My thoughts on Neoma's actions (as if they matter at all)

[justiceischeap]

This discussion thread was locked by Neoma (a host of the Feminists group).

Special Elections:
If everyone would take a moment and take a few deep breaths and think of this from a non-emotional place by silence or agreement, you "elected" Neoma as main host when Redqueen quit. She points this out very clearly in posts #15, #18, #21, #23, & #24. At that time not one member of the group disagreed with this decision. So to claim now that she somehow "grabbed" or "usurped" her position is disingenuous at best--one person made that decision for the group. And instead of being angry at the person who made this decision for the ENTIRE group, a lot of you have opened up a can of whoop ass on Neoma when your silence tacitly screamed your approval. She then makes a decision to block iverglas from the group, and again, she made a very clear case as to why she did this (and I will go on the record as supporting that decision 1000%). For the brief 24hrs that block was in place, there was, finally, a harmony among the group--people were actually talking and listening about why transphobic comments were bad; there was no over-the-top defensiveness and it seemed like we could all breathe for a moment and amazingly, there were no tired claims of vengeance or vendetta's. That's when a small few of you decided that Neoma was no longer allowed to be the main host that you did indeed elect.

Some of us suggested we wait a few days and calm down, Redqueen agreed with this sentiment but a day later, it was decided this "election" must happen with iverglas leading the charge that Neoma MUST resign. For all appearances sake, for those of us who pay attention to this sort of thing, it looked like iverglas had a personal beef with Neoma for blocking her and the perception is that something happened behind the scenes because suddenly a special election is called for. Yet, 24hrs earlier, not a peep from one of you. It wasn't until Redqueen actually unblocked iverglas that talk of special elections were held. Then there is some question about whether or not Redqueen acted on her own (which she says she did but seabeyond denies -- I'd like that bit cleared up) to unblock iverglas. If she did act on her own, then people should be DEMANDING that she resign as host as well. You cannot have that double-standard, folks. Where is the fairness in that to Neoma?

Some of us asked that the elections be held longer than three days, but nope, can't do that. I believe I read a comment that said if we waited longer, it'd only give Neoma time to rally her crew. And woe be the person that publicly supports Neoma (so much for a safe community for all--to me, at this point, it's really only a safe community for a few and it certainly isn't safe for Neoma or anyone who supports her but I know for a lot of you, her actions of removing all the other hosts will never be forgiven).

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?

You're Fired!
Let me just paste the group SOP below (emphasis mine):

A safe community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together, without having to defend the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

What I want to ask the former group of hosts is the following--why after this hateful rant from iverglas aimed at the LGBTQ community and LGBTQ members of this group was action not taken to make this a safe place for ALL (and I'm not talking about some jury decision to simply hide a truly hateful post)? I didn't see one host condemn her comments and I didn't see one member of this group condemn those comments either.

And again, I have to ask, why would LGBTQ members NOT feel uncomfortable after reading that and not having our hosts take action? It took an almost all-out flame war for some of you to believe us when we told you that some comments were transphobic. It took non-hosts to ferret out the fact that the very person you had initially defended, was in fact, a sock puppet. Yet, somehow, again, it's our fault according to one.

I've been talking all week since the sock-puppet debacle about appearances and perceptions... they matter. If they didn't I would never once have to write the above paragraph.

And I'd like to ask another question that hasn't been answered satisfactorily by the person y'all want as your main host again: Why is it in the "election" thread, the only two people iverglas decided to "engage" with just happen to be the two lesbian's she doesn't feel are worthy to host this group? Redqueen asked for people to state what makes them uncomfortable, several people reply. I am the only one iverglas takes to "task" for answering Requeen's question though a couple other's answered as well. Again, how am I supposed to perceive that and trust the hosts will do something about it, even after it's pointed out to them? Am I being too "sensitive?"

Another example, I'd like to point out: When someone suggests that a member from the LGBTQ community be considered as a host, so everyone in the feminists group has a voice, once again, one person objects to this, and if I recall that post is hidden as well. Which, then becomes a "vendetta" by the LGBTQ to target her. If she can't see that these words are wrong but a jury can, then that's a problem. Just the fact that she would have a problem with someone from the LGBTQ representing other LGBTQ feminists on this board should have been dealt with by the hosts.

So I am formally asking the following: When we get the whole hosting situation figured out, please do something about this. Some of us have told you numerous times that we are uncomfortable in this group because of iverglas' comments. I'm sure this will be perceived as a call-out but I'm just finally answering the questions she always hounds me to answer.

Neoma: A Few Suggestions
If you're going to lock threads, at least let people know why you're locking them. Again, it's all about perceptions. You're looking a bit tyrannical.

Second, if you have proof this move was sanctioned by the admins, meaning it's not just an interpretation of the rules, please post it. This would go a long way to bolster your claims and make you appear less... tyrannical.

Hosts:
Maybe this group needs a time out from hosts for a while and let the juries handle any situations that may arise. This would certainly keep a lot of the finger pointing in check.

If you decide to go ahead with choosing hosts, I think Mineral Man made some great suggestions in this thread on how to do it.

The End is Nigh
I only got the courage to start posting in this group about a month ago. A friend of mine, her quote is my signature line, started engaging me about feminism and I thought I'd like to learn more and maybe participate in this group. I was reading through the group host/statement of purpose thread when I came across La Lioness Priyanka's comment about feeling the SOP may be a bit exclusionary. I read the ensuing sub-thread and made the biggest mistake of my DU life, I replied to iverglas. It's a decision I regret to this very day because her reply to my, what I thought was a well-reasoned post, was to have something that happened in the LGBT group brought up (this is after the hosts over there decided to block her--which I had no part in other than driving while gay, apparently). After that was thrown out there, she then decided to reply to the actual post. No, "Hey, how ya doing? Welcome to the group," for me, just jumped on with both feet and a sledgehammer--not once have I really been welcomed to this group. What I hoped would be a learning experience has been ruined by a tired grudge, attempts to bully, claimed ignorance by the hosts, it's quite turning me off the whole feminism thing to be honest--if this is what I am to judge it by, and again, it's all about appearances, then I don't judge feminism worthy of me. I am a better person than some of the crap that has been going on around here.

And with that I bid adieu!

P.S., I don't care to read rationalizations--any time the points above are brought up, that's all there seem to be, is people rationalizing what's been going on.

Good solid answers at this point would be welcome.

P.S.S: To Jury members, I really am not calling any one out, I'm trying to get some questions answered honestly and I'm making the claim that one specific person is the apex of this problem. There are more than enough links provided to see what I'm saying is indeed the truth.

[boston bean]

1. You are wrong in your third paragraph

The reason for a 3 day election was to disabuse ourselves of a host who cannot be trustworthy and get back on track.. A week was too long to allow that toxicity to remain. That is clear from the first few hours of the election thread.

Further down in the thread, later, a discussion took place surrounding the possibility of that happening and that 30 new members had joined that day.

So, to say that the election time frame was set to three days so Neoma couldn't rally her troops, is an unfair and innaccurate characterization.

Just trying to keep the facts straight.

[justiceischeap]

2. It's nice to know those are the only facts you dispute.

But... that was a factual statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11393056#post41

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11393056#post143

edited to add:

That may never have been your intention BB but, I know I sound like I'm beating a damn drum, but it's all about appearances and perception.

[boston bean]

4. No, that is one I know for a fact that is wrong.

Let me try to be more clear, cause this really isn't fun, and it's a pain in my ass, but here you go.

First off both links you provide are not to any statement I made. I am the one who called for the election. No one else, ok.

Secondly, the first link is not at all clear it means what you say it means. It made no impact on me at the time. It was a response to my post:

Here is exchange, that you believe is the smoking gun that I was malicious in my intent to hold elections only for three days so Neoma wouldn't be able to rally her troops:

My post:

Boston Bean 23. I disagree.

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.

Response:

41. I totally agree with Boston Bean --

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.

Wow, you got that from that reply to me. Please..

The second link you provided again is not to a post that I made. But I will address it again for you. I wrote this 4-5 hours after the call for the election:

118. I truly hope that the objections about having this election now versus a week from now

aren't being used to try to stack the deck of what someone might call a "member" or to rally troops to try and overcome the real will of the members of this group as it stands today.

People who have posted here prior and have been members here prior to today, should be voting. All others, I would hope that they would use their conscience and not try to stack a vote.

And here was a posters response to me, which you linked to:

143. that's exactly what is happening.

all these people who never gave a shit about the forum/group before are now all hot to come see the cat fight! hahahahahaha let's go watch the silly women, can't even run their own forum.

subscribers to this group had a big increase today ... wonder where they're all coming from? and of course the longer the vote is delayed, the more the troops are rallied from outside this forum.

you know it, i know, "they" know it.

And I suggest you read my responses listed here very carefully, because they do not mean what you say they mean. In fact, I didn't mention neoma, my focus was on the integrity of the election, which I think is reasonable, since we found that 30 new members had joined that day.

So yeah, you are wrong, and you have not right to make insidious allegations about me. Or what you might think was my thought process. You see what's wrong here. You are no help, when you do that. The entire credibility of your post goes down the drain, imho.

[justiceischeap]

7. Did I once link to anything you said?

Did I once ever claim you made these statements? No, I did not. For some reason you're taking this part personally when it was never intended to be personal. It is a statement of facts.

Some of us asked that the elections be held longer than three days, but nope, can't do that. I believe I read a comment that said if we waited longer, it'd only give Neoma time to rally her crew.

Did I not read a comment that eludes to that? Yes, in fact, I read two--both of which were replies to you but not made by you, not a distinction I ever made.

41. I totally agree with Boston Bean --

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.

Emphasis mine: How am I supposed to take that comment that I bolded? On third reading, I can take it one of two ways; that something was going on in the background the poster didn't want to come to fruition (of course, what that could be, I'll never know) or, let's rush this through so there isn't time for something else to 'bear fruit'...

143. that's exactly what is happening.

all these people who never gave a shit about the forum/group before are now all hot to come see the cat fight! hahahahahaha let's go watch the silly women, can't even run their own forum.

subscribers to this group had a big increase today ... wonder where they're all coming from? and of course the longer the vote is delayed, the more the troops are rallied from outside this forum.

you know it, i know, "they" know it.

Emphasis mine: How am I supposed to take that comment that I bolded?

Maybe I perceived those statements incorrectly but, it is a perception and that's how I perceived those comments.

There were a lot of you in that thread that didn't want to wait on elections. Other's that pleaded patience were told they were making the process too difficult, the situation had to be rectified right then and there. Heck, look at post #41, "VOTE NOW!" Some folks didn't want to wait the three days you suggested.

Don't get upset with me because I felt it fair to wait a bit longer, so all members had a chance to participate. What real harm would have waiting 4 more days done? None that I can see. To me it seemed (there's that pesky perception thing again) there was a rush to get back to the status quo and it was obvious to me that wasn't going to turn out well.

I stand by my point: 3 days was not enough time to hold a FAIR election that allowed all members (prior to that day) to vote. Whether we voted within 3 days or waited another 4, we already had those 30 new members.

[boston bean]

10. Hello, I wrote the post, calling for the new election.

It was my thinking that went into it.

The reason for the three day period was, again, listen, to disabuse ourselves of a toxic host who abused authority and breached a trust. That is clear by MY posting in the thread. When it was questioned why 3 days.

And only later a concern for the integrity of the process became an issue.

You cannot, imply that was the reason for the three days, and paint me with that brush, when I have clearly proven to you that is not the case.

[seabeyond]

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

whatever the accusation is.

you cannot/willnot/arenot allow to clear your ame under any circumstance. that has been the process for a couple weeks now.

[justiceischeap]

14. To both Boston Bean and Seabeyond

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?

[seabeyond]

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

the women who use this forum was voting redqueen hands down a second time. the subscription went up 30 in the one day voting started.

what is wrong is to support neoma who clearly does not have the support of the women in this forum and that has been made clear. to ignore the women who use this forum. that is wrong.

[justiceischeap]

17. I'm aware of all of this sea

and if we had waited 4 more days, she probably still would have been voted as main host. I have no problem with a vote, I just have a problem with wanting to rush the vote. When we vote in America, we know in advance when that vote is going to be. This was a spontaneous request for a vote that WOULD NOT HAVE allowed all the so-called regular members to participate. Again, that is my major problem with that whole situation.

You picked Neoma as main host... no one but you. That's a fact. No misrepresentations at all. Did people get to vote on that? They sure didn't and look where that got us.

People are saying she made a power-grab of some sort to come to the number 1 position when you and I both know that isn't true. In all fairness, you should have been going to each and every post where people accused her of stealing the spot and said, "Nope, I selected her." Cause that's the honest truth. It pisses me off that you allowed people to treat her that way, even now she's being tarred and feathered for something she didn't do (the whole "firing" the co-hosts thing is another issue).

[seabeyond]

18. yes. see how wrong i was.

see all she did that was not working with the group. or proved an inability in leadership. you know why we were willing to go with neoma? because the group that has said they want to participate, but are uncomfortable, dont like iverglas and dont like me. we were making a compromise. i was reaching across to give confidence. and in so doing, we got hit over the head. i get it. i tried... again, to work with those that werent comfortable. i tried again.... to make this an INclusive environment.

and we have been proven what a mistake it was to try....

[boston bean]

19. What about what Neoma has done?

Please speak more to that.

I suppose if a host in any group you belong had done this same thing you would be ok with it.

Well, maybe if they were your online buddy, or you didn't like the lead host, it would be different, right.

But let's atleast be honest, what NEOMA has done, restores no confidence, and a truly honest person can admit that when an injust action has taken place, that injustice should be undone.

Neoma is not so innocent here. And what she has done and the type of person she has shown herself to be, a demand she resign is in order, be voted out, and probably blocked from the feminist group.

Please let's not overlook what poor little neoma has done. It's not just that she's been given a hard job, and we should feel for her. She's taken some pretty bold steps, that I assume if had occurred in any other group you belong to, would be determined to be quite offensive.

[justiceischeap]

23. Wow, do you even know my name?

Nope, you sure don't but I see you think you know me well enough to make some pretty wild assumptions but that's okay. You're angry, I get that. That's probably the difference between our reactions: you're angry, I'm not at all. This is a message board. One I like to frequent, one I've been a member of since '04 but it's just that a message board. It doesn't really effect things that matter in the long run. I think "poor little Neomi" has moxie to be honest. It took guts to block iverglas and it takes guts to stand up after all she's done today.

I would like to see more conversation from Neoma. I don't know what her motives are and if she ever decides to share those, we can only guess at their honesty. As far as if this had happened in other groups I belong in? I don't see that happening but if it did I wouldn't be angry about it. My strongest emotion tends toward frustration, I've had enough anger in my life that I don't invite it in. However, I think other groups probably set them up with a bit more forethought than was done here.

[boston bean]

24. No, I am not angry,

I want the facts out there, and I don't want what she has done whitewashed.

Please do not, once again, attribute things to me that are not true.

[justiceischeap]

26. I've not knowingly attributed anything to you but anger

Everything else I stand behind. Sorry.

[boston bean]

16. What you are saying here was said in the post, but the reasoning was different than

what you wrote here in the OP. Many people asked why. I responded. And since it was I that called for the election and the time frame, there can be no other reason attributed to it. Yes a discussion can take place about, and it was discussed.

That is where you got it wrong.

I want fairness to, but I'm sorry, what was done last night, which clearly was an abuse, is just over the top, if that's possible, and people don't think Neoma needs to go. That her staying there is going to help smooth the waters.

Call for her resignation, then I might be able to have a bit more faith in what you say. Until then, I see a one sidedness that cannot be overcome with discussions of fairness.

She has got to go. She has abused the system, and abused the members of this group, first with her breach of trust, now locking election threads, and removing voted upon hosts. That is nothing we should take comfort in, or atleast nothing I can take some sort of comfort in.

[justiceischeap]

20. What you seem to be missing is I made two separate statements about the elections

which is why I had two paragraphs. The first paragraph deals with others worrying about Neoma rallying something. The second was about the timing.

I think what Neoma initially did should have been done when this hateful rant took place. I actually applaud her for doing what she did. You're going to have a hard time getting me to say I think everything she has done is wrong because I won't--she may have done them for the wrong reasons, we'll never know that. Part of that is her fault for not speaking up immediately but how would any of us react if we were accused of some of the things she was? I may have gone into hiding a bit too. As far as the sharing PM's thing, I'm not as bothered by that as some because I don't say anything I wouldn't say otherwise. If I take her OP last night as truthful, I get the impression she didn't trust any of the co-hosts enough to go to them. If that is indeed the case, that's a HUGE problem in and of itself. Maybe she did go outside the group for advice and maybe that was the best course of action. Y'all are assuming some grand conspiracy that we have no proof of.

I try to see things from all perspectives and as you know, I wanted to know WHY all this was happening when everyone else wanted her gone. I have a difficult time trying to see anything as only black and white. There are definite shades of grey to everything and I believe there is a reason for everything everyone does and I want to know those reasons. I'm still thinking about everything she said in her OP last night and I'm sure after I've had more time to think I'll have a side I'll align with but that hasn't happened yet. That said, I think I made some of my thoughts on this whole issue clear in my OP. If she has some sort of proof that this is admin sanctioned, then I want to see it. If she produces that, then we should all step back and consider why the admins would have given her the okay to do such a thing.

I'll be damned if I don't have visions of pitchforks and flames in my head from all this rush to judgement and I certainly do not to be one of those people carrying a pitchfork. I like my karma as clean as possible.

[boston bean]

21. I try to go to the source of a problem

right now, that source is Neoma. If you believe that her staying on here is beneficial to the group, after everything she has done, I question that.

I saw what you wrote about her. But please ask for her resignation so we can move on from this fucked up situation.

It will only be that after she is removed, that I can begin to truly work on solving other issues.

Until that point, she will and should remain the focus of what is a big part of the problemin this group is.

She has to go, the sooner the better.

I think you know that I am not someone who can't see both sides of a coin. But I just cannot have conversation with people who think Neoma should stay on after what she has done. It's not a one way street here. You have got to nip the problem, then we can move on and discuss in good faith how to resolve the other problems that exist.

[justiceischeap]

25. Or we can look at the other side of the penny

and argue that we shouldn't try and do anything else until the overwhelming issues are resolved. I don't think in the long run this situation is tenable, no but I do think it currently gives us space to focus on what is really important. I'd bet you money, if I had any, that if we went about actually trying to solve the issues instead of bickering and sniping about who's holding the host position hostage, that after those issues were hammered out she'd step down. I've seen it alluded to in several posts (none of which are mine until this one).

And let's, for the sake of argument, say she does indeed have the admin's blessing to do this... all this demand for her to step down is for naught. I would guess the only other recourse we would have is to go elsewhere or risk the admins closing the group for an extended time-out.

on edit:

I must leave for work. I won't be able to reply for a while.

[boston bean]

28. She is locking threads. She has that power.

This right now, is an extremely toxic situation.

That power must be removed from her, prior to honest and open discussion taking place.

And to be honest, I think she is conferring with unknown people to determine how this group should be run and what actions she should be taking. Can I prove that, no I cannot, nor do I want to. But she is the one who has given me reason to believe that is happening.

No one can work honestly and openly in that type of environment. She has got to be removed as host. Until then, every little thing will be suspect.


Want to add that, the reason I think she is conferring with other people, whom I do not who they all are, is because she share private conversations and emails others. Why would one do that. Seek advice, gain support?

[justiceischeap]

29. Darnit! You caught me...

leave me alone, woman, I need to go to work!

Like I stated earlier, it sounds to me like she didn't trust her co-hosts. If I were in her position, I may seek advice. Can't say for 100% that I'd handle it the way she did but I would probably seek advice from others IF I was in that position. If I had been in her position, I would've handled things differently. I would have laid the law down... cause I think that's what the group needs if it's going to have hosts. I would have made sure everyone knew that they were accountable to the rules and that their long-time patronage wouldn't keep them safe from breaking the rules.

Now, I really have to go to work! I'm supposed to be there in 20 minutes and I'm an hour away.

[boston bean]

30. The distrust of her was made clear by members of the group.

Not the other hosts.

She has no right to unilaterally be making these decisions.

Oh and PS... have a great day at work! Drive safe.. mean it..

[seabeyond]

31. you cannot just create a story that there was lack of trust, without some kind of reasoning for

that lack of trust.

i can say anything i want.... to justify an action. that does not make it true. and that does not excuse me being unaccountable.

[justiceischeap]

32. I'm not the one creating narratives

After reading her OP it sounds to me like she didn't trust her co-hosts. That's not creating a story, it's stating an opinion. My singular opinion.

[boston bean]

34. And I am stating the fact

That she has locked three threads, two created by a member (me), that dealt with her and her unstrustworthiness.

She is not the ruler of the Feminist group. She is accountable to it's members.

Locking those posts, shows a thin skin and a lack of skills, which only strengthen the reasons for her not being host of this group.

[seabeyond]

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

i am sorry she did not trust us. i and the other host did nothing. but we get the blame. she was mad at iverglas for personal reasons. the rest of us were profession trying to resolve issue.

if you are going to use this as a reason for her actions, then it further suggests she is not host material.

if i were running a business, president of the u.s., i dont get to lock myself in a room, talk to no one, because i dont trust.....

[Lisa D]

33. Here is one possible reason for that distrust

Below is a post by iverglas to Neoma in the off-site host forum. The link to that forum was posted in H&M and is here for anyone who wants the full context of the conversation: http://feministshosts.boardhost.com

Whether you agree with Neoma's opinion or not in that thread, she was simply discussing and debating the possible blocking of a poster. It appeared to be a short, civil conversation. But because she disagreed with iverglas, she was told to consider resigning as a co-host of the group.

And not one other host stepped in and said something like: "This forum is for discussion and should be not be used to browbeat other hosts into agreement or threaten their position here. Let's have a vote and the majority will rule on this decision." Not one. So, while I don't support everything Neoma has done in this group, I can certainly see why she might not have trusted the other hosts after that incident.



***********************************************************
Neoma, I'm sorry again, but you are apparently not getting something.

"Hating men because they're men and so on."

Why do you think you can say things like that? Who at DU, let alone in the Feminists forum, has done that?


"People do concentrate on gender too much sometimes."

It is the FEMINISTS forum. It is about WOMEN. What the hell else is the group supposed to concentrate on?????

Neoma, either YOU agree with the SoP, and with making the Feminists group SAFE for discussions that fit within the SoP, or you should consider resigning as co-host.

Defending assholes like mistertrickster when they attack the group is not the job of a host.
**************************************************************

[boston bean]

36. Seems to me that neoma

felt that feminists were focusing too much on gender... HA.. And what she was basically saying is that the members she purports to support and serve, hate all men.

If that's what got her all concerned and a cause to ban another host, she is truly lacking the skills it takes to lead a group.

[Lisa D]

40. I don't read it the same way.

Neoma said some members focus too much on gender. I interpreted that to mean that the opinion of some posters was immediately discounted in the group because they were a man. In other words, the rejection of their opinion was based on their gender.

You interpreted it to mean that she believes the members hate all men.

She actually *said* neither one of our interpretations. She was simply disagreeing with iverglas and for that she was threatened with losing her position as co-host. If you want to talk about lacking the skills to lead a group, take a look at iverglas's posts in this group, including all of the posts deleted by juries.

Look, I'm not saying Neoma was correct to ban iverglas. But to put ALL the blame on her for the problems in this group is simply not fair. And getting rid of her won't solve them.

[boston bean]

44. that post that she was so right about was hidden by a jury.

just so you know.

[Lisa D]

51. I'm talking about the post

in the off-site forum. Look, I'm not arguing whether Neoma or iverglas was right. Does everyone have to be right all the time to post in this forum? Do hosts have to be right 100% of the time when they're having discussions in the hosts forum? Are posters ever allowed to make mistakes, misunderstand, misinterpret, be uninformed, etc? Are they ever allowed to have time to change their mind? Is there no room for discussion or education? No room for any disagreement?

My whole point was to show why Neoma might have distrusted the hosts when all they had to do was take a vote on the banning of trickster and let the majority rule. Instead, Neoma was told she didn't understand the SOP and should consider resigning as host. Maybe if that post had been on DU, it would have been hidden by a jury too. But we'll never know.

[boston bean]

53. me too, I am talking about the post off site.

She was questioning her understanding of the SOP (for good reasons, it appears). And if someone questions someone's understanding of the SOP, they might ask, are you sure you're the right person for the job.

I see nothing wrong with it. They were having open and what some thought, honest discussions with eachother.

However, that was not the case.

[seabeyond]

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

members and host ask him to please stop. he was breaking the SoP rules. we would have to block him if he did not stop being disruptive. his posts were hidden by jury. he self deleted others.

were we the ones that were unreasonable?

[justiceischeap]

41. I think there's enough unreasonableness to go around

Lisa D I think posted the exchange where iverglas suggests stripping her of her hosting duties. It APPEARS as though this comment was made because Neoma disagreed about the block. That, IMO, is unreasonable. When you didn't suggest to IG she may be taking things a bit too far, it APPEARS as though you supported that opinion too. So put yrself in her position for that exact situation. Would you trust the other 2 to have your back?

I wouldn't.

[Lisa D]

42. I never said you were unreasonable

But it was EXTREMELY unreasonable for iverglas to suggest that Neoma remove herself as host just because she didn't agree that trickster's posts rose to the level of banning.

Why didn't the hosts just have a vote and let the majority rule? Did there have to be a unanimous decision for every single banning? And if there wasn't a unanimous consensus, should the dissenting hosts be browbeaten into agreeing with the majority or threatened with removal if they didn't? Because that's what happened to Neoma. And I posted it simply as an example of why she might not have trusted the other hosts, none of whom came to her defense to simply be allowed to have an opposing opinion.

If no opposing opinions were allowed in the host forum, what's the purpose of having more than one host?

[seabeyond]

45. if she refuses to adhere to SoP, if she refuses to listen to co hosts and members, if she suggests

the forum is not about gender, if she believes we hate men.....

why should she be holding a position where it is her job to listen to all, keep it a safe haven following our SoP, and have a basic belief of feminism?

[Lisa D]

58. When did she refuse to adhere to the SOP?

Is there a link? When did she refuse to listen to members? Maybe a bunch of members sent her PMs to ban iverglas and she listened to them. Just like you said that a big reason CreekDog was banned was because 3 members sent PMs to the host to do so.

And please post the link that said she believes "we" hate all men. Should I believe that "we" believe lesbian feminists are attacking the Feminists group simply because iverglas said that's what she believes?

Look, Seabeyond, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. You're actually one of the few hosts that's even willing to be part of these discussions. So kudos to you for sticking up for what you think is right. Maybe Neoma was sticking up for what she thinks is right. That doesn't mean you have to agree with her. Just like I don't have to agree with the people putting all of the blame on Neoma for everything that's happened in the last week or so.,

But to say that she refuses to adhere to the SOP and believes we hate men and doesn't have a basic belief in feminism is simply untrue and unfair, whether you like her or not.

[Scout]

39. i agree with iverglas' post that you quoted.

i don't think Neoma understands the SoP.

and the fact that she shared what should have been private conversations between the hosts with other DUers, means i do not trust Neoma to properly fulfill her duties as lead host.

she needs to resign on the basis of misconduct.

[Lisa D]

46. So iverglas gets to decide

who should and shouldn't be a host of this forum? Actually, the crux of their conversation would have been a great discussion to have in this group. Not about trickster, but about the SOP and if posters should be judged by their gender first and their opinion second.

But that conversation couldn't happen because all of this took place in a secret, off-site forum that the members knew nothing about. A PUBLIC forum, by the way, so I don't really understand why there was an expectation of privacy by anyone.

I have no problem with you agreeing with iverglas's post. I do have a problem with bullies and iverglas was trying to bully Neoma into agreement with that post.

[boston bean]

47. No a jury decided to.

Which I think strengthens the argument that Neoma didn't know what the hell she was talking about, and what the feminist groups SOP is.

And really what thin skin she has. Wow, another host said she didn't understand the SOP. Well, look below, random jurors understood the SOP.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

This poster is in the feminist forum saying feminists focus to much on gender. HA! He must feel that feminists should not discuss gender. He deleted some other posts that were offensive. His post deserves to be hidden. He left the opening salvo, but deleted all his other responses.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Feb 13, 2012, 04:09 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Poster is causing a disruption by violating the standards of this forum. Hide it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I wouldn't be surprised if this poster winds up blocked from the group if he persists, but in the mean time this post should be deleted as a violation of the SOP of the group and more than a bit sexist as well.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Post not appropriate for a safe haven forum

[Lisa D]

56. Well, if we're basing whether or not

a member should be allowed to host based on a jury decision, then iverglas should have been stripped of her duties weeks ago. Iverglas has so many hidden posts in this group that she obviously doesn't understand the SOP of the group either.

[boston bean]

57. No, that is not true and not what I implied or said.

There was a suggestion made by iverglas, in that post you posted, and iverglas did not ban her from the host duties, nor could she have. So the only recourse would be a suggestion.

And my understanding is that she banned iverglas here on DU, for that, first??? And then iverglas in turn banned her and all the rest of them from the off site - site.

However, I do think that a host that has so little regard for her co-hosts, by breaching a trust, should step down, immediately.

Never mind everything she's done in the wake of that... Abuse of power etc.

[Lisa D]

59. And I'm not saying I necessarily agree

with her unilateral decision to block iverglas. Just like I didn't agree with iverglas's suggestion that Neoma resign as a host.

I don't know Neoma at all and I've never had a conversation with her. But she might believe that if she steps down that the same old crap that was happening before will keep happening. That iverglas will once again take the reins of this forum and run roughshod over anyone who doesn't agree with her, just like she did to Neoma in the off-site forum. Who knows? But putting all the blame on Neoma for the strife that's occurred in this group the last couple of weeks is completely unfair. (And I'm not saying you're doing this, but it's the general sense I get from many of the posts here)

I'm fine with Neoma stepping down. But simply replacing her with the hosts who did nothing to stop the problems plaguing this group before doesn't sound like any solution at all.

[boston bean]

60. Who cares. she said it in confidence to the host herself.

That was pretty open and honest, and it was a suggestion. She had no power to anything but to suggest it.

What is she just suppose to shut up about such things.

Again, talk about thin skin. And a lack of hosting skills. She could have said something to iverglas, but no she decided her best option was to go to outside sources and spread private conversations. Blech.......

If the host is not understanding the SOP, I think I might ask the same questions, and make the same suggestions, or at the very least think it to myself.

That poster did have his post hidden by a jury, and a host failed in their duty. You read the results below. They all got it.

[Lisa D]

62. It wasn't in confidence

it was posted on a public forum. And the other hosts saw it as well. Thin skin or not, I can see why Neoma might have felt threatened in her position as a host when no one came to her defense to simply have a dissenting opinion.

What was her recourse? Does anyone know? None of the other hosts said anything--maybe they were afraid of losing their hosting position too, if they appeared to take one side or the other. So what was Neoma supposed to do? If she'd come to the group, she'd be accused of betraying the confidentiality of the off-site forum. And I can only imagine the hue and cry if she'd unilaterally gone to the admins with her concerns.

She might have believed her only recourse, other than what has occurred, was to become subservient to iverglas if she wanted to remain a host. Is that part of the SOP?

Again, I'm not saying that I agree with her actions after that discussion. But too many posters here act as if Neoma had no reason to be concerned with the direction the off-site hosts forum was taking and that's simply not true.

[boston bean]

64. And she has taken unilateral actions.

And those people participating in that discussion were doing it in private.

To share that with other unkown people, without them knowing is, for lack of a better word, reprehensible.

[Lisa D]

65. And I ask again.

What was her recourse?

Look, we're obviously not going to agree. And that's fine. I absolutely respect your opinion, as well as your right to have an opinion that differs from mine.

[boston bean]

67. to keep on discussing. not go behind their backs

that's what should have happened.

Iverglas had no power over her whatsoever.

[justiceischeap]

66. So what I hear you saying is...

You have a problem with the unilateral actions? Is this correct?

Here's the thing, if we are to believe Redqueen (and I have no reason to think she'd lie), she made the unilateral decision to unblock iverglas. Two wrongs and all... but, in all fairness, then the discussion should not be "she" has taken unilateral actions but "they" took unilateral actions. Just to be fair.

I would have made a great line monitor... I like things to be as fair as possible. I know it's not always possible but it's something to strive for, IMO.

[boston bean]

68. neoma unilaterally removed a co-host and blocked her from the group.

redqueen unblocked iverglas from participating in the group, did not re-instate her as co-host.

I believe it has been stated there were conversations amongst hosts regarding un-blocking her. I believe by unilaterally redqueen was taking the responsibility for it.. But to be honest, I aint got the time to go looking it all up. But if you find, it, let me know, if you are so inclined.

[justiceischeap]

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

Even if she's taking the heat for it, it's still sending mixed messages.

[boston bean]

70. whatever, it doesn't make neoma's actions

any more acceptable, right?

[justiceischeap]

71. I believe I've said that

two wrongs... don't make a right but don't act as though there isn't a double-standard on this one issue.

I want to go back to a question I asked before having to jet off to work:

What if she has the support of Skinner. What if he actually backs this action?

[boston bean]

72. I don't recall you asking me that..

Sorry if I missed it, somewhere.

If Skinner actually supports this, I will be extremely disappointed.

[justiceischeap]

73. That's okay, there's been a lot of back and forth

but I think it's something we all need to consider-- I think it was in the "other side of the penny" post.

Anyway. If none of the admins step in, then we need, as a group (and I suspect that is what they're hoping for) to fix this ourselves. And repeating the Neoma must go meme won't help solve all the issues. I think if we were able to fix the underlying issues that caused this strife, it would go a long way towards getting what everyone wants. I think, as a long-term member of the group, you have some responsibility in helping to try and calm things down by helping to get things back on track. I realize you think that can't happen with Neoma at the helm but as a group, if the admins don't step in, there won't be a choice--she seems pretty firmly entrenched. But if we make a good-faith showing, that despite this current situation that we are more concerned about solving the underlying issues... I don't know, I just think it's something that needs to be considered as a possibility.

I'm sure the admins are quite aware of the situation and as of yet, have not chimed in and one could perceive (there's that word again) that they give approval of this action. Something to think about.

[snooper2]

38. backtracking is never fun

[kdmorris]

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

Not the same way it was in DU2. You can use names to state facts (now calling someone names is not allowed by the community standards) and I think you are fine there.

Other than that, I just wanted to say that I agree with most of what you've written. I do not think that it's Neoma's intent to remain host forever and ever, but at this point, it would be nice if we could all have some peace. I don't agree with all of Neoma's actions - perceptions matter, as you said - but a couple of the co-hosts were not doing anything to bring peace to this situation, either. There is at least one co-host that I'm not really sure deserved to be removed (I haven't seen a whole lot from her, but she has seemed level-headed in most other ways... and reading her posts on the off-site board seemed to indicate that she was at least attempting to bring sanity to the insane)

However, I am not the host of this group (nor do I wish to be), so I can't say what I would have done in this situation. The childish pinning and unpinning HAD to stop.

(by the way - Welcome to the group)

[justiceischeap]

5. Thank you for welcoming me

I thought maybe I had to hit "regular" status (whatever that is) to get the welcome.

As far as calling out goes, that gets thrown around quite a bit so I just wanted to be clear, that wasn't my intention -- not that it would matter.

[seabeyond]

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

that posters post to remain.

when i quote the post that calls us "fucking bigots" it gets hidden. and it a reason for me to no longer be a host.

you also suggest in another post i should not be a host because i did not agree with your posts yesterday.

why is there this double standard?

[justiceischeap]

8. Is this for kdmorris or me?

If it's meant for me, I don't want you to think I'm ignoring it.

[seabeyond]

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

[kdmorris]

12. It's not because you disagree with me, Seabeyond

Lots of people disagree with me and I would be fine with them being hosts. Disagreement is good for diversity.

You cannot seem to stop fanning the flames. You do not see that iverglas did anything wrong in her treatment of people. From the first time I posted to you on this matter, I tried to tell you that I had no fight with you, but you made it into a fight with me. You have accused me of twisting the facts (when I stated that I could be wrong, that was just my perception). Even when I reiterated that was just how I saw it - you kept posting that I was twisting facts and lying. When I asked that you let it die, that you attempt to reestablish peace in this group, you refused. You posted a snarky post about how I refused to understand instead of attempting to actually re-establish peace.

I do not agree with everything Neoma has done, but she is at least appearing to try to stop this flame war. You are not. You are one of the people who is fanning it the most. And it's pretty sad, because as I said, I have always thought that you are a very nice person when I've had conversations with you before (for YEARS both at DU2 and here).

But you have tied your star to iverglas and that's fine. I do not think that you realize how much she hurts people and that's your prerogative, too. But were you to become host again, I see that sort of blind loyalty to her as a liability rather than an asset. I see a world in which you install iverglas as a host again.

It makes me sad to know that you do not see the pain your friend is causing people and so blindly defend her. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[seabeyond]

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

different opinion, i am giving facts and working toward reconciliation.

disagree with with you, is not having a fight with you. as much as you do not have a fight with me, nor do i with you. when you misrepresent events, though, i will post corrections. that is not fighting with you. it is correcting a wrong. i am glad you do not have a fight with me. from another post, it sounded like you did. even if you did have a fight with me, that would be ok, too. but, you dont get to create something about me that is not true. when you put out a "rumor" that is effecting the "peace" and stipulate you could be wrong, when i know you are wrong, then i have to say something. or that rumor becomes a fact. and untrue fact, but a fact for many.

or, i can say she has made no effort to work with either the co hosts or other members of the board. and we are trying to resolve the issues so this forum can try to heal, what appears to be a bigger and bigger problem, due to neoma.

i have not tied my star to anyone. i cannot allow anyone to fabricate a story for personal gains. if i know that a nontruth is being put out, as a decent person, i have a responsibility to speak the truth. that is what a decent person does. even at the risk of it effecting my standing. that is what is lacking by so many people that dont care about this forum, but is merely having "entertainment value" at the expense of the women in this forum.

[kdmorris]

22. "cannot allow anyone to fabricate a story for personal gains"

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. I did not do that.

I'm done with this conversation.

[seabeyond]

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

"i have not tied my star to anyone. i cannot allow anyone to fabricate a story for personal gains. if i know that a nontruth is being put out, as a decent person, i have a responsibility to speak the truth. that is what a decent person does. even at the risk of it effecting my standing. that is what is lacking by so many people that dont care about this forum, but is merely having "entertainment value" at the expense of the women in this forum."

this sentence came first. you said i tied my star to iverglas, hence my failure and doom.

i responded that i have not tied my star to anyone. when i see an untruth....

that was not directed at you. that was me stating why, at times, i have chosen to address nontruths put out about iverglas.

on edit... it seems to me, what you are saying, if i dont accept this misrepresentation, if i point out where i think the statement is incorrect, i am flaming, fighting. what am i supose to do other than correct where i see a wrong?

[kdmorris]

43. Sigh..

"on edit... it seems to me, what you are saying, if i dont accept this misrepresentation, if i point out where i think the statement is incorrect, i am flaming, fighting. what am i supose to do other than correct where i see a wrong?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you defend iverglas even when people are saying true things about her.

She called a human being "it" on the off-site board.
She called for blocking people from the group because they were joking about her... and you agreed.
She suggested that you all "be done with this place" and go back to DU2. While you did tell her "not yet", the implication was that you agreed with her and would at some point in the future, welcome a return to DU2.

etc.

That makes you biased and furthermore, the fact that she is your friend and you don't want bad things to be said about her makes you biased so that you cannot seem to tell when someone IS telling the truth because of your loyalty to her.

Because of that loyalty and inability to think critically about things that are said about her, it makes you too biased to be a host, IN MY OPINION (which is NOT the only opinion that matters). You will remember that this was NOT my opinion the other day, when I actually did vote for you to be co-host, but your postings since then have changed my mind.

Not really sure where I said you had failure and doom, but OK...

[seabeyond]

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

it is correcting nontruths. i do not know how much clear that can be said. the truth matters. someone has a responsibility to speak out when a nontruth is being stated.

i could go thru the your post and point out more factual misrepresentations. but it is clear that truth has no place in this.

[kdmorris]

49. Would you like me to post links to the offsite group hosts forum?

I think that will VERY CLEARLY show that I am, in fact, telling the truth.

[seabeyond]

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

of my actions, and wht i believe and think are incorrect. you do not get to make up a story and declare it a truth.

[kdmorris]

54. Emphasis Mine

Edited to add an apology in advance to those people that are named in this thread at the other board, especially the viciousness. I know that these words are hurtful, but feel that it really needs to be brought out into the open.

http://feministshosts.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=3

iverglas Administrator

banning requests

BlueIris asks that mistertrickster be banned. I vote yes.

I also vote that UnrepentantLiberal be banned.

Based on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1139740&alert=187#post187

I vote that that poster, whatever its name was, be banned. I've alerted on the outright accusation of lying (yeah, that will get me far), but outright accusing a group member of lying, in the group's forum, warrants banning.

Leftymom's reply, well I'd say the same, but others will probably be more lenient.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=11374546&alert=100#post100

Allegation that Remember Me is my sock puppet. If Durham D has posted in Feminists, I vote it be banned. Creekdog already is, I gather.

seabeyond Member

Re: banning requests

agreed. i started a thread on mistertrickster
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If I am incorrectly misinterpreting your actions, please do explain your actions here. You did nothing in this thread to stop iverglas from talking about people this way. I can continue with your other posts over there, if you feel that this is all just being misinterpreted.

[justiceischeap]

52. sea, when I state the iverglas seems to have an issue with LGBT group

and certain LGBT feminist group members, do you agree or disagree with that statement?

[seabeyond]

55. yes... i think you both have an issue with each other. equally. nt

[justiceischeap]

61. I've openly admitted I have an issue with her

because of her attitude about LGBT members of this group. I've admitted it NUMEROUS times--here and in H&M as well as in PMs to former hosts.

Yet, she denies and other's deny that she has a grudge against LGBT members of this group. When it's written clearly and hidden by several juries.

I have a problem that she chose only my and Lioness' posts to comment on in the election thread. I have a huge problem with that. You betcha!

I also have a HUGE problem with every single host in this group that has ignored that issue because that's just iverglas, that's how she is. If I came in here as a non-member and said some of the things she's said about the LGBT members/group and inserted language about women instead, I'd be blocked in a heartbeat. Just because someone is a member of the group they shouldn't be allowed carte blanche to abuse and bully whomever she wishes. If that is going to be the way things are run, then you must allow everyone to have the same privilege.

[William769]

63. justiceischeap