Naming Names.

[Mod Kirk]

quote:

Originally posted by Cindy!:

1. 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"

2. 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.

3. 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.

I'll start with where we agree.

3. Absolutely. No exceptions.

2. Tough call. It might be time to go over personal safety precautions like being careful not to post too much private information that others can use against you. It's nice to think that we are among friends but too often we are not. When you say 'hurt someone else' if the 'hurt' is something real, like threats of injury, they should be banned. What are you thinking of as far as hurting someone else?

1. Maybe the person never reads grease spot so how do they know? When they sometimes do read grease spot and read about themselves they send an email and ask us to delete all the references to them which is very time consuming to find the posts. I would rather they not be named to begin with.

I would also like to add that even though there has been some controversy over using the moderator alert, it is very helpful to the moderators when a potential problem is pointed out. No one has time to read all the threads.

Steve, I was going to answer your question but Krysilis already did.

Raf, Thank you for expanding on some very valid reasons for keeping names to a minimum. Someone once suggested that it is wise not to post anything that you do not want read back to you in court. I don't think any of us wants the hassle of defending ourselves in court.

Linda, Good points.

[Cindy!]

First let me clarify something. I am certainly not advocating putting someone's full name in posts, but rather using the symbols and etc. that have been used up until this point when posting about someone (and which keeps them from showing up on a Google).

Let me also clarify that I very much agree with you about the rumors. In the thread on ordained women, I brought up a person who did do significant damage to me. It was ignored in favor of rumors of sexual misconduct (which, is the hearsay I spoke of in my other post) and my deep hurt was buried and then erased because of those who threw rumors into the works.

It was out of line, immature, and totally overshadowed the real and very deep damage that person did to me personally, first hand, no rumors involved.

Now...onto those three points:

quote:

What are you thinking of as far as hurting someone else?

By that I mean if they are going on to hurt someone else in the context of the post or thread. (i.e. through twi 1 and/or 2 tactics)

quote:

When they sometimes do read grease spot and read about themselves they send an email and ask us to delete all the references to them which is very time consuming to find the posts. I would rather they not be named to begin with.

I agree that this would be a problem, if full names are used or even sometimes if a partial name is used.

Rather than the moderators going in to change where all the names are posted...why not allow individual posters to do that by directing those who email you to the original posters?

After all...if they were posted about...perhaps they need to deal directly with someone they have done damage to.

I see where it is the moderators job to keep things real, non-threatening, and fair. But how far should that job extend?

I totally get that what is posted here is in Pawtucket's sphere of activity. And if a lawsuit is threatened, it certainly behooves us at GS to remove whatever it is that would lead us to court.

But I totally don't get why we should enforce, in a community concerned with getting over the many hurts and deep damage done by a cult, the protection of those who did that damage when we are not immediately threatened with a law suit.

I, as a poster, who has been edited once or twice by moderators at GS would have been happy to edit my own posts had I been told via email or pt or whatever that it was needed.

[LG]

quote:

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?

People need not be named, or even personally identified, in order to be discussed. In most cases, "my former branch leader [or whatever]" would serve just as well as the person's name.

quote:

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"

In few cases in a public forum do first person accounts need to name other people in order to be convincing or effective for the purposes of venting, informing, or seeking understanding. In some cases, a few participants in a public discussion might find naming names to be useful, whereas most wouldn't. Private discussions among those people would serve their purposes, without plastering other people's names all over a public forum.

quote:

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.

They usually are not hearsay but they could easily be slander.

I have all sorts of stories I could tell of terrible things people have done. I could tell every one of them without using a single name, and most of them without disclosing enough information for even the most diligent researcher without personal knowledge of the events to discover the identity of the people involved.

I think the best policy (I'm talking personal, not forum) is to avoid naming names, or even specifically identifying people, unless it is essential to the story.

[krys]

Cindy! said:

quote:

Rather than the moderators going in to change where all the names are posted...why not allow individual posters to do that by directing those who email you to the original posters?

IMNSHO that would take as long as correcting the post, or even longer

Cindy! also said:

quote:

After all...if they were posted about...perhaps they need to deal directly with someone they have done damage to.

You and I are strong enough within ourselves to do this. Not everybody is. Those newly out, or those less healed are at a supreme disadvantage. In addition, that blows anonymity away since the poster would of necessity reveal his email addy in so doing.

Cindy! further said:

quote:

I see where it is the moderators job to keep things real, non-threatening, and fair. But how far should that job extend?

That job should extend as far as the site's owner decides it should extend.

Maybe somebody should open a site where names are clearly spelled out and no holds barred...that would solve this problem, but I don't think there would be many who post there.

[lindyhopper]

OK getting back to moddishwasher.

My extensive experience in the service industry has finally become useful.

mod= manager on duty

dishwasher= lowest on the totem.

inotherwords, moddishwasher does it all and plays the tamberine while doing it, but he doesn't get tips.

And now for a list of one hundred names I'm not supposed to type.

OK, I won't do that to you.

[vickles]

A lot of us may have done some things in twi that we aren't proud of that maybe hurt someone in what we thought was the name of God. Twenty or thirty years later having a family and grandchildren I would not want my name being talked about in that fashion.

I think our life stories can be told without the names.

[dmiller]

quote:

I think our life stories can be told without the names.

Pretty much true, vickles. A lot of specific events make just as much sense when one knows what happened, without knowing *who done it*.

[CoolWaters]

A couple or three (or more...I fergetted) years ago I started a thread in "About the Way" forum. It was directed to a couple of offshoot ministers. In the subject of the thread I used the first and last letters of their first and last names, with * for the rest of their names.

I was currently dealing with these folks in 3D life. They would not hear me. They M&A'd me. They told me I was worthless.

I brought the whole thing to GSC for a couple of reasons...one obvious (offshoots and their practices is an important discussion in one's recovery)...one became obvious (once their actions were discussed here on GSC, they couldn't sweep me under the rug and tell their followers that I 'copped out').

Well, these ministers weren't too happy about being discussed at GSC. Although they are registered here and read here, they do not post here...because they feel they are 'above' the rest of us.

Anyway, they backed off on the M&A stuff, they started 'praying' for me instead of discussing me as topic when 'dealing with the devil', and they at least gave me a chance to talk with them.

In the end, the results were the same, though: they were better than me and I was pathetic.

So did posting help?

YES!!!!

How?

1)I got to do something denied to me in twi: I got to have a face-to-face with my accusers.

2)Others involved got the whole story and were able to see that the group perpetuates the errors of twi.

3)I got a whole lot of badly needed comfort and support.

Would I do it again?

I have since apologized to these ministers for using their names in any form. I think that the shaming involved in using a form of their names was more than they could bear...and probably did more to hinder matters than to help matters...and was no different than what they were doing to me.

However, I would certainly come here again and discuss things openly...just wouldn't name names.

The open discussion of the abuses is absolutely the most freeing, most healing, most needed thing, imo.

Returning abuse for abuse is not.

IMO...and speaking only for my own self.

[coolchef1248 @adelphia.net]

i've said it before i'll say it again.

if i hurt people'and i know i have,i would want my name posted so i could come face to face and say i'm sorry

the old story call a spade a spade

[CoolWaters]

OK, cc, you do something really awful to me...then I'll post it out here in the Open Forum...then we can have some fun! ;)-->

I think you probably wouldn't/haven't hurt anybody quite as deeply or as cruelly as what I had been talking about...or as what others have talked about...you're just too open and honest...at least it seems that way here.

[coolchef1248 @adelphia.net]

coolwaters

thanks for the vote of confidence :o-->

but i was responsible for my best friends divorce years ago

i was a twig leader and this advice to encourage divorce came from the mog above and i was dumb enough to listen. should have know something was rotten in ohio then

still feel bad about it today but thankfully he is still a good buddy

[CoolWaters]

Oh. Wow.

It's hard to think about/remember what I was like in twi. My daughter is 28yo and is just now opening up about what it was like to be raised in twi.

I often feel as though I should have been shot.

{{{{{coolchef}}}}}

At least we're willing to be held accountable and face the music...and actually change.

[coolchef1248 @adelphia.net]

thanks for the hug coolwaters i needed that!

[CoolWaters]

:)--> Any time.

I needed this little conversation. :)-->

[TheSongRemainsTheSame]

To The Mod

quote:

...seems to me all the rules and rules within rules of conduct will bind you up in much details of rules within rules of conduct...

[TheSongRemainsTheSame]

Ya Know this thread is quite rather extra orDinarly fascinating.

I do dare say a suggestion of a:

>Table Of Contents

>When the thread subject title is changed note the beginning page #.

This thread has become a streaming flow of rules of conduct in practice~~~

Dig it Mod

[templelady]

Okay CW I'll shoot you and you shoot me and then our kids will be all okay

If it would really make them all okay I'd go for it in a new York minute as I'm sure you would

But back to naming names --I posted here for years about what I went through without naming names. The fact that there is at least one name I can name now in these past few weeks --does not change the fact that there are others I can't. It's the facts that are important--the facts don't become less factual just because you have to use initials or symbols

[CoolWaters]

Yer right Mo...if I thought it'd do any good now, I'd do it myself in a heartbeat. But it won't...and time is proving that my being here to help her out is finally being the one thing that does help.

It is very freeing to be able to openly talk about Rich, isn't it?

[templelady]

quote:

It is very freeing to be able to openly talk about Rich, isn't it?

Yeah has opened kind of a Pandora's box for me--but the last three days have been a catharsis and of course the love and support here at GS has been great.

But I still think the No names policy is a good one-- UNless there are court documents to substantiate the allegations-- otherwise there is a lot of damage that can be inflicted--what we went thru was 95% of idle people with big mouths blabbing opinions and garbage that got taken as gospel by the uninformed.

I don't want to be the cause of someone else's pain

[rhino]

I guess there could be an issue of slander, but I think if a "leader" was using his position to take advantage of people in any way, then someone with knowledge of that should speak out. John Lynn comes to mind, and I liked John, but in like '87 or so he was visiting fellowships, and was laying this rap like he didn't know sex outside his marriage was wrong. I think he heard me groan, cuz he said something like "ok, well, I guess I coulda figured it out" Years later I heard he was demoted or whatever cuz of inappropriate actions.

I didn't want to pull people out of fellowships especially when I left, but in retrospect maybe I should have revealed more. Spreading rumors would be bad of course, but a mountain of second hand evidence from reliable sources counts for something.

Fortunately I guess, none of the leaders ever tried to have sex with me. I guess they just weren't attracted to 6' 5" guys lol I spent a little early morning time with VP in his coach once, but he didn't even grab my leg. :)-->

[CoolWaters]

quote:

Originally posted by templelady:

But I still think the No names policy is a good one-- UNless there are court documents to substantiate the allegations-- otherwise there is a lot of damage that can be inflicted--what we went thru was 95% of idle people with big mouths blabbing opinions and garbage that got taken as gospel by the uninformed.

I don't want to be the cause of someone else's pain

Absolute, 100% agreement!

Edited September 15, 2005 by CoolWaters