Goodbye

Back to what triggered this thread and original post: http://www.facebook.com/lightning.strike.71/posts/10152170666985705?notif_t=feed_comment_reply

When I said Charles was lying I should have said not telling the truth. He may have bad information or made false assumptions and the more I think of this the more I think that's that case.

It's obvious we do not ban anyone for belonging to other organizations, having teachers at other organizations, posting about other organizations or even criticizing TOTJO.

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

In your answer, you answered my question where I stated "NO ONE " but the personnel record keeper and administration could view the forum which has parental contact information. That may have simply been a matter of not fully understanding what I had stated.

That said, any officers reading this, that would still be my suggestion, to keep parental contact information strictly to the view of those on the adminstration. I firmly believe that info shouldn't be allowed to be seen by anyone else. Of course, I would not approve of a child attending an organization which asks for my contact information either. As my friend Richie would say "It's suspect". But that's just me.

I also don't understand why it's so important that (beyond training and knighthood) the child's area is off limits to others. Are you that worried about the membership here? It just seems overkill. Over the years we've had orders that were mostly adolensce (I've watched many of them grow up to be adults from age 13), and none of us were too worried about separating an adult forum- everyone simply remained civil and we watched out for personnel that were dangerous.

*shrugs* Just doesn't make sense, and I doybt there is any amount of explanation you can give me that will mke me change my mind on the matter.

you know, when I was a kid, I lived in a dangerous place too. Paris suburbs. My parents' phone number was written inside my clothes, just like the other kids. We were also advised not to engage with adults, and adults went to adult places, and kids went to kids-only places. I don't recall any incidents ever ocurring as a result of those policies. The totjo server is in France. I therefore feel our policies are adequate. We also log all traffic. Our youth officers can contact the parents and the police if necessary.

I also don't understand why it's so important that (beyond training and knighthood) the child's area is off limits to others. Are you that worried about the membership here? It just seems overkill. Over the years we've had orders that were mostly adolensce (I've watched many of them grow up to be adults from age 13), and none of us were too worried about separating an adult forum- everyone simply remained civil and we watched out for personnel that were dangerous.

We have around 10 000 human visitors every week. And often are under attack. I feel our policies are quite reasonable.

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/05/05/cell-phone-spying-is-your-life-being-monitored/

The capabilities of technology today, far exceed those of previous times. It is also quite easy to call/text someone's phone and gain the individual's credit card information and such.

http://www.beyondidentitytheft.com/cell-phone-texting.html

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/telemarketing/tel06.shtm

We like to believe everyone is intelligent enough to not get suckered into these sorts of scams. And yet they are constantly succeeding, and an identity theif will do all they can to obtain their commission. So where you may consider your tactics sound, others have reservations about it based on varying possibilities that are based on operational security.

Army personnel get suckered into scams like this all the time, and they are required to take biannual training (maybe it's quarterly, can't remember which) on this sort of thing. Like I said, take the warning or leave it, I'm bowing out of this conversation now, otherwise we will be running un circles.

We cannot be held responsible for parents' poor practices when it comes to their children's safety. If they give them phones and unmetered internet access, it is their right and problem to deal with.

For my part, I just became fully aware of this post as I've been in and out dealing with where this originated from. That has become a beast well outside its own power and control that should be dealt with very soon.

So I will address this. I did not lie, I made what I thought was very clear that once my name was brought up in this, I was in the middle of it, and that I felt an injustice had been done. I felt my name was being used on some level as a justification of her banning without evidences present publicly as "acceptable".

Now that has gotten out of hand, and it has been taken incorrectly. To me it seemed my name was being made use of against my apprentice, so that was the FIRST THING I ADDRESSED. I then proceeded to address the remainder of her banning. From that point forward I have focused squarely on that for a reason. That is because I've been privy to most of the evidences brought up against her, save a few more recent logs. I have been privy but the public is not.

The worst part of this is that I do believe she has earned herself a ban, but its a question of how it was handled, was it done in the light of day, was it done well and proper and transparent so an example is set.

I definitely took the wording of the post to her wrong on some level. When someone says a decision is final I take it that we've moved past that phase, final is final. That means there is no more discussion in private, there is no more communication behind the scenes, if you don't like it you move to the next phase of escalation or you stand down.

I hold the Knightly Virtues very highly. I'm a man moved by my passion for the virtues. However my wall post has been turned into a little poo flinging contest and things have been brought up on there that should not have been. I have logged all activity on it, sent that to Jestor, and removed the ENTIRETY of my complaint.

I still ask for transparency in the proceedings to the degree that it will not cause harm to those associated with it outside of prividing a level of testimony or proof of wrong action.

I copied that log, and sent it, because I don't back away from my mistakes, but I certainly won't let this go that far.

TOTJO may be in the right for banning Sammy Jay, and after careful review I don't find them in the wrong that seems to be assumed of discrimination based on who is training who. That was poor wording and poor interpretation on all parts.

Consequently, I did not reply in public to certain accusations made about myself, my reputation, or what have you and as such my own self defense is not provided in that log file.

My wall will not be used as a weapon against people. Period. I voiced it there because without transparency I was uncertain I could speak here freely. That is my HONEST statement. You've never seen me back down if I thought I could speak freely, but a silenced voice is no voice.

Did I act with a little too much fire? Perhaps.

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Too Much Drama For Me. He said this, and she did this, but the other guy claimed this was what really happened, but it was really Col. Mustard in the study, and he was in collaboration with the other guy who told someone else what she said he said the other guys said.

Perhaps next time a little more trust is needed in those who have the greatest grasp on the entirety of the situation...

Otherwise we'll just have to go through the whole process of ending up exactly where we started and in exactly the same position we began in all over again...