Request of council, my reinstatement.

Never mind

Reason #1,000,001 to be careful what you share online: nothing is ever truly private.

Reason #1? Nothing can ever be truly deleted.

Such things may cease to exist in your PM inbox, but the messages themselves will likely remain on the server somewhere else.... I hope you realize that.


Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that that admitted practice is wrong. The only reason a PM should be read by the admins is if abuse or mistreatment has been reported and thus in the capacity of an official investigation, not willy-nilly because they can.

We agree on very few things, you and I, but this is one thing I think we're wholeheartedly in agreement on.

I agree Avalon, and yes I understand that nothing on the internet is every really gone. Rest assured that even the small amount of information that I ever did share was thoroughly scrubbed and so anything I sent was done with no regret.

However others may not be so savvy and for the administration of this place to freely admit the abuse is almost unheard of so I find it prudent to make as many as possible aware and ensure their safety and security of info as well.

Thanks for the reply!

Just as another thought to add to this was Zenchis constant demands of me to share personal information here at this place. Another charge that could be leveled against him, it was actually one of the major points of contention between he and I. In that regard alone his excommunication is well deserved.

So I warn everyone undertaking a position here that if ANYONE, even a Knight, demands anything of you or coerces you in any way or tries to manipulate you into giving up anything that you are not comfortable sharing do not trust them! I have been victim to this in the past from people I thought I could trust and ended up being betrayed. So never trust anyone you know solely on the internet! EVER!

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Copied and Posted from another thread.

Tellahane wrote: Did we read scan through pm's from time to time, absolutely.

Another reason I will remain a guest here. This is a gross violation of privacy. I dont care what excuse you use to justify it. I and my mentor used the PM system for sensitive information during my training and now Im told that my absolutely private information was not private at all.

I will be deleting all my PMs and I will never be using that system again here and I suggest everyone else to do the same.

I understand your concern and I share them. The entire point of a private message system is that the messages should remain private. For the record, only a few people actually have access to the PM system, and I'm not one of them. Or if I am able, I don't know how. When Tellahane was a Councillor and Site Admin, I know he had access, so maybe he can speak to when and why these "scans" occurred.

It is my understanding that PMs are only accessed when a specific complaint has been made that involves inappropriate and/or illegal behavior. In these cases, we try to ask the accuser for screen shots of the PM in question rather than accessing it ourselves. Again, this is my understanding, but I cannot speak to whether or not this is always the case.

Senan wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Copied and Posted from another thread.

Tellahane wrote: Did we read scan through pm's from time to time, absolutely.

Another reason I will remain a guest here. This is a gross violation of privacy. I dont care what excuse you use to justify it. I and my mentor used the PM system for sensitive information during my training and now Im told that my absolutely private information was not private at all.

I will be deleting all my PMs and I will never be using that system again here and I suggest everyone else to do the same.

I understand your concern and I share them. The entire point of a private message system is that the messages should remain private. For the record, only a few people actually have access to the PM system, and I'm not one of them. Or if I am able, I don't know how. When Tellahane was a Councillor and Site Admin, I know he had access, so maybe he can speak to when and why these "scans" occurred.

It is my understanding that PMs are only accessed when a specific complaint has been made that involves inappropriate and/or illegal behavior. In these cases, we try to ask the accuser for screen shots of the PM in question rather than accessing it ourselves. Again, this is my understanding, but I cannot speak to whether or not this is always the case.

Only two people have ever had access to my knowledge and it was Ren(currently) and myself when I had the position. I can tell you the only time I ever accessed it was to run queries to search for key words for anything that would be a red flag. As I just mentioned in the other thread you don't actually even see initially who is sending to who without following a trail of ID numbers back to user names, of which I can only recall doing once, and that was when there was a PM that was potentially soliciting a minor, of which no other content anywhere else on the sight had that information in it. If an event had occurred with a minor that was caused via this website, the website and the temple as a whole could have been liable for it if we we'rent monitoring that kind of thing. That being said I have had careers in this area and well aware of how to respect privacy. Not once has any post or communication I've ever made had any content from anyones' private messaging, with only one exception if any and that was that individually suspected pm. This includes the private council chats and other means to which we communicated to each other.

There is no means of any communication online at all that isn't in some way able to be viewed by some type of administrator somewhere. There are ways of encrypting it but every encryption has a way to decrypt it otherwise there wouldn't be a point in storing it. This includes things like discord chats too.

Tellahane wrote: the website and the temple as a whole could have been liable for it if we we'rent monitoring that kind of thing.

Thats not exactly true. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, gives websites broad legal immunity: With some exceptions, online platforms can't be sued for something posted by a user — and that remains true even if they act a little like publishers, by moderating posts or setting specific standards. As long as the site has no active hand in the content it is exempt.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Tellahane wrote: the website and the temple as a whole could have been liable for it if we we'rent monitoring that kind of thing.

Thats not exactly true. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, gives websites broad legal immunity: With some exceptions, online platforms can't be sued for something posted by a user — and that remains true even if they act a little like publishers, by moderating posts or setting specific standards. As long as the site has no active hand in the content it is exempt.

As mentioned elsewhere, not a US hosted server...They also can be gone after despite that act if the platform is proven to be a save haven for organizing such acts, which could be proven if there are no attempts/methods to moderate or protect from such felonies occurring. Which is why privacy policies/terms of use and other such things are so important to online websites hence the continuing discussion in the other thread.

Tellahane wrote: As mentioned elsewhere, not a US hosted server...They also can be gone after despite that act if the platform is proven to be a save haven for organizing such acts, which could be proven if there are no attempts/methods to moderate or protect from such felonies occurring. Which is why privacy policies/terms of use and other such things are so important to online websites hence the continuing discussion in the other thread.

Where is the server hosted? Doesnt matter really the law is clear, this is a US based corporation and so subject to US law. And to be liable the site owners have to be actively participating in the illegal activity. Beyond that monitoring or not monitoring is irrelevant. The site is exempt. You are justifying your unethical behaviour.

No law was broken, I simply can't explain myself in any other way that doesn't involve violating personal privacy. I can't really say it any other way then that, if that makes me look like a victim trying to play the get out of jail card then so be it but thats that. I'm not continuing the discussion anymore as its clearly pointless, unless council and the members involved give me permission to do otherwise.

Tellahane wrote: No law was broken, I simply can't explain myself in any other way that doesn't involve violating personal privacy. I can't really say it any other way then that, if that makes me look like a victim trying to play the get out of jail card then so be it but thats that. I'm not continuing the discussion anymore as its clearly pointless, unless council and the members involved give me permission to do otherwise.

I did not say you broke any laws, I said you demonstrated unethical behaviour. The law portion pertained to the server that you keep saying is someplace else yet refuse to say where, and that the corporation of TojJO is a USA based corporation so its practices are subject to US law, not wherever this secret server location is.

I'm a little ashamed to admit that I don't know this information more specifically, but I believe the server is under EU jurisdiction. Server space is less expensive in Europe. Should any case actually involve criminal activity, we will always encourage the accuser to go to local law enforcement and allow them to handle the investigation. TOTJO will provide whatever information they request and fully cooperate.

I think we have all "guessed" where the server is given it's current admin. But thank you senan for having the balls to say it. And if a criminal case is brought and law enforcement gets involved and a subpoena is issued I would expect totjo would comply and cooperate to the fullest. This place doesn't have the kahunas to pull an "apple stalemate" in any case. However short of that it is completely unethical for admins to just decide to go poking around in otherwise confidential Information. Do they scan the clergy requests as well to make sure everything is kosher? I would not put it past them. This is especially agregious given that this is supposed to be a holy place where people can come for council! It equates to the janitor rifling through the pastors files after hours just to see "what's up!"

The server is physically located in France. That's not a secret. We're under multiple jurisdictions which are at least Texas, US federal law, France, and The EU. A non-profit corporation does not have owners.

Even if that were true, which I dont believe it is, how does that justify unethical behaviour?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Even if that were true, which I dont believe it is, how does that justify unethical behaviour?

It doesn't. I'm not justifying anything. I'm giving information.

Read the original article here with live links https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-who-owns-a-nonprofit/

Who owns a nonprofit?
No one.

A major misconception about nonprofit organizations concerns ownership of a nonprofit. No one person or group of people can own a nonprofit organization.

Ownership is the major difference between a for-profit business and a nonprofit organization. For-profit businesses can be privately owned and can distribute earnings to employees or shareholders. But nonprofit organizations do not have private owners and they do not issue stock or pay dividends. And while nonprofit organizations can earn a surplus, that income must be reinvested in the nonprofit organization — possibly to benefit or expand programs according to the charitable mission. But that income cannot be distributed to persons.

If there is no owner, who manages and controls a nonprofit?
Once incorporated, the newly created nonprofit organization is a separate legal entity from its incorporators, directors, officers, and employees. The nonprofit corporation owns assets of the business and is entitled to receive the revenue from its operation.

Many nonprofits are managed by boards; others may be managed by voting members. When a nonprofit first begins operating, the board members, along with the founder(s), may perform many of the tasks of the organization. As the nonprofit grows, the board may begin hiring staff members to develop and lead programs as the board and/or voting members continue to oversee the organization.

But none of these individuals or groups have any ownership rights in the organization. And while they don’t own the nonprofit, they do have significant legal and ethical duties that cannot be delegated to others. Learn more about directors’ duties.

What about the founder? Doesn’t the founder of a nonprofit own it?
No. The founder does not own the nonprofit.

Certainly, starting a nonprofit organization takes considerable time, effort, and money. And the founder may feel closer to the mission and the programs than anyone else. But that founder does not have any ownership rights in the nonprofit.

Often times the founder will serve on the initial board of directors, which manages the nonprofit. The board safeguards the public’s interest to ensure that the organization operates in accordance with its mission and the purpose for which it was granted tax-exempt status and protects the assets of the nonprofit.

As a member of the board of directors, a founder has the same responsibilities as other board members. While a founder may feel closer to the organization that she helped to form, a founder has no ownership rights regarding the nonprofit corporation.

To whom is the the nonprofit accountable?
The organization is accountable to many constituencies.

The General Public. Nonprofits are created to provide a charitable purpose to the public good, whether as charities, educational programs, churches or religious groups, or scientific or artistic organizations.
State Agencies. Nonprofits must also comply with certain regulations in the states in which they operate. These may also require public disclosure of specific documents or the filing of certain reports.
The IRS. Certain tax-exempt entities follow rules set by the IRS to keep their tax-exempt status.

Can a nonprofit be sold?

No. A nonprofit cannot be sold to another individual or organization. Additionally, the assets acquired by a nonprofit were acquired with the understanding that they will be used to further the mission of that organization. If a nonprofit decides to cease operations, the organization must settle all debts and distribute all of the nonprofit’s remaining assets to another nonprofit corporation before it can be dissolved.

Learn More:
It should be noted that some states do allow nonprofit corporations to issue stock and own stocks. This is not common and it is not discussed above. Contact us for state-specific inquiries.

Cullinane Law Group: Can the Executive Director Serve on the Board?

Cullinane Law Group: What are the Duties of Nonprofit Directors?

Cullinane Law Group: Nonprofit Corporation Vs. 501(c)(3) Organization

The Cullinane Law Group works exclusively with the nonprofit tax-exempt sector: new nonprofits, foundations, religious groups, and social entrepreneurs throughout the United States who seek to create positive change.

https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-who-owns-a-nonprofit/

Ownership has nothing to do with the question at hand. By definition, a corporation has no owner. It is a soverign entity so your reply is irrelevant. What is relevant, as you freely admit, is the actions of your officers in this corporation, which are exceeding the boundaries of their charter.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Ownership has nothing to do with the question at hand. By definition, a corporation has no owner. It is a soverign entity so your reply is irrelevant. What is relevant, as you freely admit, is the actions of your officers in this corporation, which are exceeding the boundaries of their charter.

If you believe there is some illicit activity going on then you should call the authorities or file a lawsuit. I am not admitting anything. A for profit corporation does have owners. The stockholders are the owners.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Ownership has nothing to do with the question at hand. By definition, a corporation has no owner. It is a soverign entity so your reply is irrelevant. What is relevant, as you freely admit, is the actions of your officers in this corporation, which are exceeding the boundaries of their charter.

Nothing was un-ethical or beyond the boundaries of a charter, if you still believe otherwise feel free to have a private conversation with me about it and I will try and explain better privately what I can't explain as detail publicly. I've had a couple of these conversations now and each one ends with..."oh..ok well than that is fine, your an idiot for not wording that better the first time around" (to which I probably am).