You may not have been able to say it better, but it clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what the issue really is.
Wierwille (only capitalized because it's the first word of my sentence) has NO rights.
His victims (even when SELF-identified) DO have rights.
Defending wierwille is a fool's mission.
It is completely unacceptable to challenge, in any way, a person giving her personal testimony of abuse from/by wierwille.
This is NOT an issue of agreement or disagreement.
One cannot (CANNOT) tell a person that she is wrong when she is giving her own testimony of what happened to her. Period. By definition, when OM or WD try to do so, THEY are the ones who are wrong.
Generally, by virtue of rules of rhetoric, I suppose debating the definition of the term "rape" is not a personal attack.
However, in the context of how it is used by OM, to challenge a person telling her own story, it IS indeed a personal attack.
Which, is what I believe Abi's point was.
Right. Just don't do it. anywhere on the site.
You are STILL only RATIONALIZING AND EUPHAMIZING when you characterize your posts at issue as "a contrary opinion."
YOU cannot define a person telling her story as being WRONG. There is NO contrary opinion. You are ONLY defending a dead man, which is a fool's mission.
Ok fine. If Pawtucket states in the forum rules that participants are not entitled to express their own opinions as it relates to or challenge a person giving her own testimony then I will abide by the rules.
You need to get the point whether the explicitly stated rules change or not. It's not something I'm making up... I'm just summarizing what too many people have been trying to tell you for a long time. Don't blame pawtucket for your behavior.
Believe what you want to believe. Just STOP DOING (challenging the victims) it.
I get what Oldiesman is sayiing. On some level it seems like word games and it IS frustrating, but on another level I totally get where he is coming from.
He holds VPW with some degree or another of esteem and he has the right to do so, regardless of what anyone else things of VPW. So terms like rape strike him as being very harsh, though he is willing to acknowledge there was sexual impropriety/wrong doing that took place (and you should give him credit for that, there was a time when he would not acknowledge even that much!).
Rape does have a number of definitions both within the legal field and the medical field, as well as on the streets. Now, in my mind, damn near any unwanted physical, sexual contact is rape, but I will leave room for the notion that others may not see it that way. They may see it as sexual assault or even a violation, but not technically rape. In fact, if someone grabbed my breasts, it wouldn't constitute rape in a courtroom.
So, yes, I think having threads to discuss the definition of these terms is not only reasonable, but could be benefitial, PROVIDED those threads are their own unique threads and not part of someone's personal account. Similarly, if such a thread is started and you chose to share your own personal account within that thread, then you have pretty much left yourself open to whatever responses may come.
I think that is the most fair way to protect those have been hurt, without closing the door on people who still hold VPW or PFAL with some degree of esteem.
It is asking for a little much to me to ask others to refrain from defense when you are hurling insults at us, and then make us out to be the bad guy when in fact it was you who started the problem. I said before if you don't want the bull to charge don't wave the red flag in front of him ,if you don't want a fight don't punch someone in the nose. If you do so then don't complain that you got hit and it was someone else's fault.
WD, you are obviously getting something out of being here.
What is it exactly?
If you are getting punched in the nose all of the time, why do you enjoy coming back?
What are you doingthat contributes to your getting punched in the nose all of the time?
What do you hope to accomplish by frequenting a forum that is paid for by a caring individual who wants to make known the abuses of twi?
If you weren't there when a rape took place, then you have no say PERIOD.
Only the people who were there have a say about what took place.
If a rape didn't take place, but there was sex with a married clergyman, if you weren't there, you have no say PERIOD.
Again, what are you getting out of your participation on this board?
I thought it significant that you metaphorically compare yourself to a bull.
Why do you compare yourself to a bull charging?
A bull charging seeking to discredit posters who vpw abused...
Interesting point WB. I've noticed that a number of posters have referred to GSC as a "public forum." It is NOT a public forum. Let us use a simple analogy. One block from me is a "public" library. It is paid for by my tax dollars - oh BTW it also still has rules of behavior and conduct. Don't be loud, returns books by X days etc etc - but it is public which means anyone - whether they pay taxes or not - can come in and get a card and get book loans.
This site is run by the private funds of one or more people - most likely Paw - but if we toss in the mods and what their time is worth then it is their "personal" funding as well. A private forum has no requirement to let people post whatever they want. They have rules (hopefully), and if those rules are not adhered to, need make NO apology for busting you out the back of your net connection.
IMO - If Paw wants to bust out WD, OM, Groucho, or me for that matter, he need make no explanation...it is his site. And... I (as well as WD, Groucho or OM) am/are free to find some other site.
WD posts the way it does because IT can and is graciously tolerated. It is not a right however; not a freedom; nothing guaranteed. It's abuse is beyond measure to me - WD is no different than someone who would walk into my children's HS and slew racial/ethnic slurs around - which in CA means immediate suspension from school. HEY! A PUBLIC school - and you get suspended for using the kind of slurs he routinely uses ( yeah yeah not racial but you and all intelligent posters will get the point). He (dunno is WD a she?) will just somehow fabricate that since he/she/it made no mention of race with regard to VPW's crimes of rape and incest my point is invalid. The point on public behavior still stands and the points on administration of private forums still stand.
I kinda tried to take a middle road with this whole WD sexually harassing rape victims - but I am done with that now - I think Paw should bust some of their logins and be done with it. A) It ain't public B) Follow the rules and C)???? well never mind
What do you hope to accomplish by frequenting a forum that is paid for by a caring individual who wants to make known the abuses of twi?
I think it is middle age or being in a cult that told you how you must think for so many years that the outcome for people is to not be trusting of others.
Consider the platformhere it is a PUBLIC open forum .
If the faithful posters who are life long here want to believe everything they read here fine for them.
I hear those concerned saying it for the ones who have not participate in this cat war for years it is those to weak or feeble that have these long lost stories to be be told , the idea is presented to protect them.
25 years after vpw has died.
hello? so make a certain thread for that. easy really.
But that is NOT the issue the problems arise it is the same old same old posterS trying to bid for more and more and MORE space to POST their position amoung GS.
it is a power play amoung players mostly.
What can you do to stop that?
Well keep trying to have the other recant their position and keep on hurting and fighting and getting worse .
or boot one thought process out in favor of the other.
up to Pawtucket really.
Weird thing is after awhile of reading the script of this game it is just plain boring and dismissed as nonsense from both points of view.
so who wins?
I think it is middle age or being in a cult that told you how you must think for so many years that the outcome for people is to not be trusting of others.
Consider the platformhere it is a PUBLIC open forum .
If the faithful posters who are life long here want to believe everything they read here fine for them.
I hear those concerned saying it for the ones who have not participate in this cat war for years it is those to weak or feeble that have these long lost stories to be be told , the idea is presented to protect them.
25 years after vpw has died.
hello? so make a certain thread for that. easy really.
But that is NOT the issue the problems arise it is the same old same old posterS trying to bid for more and more and MORE space to POST their position amoung GS.
it is a power play amoung players mostly.
What can you do to stop that?
Well keep trying to have the other recant their position and keep on hurting and fighting and getting worse .
or boot one thought process out in favor of the other.
up to Pawtucket really.
Weird thing is after awhile of reading the script of this game it is just plain boring and dismissed as nonsense from both points of view.
so who wins?
RR
I think it is public anyone can sign up and post here from the public it is not like any back ground checks are done to see if your really who you say you are or even if you have ever been involved with the way. It is an open site that any one with internet access can view .
The back and forth arguments over what constitutes rape, what constitutes abuse, what constitutes bad behavior, which bad behaviors should have what consequences, etc., all serve to demonstrate the fact that rules and laws can never cover all bases. That is why Jesus said that instead of the old Mosaic Law, we should follow the Law of Love, aka the Golden Rule. Waysider said, a couple of pages back, "Stop and ask yourself, 'Is this how I would want someone to treat ME?'" If everyone on this forum did that, there'd be a lot less arguing.
Granted, it is in poor taste to question the truthfulness of someone telling their first hand account. So the consensus pretty much seems to be that it should be done on a separate thread if at all. Why is it still being argued about?
Some posters have a different view of things. Do we stop and ask WHY do they have that view, or do we judge their heart and motives? That goes for EITHER side of ANY argument.
Maybe what I'm saying is idealistic and won't happen. Why? Because of human nature, which is basically selfish. I guess some things aren't going to change until Christ comes back to rule the world in righteousness. I hope we can at least try though.
[PS - would anyone else be in favor of a special forum to collect all the first hand accounts, just so they can be easily found and referenced?]
If you are getting punched in the nose all of the time, why do you enjoy coming back?
I've asked this question before...it's kinda like a member of the KKK going to a meeting for racial equality...if he's not here to cause disruptions...is he a masochist?
LOL, I think 17,000+ posts makes you a professional poster
Not accusing you of ripping people apart, but you fall into the category of a professional poster. Most casual posters are not looking to get into a debate, they just want to share a hurt, an expreience or a view point. The longer someone posts the more likely they are of being willing to or wanting to debate a topic.
The more you debate it the more proficient you get, hence a "Proffesional Poster"
The average new person and casual poster does not want to get into the debate so they end up either not posting or get driven away without getting any help. having a seperate area for the "hardcore" allows the debate but gives a defined arena in which to "have at it". That's my point, everyone can have their cake and eat it too.
is there room in that analysis for someone who is just lonely?
is there room in that analysis for someone who is just lonely?
not just talking about myself either
Sure,
But keep in mind, the more you do something the better you get and after, oh, I dont know after 2,000, 3000, maybe 5,000 posts you become pretty knowledgable with the current ebb and flow of the forum here and kinda know how people are going to reply and how to reply to get the response wanted, which IMO makes that person a proffessional poster.
And they can be lonely too :(
But my point was the new person and the casual poster can not compete with the wordsmiths who have made a committment here(i'm sure each has there own reasons)by the numerous posts they contribute to the forum and the casual or new person can feel either attacked, feel like they are not wanted unless they agree with the long-timers, dont bother commenting or walk away because of... what's the word... the "charged atmosphere" here. If people cant feel comfortablle making comments, expressing opinion or asking questions then it can drive away the new and curious before they ever get involved And it happens from both sides of this issue.
I'm a staunch supporter of the underdog - the unqualified, the uncommitted and the newperson side of this issue. Just because the victims(and defenders) and the applogist are loud and voiceful doesn't mean there aren't other sides being affected here, they are just more quiet(except me)
I suggest a moratorium on all rules, of any kind. Let 'er rip. Good, bad, one way or the other, whatever goes up goes up.
In tandem with that, give all posters who request it the Admin rights to ban anyone they choose to, immediately, no waiting. Anyone that chooses to ban anyone else can then do it and get it over with. Reasons can be given, or not.
Give this plan a month to run it's course. Add a forum for threads that can discuss the actions taken and why, if anyone chooses to post them.
At the end of the 30 days, anyone that's left is free to continue. Everyone that's out is out, for good, forever.
I assume the Administrative dashboard can ID posters by IP address, so the ban action can be permanent that way, or reasonably so and anyone banned can't re-register under a new name.
Two caveats - First, the Admin rights can only be assigned to someone who's been on the board for 30 days or more and can be identified as a regular poster - set a limit for minimum participation so that someone can't just show up and Admin/Ban after they've registered.
Secondly - both the banner and the bannee are identified, like "Bujalabooby banned NeedleDik, 7/11/08"....so everyone knows who did what. Put up a thread that tracks ban activity and credits them appropriately.
Seriously - let the board self-moderate for 30 days. See what happens.
Or, the moderators and Paw could just ban anyone who makes work for them, which is how it works on alot of other boards. If you are a problem, then you're gone, they don't have the time to babysit you.
I think the only rule we all need to follow is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It's in every major religion in the world and also a lot of common sense.
And be willing to learn from others' experience. Sometimes we all sound like the little kiddie poem about the six blind men and the elephant. The one where one guy runs into the side of the elephant and decides it's like a wall, one grabs the trunk and thinks elephants are some type of snake, etc.
Good discussion. Another attempt to define "what should this site be about?"
Frankly, I would consider it a great loss to the overall discussions on GSC if WD or Oldies were banned or overly censored. I often disagree with their POV, but I welcome the counterpoint their posts offer, in much the same way that having George, Oak, and Garth around offers counterpoint to those of us who have chosen to remain "believers." I'm least sympathetic to Groucho's recent rants, but again, in my view, we ought to have the liberty to say what we're thinking. Even someone like Mike is valuable, if not for the comic relief.
Communion is strength; solitude is weakness. Alone, the fine old beech yields to the blast and lies prone on
the meadow. In the forest, supporting each other, the trees laugh at the hurricane. The sheep of Jesus flock
together. The social element is the genius of Christianity.
--Charles Spurgeon
GSC is a sociology experiment of a different kind, and, as dreadful or picayune as the discussions sometimes become, I have found it useful for my own sorting-out process in my journey. For some time, I've been percolating an idea that Mark touched upon earlier. The sexual "side of the story" needs to be told, and Mark's suggestion to collect the first-hand and other witness testimony in one place is, I think, a very good one. Even thought about doing it myself.... perhaps asking someone like Wordwolf to help, since for me it would be a daunting task... impossible, really. The evidence is compelling, and specifically to be on-point in this thread, the ability of others to add their testimonies without being harassed, is important.
But pointing out that testimony is testimony does not in itself constitute harassment. It's tough to come forward, and any implication that the testimony might be askew in some way makes it all the more difficult, but we cannot ban that POV. It is in fact valid. In the doctrinal realm, challenges to Mike's "witness" to the man-of-god-of-the-world idea are needed, as are challenges to the "chuck the whole thing" PsOV of agnostics. There is real value there.
“For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine.” (1Co 11:18-19 NRSV)
I'm grateful for Dooj's and Abi's counterpoint in this thread to Rocky's POV regarding Oldies. In this way, we self-regulate, as Socks suggested (but we are doing presently, without instituting Socks' outrageous suggestion. Socks, I love you, man!
If the testimonies of sexual abuse were compiled, I think that it would make it much more difficult to sustain denial of the problem.
In the Way Ministry, we were not taught to be pure. We had "righteousness" all screwed up. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the weakness of some who were "leaders" in the ministry. But there are theological stumblings, as well, dating back to the Reformation. Oldies, at least, (if not WD.... I do not know) as someone pointed out, has been quite forthright in his acknowledgment of the evidence, and I admire him for that.
So then, my suggestion is that no changes are needed. We already have a decaf forum, for those who find the regular crowd too rough. We also have some strong advocates among us for those who have been hurt, and they are not shy about helping newbies, and going after anyone who goes after them.
So then, my suggestion is that no changes are needed. We already have a decaf forum, for those who find the regular crowd too rough. We also have some strong advocates among us for those who have been hurt, and they are not shy about helping newbies, and going after anyone who goes after them.
I, agree with you on everything you've said but believe that the decaf forum should not be the exception. It intones a place for those that are too weak to get involved with the heat of the average conversation and bad-mouthing is acceptable behavior. It also indicates that since we have a decaf forum that the main forum people have the right to say whatever they choose regardless of the impact.
I personally feel that it should have been swapped around and have an extra-caffinated forum instead, for that in itself would indicate without having to change a single rule that when thing get too heated they just take it or start it up in the other forum. It also states witout saying it that the main thrust is to be civil but doesnt hinder people from saying what they really want, only directs it to a more appropriate place and those that feel they want to get involved with it can do so without forcing the entire community to have to endure it.
To leave it the way it is, is to indicate that the standard here is that most of the threads should be and have a right to be heated and uncivallized(slight exageration for emphasis) in the main About the Way forum and "if you don't like it or are a wimp" then go play in the decaf playpen. personally I think civillity should be the standard, hence why I think this whole problem is occuring. It was just a logistical mixup when setting up categories I believe it could resolve many of the issues currently present or atleast confine them to an appropriate arena because as much as there are many very valid points here that need to be addressed, it takes away from the focus of the website by bickering and acussing and venting these personallity issues in the main forum instead of keeping it on track.
And it keeps it simple for Pawtucket because he doesnt have to think up new rules or redefine them and then have to think of every possible angle that it could be twisted to someones advantage. all he does is make a new subcategory in the "About They Way" and call it "Darkroast Blend". It's kinda like the Soap Opera but right insde the "About the Way" catergory easily accesible and topics can be started there instead of Paw having to move them because they have gotten out of hand. and get rid of the decaf category.
I agree WG. I remember posting as we were leaving , literally a playby play on Waydale. I was received with amazing support and facts that helped my ofidence levels. We still would have left if I had not been received that way, but I don't know that I would check-in and post these days occasionally if I had not had that first warm reception.
I have had a few posters over the last seven years become a pain in my keester and so I don't post about issues anymore. If I want an argument - I will call the opposing political party here in town. I have chosen to stay out of those volitile issues becasue the "attacking" posters here are more interested in their own eloquence than really persuading me to their way of thinking. And quite frankly I have yet to see any of the pro-wierwillians take a gently posture to tr and explain why they could be worth considering. So far it has appared polarized.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
16
12
16
Popular Days
Jul 11
68
Jul 12
40
Jul 10
26
Jul 15
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 17 posts
JustSayNO 16 posts
WhiteDove 12 posts
doojable 16 posts
Popular Days
Jul 11 2008
68 posts
Jul 12 2008
40 posts
Jul 10 2008
26 posts
Jul 15 2008
13 posts
doojable
Nanny nanny boo boo...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
What Rocky said...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You need to get the point whether the explicitly stated rules change or not. It's not something I'm making up... I'm just summarizing what too many people have been trying to tell you for a long time. Don't blame pawtucket for your behavior.
Believe what you want to believe. Just STOP DOING (challenging the victims) it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I get what Oldiesman is sayiing. On some level it seems like word games and it IS frustrating, but on another level I totally get where he is coming from.
He holds VPW with some degree or another of esteem and he has the right to do so, regardless of what anyone else things of VPW. So terms like rape strike him as being very harsh, though he is willing to acknowledge there was sexual impropriety/wrong doing that took place (and you should give him credit for that, there was a time when he would not acknowledge even that much!).
Rape does have a number of definitions both within the legal field and the medical field, as well as on the streets. Now, in my mind, damn near any unwanted physical, sexual contact is rape, but I will leave room for the notion that others may not see it that way. They may see it as sexual assault or even a violation, but not technically rape. In fact, if someone grabbed my breasts, it wouldn't constitute rape in a courtroom.
So, yes, I think having threads to discuss the definition of these terms is not only reasonable, but could be benefitial, PROVIDED those threads are their own unique threads and not part of someone's personal account. Similarly, if such a thread is started and you chose to share your own personal account within that thread, then you have pretty much left yourself open to whatever responses may come.
I think that is the most fair way to protect those have been hurt, without closing the door on people who still hold VPW or PFAL with some degree of esteem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
White Dove said:
WD, you are obviously getting something out of being here.
What is it exactly?
If you are getting punched in the nose all of the time, why do you enjoy coming back?
What are you doing that contributes to your getting punched in the nose all of the time?
What do you hope to accomplish by frequenting a forum that is paid for by a caring individual who wants to make known the abuses of twi?
If you weren't there when a rape took place, then you have no say PERIOD.
Only the people who were there have a say about what took place.
If a rape didn't take place, but there was sex with a married clergyman, if you weren't there, you have no say PERIOD.
Again, what are you getting out of your participation on this board?
I thought it significant that you metaphorically compare yourself to a bull.
Why do you compare yourself to a bull charging?
A bull charging seeking to discredit posters who vpw abused...
How does that fit with the mission of this board?
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Interesting point WB. I've noticed that a number of posters have referred to GSC as a "public forum." It is NOT a public forum. Let us use a simple analogy. One block from me is a "public" library. It is paid for by my tax dollars - oh BTW it also still has rules of behavior and conduct. Don't be loud, returns books by X days etc etc - but it is public which means anyone - whether they pay taxes or not - can come in and get a card and get book loans.
This site is run by the private funds of one or more people - most likely Paw - but if we toss in the mods and what their time is worth then it is their "personal" funding as well. A private forum has no requirement to let people post whatever they want. They have rules (hopefully), and if those rules are not adhered to, need make NO apology for busting you out the back of your net connection.
IMO - If Paw wants to bust out WD, OM, Groucho, or me for that matter, he need make no explanation...it is his site. And... I (as well as WD, Groucho or OM) am/are free to find some other site.
WD posts the way it does because IT can and is graciously tolerated. It is not a right however; not a freedom; nothing guaranteed. It's abuse is beyond measure to me - WD is no different than someone who would walk into my children's HS and slew racial/ethnic slurs around - which in CA means immediate suspension from school. HEY! A PUBLIC school - and you get suspended for using the kind of slurs he routinely uses ( yeah yeah not racial but you and all intelligent posters will get the point). He (dunno is WD a she?) will just somehow fabricate that since he/she/it made no mention of race with regard to VPW's crimes of rape and incest my point is invalid. The point on public behavior still stands and the points on administration of private forums still stand.
I kinda tried to take a middle road with this whole WD sexually harassing rape victims - but I am done with that now - I think Paw should bust some of their logins and be done with it. A) It ain't public B) Follow the rules and C)???? well never mind
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
I think it is middle age or being in a cult that told you how you must think for so many years that the outcome for people is to not be trusting of others.
Consider the platformhere it is a PUBLIC open forum .
If the faithful posters who are life long here want to believe everything they read here fine for them.
I hear those concerned saying it for the ones who have not participate in this cat war for years it is those to weak or feeble that have these long lost stories to be be told , the idea is presented to protect them.
25 years after vpw has died.
hello? so make a certain thread for that. easy really.
But that is NOT the issue the problems arise it is the same old same old posterS trying to bid for more and more and MORE space to POST their position amoung GS.
it is a power play amoung players mostly.
What can you do to stop that?
Well keep trying to have the other recant their position and keep on hurting and fighting and getting worse .
or boot one thought process out in favor of the other.
up to Pawtucket really.
Weird thing is after awhile of reading the script of this game it is just plain boring and dismissed as nonsense from both points of view.
so who wins?
I think it is middle age or being in a cult that told you how you must think for so many years that the outcome for people is to not be trusting of others.
Consider the platformhere it is a PUBLIC open forum .
If the faithful posters who are life long here want to believe everything they read here fine for them.
I hear those concerned saying it for the ones who have not participate in this cat war for years it is those to weak or feeble that have these long lost stories to be be told , the idea is presented to protect them.
25 years after vpw has died.
hello? so make a certain thread for that. easy really.
But that is NOT the issue the problems arise it is the same old same old posterS trying to bid for more and more and MORE space to POST their position amoung GS.
it is a power play amoung players mostly.
What can you do to stop that?
Well keep trying to have the other recant their position and keep on hurting and fighting and getting worse .
or boot one thought process out in favor of the other.
up to Pawtucket really.
Weird thing is after awhile of reading the script of this game it is just plain boring and dismissed as nonsense from both points of view.
so who wins?
RR
I think it is public anyone can sign up and post here from the public it is not like any back ground checks are done to see if your really who you say you are or even if you have ever been involved with the way. It is an open site that any one with internet access can view .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
This is a forum open to public view that is privately owned and operated.
As if it would be possible to control what someone believes...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
It is not BELIEFS that are the issue here. It is conduct.
The forum is open in the sense that anyone can read it on the internet or join, but the ownership, rules and moderation are privately decided.
As far as I'm aware there are no forums 'owned' by the public, and very few have no moderation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
The back and forth arguments over what constitutes rape, what constitutes abuse, what constitutes bad behavior, which bad behaviors should have what consequences, etc., all serve to demonstrate the fact that rules and laws can never cover all bases. That is why Jesus said that instead of the old Mosaic Law, we should follow the Law of Love, aka the Golden Rule. Waysider said, a couple of pages back, "Stop and ask yourself, 'Is this how I would want someone to treat ME?'" If everyone on this forum did that, there'd be a lot less arguing.
Granted, it is in poor taste to question the truthfulness of someone telling their first hand account. So the consensus pretty much seems to be that it should be done on a separate thread if at all. Why is it still being argued about?
Some posters have a different view of things. Do we stop and ask WHY do they have that view, or do we judge their heart and motives? That goes for EITHER side of ANY argument.
Maybe what I'm saying is idealistic and won't happen. Why? Because of human nature, which is basically selfish. I guess some things aren't going to change until Christ comes back to rule the world in righteousness. I hope we can at least try though.
[PS - would anyone else be in favor of a special forum to collect all the first hand accounts, just so they can be easily found and referenced?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I've asked this question before...it's kinda like a member of the KKK going to a meeting for racial equality...if he's not here to cause disruptions...is he a masochist?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
is there room in that analysis for someone who is just lonely?
not just talking about myself either
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
ex, as always,you have made another great point
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
Sure,
But keep in mind, the more you do something the better you get and after, oh, I dont know after 2,000, 3000, maybe 5,000 posts you become pretty knowledgable with the current ebb and flow of the forum here and kinda know how people are going to reply and how to reply to get the response wanted, which IMO makes that person a proffessional poster.
And they can be lonely too :(
But my point was the new person and the casual poster can not compete with the wordsmiths who have made a committment here(i'm sure each has there own reasons)by the numerous posts they contribute to the forum and the casual or new person can feel either attacked, feel like they are not wanted unless they agree with the long-timers, dont bother commenting or walk away because of... what's the word... the "charged atmosphere" here. If people cant feel comfortablle making comments, expressing opinion or asking questions then it can drive away the new and curious before they ever get involved And it happens from both sides of this issue.
I'm a staunch supporter of the underdog - the unqualified, the uncommitted and the newperson side of this issue. Just because the victims(and defenders) and the applogist are loud and voiceful doesn't mean there aren't other sides being affected here, they are just more quiet(except me)
Edited by JustSayNOLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I suggest a moratorium on all rules, of any kind. Let 'er rip. Good, bad, one way or the other, whatever goes up goes up.
In tandem with that, give all posters who request it the Admin rights to ban anyone they choose to, immediately, no waiting. Anyone that chooses to ban anyone else can then do it and get it over with. Reasons can be given, or not.
Give this plan a month to run it's course. Add a forum for threads that can discuss the actions taken and why, if anyone chooses to post them.
At the end of the 30 days, anyone that's left is free to continue. Everyone that's out is out, for good, forever.
I assume the Administrative dashboard can ID posters by IP address, so the ban action can be permanent that way, or reasonably so and anyone banned can't re-register under a new name.
Two caveats - First, the Admin rights can only be assigned to someone who's been on the board for 30 days or more and can be identified as a regular poster - set a limit for minimum participation so that someone can't just show up and Admin/Ban after they've registered.
Secondly - both the banner and the bannee are identified, like "Bujalabooby banned NeedleDik, 7/11/08"....so everyone knows who did what. Put up a thread that tracks ban activity and credits them appropriately.
Seriously - let the board self-moderate for 30 days. See what happens.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Bramble
conduct really I think that is good in theory but that is what the mods have tried and tried and why pawtucket is asking for suggestions.
socks it may take longer than a month for this place to self destruct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Authentic natural progression, that's what I'm proposing. Let reality live!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Or, the moderators and Paw could just ban anyone who makes work for them, which is how it works on alot of other boards. If you are a problem, then you're gone, they don't have the time to babysit you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
I think the only rule we all need to follow is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It's in every major religion in the world and also a lot of common sense.
And be willing to learn from others' experience. Sometimes we all sound like the little kiddie poem about the six blind men and the elephant. The one where one guy runs into the side of the elephant and decides it's like a wall, one grabs the trunk and thinks elephants are some type of snake, etc.
Be ye kind.
That's all I'm sayin'.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Good discussion. Another attempt to define "what should this site be about?"
Frankly, I would consider it a great loss to the overall discussions on GSC if WD or Oldies were banned or overly censored. I often disagree with their POV, but I welcome the counterpoint their posts offer, in much the same way that having George, Oak, and Garth around offers counterpoint to those of us who have chosen to remain "believers." I'm least sympathetic to Groucho's recent rants, but again, in my view, we ought to have the liberty to say what we're thinking. Even someone like Mike is valuable, if not for the comic relief.
GSC is a sociology experiment of a different kind, and, as dreadful or picayune as the discussions sometimes become, I have found it useful for my own sorting-out process in my journey. For some time, I've been percolating an idea that Mark touched upon earlier. The sexual "side of the story" needs to be told, and Mark's suggestion to collect the first-hand and other witness testimony in one place is, I think, a very good one. Even thought about doing it myself.... perhaps asking someone like Wordwolf to help, since for me it would be a daunting task... impossible, really. The evidence is compelling, and specifically to be on-point in this thread, the ability of others to add their testimonies without being harassed, is important.But pointing out that testimony is testimony does not in itself constitute harassment. It's tough to come forward, and any implication that the testimony might be askew in some way makes it all the more difficult, but we cannot ban that POV. It is in fact valid. In the doctrinal realm, challenges to Mike's "witness" to the man-of-god-of-the-world idea are needed, as are challenges to the "chuck the whole thing" PsOV of agnostics. There is real value there.
I'm grateful for Dooj's and Abi's counterpoint in this thread to Rocky's POV regarding Oldies. In this way, we self-regulate, as Socks suggested (but we are doing presently, without instituting Socks' outrageous suggestion. Socks, I love you, man!
If the testimonies of sexual abuse were compiled, I think that it would make it much more difficult to sustain denial of the problem.
In the Way Ministry, we were not taught to be pure. We had "righteousness" all screwed up. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the weakness of some who were "leaders" in the ministry. But there are theological stumblings, as well, dating back to the Reformation. Oldies, at least, (if not WD.... I do not know) as someone pointed out, has been quite forthright in his acknowledgment of the evidence, and I admire him for that.
So then, my suggestion is that no changes are needed. We already have a decaf forum, for those who find the regular crowd too rough. We also have some strong advocates among us for those who have been hurt, and they are not shy about helping newbies, and going after anyone who goes after them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
I, agree with you on everything you've said but believe that the decaf forum should not be the exception. It intones a place for those that are too weak to get involved with the heat of the average conversation and bad-mouthing is acceptable behavior. It also indicates that since we have a decaf forum that the main forum people have the right to say whatever they choose regardless of the impact.
I personally feel that it should have been swapped around and have an extra-caffinated forum instead, for that in itself would indicate without having to change a single rule that when thing get too heated they just take it or start it up in the other forum. It also states witout saying it that the main thrust is to be civil but doesnt hinder people from saying what they really want, only directs it to a more appropriate place and those that feel they want to get involved with it can do so without forcing the entire community to have to endure it.
To leave it the way it is, is to indicate that the standard here is that most of the threads should be and have a right to be heated and uncivallized(slight exageration for emphasis) in the main About the Way forum and "if you don't like it or are a wimp" then go play in the decaf playpen. personally I think civillity should be the standard, hence why I think this whole problem is occuring. It was just a logistical mixup when setting up categories I believe it could resolve many of the issues currently present or atleast confine them to an appropriate arena because as much as there are many very valid points here that need to be addressed, it takes away from the focus of the website by bickering and acussing and venting these personallity issues in the main forum instead of keeping it on track.
And it keeps it simple for Pawtucket because he doesnt have to think up new rules or redefine them and then have to think of every possible angle that it could be twisted to someones advantage. all he does is make a new subcategory in the "About They Way" and call it "Darkroast Blend". It's kinda like the Soap Opera but right insde the "About the Way" catergory easily accesible and topics can be started there instead of Paw having to move them because they have gotten out of hand. and get rid of the decaf category.
Edited by JustSayNOLink to comment
Share on other sites
washn'wear
I agree WG. I remember posting as we were leaving , literally a playby play on Waydale. I was received with amazing support and facts that helped my ofidence levels. We still would have left if I had not been received that way, but I don't know that I would check-in and post these days occasionally if I had not had that first warm reception.
I have had a few posters over the last seven years become a pain in my keester and so I don't post about issues anymore. If I want an argument - I will call the opposing political party here in town. I have chosen to stay out of those volitile issues becasue the "attacking" posters here are more interested in their own eloquence than really persuading me to their way of thinking. And quite frankly I have yet to see any of the pro-wierwillians take a gently posture to tr and explain why they could be worth considering. So far it has appared polarized.
There is no "totally- right " person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
To JustSayNo, your point about civility is well taken. Thanks for the comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.