Feminists

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)

14. To both Boston Bean and Seabeyond

Thu Feb 16, 2012, 08:09 AM

Feb 2012

So it was decided by some of you that "we" must get her out now. Some of the members of this group only come on this site on weekends, keep that in mind. Basically, what irks me, is that some of you are making a decision for them just like the decision was made for you to make Neoma main host to begin with. Again, I ask, where is the fairness in all this for all the members of the group?

I will continue to stand by my assertion that giving only 3 days for the election wasn't fair to all members of the group... I stated why I felt that way in my OP. I felt it wasn't fair to members who only come on the weekends. That is the only "blame" I'm laying at BB's feet. And if I recall correctly, the last time this process took place, someone else suggested we wait a full week so the weekend members could participate and that was quite readily agreed upon. I get that these are different circumstances than then but again, I MUST ask, what real harm would an additional four days have done? Now we will never know.

BB-- you can repeat continually why you made the decision you did and I will continually repeat that I don't think it was fair to all "regular" members of the group. Up until last night, only 26 members participated in that thread, not all of them voting and we had roughly 100 members before the new "sign-ups". At that point, only 25% of the members had participated.

What I don't really get... is why I'm the one in the wrong for wanting to be fair to everyone if this is for the "good" of the group. Why is it wrong for everyone who wants to, to participate in the process of choosing a new group of hosts and making sure those people get to participate?

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

My thoughts on Neoma's actions (as if they matter at all) [View all] justiceischeap Feb 2012 OP

You are wrong in your third paragraph boston bean Feb 2012 #1

It's nice to know those are the only facts you dispute. justiceischeap Feb 2012 #2

No, that is one I know for a fact that is wrong. boston bean Feb 2012 #4

Did I once link to anything you said? justiceischeap Feb 2012 #7

Hello, I wrote the post, calling for the new election. boston bean Feb 2012 #10

this is where the problem arises. you can now say this forever more and it will still come back to seabeyond Feb 2012 #11

To both Boston Bean and Seabeyond justiceischeap Feb 2012 #14

we had an election just a month ago. it stayed open for a couple weeks. redqueen was elected hands seabeyond Feb 2012 #15

I'm aware of all of this sea justiceischeap Feb 2012 #17

yes. see how wrong i was. seabeyond Feb 2012 #18

What about what Neoma has done? boston bean Feb 2012 #19

Wow, do you even know my name? justiceischeap Feb 2012 #23

No, I am not angry, boston bean Feb 2012 #24

I've not knowingly attributed anything to you but anger justiceischeap Feb 2012 #26

What you are saying here was said in the post, but the reasoning was different than boston bean Feb 2012 #16

What you seem to be missing is I made two separate statements about the elections justiceischeap Feb 2012 #20

I try to go to the source of a problem boston bean Feb 2012 #21

Or we can look at the other side of the penny justiceischeap Feb 2012 #25

She is locking threads. She has that power. boston bean Feb 2012 #28

Darnit! You caught me... justiceischeap Feb 2012 #29

The distrust of her was made clear by members of the group. boston bean Feb 2012 #30

you cannot just create a story that there was lack of trust, without some kind of reasoning for seabeyond Feb 2012 #31

I'm not the one creating narratives justiceischeap Feb 2012 #32

And I am stating the fact boston bean Feb 2012 #34

i could say the moon is blue, that is why i.... there was no reasons for her not to trust us seabeyond Feb 2012 #35

Here is one possible reason for that distrust Lisa D Feb 2012 #33

Seems to me that neoma boston bean Feb 2012 #36

I don't read it the same way. Lisa D Feb 2012 #40

that post that she was so right about was hidden by a jury. boston bean Feb 2012 #44

I'm talking about the post Lisa D Feb 2012 #51

me too, I am talking about the post off site. boston bean Feb 2012 #53

we had a number of members and host suggest trickster get blocked. he has a number of seabeyond Feb 2012 #37

I think there's enough unreasonableness to go around justiceischeap Feb 2012 #41

I never said you were unreasonable Lisa D Feb 2012 #42

if she refuses to adhere to SoP, if she refuses to listen to co hosts and members, if she suggests seabeyond Feb 2012 #45

When did she refuse to adhere to the SOP? Lisa D Feb 2012 #58

i agree with iverglas' post that you quoted. Scout Feb 2012 #39

So iverglas gets to decide Lisa D Feb 2012 #46

No a jury decided to. boston bean Feb 2012 #47

Well, if we're basing whether or not Lisa D Feb 2012 #56

No, that is not true and not what I implied or said. boston bean Feb 2012 #57

And I'm not saying I necessarily agree Lisa D Feb 2012 #59

Who cares. she said it in confidence to the host herself. boston bean Feb 2012 #60

It wasn't in confidence Lisa D Feb 2012 #62

And she has taken unilateral actions. boston bean Feb 2012 #64

And I ask again. Lisa D Feb 2012 #65

to keep on discussing. not go behind their backs boston bean Feb 2012 #67

So what I hear you saying is... justiceischeap Feb 2012 #66

neoma unilaterally removed a co-host and blocked her from the group. boston bean Feb 2012 #68

She's said it a few times now. Specifically used the term unilaterally justiceischeap Feb 2012 #69

whatever, it doesn't make neoma's actions boston bean Feb 2012 #70

I believe I've said that justiceischeap Feb 2012 #71

I don't recall you asking me that.. boston bean Feb 2012 #72

That's okay, there's been a lot of back and forth justiceischeap Feb 2012 #73

backtracking is never fun snooper2 Feb 2012 #38

It's a little known fact - but "calling out" people is not against the TOS in DU3 kdmorris Feb 2012 #3

Thank you for welcoming me justiceischeap Feb 2012 #5

one of my sins, per neoma, is i quoted a poster that called us "fucking bigots". jury allowed seabeyond Feb 2012 #6

Is this for kdmorris or me? justiceischeap Feb 2012 #8

poster said no name calling, calling out allowed. yes, i was speaking to kdmorris. nt seabeyond Feb 2012 #9

It's not because you disagree with me, Seabeyond kdmorris Feb 2012 #12

because i disagree with you, or others i am feeding the flames. yet, for people that hold a seabeyond Feb 2012 #13

"cannot allow anyone to fabricate a story for personal gains" kdmorris Feb 2012 #22

this would be an example of what i am talking about. "i have not tied my star to anyone." seabeyond Feb 2012 #27

Sigh.. kdmorris Feb 2012 #43

you will hear me correct nontruths. in you perception that is defending her. in mine, seabeyond Feb 2012 #48

Would you like me to post links to the offsite group hosts forum? kdmorris Feb 2012 #49

i am not running away from wht was posted on the site. i am stating, your interpretation seabeyond Feb 2012 #50

Emphasis Mine kdmorris Feb 2012 #54

sea, when I state the iverglas seems to have an issue with LGBT group justiceischeap Feb 2012 #52

yes... i think you both have an issue with each other. equally. nt seabeyond Feb 2012 #55

I've openly admitted I have an issue with her justiceischeap Feb 2012 #61

justiceischeap William769 Feb 2012 #63