viewed as unethical or unfair.

Wouldn't it be fun if the alerter would step up to the plate?

The nonsensical idea that a post in a group addressed to the host of the group, who herself posted her announcement that is the subject of the post in question and then locked off any further discussion of her announcement, could be construed by anyone as a "call-out" is just whacky.

But once again, I do have to be amused at how some people don't like call-outs of some people even when they aren't, but don't mind call-outs of other people at all.




edit, I see it was one of the non-members who alerted "immediately".

Maybe in future you will take two minutes to find out where you are and what you are reading and not act in such precipitous haste.

see my response above

a fellow member, but resolving an issue

and if she can't keep private messages private, then host is not the appropriate job for her.

Neoma, why aren't you answering anyone's questions?

because there was no dissent to her suggestion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391225#post25

And then Redqueen asked if anyone wanted to take over as host, and no one stepped forward. Making the second co-host move up in rank when Redqueen left (because whether intended or not, Neoma was given the 2nd most powerful position as a co-host).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391743

We need to vote on a new host as a group.

As it is right now, we have a lead host running the forum behind closed doors along with anonymous people she is emailing with.

it needs to stop and stop right now.

Neoma needs to resign and never hold that post again, after the betrayal of trust she has shown with the powers she has.

why is Neoma not answering?

redqueen was selected as primary hosts and four others were selected as cohost by consensus. When the main host stepped down, the first co-host on the list moves up automatically. Neoma is the new main host because she was next on the list. That makes here properly installed as main host. Period. To suggest otherwise is shameful

I strongly recommend that Neoma remain as main host until the dust settles here, but if majority think we should have a new host selection now, maybe it's time for a formal election since the last time at least some members were confused by the importance of rank order in co-host selection. Such an election would have to be open to ALL members, not just the people who post the most. If we want to have a proper selection I suggest we ask admin to supply the names of all subscribed posters so that everyone understands who is eligible to participation and that all members be notified via PM.

A democratic process by ALL the members of this group seems the fairest way to resolve some of these issues.

This host has shown herself to be untrustworthy.

The process begins anew at that point.

I will not remain silent in the face of this.

I will not have the group run by a host who has done this and who is seeking guidance and direction from anonymous people. For all those who scream transparency that ought to make your head spin.

Neoma must resign as host of this forum.

allegations of non-hosts participating in this off site forum that have not been fully answered. So there seems to be trusts issues all around. It would be nice to have full transparency from everyone in the group, but since that doesn't seem to be forthcoming, I believe Gormy Cuss has offered the best solution so far.

The cliques, the backstabbing, the rants,
yes, even hysteria (and I don't use that word lightly)
does nothing to forward feminism,

in fact this is a bloody parody!

The first, and biggest problem I see here is not a sense, but an absolute right of ownership, and no, Neoma is not at the top of that list.

This fallacious 'war' between "Feminists" and LGBTQI serves no positive purpose. We should be working together, not excluding different groups of wimmen or relegating them to various sub-levels due to other groups they also identify with.

This whole thing, IMO, is just insane.