Posted by Farmer on December 14, 2011 at 17:14:50
In Reply to: Re: FYI posted by Coordinator on December 14, 2011 at 13:04:31:
I think you're referring to this post of Thinker!?:
I mean no offense, but your posting style is a bit vague, so I'm not sure what it is that you're getting at, or if you even mean to discuss anything at all. There was a lot else which I stated in response to Joseph Stockett, but you seem to have honed in on a divergent topic of conspiracy. If you mean to state that TFI was in cohorts with the Freemasons, then please state so plainly and we can go from there.
Though his wish for clarification is rather directed to just content ..thought of the thread..and not so much the personal standing...being in or out of TFI...whatever that is exactly (meaning there might be some sympathisers, who are not technically "in"...paying e.g. any tithe and there are others, who pay a little something to get the latest pubs...to use that against TFI...I am not belonging to either group, but just saying, discernment isn't that easy in an anonymous forum)
We do defend the right of people to use anonymous handles, but we do expect people to be at least be straightforward and clear about whether they are in or out. Of course, that could prove difficult if they themselves are not entirely clear. But whether in or out doesn't make them any less anonymous, in the sense they could be "anonymously in" or "anonymously out."
Why is this in or out thing important? We've had quite a few pretenders trying to insinuate themselves into the company of ex-members. We do prioirtize the wellbeing of ex-members, so it's no good if they feel tricked or revictimized by deceit and the mind games of TFI.
Going over your recent replies to me again...to see what I could have forgotten/missed...I must say I am a "tiny bit confused" ; ) ....to me it reads now & still as if for the majority of cases it's not too "wise"/necessary to "corner" people/posters, whether they are in or out...but depending on the situation/thread or for the sake of the whole board or some particular victim of abuse e.g. it could be necessary to confront someone with the question...Is that it???
So who decides to "corner" a poster, whether he/ she is in or out??...for me ...my very personal...limited view the situation...dialogue with FH didn't warrant such a "cornering" at all...though it'd be nice...as I stated even in the incident with Pete etc...I personally preferred if people would be straightforward right from the start (May be I am "conservative...having meant then the etiquette)...but realised, that'd be may be a bit too much expected and there are people still playing mind-games...obfuscating...deceiving...I realise that...but then the wording gives it away probably sooner or later...but again, who decides when to ask someone straightforward and expecting an answer...all can do that????
Posted by Coordinator on September 02, 2011 at 17:34:06
In Reply to: Re: Still too much filth in the world/internet posted by Farmer on September 02, 2011 at 15:49:22:
You left out "current member." I now know for a fact that a number of current members are posing as ex-members or "outsiders" in the wake of the recent TFI deregulations. It seems that since the lines have been blurred on membership/discipleship requirements, they are taking the opportunity to make it cut both ways and claim they are not members. They've taken to sending us emails trying to tell us how we should run our site.
(Note: I am not saying anything about Pete).
Having said the above however, on the request that people identify themselves as FGA/SGA/outsider, I would recommend against it. It is somewhat against the anonymity rules we have set up. Although helpful, it is not entirely necessary for people to know "who" they are talking to, and in fact can often distract from the subject at hand, or create unintentional patronization. People post what they post and should stand on their own merit and be treated on "equal footing" so to speak.
Posted by Coordinator on September 04, 2011 at 06:43:05
In Reply to: Re: "Halt! Who goes there?" posted by Farmer on September 02, 2011 at 20:46:17:
It can be pretty annoying when you don't know who you're dealing with. When people don't introduce themselves it creates an impression of sniping--someone firing a shot from the cover of anonymity.
We've had to ask the odd poster ourselves to speak plainly about their membership. Sometimes it's so obvious they are members, yet they deny it and masquerade as ex-members, and all they ever do is try to blur the lines about everything, essentially even their own membership status.
Still, I think it's not always necessary to confront someone about whether they are in or out right off the bat. I would suggest trying to reply as far as you can without asking "who" it is you're dealing with, until it becomes impossible to do so because you need context or suspect obfuscation.
Posted by Coordinator on September 05, 2011 at 10:27:21
In Reply to: Re: Snipers.. Good one posted by Farmer on September 04, 2011 at 09:22:04:
Our stance on protecting anonymity comes from the fact that people often have a lot to share, but don't want to be or can't afford to be identified or connected to the issue at hand. We've had everyone from newcomer-outsiders who needed to ask about their girlfriend in the cult from the cult, to regular posters who want to ask or confess something sensitive on the condition of anonymity.
Replies to this Post:
Post a Reply