Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Feminists
In reply to the discussion: Why is the pinned thread locked at the top about hosts [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)37. you need to get your facts straight
Perhaps if you do, you will not make false allegations.
Please see this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=3381
Your statement:
After iverglas was removed as host, she continued discussing people to block in this group on the off-site group. She was a non-host and yet, still the other hosts had conversations with her.
is false.
Your statement:
She disagreed with iverglas and was banned from the off-site forum.
is false.
Your statement:
Iverglas banned her from the host off-site group unilaterally, too, but no one seems to be upset about that.
is incomplete; I "banned" Neoma at the same time as I closed the forum to further posting, because Neoma had removed me as co-host of Feminists. (That is, her "banning" from that forum was purely a gratifying little symbolic move, since effectively everyone was then "banned" from posting in it. Try to register or post, and see how that works. When it was hastily set up, no registration or password was required.)
Your statement:
Redqueen stepped down and Neoma was promoted to host. That's the way the system works. And the only thing that got everyone pissed off was her blocking iverglas and THAT'S when the shitstorm started.
is incorrect. What set everyone off was Neoma's complete and total abuse of host powers, which she has continued since then.
Your premise:
Yet, no one seems to concerned about the unilateral steps IVERGLAS took.
is false, since the only "unilateral" step I took was to close a forum I set up to further posting. My doing that had no effect on the ability of hosts to communicate with one another, the sole purpose for which that forum was set up. I might as well have unilaterally decided to have fish for lunch, which would have had exactly as much effect on anything relevant to this group as my closing that forum to further posting did.
Your statement:
She runs roughshod over anyone who posts the slightest thing she disagrees with and then she ran to her off-site host group and called for their banning.
is false. As you will see at that forum, my first substantive post there was to relay a request received from a member of this group for a poster to be blocked from posting in the group, for consideration by the hosts in consultation with one another.
As for running roughshod blah blah blah, this is a discussion forum. If you don't like what anyone here says, refute it or take whatever steps you may think are necessary to deal with it.
Your statement:
In one case, Neoma disagreed with her on one of her calls for banning and summarily banned from the host group. Are you at all upset about that? How is that not bullying?
is false and you have constructed a question loaded with the false premise as a result.
Neoma was "banned" from that forum simultaneously with the forum being locked to further posting by anyone.
That action, closing the hosts forum to further posting, was taken as a result of Neoma's unilateral actions in the Feminists forum, actions that Neoma took with no consultation with other hosts and contrary to the wishes of all other hosts, and refused to reverse in response to requests by all other hosts.
I was no longer a co-host of the Feminists group. Did you think maybe I should have continued to administer / participate in the Feminists hosts forum I had set up?
Your statement:
She IS a bully.
is an attempt to insult me based on your own inaccurate characterizations of ... well, everything.
I hope I have enhanced your understanding and grasp of facts.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
i dont know where and why we would allow one person to run the board with no input from regulars
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#5
New, selected by the same process as the other co-hosts, as inexperienced as the other co-hosts
Gormy Cuss
Feb 2012
#6
Have all the other hosts made available every single communication they've had with others?
Gormy Cuss
Feb 2012
#8
you came iverglas is a bully for banning neoma off site, right? prior to that neoma banned iverglas
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#22
iverglas gets pissy about my writing style. i have felt her sting.... but i can value all the vast
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#30
IF iverglas continued discussing host stuff after ban... was cause neoma said NOTHING to anyone
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#21
this is the thing in communication. this story seems to be out, consistently, that neoma was picked
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#31
are you serious? are you telling me this is fair. you will continue to present neoma as the victim?
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#35
and everyone must take note of my use of the quote thing. i am so proud. thanks pipi. nt
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#40
why dont you just make up stories. and googlin peoples names... ya right, there are not disruptors
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#19
yes, it matters. now 6 posts matters. it matters to me. very much. i live my life in a way, for
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#32
yes. it is about me. if i thought for one moment that another host was denying another host
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#36
anyone can go in and read the link. it has been made available. i am just not gonna accept this as
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#41
And now it looks like they've gone and pinned it again. This is getting seriously stupid
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2012
#10