Private Discussion (page 2)

Violia

I like the idea of someone personally vouching for a poster in a private area.

Simon

There is no way to realistically identify someone ... even if you get their true name and address - how are we supposed to know who they are and why they are on the board?

The members-only area is open to everyone who registers. I guess I could make membership contain an agreement that they are not a representative of the WTS or local congregation but that is a bit restrictive and again, what happens if they are?

Whatever time period or limitation of membership you think of just pushes back the problem but doesn't solve it. So people will wait 30 days before getting access? They still get access !!

The only thing I can think of is using mutual authentication where going into the private area means that YOUR personal information is available to everyone else in there. This brings other issues though as there are enough weirdo freaks about that I wouldn't do that.

Ultimately, you are posting something on the internet and have to take personal responsibility for what you expose. The real problem is that people allow the WTS and JC 'power' by going along with it. Better to tell them to fuck off or simply lie and say that someone else has posted that information to set you up and you know nothing about it.

bohm

simon - pm.

besty

Ultimately, you are posting something on the internet and have to take personal responsibility for what you expose. The real problem is that people allow the WTS and JC 'power' by going along with it. Better to tell them to fuck off or simply lie and say that someone else has posted that information to set you up and you know nothing about it.

Totally agree. The more 'fuck offs' the WTS drone enforcers get the better IMHO.

I still think there is value in the concept of people that know and trust each other being able to share stuff they wouldn't be comfortable sharing in a more public setting.

Is there mileage in the 'invite only' idea without ID'ing anyone? Starting with the Mods inviting people they know and trust and let it virally grow from there? Make some suggested criteria for invitations and let it propogate? Maybe 5000 posts gets you automatic entry?

The simplest solution is of course to rename Private Discussion and Support to something more reflective of its public nature;-)

besty

on second thought -- that might be hard to negotiate. Everyone would have to have a private area to share things with and then if you wanted to share some things with some people and not others you might was folders withing folders. If the info is so personal then PM it

Lee - my concept is to have a sub-group of the main discussion board. It would be a discussion board with a selected number of members, but still a discussion board - all the sub-group members would see all the threads. But you may be more comfortable sharing more private matters when you know only a few trusted members can see it.

mamalove

I have often wondered that too. The internet is never private. Even 'elders' are supposed to keep things private, do they always? Confidentiality is really uncommon. Arrogant little ass that caused nugget and cantleave trouble!!

sleepingbeauty

I think the only reason why Cantleave & Nugget were found out was because Cantleaves facebook privacy settings became exposed when he upgraded to the New Profile... This meant his ID for here was exposed to all that knew him. Otherwise I agree a private section on here would be good. Not sure it would be full proof but its a start :)

xx

MMXIV

It's a really good idea even if my humble post count will exclude me for a few years to come.

One question - we know the WTS has members who monitor here and maybe post as well. It may take them a while but some bethelite might eventually infiltrate over time. I wouldn't put personal information in a private area that one day could be compromised.

mmxiv

GLTirebiter

Perhaps there could be a way to have personal messages address more than one person, instead of only one? That way a private discussion could involve more than two parties without being open to all members. If that won't upset the balance of public discussion vs. privacy, please consider it for a future upgrade to the board.

Finally-Free

I guess I could make membership contain an agreement that they are not a representative of the WTS or local congregation but that is a bit restrictive and again, what happens if they are?

I don't think that would weed out elders who like to use their "theocratic warefare" loophole.

W

Private Discussion

Share this