Feminists

This group decided to have a lead host and co-hosts. It was clear from all the discussion in that regard that the expectation was that no host would act unilaterally (and the candidates committed to that -- I know I did, anyhow) and would always consult the other hosts before taking any action within a host's power, unless there were some urgent situation like an invasion of disruptors and requests for action from other group members.

The hosts would consult. That was the expectation of group members and of candidates for hosts, and of the host chosen and the co-hosts she selected.

Did anyone here actually expect to see the hosts conducting a discussion among themselves about how to deal with some situation that arose in the group, in a thead in the forum?

Did anyone not expect that hosts would be in communication by PM when the need for consultation arose?

Has anyone here tried to carry on a five-way conversation by PM?

I received a request from a member here that a particular poster be blocked from posting in this forum. It suddenly dawned on me that I was going to have to pass that message on to four other people, get them to send their replies to me and three other people, reply to each reply with copies to three other people ... and my head exploded. I'm familiar with boardhost so I just zipped off and set up a quickie forum and sent the url to the other hosts so we could discuss that particular request and the surrounding situation and consult on what action to take.

I have yet to see any valid objection to that being done.

I have seen discussions of individual posters, held by group hosts, in the Hosts forum. My preference was not to do that -- not to discuss individuals and their standing in the Feminists group, in a place where dozens of people who have nothing to do with the Feminists group are reading the discussion. I just don't happen to think it's fair to any individuals involved to do that. Does anybody really have some valid objection to keeping discussions of individual DUers and their standing in the Feminists group out of the public DU eye? Does anyone here want to be discussed in a forum where they are not present, but a load of other people, some of whom they "know" and some they don't, are reading and may even speak?

If the hosts had communicated, each with each other, by PM only, how would that have been different from communicating collectively as we did?

How, exactly, did people here think that the hosts were going to fulfil the expectation/commitment that all the hosts would consult before taking any action as hosts of this forum?


I'm going to put this here and probably this won't be the only place I put it. This was the timeline in the hosts forum that was set up (where there are a total of 40 posts).


final posts in the discussion thread that was last posted in there:

Last thread before I became aware of others viewing the forum:



Between the timestamps on Neoma's last post in that first thread and my "forum defunct" post on the board, Neoma removed me as co-host and blocked me from posting on the board. Obviously, this is what her "I'm sorry, this has gone too far" heralded (emphasis above mine).

I smiled at "banning" Neoma from the off-DU hosts forum. The gesture was symbolic, as I also converted that forum to registration-only, so as far as I know, it cannot be posted in now. What you see is what there was.

I don't know at what point Neoma entered into communication with the people who brought the issue of that off-site forum to this board. Very possibly they were viewing that board while the above discussion was going on, or she was already receiving communications from them about the actions she then took as host.





The forum that was used was private in the sense that no one but the hosts was aware of where it was, until Neoma decided to pass on the url to others. (Has she or have they identified them/selves yet?) It was set up hastily, ad hoc, to deal with a situation that had arisen. More foresight and better planning was obviously needed. One must remember that even paranoids have enemies.

Yes, there should probably be all sorts of agreements and commitments as to what the hosts should do and any host may do regarding host discussions and decisions. Trust obviously is not enough of a safeguard.