Posted by The Australian [TheAustralian] on April 03, 1999 at 21:57:01 {Ed9c7782HMgIYA54YD7QldE0xF2ULM}:
In Reply to: *A Pardon From The King? posted by Aunt Polly on April 03, 1999 at 17:15:00:
Greetings Polly
This site was never meant to trap JWS. There were extensive discussions between administrators on placing an age restriction on this site. There still is a concern. The complexity of verifying age is beyond our resources. This could happen with new adult-verification web sites that give an access code to adults. These sites cater to the adult industry's attempts to avoid legal problems of minors visiting adult web sites. It works anonymously and simply. Visit the web site and the htaccess login screen appears like it does whilst posting on H2o. The visitor enters an adult code or is redirected to a web site to register as an adult. The web site is a separate entity or "trustee" of the registrant's information. Each web site the registrant visits that is for adults only has no method of determining the identity of visitors even from service providers logs.
The problems we encountered was these intermediaries often don't require absolute proof. Those requiring absolute proof of age are going to drive away 99% of JWs who believe their identities are compromised. This means the system of adult only access is either hypocritical (a shifting of the "blame" to a third party who was "supposed to" verify completely but "didn't"). Or, if we require a third party trustee who is thorough in screening then H2O will remain devoid of any participants but a few "regulars."
The real question is does h2O want to screen out minors to avoid the dilemma in your testimony. Should we effectively block youth from discovering the truth is not black and white but every shade of the colour spectrum inbetween? Shall we "protect" youth from reality because some cannot handle it or later blame ourselves for "confusing them"? Shall we screen out youth in their tender teens to avoid a moral dilemma you describe: "Do you wonder why he is angry? He stumbles across a website promoting itself as a JW site. He learns the "truth about the truth" and he's angry. When he tries to voice his anger and frustration, he gets called an apostate by this site's webmaster, the site that got him thinking to begin with. Yes, he's mad, he felt betrayal from the WTS and now he's feeling it from H2O."
Hindsight seems to dictate Rick, myself and other administrators consider what we didn't know that you just said. After what you said, we could go back to yesterday and reconsider our actions. We should act differently in this situation than our instincts dictate because of the tragic circumstances? I tend to an emotional bloke and softie when a lady and sister as yourself explains these circumstances. Should I go back to yesterday and email Rick early Friday like I would if having read this then. Ask he treat this as an exception? Time travel sounds like a great concept in these situations. I sit here wishing but wishing can't change the past.
Somewhat more pragmatically I feel that I owe it to myself to take a more reasonable approach. Given that the young man is a 19 year old who visits H2O for the first time far as I'm concerned, with no method of having his history, did the logical course transpire? The end result is Rick no longer wants to post, and deleted an excellent post he must have spent hours writing using a clever word game. (There is a site that generates complaint letters he must have painstakingly used to start the game.) This young man comes along and responds to a post where Rick, within the FPP, has expressed an opinion. I distinctly remember this young man claiming Rick is lower than pond scum. Uglier insults follow.
The price is not only paid by this young man. Rick no longer wishes to participate on H2O in discussions. That is a great loss. I mean literally Rick no longer wants to ever post again. He feels this young man's attitude expressed hatred toward his person, and worse that this is representative of the majority. (I think he believes a few exceptions like Friend and a few others who posted nice things really care about him personally.)
The bottomline is we might pay a perment price in never hearing Rick's freedom of speech again. You might rejoice in this personally Polly. I don't know. You might not like what Rick has to say and would feel good to never hear him speak again.
This young man on the otherhand doesn't pay permanetly but gets to probably come back in 30 days if he doesn't keep violating his banning (coming under various names). 30 days is nothing in the grand scheme. The religion he comes from wrongfully disfellowships JWs FOREVER. Some apply for reinstatement and years later are still trying to get back in. This is wrong. This is what reform is all about. Suppose the WT disfellowships for 30 days? Would our whole reform efforts have the same impact? I wish they would scale back the disfellowship or shunning period to 30 days.
I sincerely want Rick to take a "vacation" and not permanetly "retire". I would feel a great loss at never hearing him express himself again. He feels like permanently not wanting to participate whilst the one you are defending is gone for a maximum 30 days. That's like comparing one who gets flogged to a slap on the hands IMHO.
YOu are seeming to claim that because of the tragic past that H2o should have known about this past and treated the situation with kid gloves? This goes around in a circle to the start of my rant in this post. Should we disallow youth under 18 or 21 from visiting H2o? Would that have kept this youth from having to face the realities of life? Upon discovery he was too young to visit, would he have left? Would he have respectfully not come in as an "adult" to satisfy his curiosity? Would our preventing his coming here have meant he would have never found any of the other web sites dealing with the errors in our religion's doctrines?
I see a situation where Rick might have banned himself permanently from participating on this site. You also have no knowledge of Rick's past, heartaches in dealing with finding out about errors in the organisation's teachings, and difficult life he's lead. You might rationalise that Rick is an "adult" and this young man is a "youth" in figuring that how Rick feels is "tough." Our taking a kid gloves approach without hypocrisy would mean we don't ban anyone because everyone has experienced great pain in life. That is true. Should God have given certain ones amongst us supernatural abilities to "see" into people's lives and we were running this site, nobody might get banned. We would feel too emotional about everyone to enforce any sorts of policies. The bottomline is this young man was warned he would get banned if attacking ANYONE (A-N-Y-O-N-E) again and he chose to post a new topic with the meanest words I have ever seen one human being spout off to another.
I will give you the benefit of doubt your defense of this young man is to send the message "don't think his meanness represents his real character, as he found 'the truth about the truth' on H2O and feels betrayed they aren't standing behind him."
The problem I saw with Rick all along is he was so busy maintaining this site he could never benefit from it. This young man claimed all those like N.H and J.H. benefitted Rick in exchange for his labours. The problem was I was seeing a situation where he spent all his time maintaining this site and didn't have time left to read many of their posts. Much less post his own thoughts or provide well researched information like some blessed with more time on their hands. Should someone labour without reaping? Does it surprise anyone that Rick, upon discovery he really wasn't reaping much from what he was sowing, kept working on H2o? I believe him when he said that the reason is that he realised others benefitted and lacked the heart to walk away. Walking away would have surely shutdown this site. I wish to encourage him repeatedly to come back, participate to the extent he is able, read what interests him and leave the rest. Let others take care of the banning. I'm looking into a simple script to let moderators enter email addresses into the banning filter and disable accounts. Rick cannot keep doing it and I'm more "selfish" in refusing to let H2o dominate my life. God expects each one to do the best they can. Giving shouldn't become a burden.
The Australian