Before if they were ordained and/or "leaders" the names would be changed a bit to avoid search engines. Now...if it's not someone currently in twi or a trustee/director past or present it's not allowed.
Yet that leaves out those who were corps coordinators, ordained, state or region coordinators and etc.
Not tryin to make trouble...just very confused at the sudden changes.
Isn't GS in large part to air things that happened and get healing? How then can this happen if the people who did the damage cannot be discussed cuz they didn't have the proper title according to this thread?
Cindy! Those are good points, and your not making trouble. That's part of why we want it discussed.
It's hard to separate out issues of privacy from telling the "other side of the story," which is where the moderators are getting a headache. If someone else's "other side of the story" includes things that happened with/to you, and they have an axe to grind, should it be aired out here? That's what we're trying to figure out.
Also Greasespot has a long tradition of "protecting the victim." If so, then where does the "victim's" privacy fit in. Like maybe they don't want their names announced if something happened years ago with them and a TWI leader.
That's why we're putting it out here. Where is the line?
If the person being talked about is not a GS poster and has done damage, folks should be free to post their first-person accounts on GS unless or until that person shows up at GS and is willing to "face the music"
If the person being talked about is a GS poster and has done something to someone through twi 1 or 2, it should be addressed privately and only brought public if they are going on to hurt someone else.
If the person being talked about is a GS poster and the issue is personal (i.e. marriage, divorce, kids, etc.) that should not be discussed on GS unless the person being talked about has given their public consent.
This is a public forum. We risk exposing Paw to a libel suit if we identify people as "abusers" or even as former cult members and leaders (to an extent).
We shouldn't accuse specific people of specific abusive behavior when such behavior is illegal. And when in doubt, assume the accusation is illegal behavior. And even when it's not illegal, we're dealing with maligning the reputations of people who are not truly "public" figures.
I agree with using as much caution as is practical.
We risk exposing Paw to a libel suit if we identify people as "abusers" or even as former cult members and leaders (to an extent).
But doesn't the disclaimer regarding the views and opinions of the posters not reflecting the views of GS guard Paw from libel suits? It did in the law book the lawyer I asked looked at.
I agree with Raf - and although it fries my liver to refrain from naming certain names, the individuals perhaps could possibly be deduced by those who really need to know by virtue of some of the titles.
Whenever it comes to protecting GreaseSpotters, I'm all for that e-x-c-e-p-t I'm sure there are some who are known around these parts but who are ashamed and fully meet the criteria of Godly sorrow....and we would never know their given names because of our anonyminity policy. I think it would be crewl to dredge anybody's sordid past through the mire here unless it was one of the top echelon still promulgating the stuff.
Of course, by definition, even Mr. Linder is a GreaseSpotter.
An example of "naming names" in an, IMHO, inappropriate manner, is the "sleeping with VP to get ordained" thread. At least one woman is described as a nice enough person, but has her name smeared by being called Wierwille's mistress. No proof, just that it was "common knowledge".
Exactly, Oak...and that was hearsay...not a first hand account. If it's hearsay...it could well be inaccurate. Only first hand accounts should be allowed to remain.
However....on that thread I did make mention of my own experience with that person that was very very bad.
That would be a first person account...and first person accounts are not hearsay or slander.
An example of "naming names" in an, IMHO, inappropriate manner, is the "sleeping with VP to get ordained" thread. At least one woman is described as a nice enough person, but has her name smeared by being called Wierwille's mistress. No proof, just that it was "common knowledge".
Thank you for saying that, Oak. That thread had become nothing but a gossip-fest and I was going to post something to that effect on the thread when I got home tonight.
I happen to know that some people who willingly slept around in twi 20 or 30 years ago regret that today. Why should anyone in that category--whether he or she slept with a head honcho or anyone else--have his/her name dragged through the mud decades later? And some of that stuff is nothing but speculation and hearsay.
We dilute the genuine anti-twi message of GS, IMO, by throwing around slanderous rumors and wild claims. There was plenty wrong with twi that can be talked about without that.
I think we can vent and tell our stories without naming names.
What if the person in your story is no longer in TWI and is suffering terrible guilt or shame over what they did in the name of TWI? I think many of us can relate to that on some level or another. What if that person is a Greasespotter, but they wish to keep their identity anonymous? They can't publicly apologize without revealing who they are.
I think the guidelines are good. If they are in an upper leadership position, they are fair game. Otherwise, we don't even know if they are still in, or out and trying to rebuild their lives just like the rest of us.
It seems to me that everything's been working pretty well so far, with the way that names have been partly occluded. I haven't seen any problems, there's been no mention of any lawsuits, I haven't heard of any complaints.
Maybe on the surface the way we see it, things are ok...but somebody else called pawtuckett bears legal and other responsibility here, and perhaps there are issues we know nothing about!
I also notice that there seem to be a greater than normal increase in new posters, so laying out the rules...is a good way to go.
Believe it or not...sometimes the reasons people want to remain under the radar have nothing to do with the organization but rather have their roots elsewhere. Can you imagine someone running for mayor or Councilman in their local burg? Somebody Googles their name and voila.....stuff from long ago which is possibly not true comes raging forth?
To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.
But doesn't the disclaimer regarding the views and opinions of the posters not reflecting the views of GS guard Paw from libel suits? It did in the law book the lawyer I asked looked at.
One would wish that this were the case, and I'm sure it would be a useful defense for Paw. But the point is it would be a defense, which means it would get that far. Not a good thing. We're better off not putting him in that position in the first place, and that defense has not always proven to be a successful one.
Also, views and opinions are protected. Allegations of fact are not.
The one thing I would add to the list of approved names is people whose names are already in the public record for the matter being discussed. For example, Doug McMullen and exTWI (whose name I know as well as most people here, though I choose not to use it here). In journalism, for what it's worth, we do not name victims of sexual assault. However, if the victim of sexual assault and/or misconduct files a civil suit, their names are fair game. With that as a guide, I would argue in favor of naming anyone involved in civil or criminal litigation (except sex assault/misconduct in criminal cases), and anyone who has made their criticism of TWI sufficiently public by name (John Juedes, for example).
This doesn't apply if the names are on the record in a different context. Hypothetically, if anyone I named above is being accused of something that has nothing to do with how and why they've made their names public, err on the side of caution.
The way I see it, there's useful criticism and necessary exposure of wrongdoing, past and present, and there's empty gossip.
Examples of the former: criticizing the current actions of the Right Rev. RFR or her immediate underlings might open someone's eyes to the fact that they really ought to be thinkin' about packing their bags and gettin' outa New Knoxville. Exposing the hurtful deeds that happened to you might comfort the heart of someone who was likewise hurt or used.
In contrast, just throwing out a statement like "it's common knowledge that she was VPW's mistress for years" offers no real benefit that I can see.
First, maybe this person (I'm not referring to the specific person so accused--this is just an example) regretted her former actions and turned her life around. Maybe the "common knowledge" was nothing more than a false rumor started by someone who was jealous or ticked off. Maybe her children are regulars here and would be cut to the heart to hear this about their mother.
I don't see that the rules have changed much, really. Naming names has always been discouraged, except for the BOD/T.
I think Raf has a point. If someone makes his/her name public by filing a lawsuit or pursuing a cause like Doug did, then it would be darn hard to discuss without naming names.
What really irked me about the thread that prompted this discussion is that I saw plenty of trashing people's good names and reputations going on in twi behind the scenes. It was an attitude of "Look what dirt I, know. Aren't I spiritual? Aren't I cool to be so in the loop?"
I saw it in leadership, under the guise of "helping" people. "Oh, did you know so-and-so never cleans her house? We need to help her in that area of her walk." Pssst pssst pssst, whisper, whisper, whisper. I was no angel. I got caught up in it sometimes, too.
Maybe our lives were so boring that a little buzz about someone getting kicked off staff for getting drunk and wrecking one of the HQ vehicles put a little excitement in life...sorta like a soap opera.
I don't think it makes me cool if I know someone has a past he or she isn't proud of. I think it makes me even less cool if I have to show how "in the know" I am by trotting out someone's dirty laundry--whether real or imagined--for all to cluck their tongues at.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
12
6
7
Popular Days
Jul 19
20
Jul 20
9
Mar 10
8
Jul 26
5
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 6 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 12 posts
CoolWaters 6 posts
Mod Kirk 7 posts
Popular Days
Jul 19 2005
20 posts
Jul 20 2005
9 posts
Mar 10 2005
8 posts
Jul 26 2005
5 posts
Cindy!
I don't get the change goin on here.
Before if they were ordained and/or "leaders" the names would be changed a bit to avoid search engines. Now...if it's not someone currently in twi or a trustee/director past or present it's not allowed.
Yet that leaves out those who were corps coordinators, ordained, state or region coordinators and etc.
Not tryin to make trouble...just very confused at the sudden changes.
Isn't GS in large part to air things that happened and get healing? How then can this happen if the people who did the damage cannot be discussed cuz they didn't have the proper title according to this thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mod Kirk
Cindy! Those are good points, and your not making trouble. That's part of why we want it discussed.
It's hard to separate out issues of privacy from telling the "other side of the story," which is where the moderators are getting a headache. If someone else's "other side of the story" includes things that happened with/to you, and they have an axe to grind, should it be aired out here? That's what we're trying to figure out.
Also Greasespot has a long tradition of "protecting the victim." If so, then where does the "victim's" privacy fit in. Like maybe they don't want their names announced if something happened years ago with them and a TWI leader.
That's why we're putting it out here. Where is the line?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cindy!
That's a very valid quandry.
Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth...
If the person being talked about is not a GS poster and has done damage, folks should be free to post their first-person accounts on GS unless or until that person shows up at GS and is willing to "face the music"
If the person being talked about is a GS poster and has done something to someone through twi 1 or 2, it should be addressed privately and only brought public if they are going on to hurt someone else.
If the person being talked about is a GS poster and the issue is personal (i.e. marriage, divorce, kids, etc.) that should not be discussed on GS unless the person being talked about has given their public consent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I agree with the path of most caution.
This is a public forum. We risk exposing Paw to a libel suit if we identify people as "abusers" or even as former cult members and leaders (to an extent).
We shouldn't accuse specific people of specific abusive behavior when such behavior is illegal. And when in doubt, assume the accusation is illegal behavior. And even when it's not illegal, we're dealing with maligning the reputations of people who are not truly "public" figures.
I agree with using as much caution as is practical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cindy!
But doesn't the disclaimer regarding the views and opinions of the posters not reflecting the views of GS guard Paw from libel suits? It did in the law book the lawyer I asked looked at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I agree with Raf - and although it fries my liver to refrain from naming certain names, the individuals perhaps could possibly be deduced by those who really need to know by virtue of some of the titles.
Whenever it comes to protecting GreaseSpotters, I'm all for that e-x-c-e-p-t I'm sure there are some who are known around these parts but who are ashamed and fully meet the criteria of Godly sorrow....and we would never know their given names because of our anonyminity policy. I think it would be crewl to dredge anybody's sordid past through the mire here unless it was one of the top echelon still promulgating the stuff.
Of course, by definition, even Mr. Linder is a GreaseSpotter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
An example of "naming names" in an, IMHO, inappropriate manner, is the "sleeping with VP to get ordained" thread. At least one woman is described as a nice enough person, but has her name smeared by being called Wierwille's mistress. No proof, just that it was "common knowledge".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cindy!
Exactly, Oak...and that was hearsay...not a first hand account. If it's hearsay...it could well be inaccurate. Only first hand accounts should be allowed to remain.
However....on that thread I did make mention of my own experience with that person that was very very bad.
That would be a first person account...and first person accounts are not hearsay or slander.
Edited by Cindy!Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Thank you for saying that, Oak. That thread had become nothing but a gossip-fest and I was going to post something to that effect on the thread when I got home tonight.
I happen to know that some people who willingly slept around in twi 20 or 30 years ago regret that today. Why should anyone in that category--whether he or she slept with a head honcho or anyone else--have his/her name dragged through the mud decades later? And some of that stuff is nothing but speculation and hearsay.
We dilute the genuine anti-twi message of GS, IMO, by throwing around slanderous rumors and wild claims. There was plenty wrong with twi that can be talked about without that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I think we can vent and tell our stories without naming names.
What if the person in your story is no longer in TWI and is suffering terrible guilt or shame over what they did in the name of TWI? I think many of us can relate to that on some level or another. What if that person is a Greasespotter, but they wish to keep their identity anonymous? They can't publicly apologize without revealing who they are.
I think the guidelines are good. If they are in an upper leadership position, they are fair game. Otherwise, we don't even know if they are still in, or out and trying to rebuild their lives just like the rest of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't know about the gossip fest part
and i certainly have never ever thrown around slanderous rumors or wild claims
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
and over on that other thread i clearly said i don't know how to distinguish victim from victimizer
plus i try not to name names
except for that damn mog and his mini's
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
george
you said it befor i could
i agree with you 100%
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
george and chef honorable people
nice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Exsie said:
I wasn't talking about your posts at all. You speak from firsthand knowledge, and I respect that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thanks my dear friend
oh this is a sucky night
i felt comfortable picking on you
;)--> because i know you love me
and actually i knew you didn't mean me
love, ex
and sorry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
It seems to me that everything's been working pretty well so far, with the way that names have been partly occluded. I haven't seen any problems, there's been no mention of any lawsuits, I haven't heard of any complaints.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Maybe on the surface the way we see it, things are ok...but somebody else called pawtuckett bears legal and other responsibility here, and perhaps there are issues we know nothing about!
I also notice that there seem to be a greater than normal increase in new posters, so laying out the rules...is a good way to go.
Believe it or not...sometimes the reasons people want to remain under the radar have nothing to do with the organization but rather have their roots elsewhere. Can you imagine someone running for mayor or Councilman in their local burg? Somebody Googles their name and voila.....stuff from long ago which is possibly not true comes raging forth?
To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Then that person can apologize to ME and clear the air!
:)-->
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
One would wish that this were the case, and I'm sure it would be a useful defense for Paw. But the point is it would be a defense, which means it would get that far. Not a good thing. We're better off not putting him in that position in the first place, and that defense has not always proven to be a successful one.
Also, views and opinions are protected. Allegations of fact are not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The one thing I would add to the list of approved names is people whose names are already in the public record for the matter being discussed. For example, Doug McMullen and exTWI (whose name I know as well as most people here, though I choose not to use it here). In journalism, for what it's worth, we do not name victims of sexual assault. However, if the victim of sexual assault and/or misconduct files a civil suit, their names are fair game. With that as a guide, I would argue in favor of naming anyone involved in civil or criminal litigation (except sex assault/misconduct in criminal cases), and anyone who has made their criticism of TWI sufficiently public by name (John Juedes, for example).
This doesn't apply if the names are on the record in a different context. Hypothetically, if anyone I named above is being accused of something that has nothing to do with how and why they've made their names public, err on the side of caution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
The way I see it, there's useful criticism and necessary exposure of wrongdoing, past and present, and there's empty gossip.
Examples of the former: criticizing the current actions of the Right Rev. RFR or her immediate underlings might open someone's eyes to the fact that they really ought to be thinkin' about packing their bags and gettin' outa New Knoxville. Exposing the hurtful deeds that happened to you might comfort the heart of someone who was likewise hurt or used.
In contrast, just throwing out a statement like "it's common knowledge that she was VPW's mistress for years" offers no real benefit that I can see.
First, maybe this person (I'm not referring to the specific person so accused--this is just an example) regretted her former actions and turned her life around. Maybe the "common knowledge" was nothing more than a false rumor started by someone who was jealous or ticked off. Maybe her children are regulars here and would be cut to the heart to hear this about their mother.
I don't see that the rules have changed much, really. Naming names has always been discouraged, except for the BOD/T.
I think Raf has a point. If someone makes his/her name public by filing a lawsuit or pursuing a cause like Doug did, then it would be darn hard to discuss without naming names.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
And another thing...
What really irked me about the thread that prompted this discussion is that I saw plenty of trashing people's good names and reputations going on in twi behind the scenes. It was an attitude of "Look what dirt I, know. Aren't I spiritual? Aren't I cool to be so in the loop?"
I saw it in leadership, under the guise of "helping" people. "Oh, did you know so-and-so never cleans her house? We need to help her in that area of her walk." Pssst pssst pssst, whisper, whisper, whisper. I was no angel. I got caught up in it sometimes, too.
Maybe our lives were so boring that a little buzz about someone getting kicked off staff for getting drunk and wrecking one of the HQ vehicles put a little excitement in life...sorta like a soap opera.
I don't think it makes me cool if I know someone has a past he or she isn't proud of. I think it makes me even less cool if I have to show how "in the know" I am by trotting out someone's dirty laundry--whether real or imagined--for all to cluck their tongues at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Reading all this makes me glad I don't know any names to name.
;)-->
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.