Happy? Yes and no. Happy that it got as far as it did. Happy that there's going to be a public announcement that Virginia's ban is going to be nullified. Disappointed that no one will accept responsibility. Hence they can continue with their "sinless" authority.
There's one last thing I want to discuss with the Rookie. He was reviewing the mass banning of the "band camp". It's their understanding that when we left, one of us started pcimforum. I need to tell him that Pastor Tim had the site long before we came along. Don't know if he'd be interested, but would anyone be opposed to my inviting him over for a visit? I consider him trustworthy but, I don't know everything I should perhaps.
We don't do anything in the dark. They can read any post I've ever written. We've never refused to let anyone join.
I must admit I'm somewhat surprised it got as far as it did but unless old shadows have come back I'm not sure that anyone currently in senior leadership there was responsible for kicking us all out. At the time I remember ProjectPeter seemed to be the shadowy force behind it all with Kathy as the notional lead admin (obviously having her strings pulled by PP). From what I remember shortly after the fact slightlypuzzled was, well, slightly puzzled as to why it had all happened (which was curious, given I was told the other admins had lost faith in me). I'm not sure if any of the English-area admins of the time are still admins, so in fairness I wonder if anyone there can be considered responsible for it. It doesn't seem so unreasonable for an apology on behalf of the forum overall (and it might be nice if that came directly from Brent). I guess it's a bit like using the term "you" when talking to a customer services rep and the term is arguably vague as to whether it means "you, the individual I'm talking to" or "you, the company of which you the individual are a representative". For what it's worth, regardless of whether or not I go back to BF (and I'm honestly leaning towards not), I'd be pleased if the mass banning could be acknowledged to have been a serious mistake. Having Virginia exonerated, even though she's no longer with us, would be a nice way to leave her BF account.
He might not like some of what we have to say about BF and IHOP here. That said it's not like it's a private site, I'm sure he knows it's here and there's nothing stopping him visiting even without a formal invitation.
He's more than welcome: we have no personal beef with anyone at BF, or we shouldn't. The forum is open to all, as it's always been.
It's only because of our unwritten policy of not going on bf and actively recruiting from their membership. Some there view that as theft. There are some there (perhaps gone by now) who viewed us as almost an enemy if not competition. Sorta like an identical twin calling the other ugly.
Oh, well, 'recruiting' is an odd word to use -- I know there's history behind that, but I can't say I've been very much a part of it. As of today, my view is that invitations are innocuous. We're a forum, not an exclusive club, and anyone can be a member of any forum they went. If some other forum has rules against recruiting/inviting, then we should probably respect those. But we certainly aren't a forum that says, 'join us and leave X behind, they're... blah blah blah'. To be fair, we are quite opinioned about BF as we met there, and most of us have been banned at least once, or are currently banned. That's to be expected, and I don't see a need to self-censor; no one (yet) has been vindictive, only critical. And, it's very difficult to have those discussions on BF or with BF leadership as their leadership style is very different from ours. So, I don't know what the historical attitudes are exactly, but if we weren't 'recruiting' I imagine it would have been because of BF's rules (and that's fair). At the end of the day, we aren't a closed community.
I can verily that PCIM has was around before the band camp came around here. I've been an Admin here almost from the beginning. I was on staff here before I was on staff at BF. In fact it was Tim (who was wearing the red suit there at the time) who recommend me. And if one of them wants to come here and wants a private talk I am sure we could arrange it.
I really struggle to understand the idea that no other similar forums are allowed to be promoted. I can see why owners of one site wouldn't want someone posting endless spam about another site because it would start to look as if their primary purpose was to poach members. That said it's not as if there's any reason why you can't post on multiple similar forums. Any site that expects exclusivity should be regarded with suspicion for that reason alone - it's not like they own their members. Sure, most of us only have so much time available to post online but what does it matter if I don't post on any given site for a day or two? It would be like Nobody should be surprised that we have gathered elsewhere. I don't think it's any secret that we moved from one to another to another until we settled here. A few of us tried ChristianForums but few stayed (I think I still have an account there but couldn't tell you the last time I logged in), then we had OurChristianForum that went away for no apparent reason, then we settled here. If you take a group of people who fellowship with each other and lock them out it's hardly earth-shaking that they will look for somewhere else to fellowship. And apparently some folks here are still reasonably active members of BF so it's not as if posting on one site means no longer posting on another. I agree that we have been critical of BF and the leadership there although, as you say, the focus has typically been on processes and events rather than exclusively on individuals. Perhaps the exceptions are ProjectPeter and Amazzin, who both seem to crop up in the context of bad leadership sufficiently often that the pattern is unmistakeable. Even then the focus is on the inappropriate aspects of their leadership rather than inherently criticizing them as individuals.
And people link to forum posts all the time. That's how I discovered BF - through a link on a very different forum. Also, there might be confusion with PCIM and OCF? The latter was the first stopping point for most of the banned camp. But then I was not aware of PCIM until the other went under.
I started a C2M thanking them for reinstating Tom. I encouraged more of it. I was bluntly honest. Told them all have a bad taste in their mouths but that Tom’s reinstatement brings a new hope and maybe even those who wouldn’t approach the front door might consider it and that it would be a win for BF and win for members. Rookie got back quickly, thanked me for what I said and repeated what he said to Tom. He’s open. No promises. I see no reason to think things cannot be worked out. I spoke positively individually of several of you and would gladly advocate for any of you.
I too have no problem with any visits here from Rookie or any BF member or their joining here. Tango’s comments are right on. He might not like all BF comments or IHOP comments. Some people needed a place to vent. And as has been stated, very little was about individuals but about processes with the couple exceptions mentioned.
Confusion between PCIM and OCF doesn't really justify anything, unless leadership at BF honestly thinks they have the right to prevent a group of people from continuing to fellowship. If you kick a group out of one venue you really shouldn't be surprised if they go to another even if that means starting a whole new venue. If BF leadership truly believes they have the right to disconnect a group of people from each other for any reason at all there are still major issues that need to be resolved.
There was recruiting. I was invited. I remember one member got banned for recruiting because the leadership read the PM's. Aside from the crime of invading ones privacy my question would have been, "which forum rule has been broken?". One thing the leadership underestimated that banning long standing popular members is a reason to search for another place to keep the communication going. People often stick to a forum because they like or get used to the people.
During my discussion with the Rookie, OCF was brought up. I had totally forgotten OCF and my discussion with him was going from bf directly to pcim. When it finally hit me that his points on bitterness and badmouth was directed to OCF, it began to make sense. Their problem was and still is with firefighter and his caustic badmouthing and recruiting techniques. I tried to assure him that although yes, we were hurt, bitter, and we went to OCF and we voiced that as an outlet. We were vagabonds looking for a home. After venting, we continued searching and here, most of us are. I responded to him. Yes we were hurt, yes we vented. No, we did not return and vent on bf. No, we didn't try and recruit their members AWAY FROM them. Mostly because we were banned from posting on bf, but most importantly, we wouldn't have done that anyway. But, I think they saw us as a group and firefighter as leader and spokesperson. I'm attempting to clear the air by explaining that although I outdated consider us a group, "banned camp" that group was made up of individuals, very much independent of one another. We had no spokesperson. I think I'm slowly getting there.
People respond when they are hurt. When so many staff were kicked out so unceremoniously without even a word of thanks for the hours spent helping run the site it's hardly surprising that many responded with a mixture of shock and hurt. Speaking for myself it was a huge shock to suddenly have Kathy telling me that the other admins had lost confidence in me because it was the first I knew that anything was wrong. Only three months previously she had asked me to be acting lead admin because she was away for a while. Then there were all the threads where individual mods were summoned into Chat To Admins only to be told that they weren't up to scratch and weren't wanted any more - no teaching, no chance to improve, it's time to pack your bags and get out. Post a standing down thread if you want. To subsequently find out, that what Kathy said was basically a lie and that I hadn't lost the confidence of the others, did little to help my feelings about the whole situation. Without going into too much detail, partly because I only remember the outlines of it due to passage of time, I recall ProjectPeter saying things like "put your Bible verses away" to moderators when they were asking for Scriptural justification of certain choices when they were in C2A. The way he then browbeat people into accepting Jennifer's "prophecies" without testing, despite the clear Biblical call to test, showed alarming signs of someone more interested in power than truth. Although the "prophecies" started after I lost the red suit so I don't know what was going on behind the mod curtain by then I really have no trouble believing reports that PP continued to browbeat people into accepting "prophecies" without question. And since I personally can't see any possible way to justify demanding that people accept the word of someone they don't know as being directly from God, demanding they fall into line behind it and ignore Scriptural calls to test, it's hard to know what sort of comments anyone should expect to be directed at the person responsible for such expectations, and indeed the board that gave them such authority to abuse.
Unless of course the responsible and accountable people are no longer there or are hiding behind retirement.
Also, by the time there was the round of banning of moderators (as opposed to simply kicking people out of the inner circle) I think FireFighter was a mediator and most others were moderators (maybe Dani was a mediator as well, I forget). Add that to him being the owner of OCF and its easy to see why he might be regarded as a spokesman for the group even if he had never been appointed as such.
ProjectPeter was an awful leader in my humble opinion. That and $1.10 will buy you a sausage burrito at McDonald’s. It’s a Protestant website. Protestants unite around Scripture, not modern day prophecy. My position is that modern prophecy is a bunch of bunk. But put my view aside. A lot of Protestants are continuationists. They think the sign gifts continue. I used to be one. So I see no issue for a sub forum in BF or anywhere to have that issue. However, a Protestant board should be built upon what unites Protestants. That would be the 5 solas. Sola Scriptura is the authority that all do subscribe to. That’s how it should have been run then. That’s how it should be run now. If it was labeled a charismatic or Pentecostal or third wave (or what have you) then run the forum with prophecy. BF was never labeled as a charismatic or Pentecostal or third wave forum though plenty of that is there with members.