I will not be outdone by other Drum Corps Internet Trolls (I own VMAPA.org)

[scheherazadesghost]

4 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

I said “it could be argued that you are more liable than others” I did not say you are solely responsible. I did not say such an argument would be definitive. Others could refer to non-officers. 

What I understood about your grounds was based on things you wrote within this thread.

This is victim blaming. Why am I even possibly more liable than leadership or others who literally fly in the closest circles of the organization? Why didn't anyone else have the nonprofit experience (or institutional knowledge) to recognize this gigantic error? Why are you here if not to deflect blame onto me instead of looking internally?

Yes well, my work extends far beyond on this thread on DCP alone. Your unwillingness to do your research as a newcomer here is on you. Not me.

[DSpruce]

The substance of the point has been changed again. Primarily thinking of innocent alumni working and trying to help. I guess this group of innocent alumni is technically at fault, but we did not know. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by DSpruce
Grammar, edited to try to depersonalize in re to feedback on policy

[Daave]

This just in...  Nobody did anything about anything that you wanted them to do something about.   

Signed:  The Internet

[MarimbaManiac]

This person starts out their multi-paragraph defense saying they "do not work for SCV, but are just a friend" then goes on to relay very specific interactions, and use terms like "we know" and "we feel" throughout their exchange. I call general bull on that. 

If the organization wants to make public statements on the topics of abuse, financial mismanagement, non-profit operational compliance, pay equity and transparency, and accountability (beyond just picking a scapegoat like Spike, or vague positive sounding press releases), then they should do so. However they aren't, because as this person admitted, they want to control the narrative. 

Fine, but you don't get to control the narrative while also making cloaked statements that blame the publics potential reactions and cast the organization as an innocent victim. Visibility is accountability, and the organization has been terrible at both for decades. 

Either make a public statement, or don't, but don't hide behind a ghost account attacking credibility. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by MarimbaManiac

[DSpruce]

It is beyond obvious I am an alumnus. I meant I am only that, not an employee or anything 

[DSpruce]

And yeah, I don’t wish for everyone to know my name. I wish to explain that some of these claims are not true and why.

[DSpruce]

People are mad, I don’t mind.

Edited August 4, 2023 by DSpruce
Edited to try to depersonalize per feedback on policy

[DSpruce]

Gotta go for an actual appointment.  

[scheherazadesghost]

22 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

You are changing what I am saying again. I am primarily thinking of innocent alumni working and trying to help. I guess this group of innocent alumni is technically at fault, but we did not know. You were in attendance ostensibly for purposes of helping us.

They are victims too here. Not of me. But if the organization's non compliance. But again ignorance of the law is not a defense.

I entered with the intention of helping. Then some of the alum in that meeting were openly and privately hostile, and engaged in sabotage of my efforts to do what I could to help with whistleblowing. All of this is an example of aforementioned double binding.

[MarimbaManiac]

This all kinda reads like an episode of Succession. 

Make a public statement or don't, that's it. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by MarimbaManiac