Marvin there is nothing substantive about the so called discussion you are engaging in.
The Outing of Faders, and the Epilogue of Sic Semper Tyrannis
by zed is dead 298 Replies latest members private
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Marvin there is nothing substantive about the so called discussion you are engaging in.”
Slimboyfat,
Everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they wish. I disagree with your assessment because this whole discussion is of injury caused by a second party, and nothing reduces risk of injury like good communication. Hence having a better understanding of individuals and what they are communicating is always a meaningful and important aspect of any discussion.
A natural progression of discussion is to seek clarity. If seeking clarity is not substantive then what is?
Honestly, one of the primary reasons the BBXB roll out was such a fiasco was precisely because of less-than-stellar communication. In particular, it should have been made pointedly clear 1) who could build authorized online groups, 2) how and 3) when names could be displayed (if ever!) and 4) what controls were in place to safeguard against the multiple failures that occurred and that caused harm.
Marvin Shilmer
-
slimboyfat
You'd make great filibuster that's for sure.
-
zed is dead
I just wanted to post a message to Cedars and Marvin from SST:
"Of course Cedars doesn't recollect the exchange. He ended up accusing me of being one of the JWN mob who was seeking to destroy him. In other words, he didn't believe me and never did. Now Marvin Shilmer is claiming that the information I provided was not enough to disfellowship someone. Excuse me? They had witnesses and digital proof that I was in an Anti-WT group on Facebook. I denied being an apostate, but the proof they had overruled my claims. When elders want to DF you, they DF you no matter how flimsy or circumstantial the evidence is. Marvin should know that already." zed
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Now Marvin Shilmer is claiming that the information I provided was not enough to disfellowship someone. Excuse me? They had witnesses and digital proof that I was in an Anti-WT group on Facebook. I denied being an apostate, but the proof they had overruled my claims. When elders want to DF you, they DF you no matter how flimsy or circumstantial the evidence is.”
This claim only gets murkier.
First, how can there be digital evidence that someone was part of a particular anti-Watchtower group when the individual never joined the anti-Watchtower group?
Second, now we’ve gone from “printouts of the FB group's mission” and “two witnesses” to “witnesses and digital proof.” SST is aware of defenses because he speaks of one in this context saying “At least with a deleted group I could have used the 'what group?' defense.” So why not defend himself with the simple truth that he had not joined the group as claimed and if anyone thought otherwise all they had to do is check the claim against bona fide digital evidence?
Or, are we to think elders are trained to think—or otherwise believe—if they read something on the internet then it must be true at face value? That goes contrary to everything Watchtower drills into elders at training session after training session. A French model comes to mind.
When I read this overall claim it looks tailor made to fit such a tight profile (time, circumstances, failure of BBXB to have done the precise thing SST and zed advocated for, etc) that it’s an improbable set of coincidences, though not impossible. But on top of this we have statements of evidence presented to a judicial committee representing nothing anyone can be disfellowshipped for based on Watchtower’s relentless training of elders. When this is pointed out, we have an added claim of “digital proof”.
If SST did not join the anti-Watchtower group then there is no digital evidence that he had anything at all to do with the group.
There is no denying BBXB could have and should have acted very different than it did, and I’m sure folks were harmed as a result. Everyone and anyone with leadership in the group holds responsibility for this. But the SST incident sounds contrived for all the reasons I’ve shared earlier in this discussion, and the things immediately above in this post.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon
Marvin - I believe the issue was that other people added them, not that people chose to join.
But here's the reason for doing things properly: it avoids any claim that doing things wrong caused harm.
It doesn't matter whether a claim can be proven as true or not as that can be impossible - you're then left with two sides making claims and no way to decide.
That is why you need to have policies so that if there is an accusation you can say "no, that is simply not possible because of these safeguards ...". If you can't do that then people have a right to assume that the claims that cannot be proven or disproven may actually be valid.
That is what AAWA still haven't seemed to have learnt. It's easy to think of ways to maliciously cause the group harm using their present policies. If we can think of it then anyone can think of it and ultimately anything that can happen has a habbit of happening eventually.
Part of the responsibility of running a group is doing thorough risk assessment and ensuring that your policies and processes are robust and sufficient to protect everyone concerned (including volunteers etc...). Any organisation that suffers an incident should first check it's policies to see how they can be strengthened, not look for ways to deny it happend. That doesn't work when it's clear that something can happen.
-
UnConfused
I'll only comment on one thing here, Marvin, your rabid assertion of " Watchtower’s relentless training of elders"
I was once threatened with df'ing for "resisting the authority of the congregation". Specifically I refused to meet with them in the particular way they wanted.
Only by going to the D.O. was I able to shake that charge.
So don't rely on the " Watchtower’s relentless training of elders" as a thing.
You seem to have your mind made up already that this is all a hoax.
Tell us your reason for believing that even before you joined this thread.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon,
The issue of BBXB and Facebook was of force adding individuals to a group they never joined. I agree with that.
I also agree BBXB could have and should have done things properly to avoid causing needless harm.
Whether a particular claim can be assessed as valid or invalid may or may not be achievable. All we can do is look at whatever the claim is. In this particular instance, statements within the claim don’t add up. Then we have the nifty addition of evidence after a glaring lack of evidence is pointed out. This does not mean the particular claim is false, or worse a lie. It only means there is reason to think it contrived.
BBXB has made some atrocious moves. Right out of the box we had that original name. Dreadful. Then things got worse, and for lots of bad reasons.
“Part of the responsibility of running a group is doing thorough risk assessment and ensuring that your policies and processes are robust and sufficient to protect everyone concerned (including volunteers etc...). Any organisation that suffers an incident should first check it's policies to see how they can be strengthened, not look for ways to deny it happend. That doesn't work when it's clear that something can happen.”
I don’t disagree with a single word of that. In fact, I advocate the same—and more—myself.
Marvin Shilmer
-
problemaddict
If I was outed would it be bad? Yes.
If I was outed would it be deniable? You betcha.
I have no idea how an affiliation with a group on FB where you can literally claim you had nothing to do with it, would end up in disfellowshipping. If I was force added, I would kill the membership, close the account, and if anyone came calling tell them I had a buddy of mine go apostate and he added me to the group against my will.
Done. End of story.
Purposely outing someone here = evil.
Mistakenly outing someone here = tragic.
Everyone involved in SST's outing bears a certain amount of responsibility.....including SST just a wee bit don't you think?
I mean......nobody is outing this guy (or girl....or thing).
-
Simon
After a case of information exposure and lack of trust, the last things someone likely wants or is willing to do is provide the same group with additional personal information. So lack of evidence being available is not totally surprising.
Yes, evidence is great when you have it but not having it doesn't mean that something didn't happen.
(and I'm aware this is different to criminal court / presumption of innocence etc...)