But I would vote:

Lead Host: Redqueen

Co-Host: Seabeyond

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

your votes have been recorded.

your votes have been recorded!

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

Redqueen Host
Seabeyond Co Host

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

vote has been recorded!

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

Redqueen- Lead host

Seabeyond- co-host

My top choice is redqueen...

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

I think a fresh start may be the best thing.

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

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

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

boston bean, scout, rememberme,

anyone else.

open.

cause redqueen gets her ass kicked if she walks again

You and redqueen, period. PERIOD.

laconicsax has done nothing that I can see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is absolutely no reason to move on this now.


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

I would like more time to consider all the options.

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

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

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

I've seen nothing like that.

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

I have to agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the previous hosts were doing a bang up job?

That things should be handled by cooler heads?

That there weren't problems prior to this one?

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

I think that is wrong headed.

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

There is an election going on.

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

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

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

redqueen = host
seabeyond next
iverglas next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOTE NOW.

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

It'll take months, probably.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That concerns me. It should also concern the hosts IMO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, I feel uncomfortable when I get a wedgie.

On edit:

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


Let's start with this one:

Never have been, have there?

And never will be.

Just unsubstantiate allegations that we all know are not true.

World without end, amen.

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

Substantiate them.

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

Would 'frequent posters in Feminists' be better?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're disagreeing on what exactly the problem is.

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

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

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

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

It's a systemic issue for the group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a fucking pantload.

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

or is it acceptable?

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

of spin.

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

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

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

and get back to me.

So ... ????

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

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

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

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

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

who will you block out of the forum and why.

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

1.Neoma
2.Empress of all

My plate is full

1.Neoma
2. Gormy Cuss

(Edited because my spelling sux.)

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

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

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

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

Is THAT what you want in a main host?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not the one I started.

hmmmm...

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

LOL

to handle an election process

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

i would prefer a more neutral person.

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

Come on...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure what more I could do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited Tue Feb 14, 2012, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

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