Guidelines and Procedures

I didn't invite anyone right away to Knapp's private online cult-recovery activist discussion forum; it took a few months for me to get somewhat comfortable with it. My discomfort had stemmed from the one 'no-talk' guideline and because the procedure for joining seemed complicated.

"Secret" had been the initial word Knapp proposed to describe the "private" forum. Lema and I both disagreed with the word "secret." Knapp agreed with us and changed the wording from "secret" to "private."

Still, it felt secretive to me. I got the feeling we weren't to reveal that the activist forum existed. I felt that if I invited someone and they ended up untrustworthy and talked to someone outside the forum about the forum that I'd be at fault.

I didn't mention my feelings to anyone. Knapp or Lema or Ruth didn't seem to have a problem with the way the guidelines were set up. I figured it was my problem, that I was projecting into the situation from my past experiences with GreaseSpot Cafe and The Safety Net. I didn't speak up probably due to my own insecurities.

The guidelines.
Most were simple and straight forward and typical private online forum rules. One guideline that I was uncomfortable with, but didn't speak up about, was a rule stating that if a conflict happened on the private forum, the members were asked to not discuss it outside the forum...supposedly to avoid "flame wars." If it was discovered that a member did bring it up outside the forum, the member might be banned.

That feels like a "hush rule." But, I understand not wanting flame wars and keeping the forum a safe place. Besides I know Knapp and he isn't into silencing. And it is just a "guideline" and a request; it isn't set in stone. No one else objects to it. It's not that big of deal. I'll work on adjusting my perspective and discomfort.

The procedure to join.
Initially it was set so that in order to join, a current member would let Knapp know about a prospective member whom Knapp would then contact. The prospect then had to fill out an application which included their phone number and real name. This application was to be sent only to Knapp. He would then check out the name and number to make sure the person was who they said they were, or something like that. This was set up because some of the activist members had been pursued legally or threatened in some way by the groups they spoke up against. This part of the procedure was a safety measure.

As members we could invite someone who was an activist and who we felt might be interested. And, as the member inviting someone, we would vouch for the invitee.

That means whoever I invite will need to be able to abide by the guidelines. What about that one guideline that says we aren't supposed to discuss any private forum conflicts outside the forum? Did I know anyone who was that, so called, trustworthy? Was I that trustworthy?

Lema objected to the real name aspect on the application process. Due to some legal stuff in his country he had to remain anonymous and he thought others might feel the same need for other reasons. I was never quite clear how Lema and Knapp resolved that aspect.

Eventually, after some weeks, the application procedure was tweaked enough to where it became simplified and less paranoiac. At least that was my viewpoint, though I never stated that.

With both the initial and the adjusted procedures, Knapp and Lema and I were to vote on a nominee for membership. Did we feel comfortable with the new person? Were they who they said they were? What current member could vouch for them? Stuff like that. Again, it was for safety measures. I could live with that. This wasn't like The Safety Net; it was different. Knapp was a mental health professional and my therapist; I could trust him.

Not too long after Lema and I had become moderators, Lema also became an administrator alongside Knapp. Lema got real busy adding all sorts of technical abilities to the discussion board. He also added various subforums. Before most of these changes were made, he would post his ideas in the moderator forum (viewable only to us three moderators, like other discussion boards have) for Knapp and I to give our opinion or vote.

Knapp was quite absent from the board during most of this time due to other responsiblities and some health challenges. I guess his absence started some time in March, it seems. He would do his best to pop in and give his vote for any changes. He started communicating more, via email or in the moderator forum, some time in May. I think it was in May.

In July, I was added as an administrator to coincide with my role as "creative director" for the discussion board and for the still-formulating non-profit.

Knapp pretty much wanted Lema and I to run the board. Lema had the password and access to change abilities. I had access to all sorts of stuff, tech stuff that I was ignorant about. I didn't have the password. Anyway, I didn't know enough tech stuff to know what to do nor was I interested in learning that aspect.

Still the board wasn't getting much activity and the members were not inviting new people. I invited two. Neither joined.

*******************
In June/July, 2011,  I changed John Knapp's pseudonym in this piece to his real name.
*******************
_______________________

Note: The above is more from my personal journal and/or other writings as I moved through the inner turmoil after the Knapp trauma which happened the end of July/beginning of August, 2010. The sharings are simply my thoughts at the time processing through events that took place with my ex-therapist, John M. Knapp, LMSW. To access an ongoing index, click here and scroll down to the section entitled June 26, 2011.
______________________