I am sick and tired of the handful users who swamp this message board with endless posts on subjects like Padgett etc. It has no other mission than to destroy this message board. So, I will soon do the following:

1. I will randomly check topics and when I see users who starts posting off subject in a topic, I will disable their user temporarily.

2. Users who are, according to my judgment, not acting politely and friendly, or have anything constructive to add, will also be temporary banned if they can’t restrain from posting.

3. If all this does not better the current situation immediately, then I will close down all unmoderated topics and either remove them or make them moderated.

I repeat that I am not into this fight against CoS to play nanny for immature brats on this message board. I do not want to spend my time moderating OCMB. I'd rather remove the whole thing. I just don't have time!! I'm sick of my money and time being abused by idiots with absolutely no self-control.

I have little time to handle complaints and to monitor every topic and post. I will rely on judgment sampling and tip from other users. Like my decisions or not, I pay for this so learn to live with it or spend your time and money to make your own message board somewhere else.

I am being forced against my will to choose between the following alternatives:

1. Let the current development continue and allow a few destroy OCMB like others did with ARS.

2. Abandon the idea that it is possible to have an open message board and start to put restrictions on it, like banning users and moderate all topics.

3. Shut down OCMB.

Option 1 and 3 will be in contradiction to the meaning with this site, 1 being worse since it also helps those who want to stop us. My best option is 2, so I’ll try it first if I have to.

I feel the need to point out that I have tried hard and long to keep OCMB as an 100 % free and open arena for all. I have several times before warned that I will change this board if its users can not sort out the troublemakers.

I am currently away on travel and very busy so you all have the opportunity now to post your reactions to this before I come back and implement it. Let me know if you think I am right or wrong, I want your opinions!

It is sad if the users here who work for the cult win this battle, but at least we got a few years where it did work well. Most of us know who these people are and we are able to avoid spending time on them. Maybe it could have worked if more people did?

Andreas wrote: I am sick and tired of the handful users who swamp this message board with endless posts on subjects like Padgett etc. It has no other mission than to destroy this message board.

I disagree with your assertion that it has no other mission than to destroy the message board.

Your willingness to allow Padgett and Tigger to use this message board to further their own vendettas (e.g., Tigger's 3 July 2003 post The Real DIANE & KEITH) is what destroyed your message board.

It's your message board and you can do whatever you like with it. I wouldn't be here if you stopped Padgett and Tigger from using the place to forward their lies about me and Keith. But you haven't stopped them from doing anything of the sort.

If you're going to ban me for telling the truth, do it now. If you're going to allow your board to be hijacked by liars interested in nothing but furthering their lies, I'd be proud to be banned from it.

Years ago, there was another all theta all the time message board around. It was the AOL Scientology board. I got banned from there, too.
If your idea of discussion includes banning opinions you don't agree with, I'd be honored to have you - as well as the CoS - ban me from speaking out.

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Well Andreas, I'm glad you've made a statement, and I'm certainly happy to go along with whatever you determine, and if for example that means no further participation by me, I'm okay with that too.

I do wonder about your assessment that It has no other mission than to destroy this message board. I know that most certainly isn't my mission, and you feel that is my intention, I'm quite devastated.

But most importantly, your ..if the users here who work for the cult ....most of us know who these people are.. really surprises me the most. Can you be specific ?

I'll make no further comments or responses on this thread until Andreas makes whatever decisions he arrives at.

Amen. I agree with you 100 percent.

I thank you for your message board and all that you have done. I will try my best to abide by your guidelines.

I apologize for mistakes I have made in the past and I will do my darndest not to repeat them even when faced with people making false accusations and bringing a family name into it.

Best Wishes,

Tigger

Andreas,

I agree with your intention to clean up this message board. Some here have little self control and cannot stop posting off-topic. Those people constitute only a fraction of the posters.

I won't miss them at all.

I disagree that most of those posters have as their primary purpose to disrupt this board. The disrupters have many times posted their reasons for posting the way that they do, and I believe they are sincere. I also believe they are misguided in those purposes. They continue to ignore your purpose for this forum and think that THEIR purposes are somehow more righteous, more important or better in some way.

They are wrong, and childishly stubborn in their efforts to impose their own ideas of what constitutes on-topic discussion on this forum.

I personally don't give a damn if Diane would be proud to be banned from this board or if other posters would be enraged that they can no longer criticize other posters ad nauseum. Each poster has their own idea of what constitutes on-topic discussions, but there is a problem when those ideas disagree with the stated purpose for this board.

So be it. Ban those who disagree with your purpose and won't follow your guidelines of "polite and friendly" (and on-topic) and lets get on with our constructive and friendly discussions that fulfill your stated purposes, to expose Scientology, and to discuss Scientology issues in a polite, friendly and constructive manner.

I have been embarrassed that visitors to this site can't help but see a lot of stupid in-fighting between critics instead of rational on-topic discussions. The critics here often appear to be in worse shape than the cult they supposedly are criticizing! We critics should be united in our purpose to expose Scientology but instead a few choose to fight each other on this public stage, making all of us less and also making our efforts less fruitful IMO.

I fully support your decision to restrict or ban posters who won't follow your guidelines. I believe that your purpose for this board is a good one - there is no other forum that I know of that can help visitors to learn more about the dark side of Scientology in a non-hostile atmosphere.

I have to say finally that I do respect some of the posters who have been the worst off-topic offenders, and I also think that their posts would be appropriate to other forums such as A.R.S. or Factnet, but not OCMB.

That those posters don't understand the differences between forums or cannot appreciate your intentions for this board after you have explained those intentions repeatedly is very disappointing.

Like Tigger, I promise to try to keep my posts on-topic, constructive and friendly.

Galileo, I think Andreas may be referring to the multitude of anon posters, both pro and con, who have suddently appeared within the past few weeks and whose only purpuse seems to be to "encourage" R & S to stay here and keep this flamewar roaring hot until it burns down the message board.

They could be OSA and their pupose could be to destroy this message board and the website.

Just my 2 cents,

Tigger

Tigger,

I didn't get that impression at all.

Andreas said he would like the users to "sort out the troublemakers." Are those the principle six posters in the TP saga who have contributed 90% of all the off-topic posts, or just the newbies/sockpuppets/anons that you suggest are fanning the flames?

Do you think that if the newbies/anons/sockpuppets didn't post that the Padgett threads would die?

Blaming the newbies/anons/sockpuppets doesn't really get at the root of the problem, does it?

"I am sick and tired of the handful (of) users who swamp this message board with endless posts on subjects like Padgett etc."

To me that seems to describe the principle posters who initiate Padgett threads or off-topic posts, not the hangers-on who occasionally respond.

Tigger wrote:

"Galileo, I think Andreas may be referring to the multitude of anon posters, both pro and con, who have suddently appeared within the past few weeks and whose only purpuse seems to be to "encourage" R & S to stay here and keep this flamewar roaring hot until it burns down the message board."

I do think anon and pseudonymous posters are a problem. Many people feel that having total anonymity is necessary. I disagree with that, but nonetheless, there are means by which posters could be restricted to posting under one identity (even an anonymous identity) at a time.

To me, posting under multiple nicks is not "polite and friendly."

I'm sure the moderators could confirm that the only posts coming from Diane and me are from consistent IP addresses that are not used by any other nicks.

I'm sure there are other IP addresses (or ranges, if the assignment is dynamic) generating several nicks.

What would anyone here think of a person who sent you several emails in a few days, from different addresses and identities, playing different angles on whatever they were interested in? Whatever else it is, I would not consider that polite and friendly and I think that goes for multiple identies on this BB.

Of course, moderators should not reveal IP addresses or other server-logged identifying info unless there is some extreme situation. But they could confirm that X and Y and Z are the same poster and announce that.

I think such action could only serve to eliminate a great deal of ad hominem and other problems from this BB.

K

The sockpuppets really extended the threads unnecessarily. Dont demonize Diane (for example) because she was forced to fend off 2 nasty Padgett entities ad infinitum.

I think everyone needs to cool off before making any rash statements.

On positive note: Don Carlo and others have stated that Diane and Keith have "raised the bar" with their debating style and should be encouraged to engage other non-tom discussions.

I am ignoring my anger about this and would like to see something positive come out of it.

If Andreas addresses the sockpuppet issue along with his other concerns that would be fair.
Otherewise the sockpuppets win,and that is wrong.

Thanks to Andreas this board is well known for it's integrity. I hope that doesnt change. Please give us a heads up cut off date and I will oblige. (I have no choice)

Michael Greenberg

Keith,

That is an excellent point, as is the point about ad hominems made by both Merlin and Diane.

But ya know something has been bugging me ever since the flamewars of last fall. I will address it in my next post.

Andreas,

What has most bothered you about the latest posting going on recently and the similar postings of last fall?

1 - Posts about Padgett and his divorce are off topic for the purpose of this forum?
2 - Posts about other posters are off topic?
3 - Posters are not posting in a polite and friendly manner?
4 - Posting ad hominem attacks instead of sticking to the subjects?
5 - The sockpuppets or multiple posting nicks used by some posters?
6 - The posting styles of anonymous posters inflame and divert some discussions?
7 - Others?

I would like to know which of these, combinations of these or other aspects of the latest posts bother you the most and why.

Its your forum. What do you most want to see disappear from these discussions?

Any more questions you posters can think of along those lines?

Hi Andreas

I second your decision to put restrictions on the messageboard for a while.

I think it will be good with moderation for a while so we can find a way to use this messageboard to undress Scientology and help people leaving the Church of Scientology. I have been greatly helped by various members here and I find it utterly important that this place exists to those in need of forum where they can freely (or at least relatively safe) talk with ex-CoS members/ex-scientologists about their experiences and get advise and questions answered.

Being fairly new to this board myself I can say that what bothers me most is

1) The assumption that everyone know who these people (Keith, Tom, Diane etc.) are, their relationship with one another and the topic of their ongoing discussions. Newcomers to this board don't have a clue to what is going on.

2) That these same people obviously have been discussing what ever they are discussing for ages and aren't able to end the discussion. And they can't withhold pushing each others buttons, whenever an opportunity raises.

Sarah

I would encourage and promote discussion about the scientology beast, and undressing it.

I would also agree that there's a few who's mission here is to shut down this forum;

1) OSA

2) the dobies (chosing Alfred's words)

This site is great and should be respected and preserved.

Dr. Pepper

As I recall, Don Carlo has not said anything about Keith Spurgeon's debating style or anything about Diane Richardson's debating style re: Tom Padgett. Don Carlo, did say something like that about DR's posts re: Bernie.

I have a suggestion which is also posted on another thread:

Here's a solution.

Ban Tom Padgett from saying the names of (and anything to and/or about) Diane Richardson, Keith Spurgeon and Michael Greenberg.

Ban Diane Richardson, Keith Spurgeon and Michael Greenberg from saying the name of (and anything to and/or about) Tom Padgett.

Hey, you can include me in that.
I would BE EXTREMELY HAPPY to have this ban.
Ban me from saying the names (and anything to and/or about) D.S.& G.

Ban D. S. & G. from saying the "name's" of (and anything to and/or about) me.

This, IMO, would soon get rid of the flamewar.

There is no reason why, if Diane, Keith, Michael and/or Tom or anyone else, including Merlin, want to continue this, they can't do it on a.r.s.

Sincerely,

Tigger

Hello Andreas,

What about restricting discussion of a particular subject and the various subject positions surrounding that particular subject to one thread.

Disallow access of that subject to any ongoing or new thread topics.

Rather than banning posters involved in that subject, simply ban the subject/topic/debate from any other threads but its own.

All I can think of on the run, and don't know if you have the software or whatever its called in place to do that.

This message board has been a refuge and an education for so many in their experiences with the church of scientology.

That's the main service this board provides; it needn't become a battleground for any reason whatsoever. If people can't respect your effort and your purpose here, Andreas, phuck 'em. Do what you have to do to get it back to helping people who have questions about the cult re family members, or in general, or who need help getting out.

Best,
BG

P.S. I'm on extended vacation, with occasional pit stops back home, so have not absented myself because of any flamewars.