JSwift seems to place a lot of value on "seniority" so to speak, in his post, and that's an interesting cultural difference. Some anons value seniority, but many value only results, or only tactics.
White Rose, to put a finer edge on it, I value seniority + proven results + trustworthiness. Having said that, if a new OMCB member contacts me, and I am satisfied that they are serious and want to serve, I will mentor, support, and encourage them here at OCMB. There are several members of OCMB whom I have mentored and supported as Scientology critics. I am working now to mentor an OCMB'er who has such enormous talent that she should be teaching me. This work we do at OCMB takes mentoring and my mentors were Arnie Lerma and Ladybird. I return their kindness by mentoring new members who ask me for mentoring. Likewise, a certain Anon has kindly mentored me in the ways of Anonymous and I am deeply appreciative.
When I am satisfied that a new member who has approached me is not OSA or associated with OSA, I generally call them on the phone and/or meet them in person. These new members come to me for help. They want access, an introduction, information, or some other form of help and I provide it. When I see hostility and destructiveness in a new member, I oppose it. This is the way that I act to protect OCMB. I get hate mail, but I get far more letters that are very kind. In any case, I am only one member here. OCMB is not about me. OCMB is about helping people exit Scientology, educating people about its dangers, and cultivating and welcoming friendly new members.
Whether Anonymous realizes it or not, OCMB does have an informal culling process for new members. We test new people. We challenge them. We do not take any new member at face value. I got my ass kicked when I was a new OCMB member because I had serious conflicts about Scientology. I needed help from people here and Arnie and Ladybird gave me a huge amount of help. They saw how I was in need of help and had some potential. I try to do the same thing now with conflicted new members and look deeper at what they are saying. When they come on as hostiles, however, you can't work with that and you can't change it.
OCMB looks at attitude:Is a new member here in need of help? Do they want to contribute? Do they want destroy? We try to find their need and direct them to the right people or resources who can best help. Due to the nature of OSA and its deceptions, we err on the side of caution initially. One cannot fault OCMB for erring on the side of caution, particularly with hostile new members about whom we know nothing.
Virtually every new member at OCMB follows a predictable path:
1. Hi I am new. I have lurked for X years.
2. Here is my background in, or relationship to, Scientology. This is why I oppose Scientology and want to help.
3. Here is what I like and don't like about OCMB.
4. Here are my thoughts on what can be done.
5. Many questions to learn more about Scientology.
6. PM's to established OG members to whom the new member respects or likes. Phone calls follow. This is an "establishing rapport" process.
7. Personal meetings if a new member asks and they are trusted.
8. Relationships and friendships form over time.
When someone blows into OCMB and intends to "reform OCMB or destroy OCMB" well you know that we will ban them. This is just self-preservation and EO does the same thing. Some people come to OCMB with the express purpose of getting banned just for the bragging rights. I suspect that Daywatch came here as an Anon anti-hero who wanted to be banned for the glory it would bring him at EO.
The following are my own remarks and do not necessarily reflect the views of Mr. Heldal-Lund, the sole owner and operator of OCMB, or of any other member of OCMB:
White Rose, the reason that there are so many anti-Scientology boards on the internet is that there is no one-size fits all board. We need the diversity of many boards and many individuals to oppose Scientology. I do not think that OCMB hinders creativity. I think rather that we have found our niche and our strengths. We found our sense of OCMB through trial and error, and the crucible of endless flame wars and fights. I believe that OCMB knows its limits and that is why we support and link to ARS, EO, ESMB, ESKB, etc. OCMB cannot be all things to all people.
I think that people expect too much of OCMB. This latest controversy will at least show that OCMB has limits and that other websites, other perspectives, and other approaches are needed and wanted. Every website in the anti-Scientology world has its limits and governing philosophy. Go read the FZ-friendly ESMB, or the ever-formidable ARS, and you will see two messageboards that are extremely distinct from both EO and OCMB. There is a clear need and want for that which EO and OCMB cannot provide. EO and OCMB cannot satisfy the vast demand for diversity. In some ways, though, EO and OCMB are far more related and companionable than many of us care to admit now during our first big fight. The make up sex should be great because the fight was nasty.
OCMB does not stifle creativity; we rather define creativity differently from EO and Anonymous. We were the Moral Fags before the word was coined by Anonymous. That Anon term helped many in the OG to have a way to self-identify to Anonymous. OCMB has always called for peaceful and lawful opposition to Scientology. Andreas supports free speech to an incredible extent. OCMB links broadly to other sites; we embrace the diversity of the other boards; we act as a resource. People have to stop thinking that OCMB can or should be more than what it is. We are Moral Fags here at OCMB and we get along great with the Anons who are also Moral Fags. OCMB has no Chan Blood in it.
Thus, when creativity is discussed, it does not have to be defined as, "OCMB stifles Anon creativity" or "EO stifles GO creativity." It is rather a matter of recognizing the governing philosophy of the respective boards. OCMB cannot be EO anymore than EO can be OCMB. We do not want or need duplication here. We want the biodiversity of species, a vast Rain Forest of critics.
If anyone is to be praised at OCMB, it is Andreas Heldal-Lund. He is the stoic, friendly, and inscrutable Dane who built OCMB with his own blood, sweat, and tears. Andreas' strength of character and conviction are the bedrock of OCMB. I have the utmost respect for Andreas. I think that I can safely speak for OCMB when I say that this board intends to honor and protect what Andreas Heldal-Lund has created and sustained in the world as an expression of his integrity and desire for the truth to be known about Scientology.