Scilon handlers on Facebook

Radio Paul · **Joined:** Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:57 am **Posts:** 341

Don Carlo wrote:

Andreas' goals are free speech, being law-abiding, and respect for individuals. So the mods have to do a balancing act.

I have an additional goal which is loyalty to Andreas. I don't want Andreas' site to go through the screech-fest that happened when Helena Kobrin's family home address was posted. The person who posted it might have personally been a victim of Helena, and was sore. a.r.s. had lots of free speech and som really good posters but it was an unpleasant slug-fest much of the time. The Helena-address scandal spilled over to other sites and has been cited to "prove" how awful Scientology critics are. What if a child's photo stayed up, and something strange happened to that child, which then was unfairly but loudly blamed on this site?

I don't know Tim or any other CoS handlers or officials, and of the critics. I've only met Andreas and Tory, and neither of them know my real name. I know these handlers are annoying and even threatening, and I know critics have been arrested for NOTHING in these situations. I can understand the feelings of critics that they want to poke at the handlers. But me being far away means that I don't have anger at this person or that, so I hope I'm not pre-judging any person, and I'm trying to respect the family behind the "bad guy" and the prize that any defection represents. That is the road Tory is taking - talking to Tim as a person.

I would welcome a discussion of board rules. In the meantime, it's very difficult to anticipate every situation. Saying children are always off-limits mean we can't talk about Jett Travolta. Respecting the individual fades as we discuss the top lawyers and Miscavige. We have been ruthlessly mocking Moxon. Allowing the direct-insult "fag" on whyweprotest seems to attract posters who direct nasty personal attacks on gays on that site.

I have been a poster since the 1990's and have seen clones, sock-puppets, trolls, and many catfights that went on for fifty pages. Andreas cut off new registration until we could set up moderators to allow new posters on, to bring new ideas and energy, while moderating to prevent a Thunderdome mess. We didn't have photos back then, or Facebook, or Youtube and the site has had to evolve,. I've only been a mod for a few months (so I don't know about banned posts before that). We try to moderate to avoid the pitfalls of the past, and adapt as technology changes. There will be new technology that will render obsolete a rule made today.

So first you pad your response with a story of giving out someone home address as if to liken that to a photo. Even there you would be wrong to do so if she posted it on the WWW and for all to see and someone reposted it here. It is either public info or it is not. Again peoples speech is subjected to your personal point of view. Now if someone said here is their home address, people should use it to harass them, we could all agree that is illegal and immoral.

The pitfalls of the past and other boards is their tyrannical anti free speech rules. One would think as long as you have been around, that you should know that but clealry that is not the case.

Dorothy · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:38 am

I think it can be a difficult task to draw a line in what is essentially a wide band of gray. Yet that is exactly what the mods have to do. They have to set boundaries, make yes/no black/white decisions about a pool of gray. I don't see the mods here trying to squelch free speech. A mb that has no limits or boundaries on speech would not last a day. Someone asked what rule? DC answered that the offence was off-topic. I agree, it was. Yet some people are never satisfied. So can we please keep the topic on the scilon handlers and keep their family members out of it? Does ocmb really have to stoop to the level of the cult in order to be acceptable to you?

You can try to assassinate the integrity of OCMB and its mods all you want, but you know what? OCMB is still here. It provided Smurf with the means to start his thread "Scilon handlers on FB". If you really think OCMB and its mods are that bad then what are you doing here? You're free to go find a mb with mods that satisfy you, or start your own.

You've "exercised your free speech" quite thoroughly with all your personal insults against the mods and this board, and you have not been banned for it. That fact proves you completely wrong.

Roan · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:49 am

Smurf wrote:

There was until a mod obliterated the OP. It's no wonder some longtime critics no longer post here.

BINGO!

Radio Paul · **Joined:** Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:57 am **Posts:** 341

Dorothy wrote:

I think it can be a difficult task to draw a line in what is essentially a wide band of gray. Yet that is exactly what the mods have to do. They have to set boundaries, make yes/no black/white decisions about a pool of gray. I don't see the mods here trying to squelch free speech. A mb that has no limits or boundaries on speech would not last a day. Someone asked what rule? DC answered that the offence was off-topic. I agree, it was. Yet some people are never satisfied. So can we please keep the topic on the scilon handlers and keep their family members out of it? Does ocmb really have to stoop to the level of the cult in order to be acceptable to you?

You can try to assassinate the integrity of OCMB and its mods all you want, but you know what? OCMB is still here. It provided Smurf with the means to start his thread "Scilon handlers on FB". If you really think OCMB and its mods are that bad then what are you doing here? You're free to go find a mb with mods that satisfy you, or start your own.

You've "exercised your free speech" quite thoroughly with all your personal insults against the mods and this board, and you have not been banned for it. That fact proves you completely wrong.

Actually they just need to draw the line based on the rules they lay down and not make it up as they go along. As far as off topic, are you now going to decide what is on topic? A cult member and his relations is on topic. But that was not the reason the post was f'd with was it. Please stay on topic.

Smurf · **Joined:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am **Posts:** 2681

Don Carlo wrote:

He named them, too. I agree it's not as bad as listing a home address. Facebook is still a novelty for many people, and is a weirdly public situation for Scientologists who aren't even allowed to read newspapers. I bet CoS fears social media can pull members away, yet CoS also fears forbidding Facebook will make young members quit. Meanwhile, the mods get hammered if they leave personal famliy info up. Some people have old grudges against other critics and are happy to have a chance to criticize. Then's it's catfight time, which distracts the regulars and repels new visitors. If the mods try to stop the catfights, they get new complaints. There's no easy answer to this issue.

I was going to stay out of the argument, but your attempts to rationalize your actions, and nitpick, i.e., censoring free speech that doesn't sit well with you, is inappropriate behavior for a mod.

Likewise with another mod who locks threads which were uncomfortable with her, as if OCMB is the mod's personal blog, and act's accordingly. I am part of the united front with the mods in chipping away at the foundation of a destructive cult, but we are very different in our perceptions & approaches in doing so. That is perfectly OK, but to negate another critic's freedom of expression because it doesn't align itself with the mod thinks or believes, makes that mod no different than the way Scientologists deal with their deck of cards.

What I call healthy debate on issues, mods want to write off as catfights and exhortations of "please play nice". I'm fighting a fucking cult that hurts people and destroys lives. I don't play nice. You mention that I listed names. I posted the names of people who had very public Facebook pages. And, you have an issue with this??? Seriously?

Mods have an obligation to keep this board aligned with it's rules and TOS. Taking the extra step to censor comments that don't impede on the rules only denigrates that mod's ability to be objective. I know of a number of people who used to post on this board, who quit due to what they saw as mods using the board as their personal blog, and censoring comments that did not, personally, sit well with them.

Many have mentioned the frustration of seeing their comments to Marty's blog being heavily edited before they're posted or deleted outright because the moderator (Marty) did not like the comments. What are the mods doing on OCMB that is any different?

kitty · **Joined:** Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 61

Don Carlo wrote:

He named them, too. I agree it's not as bad as listing a home address. Facebook is still a novelty for many people, and is a weirdly public situation for Scientologists who aren't even allowed to read newspapers. I bet CoS fears social media can pull members away, yet CoS also fears forbidding Facebook will make young members quit. Meanwhile, the mods get hammered if they leave personal famliy info up. Some people have old grudges against other critics and are happy to have a chance to criticize. Then's it's catfight time, which distracts the regulars and repels new visitors. If the mods try to stop the catfights, they get new complaints. There's no easy answer to this issue.

The "easy answer", I would've thought, is to have the preservation of free speech on OCMB as the default position. Free speech understood as the right to formulate and express opinions within the framework of explicit rules which are intended to ensure that OCMB remains a legal, tolerant, open forum of debate. If occasional censorship of posts is to occur on the basis of the personal judgment of a moderator (i.e. not on account of a rule infringement) this should be in exceptional circumstances only. It shouldn't be a matter of the moderator choosing to impose his/her personal view of what OCMB should ideally be like.

This "easy answer" may not be easy for moderators in the sense that people will hammer them for this or that. But it sounds from what you're saying that the mods are constantly being hammered in any case. At least if they take the line of preserving freedom of speech they'll have the defense that they're following a principled policy -- they won't get stuck with having to argue "I censored x because I personally think y".

Some of your arguments Don Carlo are about whether posts are conducive to getting scientologists out of scientology. If you followed this line consistently you'd have to censor apologists for LRH on the basis that their postings seek to portray him and his religion in a favorable light and may serve to prevent some cult members from seeing the truth and leaving. Surely, though, you would and should permit scientologists to post here because although you disagree with them you respect their right to express themselves as they wish. Are you really willing to commit yourself to censoring any post which may be counter-productive from the point of view of your goal of inducing scientologists to leave the cult?

Dorothy · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:43 pm

Wow we're flying hopelessly off-topic now.

Radio Paul wrote:

Actually they just need to draw the line based on the rules they lay down and not make it up as they go along. As far as off topic, are you now going to decide what is on topic? A cult member and his relations is on topic. But that was not the reason the post was f'd with was it. Please stay on topic.

Uh, I wasn't the one who derailed the thread by turning it into a slap fest about ocmb and its moderation. A rule canot be written for every single situation. I'm not the one to make these judgement calls, Don Carlo is. But you clearly have a problem with that. You're also clearly still upset he locked an earlier thread of yours. So I guess that means you want to be the one to decide, the way you're attempting to bully DC into changing his mind about this particular issue with your attacks and insults.

Don Carlo made a judgement call about a pic that may have crossed the line when it comes to the potential to do reverse Fair Game on scilon handlers by exposing their family members. That is NOT in the spirit of this mb. To then cry "free speech violation" and accuse DC of "playing God", being "drunk with power", "being bottom feeders", "having an agenda", "a tyrant", and ruining the board, is plain ridiculous imo.

I hope DC stands his ground and doesn't give in to your bullying.

Smurf please explain how what DC did stopped "healthy debate" on the topic of this thread. Were you planning to debate some specific issue with the scilon handler's family member(s)? Are you insisting that the posting of pics and other info on scilon handlers' family members should be allowed on ocmb as a matter of policy?

If kitty, RP and Smurf want to debate this, it would be so great if they could at least stick with the exact topic that they are claiming that they want to debate instead of flying into hyperbole world. The sky is not falling guys.

kitty · **Joined:** Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 61

Dorothy wrote:

If kitty, RP and Smurf want to debate this, it would be so great if they could at least stick with the exact topic that they are claiming that they want to debate instead of flying into hyperbole world. The sky is not falling guys.

Could you point to the precise place where any one said or implied that the sky is falling (or anything similar)? If you can't do so then perhaps you need to look closer to home for the person who is "flying into hyperbole world".

TheEvilOfScientology · **Joined:** Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:33 pm **Posts:** 432

If the owner of a photo has posted their image on a public and open platform such as Facebook (assuming their profile is public of course) Twitter, etc., then I don't see any problem with sharing that photo anywhere else, unless it's explicitly stated that it isn't to be shared elsewhere, in which case, I think a link directly to the image is quite acceptable.

Dorothy · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:25 pm

kitty wrote:

Dorothy wrote:

If kitty, RP and Smurf want to debate this, it would be so great if they could at least stick with the exact topic that they are claiming that they want to debate instead of flying into hyperbole world. The sky is not falling guys.

Could you point to the precise place where any one said or implied that the sky is falling (or anything similar)? If you can't do so then perhaps you need to look closer to home for the person who is "flying into hyperbole world".

What is the rule you people want about posting pics of scilon family members? That is what I mean about staying on topic. Yes it is flying into hyperbole world when you turn it into a conspiracy about free speech.

TheEvilOfScientology wrote:

If the owner of a photo has posted their image on a public and open platform such as Facebook (assuming their profile is public of course) Twitter, etc., then I don't see any problem with sharing that photo anywhere else, unless it's explicitly stated that it isn't to be shared elsewhere, in which case, I think a link directly to the image is quite acceptable.

Now that's on topic. I understand your point TEOS, but just because something is posted somewhere else does not mean it automatically passes a litmus test saying it is okay to post here. Using that rationale, anything posted on the internet could be posted here.

RP was crying about not having enough clearly written rules here and how DC is a tyrant because he "makes up the rules as he goes". So WHAT rule do you people want on this subject?

kitty · **Joined:** Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 61

Dorothy wrote:

kitty wrote:

Dorothy wrote:

If kitty, RP and Smurf want to debate this, it would be so great if they could at least stick with the exact topic that they are claiming that they want to debate instead of flying into hyperbole world. The sky is not falling guys.

Could you point to the precise place where any one said or implied that the sky is falling (or anything similar)? If you can't do so then perhaps you need to look closer to home for the person who is "flying into hyperbole world".

What is the rule you people want about posting pics of scilon family members? That is what I mean about staying on topic. Yes it is flying into hyperbole world when you turn it into a conspiracy about free speech.

TheEvilOfScientology wrote:

If the owner of a photo has posted their image on a public and open platform such as Facebook (assuming their profile is public of course) Twitter, etc., then I don't see any problem with sharing that photo anywhere else, unless it's explicitly stated that it isn't to be shared elsewhere, in which case, I think a link directly to the image is quite acceptable.

Now that's on topic. I understand your point TEOS, but just because something is posted somewhere else does not mean it automatically passes a litmus test saying it is okay to post here. Using that rationale, anything posted on the internet could be posted here.

RP was crying about not having enough clearly written rules here and how DC is a tyrant because he "makes up the rules as he goes". So WHAT rule do you people want on this subject?

So actually you can't point to anywhere where anyone has said or implied anything about the sky falling in? And this was just a piece of hyperbole on your part?

I've already stated clearly the principle I think should apply, namely a default preference for free speech within the limits of a framework of rules intended to ensure OCMB remains legal, tolerant, and open. (Nothing hyperbolic about that, surely?)

If you really want that formulated as a rule then a first draft of the rule would be as follows:

Moderators should not censor posts merely because they dislike or disapprove of the content of those posts, even if they are personally strongly convinced that their reasons for disliking or disapproving are compelling. They should always seek to maximize the room for freedom of expression enjoyed by posters on OCMB, while taking appropriate account of the need to ensure that the message board remains legal, tolerant, and open. If moderators feel that the explicit rules of OCMB (as they currently stand) do not allow them to deal appropriately with a particular situation they may employ their own judgment, but they should do this only in exceptional circumstances and should never be cavalier about infringing other people's right to freedom of expression.

I haven't come across any post where RP was "crying about" anything at all. This is just hyperbole and personal abuse. We (you) should be able to discuss this matter rationally without personal attacks.

TheEvilOfScientology · **Joined:** Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:33 pm **Posts:** 432

Dorothy wrote:

Using that rationale, anything posted on the internet could be posted here.

That's right. But in that case, we're talking matters of taste or relevancy, rather than this board's rules, which I do not think have been broken in Smurf's case. Should he have considered the "non-combatants"? Maybe so, but I don't think he broke any rules here.

Is a picture of a cat riding a donkey on a surfboard relevant to OCMB/Scientology? Probably not, but it's not against the rules AFAIK.

Radio Paul · **Joined:** Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:57 am **Posts:** 341

Dorothy wrote:

Wow we're flying hopelessly off-topic now.

Radio Paul wrote:

Actually they just need to draw the line based on the rules they lay down and not make it up as they go along. As far as off topic, are you now going to decide what is on topic? A cult member and his relations is on topic. But that was not the reason the post was f'd with was it. Please stay on topic.

Uh, I wasn't the one who derailed the thread by turning it into a slap fest about ocmb and its moderation. A rule canot be written for every single situation. I'm not the one to make these judgement calls, Don Carlo is. But you clearly have a problem with that. You're also clearly still upset he locked an earlier thread of yours. So I guess that means you want to be the one to decide, the way you're attempting to bully DC into changing his mind about this particular issue with your attacks and insults.

Don Carlo made a judgement call about a pic that may have crossed the line when it comes to the potential to do reverse Fair Game on scilon handlers by exposing their family members. That is NOT in the spirit of this mb. To then cry "free speech violation" and accuse DC of "playing God", being "drunk with power", "being bottom feeders", "having an agenda", "a tyrant", and ruining the board, is plain ridiculous imo.

I hope DC stands his ground and doesn't give in to your bullying.

Smurf please explain how what DC did stopped "healthy debate" on the topic of this thread. Were you planning to debate some specific issue with the scilon handler's family member(s)? Are you insisting that the posting of pics and other info on scilon handlers' family members should be allowed on ocmb as a matter of policy?

If kitty, RP and Smurf want to debate this, it would be so great if they could at least stick with the exact topic that they are claiming that they want to debate instead of flying into hyperbole world. The sky is not falling guys.

How is voicing my position bullying? I think your response is indicative of the problem here. Someone says something you don't like and you want to make it go away. Oh we are debating it on topic exactly on target, the fact you can't see it is fine by me but that is your problem. (A) there is no policy against posting said materials and (B) the removal was not a matter of policy but of personal agenda. OMCB is going to turn in to another Mod Blog and only people who agree with a Mod or how or what they personal want are going to be able to function here. < Yes I think that is more or less what Smurf said and I agree with it whole heartedly. Are we now at a point where we have the Anonymous Tech so perfected we don't allow for any other points of view Etc?

Again you might change your wording to
Are you insisting that the REposting of pics and other info on scilon handlers' family members should be allowed on ocmb as a matter of policy?

Actually yes and no. It does not require a policy to allow it just no policy against it. Why not? I have asked this question repeatedly and can't get an answer other that some Mod has a personal issue with it. THis info is already on the Web and Smurf just moved it here to initiate a discussion on it or perhaps cache it if it were ever removed from the net. No crime has been committed. Yes these people are on topic as for the reason I stated earlier in this thread. Again who gets to decide what is on topic?

kitty · **Joined:** Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:28 pm **Posts:** 61

A guideline that might be helpful, in addition to the "rule" formulated above would be:

Moderators should be clear about the distinction between their personal views and the rules and ethos of OCMB. They should be aware when posting whether they are doing so in a personal capacity (i.e. posting as a poster on OCMB, on a level with all other posters), or whether they are acting in their capacity as a moderator. In cases where people reading their posts may be unclear about whether or not they are posted by someone acting as a moderator the moderators should make this explicit.

Don Carlo · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am **Posts:** 8089

I agree that there needs to be a clearer policy. I'd like to appeal to posters to first use Google Images to search for a photo of a person. That's how, in about thirty seconds, I found a photo of Tim in action filming picketers with no hot-button baby in the photo. Facebook is wonderfully easy to find and its details provide clues to the person's Scientology buddies and possible links to controversy. Yes it was interesting that Tim, who likes Hawaiian shirts, had a relative in Hawaii. But I don't think it's settled that "everybody agrees Facebook gives automatic permission to republish." Tim, being middle-aged, is likely naive about Facebook, not realizing his photo can be scooped up and discussed by people he fears and despises. It does change Tim's situation having a photo here with names, as well as on Facebook. Many posters would never go to the trouble to find Tim's page, so there will be many more critics who now know hot-button things about Tim's family. I worry that a picketer will continue the Facebook-makes-it-okay theory by naming and possibly mocking the guys' wife during pickets. Maybe CoS will prod Scientologists to make their sites more private, and that becomes a barrier to those of us who like to quietly research people looking for weak spots. I found a lost-lost changed-her-name granddaughter of a favorite elderly cousin on Facebook, and if she had been afraid of over-exposure, I would never have found her. So I want CoS member Facebook pages to be as open as possible, and to be able to pluck photos from them for possible future use. I think we are driving CoS into greater secrecy if we routinely over-expose CoS families.

Scilon handlers on Facebook

Who is online