Wow, no one wants to discuss VANGUARD?

[DSpruce]

I *AM* sorry that happened to you. I don’t think the above comments require a response from me beyond that. I don’t believe that fully publicly airing out of every story is something the org is required to do in order to improve. I believe they very much want to continually improve. I believe some, not all but some, may be afraid because they have been told to be afraid rather than because of something the org actually has done.

[DSpruce]

Also there are many technical terms in use that I do not necessarily agree apply. Most of the literature I’m finding on this - and I *AM* making the effort, is about workplaces and bringing lawsuits and best practices to get money out of a lawsuit and effect change in an employer setting. I asked MAASIN for literature specific to this sort of setting but they have not been able to reply. I do not believe a person needs to have PhD level expertise in all the cutting edge technical terms to be able to have a reaction and an opinion. 

[scheherazadesghost]

1 minute ago, DSpruce said:

I *AM* sorry that happened to you.

Okay now do the others.

1 minute ago, DSpruce said:

I don’t believe that fully publicly airing out of every story is something the org is required to do in order to improve.

I have never aired out other alum's stories. That would break their confidentiality. I've anonymized and summarized their stories because I'm concerned they won't step forward themselves.

2 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

I believe they very much want to continually improve.

I want to believe this, but I'm not seeing the signs. You have to put people in charge of improvements that (1) acknowledge the depth of the problems and (2) are trained and experienced enough to make improvements that last. SoA is an excellent example of this, specifically, by putting an executive level role in place that's charged with safeguarding. Vanguard needs this and they need to hire externally using a transparent open vetting process.

4 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

I believe some, not all but some, may be afraid because they have been told to be afraid rather than because of something the org actually has done.

I encourage my reporters to step forward every time I can because one of the most important things to do is get the reports on the record with VMAPA and DCI whether they can be improved or not. Most elect not to of their own accord and it would be against all best practices for me to push them against their will.

To think I don't want them to report is just plain silly. I've reported. I've gone public. Why wouldn't I want others to do the same?

1 minute ago, DSpruce said:

Also there are many technical terms in use that I do not necessarily agree apply. Most of the literature I’m finding on this - and I *AM* making the effort, is about workplaces and bringing lawsuits and best practices to get money out of a lawsuit and effect change in an employer setting. I asked MAASIN for literature specific to this sort of setting but they have not been able to reply. I do not believe a person needs to have PhD level expertise in all the cutting edge technical terms to be able to have a reaction and an opinion. 

I believe you when you're saying you're making the effort.

Neither I nor a single one of the alum-reporters I've spoken to are interested in legal action. They love Vanguard too much for that... they're willing to sacrifice their own vindication or satisfaction for the sake of the org. It's great you reached out to MAASIN, they're an excellent resource, but I'm sure they're handling actual reports of actual abuse right now so you won't be their priority.

You don't need to be up to date or have a PhD to have a reaction or opinion. You and the org do need that if you want to improve in this area because safeguarding is a fast-moving target that is always shifting.

[DSpruce]

This is too long to do the quote thing. Do the others, meaning say I am sorry that happened to them? Yes, I am sorry that happened to them. I do not wish for you to give me orders however, I find that aggressive. 

I don’t think anything else in the above requires a reply from me. 

I actually do have a job to get back to.

[scheherazadesghost]

13 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

This is too long to do the quote thing. Do the others, meaning say I am sorry that happened to them? Yes, I am sorry that happened to them.

My point was that one can't apologize if one doesn't know what happened. One definitely can't improve if one don't know what happened. One can't know what happened if reporters are afraid to speak up.

13 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

I do not wish for you to give me orders however, I find that aggressive. 

This is tone policing and a big reason why I won't engage with most alum. I literally can't order you to do anything.

13 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

I don’t think anything else in the above requires a reply from me. 

You asked if I had questions. I had some. Then we engaged. Cool if you don't want to reply. I'll just continue to sit on my questions because there continues to be no trustworthy channel for them to be addressed.

[DSpruce]

Too long to quote again. I disagree that I am tone policing to say that I don’t like it when given an order in that way. Literally the only question in the above note was “why wouldn’t I want others to do the same?” I have no idea about the internal states of others, that did not seem to call for a reply. I don’t agree with the coda framing this as inappropriate on my part. Please let me get back to work without being insulted. 

[IllianaLancerContra]

21 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Okay now do the others.

I have never aired out other alum's stories. That would break their confidentiality. I've anonymized and summarized their stories because I'm concerned they won't step forward themselves.

I want to believe this, but I'm not seeing the signs. You have to put people in charge of improvements that (1) acknowledge the depth of the problems and (2) are trained and experienced enough to make improvements that last. SoA is an excellent example of this, specifically, by putting an executive level role in place that's charged with safeguarding. Vanguard needs this and they need to hire externally using a transparent open vetting process.

I encourage my reporters to step forward every time I can because one of the most important things to do is get the reports on the record with VMAPA and DCI whether they can be improved or not. Most elect not to of their own accord and it would be against all best practices for me to push them against their will.

To think I don't want them to report is just plain silly. I've reported. I've gone public. Why wouldn't I want others to do the same?

I believe you when you're saying you're making the effort.

Neither I nor a single one of the alum-reporters I've spoken to are interested in legal action. They love Vanguard too much for that... they're willing to sacrifice their own vindication or satisfaction for the sake of the org. It's great you reached out to MAASIN, they're an excellent resource, but I'm sure they're handling actual reports of actual abuse right now so you won't be their priority.

You don't need to be up to date or have a PhD to have a reaction or opinion. You and the org do need that if you want to improve in this area because safeguarding is a fast-moving target that is always shifting.

The cynic in me notes that if SCV doesn’t get the financial/legal situation under control, there won’t be any member abuse in the future.   Because there won’t be any members.  

[scheherazadesghost]

3 minutes ago, DSpruce said:

Too long to quote again. I disagree that I am tone policing to say that I don’t like it when given an order in that way. Literally the only question in the above note was “why wouldn’t I want others to do the same?” I have no idea about the internal states of others, that did not seem to call for a reply. I don’t agree with the coda framing this as inappropriate on my part. Please let me get back to work without being insulted. 

You are not the victim here. As the great PeeWee Herman said, "let me let you let me go."

1 minute ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

The cynic in me notes that if SCV doesn’t get the financial/legal situation under control, there won’t be any member abuse in the future.   Because there won’t be any members.  

What a sad state of affairs.

[DSpruce]

1 minute ago, scheherazadesghost said:

You are not the victim here. As the great PeeWee Herman said, "let me let you let me go."

You don’t know this. One thing I’ve noticed is there is an extremely high communication bar that is one-directional when nothing is known about the recipient or their state.

[scheherazadesghost]

Just now, DSpruce said:

You don’t know this. One thing I’ve noticed is there is an extremely high communication bar that is one-directional when nothing is known about the recipient or their state.

You are proving my point. If we cannot be open about being victims, then the cycle continues. Also, you've remained anon, which is your right. But I don't even have to trust that you're actually an alum.