Why is the pinned thread locked at the top about hosts

[boston bean]

That smacks or authoritarianism.

I went to bed early last night to get some much needed rest, and I have a lot to say.

Please unlock the pinned thread. This need much more discussion.

[seabeyond]

1. i hear ya, but it became one swarm of attack, once again. it had to stop

actually neoma locked it. i dont know why.

i know why i would, but then i think our goals and intent differ.

[boston bean]

2. I wholeheartedly disagree.

That was not a discussion it was a statement by the lead host. And the lock, basically says no more discussion.

That is the problem here.

I think the thread should be unlocked and we all should have a chance to discuss.

This is total bullshit.

Learning that the lead host sent out private messages to non hosts via PM's to others to bolster and rally others to her view of how this forum should be run, is atrocious!

It is terrible behavior.

Not one that is likely to bring forth a feeling of trust in this forum.

[iverglas]

3. I agree

Let Neoma reply to the questions asked in the thread.

[iverglas]

4. oops, just to clarify

If Neoma locked it, no one else can unlock it (although they can unpin it -- I unpinned Neoma's previous pronouncement post, and explained that I didn't pinning think a personal-statement locked post was appropriate, which undoubtedly didn't go over well).

Neoma is free to answer the questions asked in that thread, in this thread!

Or anywhere else she'd like.

But maybe she just doesn't feel accountable to anyone except the people she has secret discussions (secret from the other hosts and the rest of the group) with. One could understand that.

[seabeyond]

5. i dont know where and why we would allow one person to run the board with no input from regulars

at all. a new, unvoted on, inexperienced person. no other input allowed. no communications.

[Gormy Cuss]

6. New, selected by the same process as the other co-hosts, as inexperienced as the other co-hosts

and elevated properly because she was in the #2 position behind redqueen.

The "no other input allowed, no communications" part is something only co-hosts would know about, but perhaps the five hosts could convene publicly in a thread here to air all the linen, so to speak. There seems to be a lot of grumbling about behind the scenes and/or offsite discussions. Some members apparently have heard one side of the grousing and some have heard the other side but I suspect that most are in the dark. IMHO it's unproductive to keep sniping at each other this way and it's killing this group.

[boston bean]

7. if that is what one would think make this whole thing disappear

It will never be settled until neoma makes available all of her communication that she has had with others regarding.

seems sensible to me.

Then we can have all the fact. Every single last one of them.

But then again, I don't think that will ever happen, will it.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Have all the other hosts made available every single communication they've had with others?

I'm not seeing it if they have. For that matter, I don't recall anyone asking for redqueen to post all of her communications with others when she was the main host. Why is Neoma expected to act differently?

[iverglas]

38. yeah, that's interesting ...

The communications among the other co-hosts regarding Feminists group business have now been seen by the world. (Interesting how there's nothing there that anybody can use to advance any agenda at all.)

Where is the transparency from Neoma and her ... friends? When do we get to see their communications?

I'll say again: Transparent? You betcha.

[kdmorris]

11. It isn't hard to find their off-site forum

A quick Google search of one of their names led me straight to it (it was at the bottom of the first page). It's a vicious little place and it was extremely apparent to me that had one of them had her way, this group would not allow men or anyone else who disagreed with her. Neoma was removed from that site BECAUSE she disagreed with blocking one of the people that two of the others wanted to block - EVEN though she was still a host.

I went ahead and saved copies of all the pages, in case they wanted to get rid of the evidence.

Other than that, I agree - this is absolutely unproductive. However, I find the attacks on Neoma appalling, especially in the language used (usurper, rogue host, taking the group hostage). I cannot just sit by and watch a couple people lie about it. Neoma has done nothing wrong except to attempt to let this place simmer down. If I were her, I wouldn't resign either. If she were forced to, it's just giving in to the people who simply want this to be their own little forum (and apparently don't want anyone else to have a group either).

If Skinner gives us the ACTUALLY inclusive Feminist and Diversity group (which this same group of people completely nuked), then we would all go away and let them have their echo chamber and we would all stop getting bullied.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Yr being bullied? How?

Sorry, but posts like the one I'm replying to isn't helping matters at all.

I really don't get how anyone who's so offended that group hosts discuss hosting issues away from the public light of the group itself can give a massive vote of confidence to a host who's abused their powers. They've done nothing wrong? How about refusing to consult with the other hosts before taking unilateral action to block a member just because she was pissed off at her? How about what I'm seeing about sharing members PMs with non-hosts? How about yesterday after Red Queen had done such a great job in getting things settled down at last, posting something telling everyone she's not going to cooperate with the other hosts in reshuffling the hosts list, and starting off an allmighty shitstorm in doing so? How about the unwillingness to communicate either with other hosts or actual members of this group? That's the sort of host you want? How about you get one like that for yr 'all-inclusive' competing group?

As for this group being an echo chamber? It really helps if you read threads in this group before making accusations like that, because they're not true at all...

[kdmorris]

13. No, I am not.

I don't engage her. But she is a bully to anyone who disagrees with her. 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.

Neoma didn't abuse her powers. She disagreed with iverglas and was banned from the off-site forum. You can do a Google search to find it. Iverglas banned her from the host off-site group unilaterally, too, but no one seems to be upset about that.

I admire Neoma for not being forced to resign. And yes, if Skinner would give us a different group where we can discuss things that aren't OK with iverglas, I would certainly consider Neoma as host (though it's not my group... it everyone's group and truthfully, I'm not the one that suggested it.) though there are others who would do fine, as well.

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. Yet, no one seems to concerned about the unilateral steps IVERGLAS took. She IS a bully. 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.

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?

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Then why claim you were?

Here's what you said: 'and we would all stop getting bullied.' So that was just a bit of dramatic hyperbole?

Her? I've got no idea who 'her' is, and even less interest in encouraging someone who thinks it's okay to come into this group and call another member a bully. Has it ever crossed yr mind that just because someone doesn't agree with yr views, they're not bullying you?

I really wish you'd stop making claims that aren't true. If you were interested in actually discussing feminism you'll discover that we can post whatever we want and it's really ridiculous to try to make out iverglas has to okay it. There's threads here that you could post in if you were interested in discussing feminism, one that I started about feminism & intersectionality...

You don't seem to understand. People have a problem with the current hosts actions because they did so unilaterally without consulting the other hosts. Not only that, there's the other things I mentioned, but feel free to ignore the facts

I've got absolutely no idea what yr going on about in that last bit. Yr claiming Neoma's been removed from being a host in this group? Unfortunately, that's not the case as she refuses to move an inch and refuses to communicate with anyone about what's happened...

Guess what? I've decided popping up in a group and calling other members bullies is bullying! How's that?

Please can you give trying to participate in this group in a positive way a try? I'm really sick of the divisiveness happening and want it to stop...

[kdmorris]

15. No, it wasn't dramatic hyperbole.

Violet - I am not saying that iverglas acts like a bully because she disagrees with me. She acts like a bully to anyone who disagrees with her, including Neoma.

iverglas also took unilateral action against Neoma, but no one seems to know that because it was done on the off-site group host. She was banned from that off-site host group because she disagreed with iverglas about blocking MrTrickster. It's all available in Google.

You are free to define bullying in any way you want to. There's an actual definition and I think I've been more than nice to everyone about this... except for iverglas. She deserved to be blocked. That's my opinion and you don't have to agree with it.

I can certainly try, but the first time iverglas attacks me, I'm not going to be really happy about it. What would you suggest I do in that case? Just shut up and take it? Post in the feminist forum about how she's attacking a member of the group? What remedy to I have should that happen?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Sorry but no-one's bullying you and no-one hates you...

I'll give you some good advice from a veteran of the I/P forum where people 'attacked' me all the time. I 'attacked' back by explaining what was wrong in their post, and not making it ALL ABOUT THEM. It's about standing up for yr views and not expecting wherever you post is going to be some happy-smiley echo chamber. There's people I don't like, and I wouldn't mind seeing them shown the door, but I don't make a big production of it by posting about it because at DU2 it would have been deleted, and secondly I'm aware that everyone probably has one or two folk they don't like, and I'm probably there on one or two shit-lists myself. It's not something worth getting all worked up over, imo...

I wish you would give posting here a try. That way I can see what you mean when you say 'attack'. But most of all you could end up making some valuable contributions

[kdmorris]

17. Yeah... I'm actually not the confrontational type (who'd thought that?)

That's why I stay out of Guns, I/P and Religion

Keeps my blood pressure down

[Violet_Crumble]

18. LOL. I'm only 1/3's confrontational...

I steer well clear of the gungeon and religion, but took like a duck to water to I/P and the unending battle over the language of the conflict

[justiceischeap]

20. You fancy people with your acronyms...

I/P and BOG, I've seen both those bandied about recently. Anyone care to enlighten?

On edit:

[kdmorris]

23. Isreal/Palestine and Barack Obama Group :) n/t

[justiceischeap]

25. Aha! Two places I would never dare to venture. Thanks for the info. n/t

[seabeyond]

22. you came iverglas is a bully for banning neoma off site, right? prior to that neoma banned iverglas

from host and forum. so you will conclude of course, in your fairness, that neoma is a bully. that would just be logical.

are you a bully if you google peoples names to find trash on them?

[kdmorris]

26. I didn't say she was a bully for that

I said she was a bully for all the other stuff that has happened, most of it at DU2.

Before the incidences with the members of the LGBT community, I considered iverglas friendly. The way that she treated them was abusive and therefore, I have found that I don't have anything in common with her anymore and find her to be quite unfriendly.

I get it, seabeyond. iverglas is your friend and you don't want people saying bad things about her. I didn't google the feminist hosts site so that I could trash iverglas. I did it to try to figure out what was going on with all the talk of the off-site hosts group. And what I found didn't look very nice for iverglas, unfortunately. So, no I'm not a bully.

According to the dates, it looks like Neoma removed iverglas as host after iverglas banned her from the host off-site group. I could be wrong about that, but that is clearly what the dates look like. I think that iverglas should have been blocked for all the other things that she has done to people (I've already stipulated - not me) that is divisive. I think that Neoma probably shouldn't have done it out of retaliation, but I don't think that makes her a usurper, hostage-taker or any of the other things that she has been called.

I think I will now take Violet's advice and just let this die. I think I've stated my position clearly and there's no point in hashing and re-hashing this. We disagree, seabeyond. We will always disagree about this matter, but I'm OK with that.

[seabeyond]

30. iverglas gets pissy about my writing style. i have felt her sting.... but i can value all the vast

info that she provides this forum. iverglas is a member, no more or less. like you, (in the past), could appreciate her.

she was pissed at what happened in lbgt, i can see her points and purposely not being heard. it is frustrating, i have been there. i can respect the decision lbgt made in blocking her. their right. it is not one sided. i can recognize this.

and it needs to fuckin be let go.

you are incorrect, neoma banned. just prior to shut down, iverglas may have done a childish = band to neoma. i dont know. i was not a part. i got a notice iverglas banned. went into site, it was closed. that is all i know.

whether you agree with iverglas and MY choices on the couple of disruptors to be blocked doesnt take the fcts away that the conversation was about what HOSTS discuss. you say mean? hell, you disrupt, you get blocked. sorry it is means, in some peoples opinions, but the feminist forum is not the only one that does this.

as i said, i respected the lbgt communities right to block iverglas and never said anything abotu it, but that. why isnt the same afforded the feminist forum.

this is what we have to do. we have to discuss this. we have to listen to each other.

you address what i wrote. that is a HUGE plus for me. thank you.

[seabeyond]

21. IF iverglas continued discussing host stuff after ban... was cause neoma said NOTHING to anyone

else. you do get that iverglas shut down the site when she did find out she was banned

neoma banned ivergas over a personal tiff. that is against the rules. when iverglas found out about the ban, she shut down the site. there was no more conversation.

please quit making things up

[redqueen]

24. " please quit making things up"

That would be really nice.

But I suspect it might defeat the purpose.

[kdmorris]

27. I am not making stuff up

I did say that I could be wrong and that it just looks like that based on the dates. She didn't shut down the site. It's still there, complete with her nasty little message about how we all think we are so smart for finding the board and how Neoma "my little one" isn't as smart as she thinks she is.

And, again... I think I'll take Violet's advice and just let this die. We will always disagree on this, but I am not a liar.

[seabeyond]

31. this is the thing in communication. this story seems to be out, consistently, that neoma was picked

on and not allowed a voice in that forum.

it is blatantly untrue. but continually being said. now, my question is.....

i have repeated exactly what happened, from my end, over and over and over

yet the fabricated story continues to be used against us. it isnt true. yet, it is repeated. though i have told people over and over and over what happened.

the words on the site are there for many to see. it isnt unclear. what we discussed was forum issues. not personal.

yet.... the fabricated story continues.

if there is such a network for an exact fabricated story to be filtered thru out, why doesnt that same network have the ability to correct the fabricated story.

this is where my problem is when we talk about sincere conversation adn a desire to understand one another.

[kdmorris]

33. Sigh.. you're not going to let this go, are you?

Just stop, seabeyond. This is so counterproductive.

I AM NOT A LIAR. We disagree. Move on.

[seabeyond]

35. are you serious? are you telling me this is fair. you will continue to present neoma as the victim?

we were in the forum, 4 hosts, all on line. she communicated with none of us. in our discussion we get notification that iverglas is out.

yet, you tell me, that does not matter, the fabricated story will stand.

and you wonder why there is frustration. you wonder why there is hostility. then whomever becomes the victim again, because they feel the hostility projected to them.

yes.... i understand, you are not willing to understand. so i have no other choice, but to "let it go".

[iverglas]

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.

[seabeyond]

39. i would like to add one relevant point to this

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.

at the time you were posting the suggestion of a poster being blocked, i too, was posting a suggestion that the same poster be blocked. we agreed. the other host agreed. the only one who did not agree was neoma. regular members in this forum agreed. he was being challenged by posters. we were making our requests. he was getting posts hidden and self deleting.

so, it is hardly nefarious.

[seabeyond]

40. and everyone must take note of my use of the quote thing. i am so proud. thanks pipi. nt

[seabeyond]

19. why dont you just make up stories. and googlin peoples names... ya right, there are not disruptors

why would you even think to bother with something like that.

i have clearly laid out what happen that night and how the forum was closed. if you did not read my posts in meta, then tell me, i will lay it out, simply, for you. if you continue repeating the made up story, well, it puts you right with a poster that googles peoples names to find shit on them

there was nothing on that site hosts would talk about in any other group. it stayed focus on business of hosts, only. not a single issue with all of the conversation and i dont have issue wth you showing all the screen shots, but again, doing that puts you in the same place as a poster that googles to find crap and continues a fabricated story.

[kdmorris]

29. Just see posts above...I thought about alerting on this for personal attacks

but it didn't seem worth it. I have an opinion just like you, seabeyond. And we disagree. And we will always disagree. The DATES on the group off-site do not SEEM to indicate that this is quite the way it's been laid out. And again, I could be wrong.

But really? 3 posts calling me a liar because I have a difference of opinion about your friend? Was that necessary?

[seabeyond]

32. yes, it matters. now 6 posts matters. it matters to me. very much. i live my life in a way, for

a purpose. and being told i would be a part of something so underhanded, when it did not happen, is offensive. and yes, it is worth 6 posts to address it.

you may not feel it is worth it, but it is not you that is have a made up story being told about you.

[kdmorris]

34. Um.. this was about iverglas, not you

"it is not you that is have a made up story being told about you",

Actually, yes - it is. You keep saying I'm just making stuff up to trash people, etc.

See Post #33.

[seabeyond]

36. yes. it is about me. if i thought for one moment that another host was denying another host

the ability to be a part, i would have been very very vocal. kinda like i am now. yes, it is about me because i take that part of me very very seriously. this is all i am saying. i would not have allowed it for a moment. so to suggest i was a part, directly or indirectly is offensive.

[seabeyond]

41. anyone can go in and read the link. it has been made available. i am just not gonna accept this as

a gotcha.

people gumbling on the other side have been told repeatedly what happened. they can clearly see what happened going into the site. and they continue with the grumblin, that has been proven incorrect. that tells me an agenda that no amount of transparency will rectify. i can hardly take responsibility for that.

[Scout]

42. "an agenda that no amount of transparency will rectify"

yup.

and butter wouldn't melt in their mouths....

[laconicsax]

9. Because it was pinned by a host abusing her power.

It was then locked by that same host because the discussion that ensued wasn't what they'd hoped for.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. And now it looks like they've gone and pinned it again. This is getting seriously stupid

It was unpinned and thankfully sinking when I looked earlier, and now it's back there. Seriously, Neoma and you guys need to get into the Hosts forum and get this crap sorted out. The admin read everything in there, and they need to know about what's going on in here...

[Tumbulu]

43. how does one return to democracy on the Democratic Underground?

wonder why it is so hard to do.