Well we said we'd be back with more …. and here we are?
As you will no doubt recall a member forwarded to us this response to an enquiry they had made concerning the missing conference question forum (the absence of which even GSO seemed unaware). To whit:
"Dear .......,
thank you for your support request. We decided not to run the Conference Forum this year for a few reasons:
1. The Electronic Communications Sub-Committee is short on members who have the time to moderate the forum.
2. The forum somewhat does not fit in with the Conference structure, where members views are heard at Group level, taken to Intergroup and then to Region for the Region's Delegates to bring to Conference in York. Discussion on an open forum is not part of that structure.
3. The 2013 forum seemed to encourage the wrong type of debate and this does not encourage unity especially on a public facing site which could bring AA into disrepute.
This decision was not taken lightly but the man hours of moderating for a very few members posting over the last few years does not seem a good use of ECSC time.
Regards,
…...... (ECSC)"
Well we found the reasons given really quite intriguing - some plausible, some not so.
Firstly it would seem from point 1 (and the concluding paragraph) that there's something of a manpower/time shortage. Not a problem. We've been scanning the forum for a couple or so years now and have got it down to a fine art. We can easily rustle up a few AA members who'd be more than happy to wield the red ink with gay abandon. Moreover we know the ropes pretty well. No cussing, no links to outside organisations, no personal abuse (although sarcasm will do at a pinch), no controversy (keep it bland), and whatever you do don't mention the 'c**t' word ('cult' of course. What did you think we meant!), especially not 'aac**tw****h'. Under our watch (geddit! …. watch! …. Oh never mind!) there will be absolutely no mention of sexual predation in AA (even though everybody knows it goes on - it's even got a slang term for it: 13 stepping) or systematic emotional abuse (ie. carrying the message c**t style. See! We've already got the idea! We're even censoring our own blog!!), anti-medication/counselling dogma, Big Book 'thumpers' (otherwise known as Big Book Bores), addicts, … the list goes on ad infinitum ….
By the time we've finished chopping out all these inessentials we'll make the redaction of MPs' expenses look like a walk in the park! In face we think that we'll have to put in a chit (oops …. sorry …..mustn't use that word either!) ….a c**t for additional supplies of magenta and then just ladle it on. Nothing, absolutely nothing non-PC will get by us we can assure you.
So that deals with that. So what's the other objection? Ah yes - a shortage of contributors to the forum. Well that's hardly an argument. The forum is a place for debate, for arguments to be put, opinions aired, (dare we say even grievances vented!) in order that those who may not have such well defined perspectives can clarify their own position. Now there's something called the Oxford Union (not to be confused with the Oxford Groups) where a couple of chaps will present opposing arguments on some or other subject. At the end of the 'show' the audience votes for the winner by exiting the debating chamber via one door or another (not quite the X-Factor but essentially the same principle). The spectators themselves don't take part in the debate. They listen and then decide according to who has presented the more persuasive argument (or more probably their own existing preconceptions). The number of actual participants therefore is minimal but the potential audience is virtually unlimited. On this basis the lack of active participants can hardly be considered a significant factor in deciding the utility of the event. You only need two! We would argue similarly with respect to the conference question forum. The fact that the vast majority of registered users don't actually say anything doesn't invalidate the exercise.
Now we come to point 2: “The forum somewhat does not fit in with the Conference structure …....” or to put it more simply: they (the Electronic Communication sub-committee), try as they might, can't exercise the sort of total control (ie. censorship) they'd like over what members say in the forum. Well perhaps the forum doesn't “fit in” with that nice tidy structure but then so what! And why exactly should this “structure” serve as the only platform where such opinions may be expressed? For example as a parliamentary democracy we (the general public) get to play at running the country every five years or so. Does that mean that nobody can express a view outside that “structure” in the meantime? Hardly! The ECSC should welcome and indeed expand the opportunities available to AA members to express their thoughts on how the fellowship is run rather than shut down any dialogue simply because it doesn't “fit in” with some preconceived notion of appropriateness!
And before anyone starts banging on about “no controversy” misquoting the traditions at us here's Tradition 10 (long form):
“10.—No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever. “
“Controversial” discussion, therefore, about what's going on inside AA is perfectly acceptable!
(our emphases)
But finally we come to that category of “intriguing” (if not slightly sinister) “reasons” for shutting the forum down viz. Point 3:
“The 2013 forum seemed to encourage the wrong type of debate and this does not encourage unity especially on a public facing site which could bring AA into disrepute.”
(our emphasis)
To say that our 'flabber' was 'gasted' would be something of an understatement! What exactly is the “wrong type” of debate? We have to assume from this context that it's any kind of discussion which “on a public facing site.... could bring AA into disrepute”. Well we hate to be the bearers of bad tidings chaps but take a gander at the internet! You'd expect the ECSC at least to be reasonably well acquainted with this particular medium of communication (and more so if they'd read the – unexpurgated – minority reports 2012, 2013), There is absolutely no shortage of sites, forums, blogs etc which are totally dedicated to slagging AA off from top to bottom! And one of the more common recurring themes contained therein is AA's apparent unresponsiveness to any kind of criticism, its failure seemingly to take responsibility at any level for what's going wrong in the fellowship. Not only do we not seem to be taking “inventory” but worse still we appear to be failing to follow up with the appropriate “amends”. A proper and OPEN debate on a “public facing site” might be just what the fellowship needs in order to demonstrate its willingness to listen to criticism and, more importantly, ACT on this where it seems justified. Inward looking organisations (especially those that rely solely on self-regulation) tend towards corruption over time. Conversely those that recognise the value of “public” debate and candour tend to thrive. The fellowship is an anonymous organisation – neither secret nor secretive!
In light of the above (and not wishing to be accused of hypocrisy), and in the interests of ensuring ANY member of AA (even non-AA members) can have their say on the questions posed to the AA Conference 2014, we shall be listing these on the blog over the next few days. The comment system may be employed (members are able to sign in anonymously) to communicate views, opinions and even experience. Additionally (and alternatively) the same conference questions will be added to our very own aacultwatch forum (in a separate section) for those who prefer that kind of format. In either case (and unlike the now defunct AA conference forum) contributors will be permitted to include references to outside organisations (and links where relevant - but not for the purpose merely of advertising their own website). We recognise that AA does not exist in a bubble, and that such sources of information can form a valuable contribution to the debate. Moreover the aacultwatch forum includes a facility whereby members can send private emails to each other. Again this was something not made available to members on the AA site. Finally we will NOT be using large quantities of red ink in order to censor members who choose to express their views frankly and freely. One of the central pillars of democracy is freedom of speech. Personal abuse, however, will not be tolerated but satire, irony, wit, bombast, and indeed any and all rhetorical devices are more than welcome (within reason). In all cases, however, the decision of the moderators is final!
Otherwise the floor is yours!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
As you will no doubt recall a member forwarded to us this response to an enquiry they had made concerning the missing conference question forum (the absence of which even GSO seemed unaware). To whit:
"Dear .......,
thank you for your support request. We decided not to run the Conference Forum this year for a few reasons:
1. The Electronic Communications Sub-Committee is short on members who have the time to moderate the forum.
2. The forum somewhat does not fit in with the Conference structure, where members views are heard at Group level, taken to Intergroup and then to Region for the Region's Delegates to bring to Conference in York. Discussion on an open forum is not part of that structure.
3. The 2013 forum seemed to encourage the wrong type of debate and this does not encourage unity especially on a public facing site which could bring AA into disrepute.
This decision was not taken lightly but the man hours of moderating for a very few members posting over the last few years does not seem a good use of ECSC time.
Regards,
…...... (ECSC)"
Well we found the reasons given really quite intriguing - some plausible, some not so.
Firstly it would seem from point 1 (and the concluding paragraph) that there's something of a manpower/time shortage. Not a problem. We've been scanning the forum for a couple or so years now and have got it down to a fine art. We can easily rustle up a few AA members who'd be more than happy to wield the red ink with gay abandon. Moreover we know the ropes pretty well. No cussing, no links to outside organisations, no personal abuse (although sarcasm will do at a pinch), no controversy (keep it bland), and whatever you do don't mention the 'c**t' word ('cult' of course. What did you think we meant!), especially not 'aac**tw****h'. Under our watch (geddit! …. watch! …. Oh never mind!) there will be absolutely no mention of sexual predation in AA (even though everybody knows it goes on - it's even got a slang term for it: 13 stepping) or systematic emotional abuse (ie. carrying the message c**t style. See! We've already got the idea! We're even censoring our own blog!!), anti-medication/counselling dogma, Big Book 'thumpers' (otherwise known as Big Book Bores), addicts, … the list goes on ad infinitum ….
By the time we've finished chopping out all these inessentials we'll make the redaction of MPs' expenses look like a walk in the park! In face we think that we'll have to put in a chit (oops …. sorry …..mustn't use that word either!) ….a c**t for additional supplies of magenta and then just ladle it on. Nothing, absolutely nothing non-PC will get by us we can assure you.
So that deals with that. So what's the other objection? Ah yes - a shortage of contributors to the forum. Well that's hardly an argument. The forum is a place for debate, for arguments to be put, opinions aired, (dare we say even grievances vented!) in order that those who may not have such well defined perspectives can clarify their own position. Now there's something called the Oxford Union (not to be confused with the Oxford Groups) where a couple of chaps will present opposing arguments on some or other subject. At the end of the 'show' the audience votes for the winner by exiting the debating chamber via one door or another (not quite the X-Factor but essentially the same principle). The spectators themselves don't take part in the debate. They listen and then decide according to who has presented the more persuasive argument (or more probably their own existing preconceptions). The number of actual participants therefore is minimal but the potential audience is virtually unlimited. On this basis the lack of active participants can hardly be considered a significant factor in deciding the utility of the event. You only need two! We would argue similarly with respect to the conference question forum. The fact that the vast majority of registered users don't actually say anything doesn't invalidate the exercise.
Now we come to point 2: “The forum somewhat does not fit in with the Conference structure …....” or to put it more simply: they (the Electronic Communication sub-committee), try as they might, can't exercise the sort of total control (ie. censorship) they'd like over what members say in the forum. Well perhaps the forum doesn't “fit in” with that nice tidy structure but then so what! And why exactly should this “structure” serve as the only platform where such opinions may be expressed? For example as a parliamentary democracy we (the general public) get to play at running the country every five years or so. Does that mean that nobody can express a view outside that “structure” in the meantime? Hardly! The ECSC should welcome and indeed expand the opportunities available to AA members to express their thoughts on how the fellowship is run rather than shut down any dialogue simply because it doesn't “fit in” with some preconceived notion of appropriateness!
And before anyone starts banging on about “no controversy” misquoting the traditions at us here's Tradition 10 (long form):
“10.—No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever. “
“Controversial” discussion, therefore, about what's going on inside AA is perfectly acceptable!
(our emphases)
But finally we come to that category of “intriguing” (if not slightly sinister) “reasons” for shutting the forum down viz. Point 3:
“The 2013 forum seemed to encourage the wrong type of debate and this does not encourage unity especially on a public facing site which could bring AA into disrepute.”
(our emphasis)
To say that our 'flabber' was 'gasted' would be something of an understatement! What exactly is the “wrong type” of debate? We have to assume from this context that it's any kind of discussion which “on a public facing site.... could bring AA into disrepute”. Well we hate to be the bearers of bad tidings chaps but take a gander at the internet! You'd expect the ECSC at least to be reasonably well acquainted with this particular medium of communication (and more so if they'd read the – unexpurgated – minority reports 2012, 2013), There is absolutely no shortage of sites, forums, blogs etc which are totally dedicated to slagging AA off from top to bottom! And one of the more common recurring themes contained therein is AA's apparent unresponsiveness to any kind of criticism, its failure seemingly to take responsibility at any level for what's going wrong in the fellowship. Not only do we not seem to be taking “inventory” but worse still we appear to be failing to follow up with the appropriate “amends”. A proper and OPEN debate on a “public facing site” might be just what the fellowship needs in order to demonstrate its willingness to listen to criticism and, more importantly, ACT on this where it seems justified. Inward looking organisations (especially those that rely solely on self-regulation) tend towards corruption over time. Conversely those that recognise the value of “public” debate and candour tend to thrive. The fellowship is an anonymous organisation – neither secret nor secretive!
In light of the above (and not wishing to be accused of hypocrisy), and in the interests of ensuring ANY member of AA (even non-AA members) can have their say on the questions posed to the AA Conference 2014, we shall be listing these on the blog over the next few days. The comment system may be employed (members are able to sign in anonymously) to communicate views, opinions and even experience. Additionally (and alternatively) the same conference questions will be added to our very own aacultwatch forum (in a separate section) for those who prefer that kind of format. In either case (and unlike the now defunct AA conference forum) contributors will be permitted to include references to outside organisations (and links where relevant - but not for the purpose merely of advertising their own website). We recognise that AA does not exist in a bubble, and that such sources of information can form a valuable contribution to the debate. Moreover the aacultwatch forum includes a facility whereby members can send private emails to each other. Again this was something not made available to members on the AA site. Finally we will NOT be using large quantities of red ink in order to censor members who choose to express their views frankly and freely. One of the central pillars of democracy is freedom of speech. Personal abuse, however, will not be tolerated but satire, irony, wit, bombast, and indeed any and all rhetorical devices are more than welcome (within reason). In all cases, however, the decision of the moderators is final!
Otherwise the floor is yours!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
No comments:
Post a Comment