Forum Rules

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[Linda]

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, and the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology. De-Comm started out as a blog by several people not affiliated with GCMWarning.Com. It later moved to a forum and merged with the GCMWarning site. Because of its history, some of the older threads may refer to the forum as a blog. Below are a set of rules for users of this forum:

1. Be civil. It's okay to be open about your feelings and experiences, but name calling, profanity, and obscenity are not appropriate. Keep in mind that current GC'ers read this site, and acting inappropriately reflects badly on the rest of the people posting here.

2. Be truthful. Do not post unfounded accusations directed towards any group, person, or poster here.

3. Respect the right to anonymity. Do not exert pressure on others to name real life names, or identify which specific GC church they attended. Many still have relationships with those in GC churches and are reluctant to jeopardize those by revealing their identity. Others fear possible harassment or other repercussions, and simply don't want to deal with it. Do not attempt to reveal the identity of another poster who does not want their identity revealed.

4. Be mindful of the topic. A small deviation from the original topic is permissible, but if your post is going to radically alter the direction of a thread (known as "thread hijacking") simply make it into a brand new thread. In some cases we may split threads and move off topic posts to a more appropriate forum. Also be mindful of which forum would be most appropriate when posting a new thread.

5. No excessive arguing, aka trolling. There is a line between making your point, and continuously harping on that point to the detriment of the conversation. Feel free to share a conflicting opinion, and further explain it, but let others have their say as well, and accept that not everybody will always agree. Posting something for the sole purpose of angering others or disrupting conversation is not allowed.

6. Respect the nature of this site. This is a site created by ex-GC'ers, designed primarily to serve those who have left the movement, and populated mostly with former members of the group. Although healthy debate is encouraged, we do not guarantee equal time with current GC'ers. Current members should keep that in mind before posting here. That said, current members are welcome to read and post here.

Happy posting!

http://forum.gcmwarning.com/announcements-feedback-technical-support/forum-rules/

#1738

[Janet Easson Martin]

Thank you, Linda.

[Linda]

You're welcome.

#1740

[AgathaL'Orange]

I can't speak for Scout, but I think this is why she wants an independent investigation.  And why everyone is soooo strong about that happening.


But yes, these are the rules! Thanks, Linda for finding those.

[Linda]

You forgot that #2 begins "Be Truthful..."

If Suzanne is telling the truth and she has a reason to make allegations they are not unfounded. She is not violating this rule, nor is she guilty of libel. If her allegations are true.

This is why there needs to be an independent investigation.

Suzanne and others need to be able to tell their story.
Mark D/ECC need to be able to tell their story.

The investigation needs to be done in an unbiased way by a group both agree will be fair.

I don't understand why ECC would be afraid of this. Unless they have something to hide.

Oops, almost forgot...

#1741

[Peace]

Scout has posted her firsthand experiences on here and so has Jeromy Darling. Let's just leave it at that, please. While the investigation process has been debated, it appears that some information will be released upon conclusion. Who knows, maybe the current investigation will find everything inconclusive and ECC and Scout will agree to use GRACE, maybe one party will amend their side of the story, maybe the two parties will choose to work things out on their own in a private manner. Who knows what will happen.. but I think you all have talked circles around this issue and have only essentially communicated that none of us know what actually happened and we disagree about many things.

[Janet Easson Martin]

Just wanted to add something about the numbers represented on this forum since someone was questioning "tens of thousands" of readers on here.  

At the top of each topic are the number of views a topic has received.  To the best of my understanding this represents the number of different devices that have viewed that post.  No same device can be counted twice no matter how many times they view a particular topic.  So views cannot be increased by looking at a topic multiple times over any period of time.  They are only increased by a NEW device reading that same topic.  If a topic has 5000 views that means 5000 different devices have viewed it.  Now, one reader may read from two devices such as a iPhone and an iPad so they will increase the topic opened by 2 views.  In some cases he may read from a third device.  Or he may read from only one device.  Topics that are "Sent" to others are not counted as views to my knowledge.  So, there are other readers on topics that are not represented.  Given this scenario, I estimate that the average readers are half the number of views tallied.  Could be more or less.  

So, for instance, you could estimate that the Topic "Jim McCotter is back..." has had about 23,000 readers; "The Validation of..." has had about 34,000;  Scout's Post - "Pastor...who Abused Me..." about 11,000;  "RW - we became addicted to the church" about 6,000 readers, all by basing on half the views.

Personally, I rarely read from a second device.  But, I was trying not to inflate the number of readers.  This is very encouraging to those of us who long for the other side to finally be heard.  

Anyhow, used according to the Forum Rules, many have shared how this site has been part of their healing journey.  If you take the time to read some personal stories here, you can see where we are coming from.

[Janet Easson Martin]

And, there are over thirteen thousand posts.

[Linda]

I agree. Jeromy and Suzanne have both posted "first hand". Anyone who says, "So and so told me about a letter, or I've heard that such and such," is not posting first hand info.

Again, let's have both tell their stories and give their reasons to someone who is independent, doesn't have to be GRACE, who will review all the information fairly. Again, I don't understand why this isn't happening.

#1742

[Peace]

Janet Easson Martin,

Thank you for clarifying these numbers. I know various sites have differing rules about what "views" mean, but I do not wish to argue about the amount of views this forum has. I was wondering where that number came from and you answered. Thank you.

Also maybe I am misreading your last sentence, but please do not assume that I haven't read the personal stories here. I have. Some of these stories I am very much a part of. These stories are what led me to post and engage in a dialogue with many of you. Am I going to ask questions? Yes. Am I going to offer my viewpoint when applicable? Yes. Am I adhering to the forum's rules? Yes, I think so.

I understand some on this forum may not like hearing from current members, and that's valid. But some on this forum have asked for a dialogue. That's why I'm here.

[Janet Easson Martin]

I agree also that the only fair way to proceed is to have an independent (Christian if possible) organization investigate since there are at least two with "abusely inappropriate sexual" claims.

Since we are on the topic of Rules, Rules of Fairness and Impartiality would dictate such a process.  So glad GRACE has offered.  

[Linda]

Because they have already hired a lawyer.  Suzanne stated she has hired her own lawyer.  And she was cooperating with the lawyer ECC board hired.  None of us cared that she has her own lawyer that come to their own conclusions and report how ever they want to, publicy, or whatever.  Why should ECC board throw money away and time spent on the current investigation that is already underway?

Because serious allegations of sexual impropriety have been made against a "shepherd of the flock" by some "former sheep". This is a big deal. It deserves serious attention. It deserves transparency. It matters. The truth of the situation needs to come forward. All involved need to be heard fairly.

The attorney ECC hired accidentally copied Suzanne on a email and therein showed her bias.

#1743

[Janet Easson Martin]

Just saw your post.  Thanks for your note, Peace.

[Huldah]

#2- Anyone find this interesting.  Unfounded accusations??  Suzanne's accusations are currently unfounded, alleged, not proven....I could go on but I think you get my point.

Do not post unfounded accusations directed towards any group, person, or poster here.

Not to be overly picky, but "unfounded" means "having no foundation or basis in fact," implying that Suzanne made the whole thing up. Since it has yet to be established whether or not the accusations are unfounded, they should be referred to for now as "unproven" or "unverified."

That means that, until we get to the bottom of all this (if we ever do), it's premature to say that Suzanne was posting an unfounded allegation in violation of the forum rules.