Back to 2004 Inventory Index

Question 6: Are we careful to preserve the anonymity of our group
members and other A.A.s outside all the meeting rooms? Do we also leave
the confidences they share at meetings behind and explain this concept
to new people?

Summary:

20 responses. 3 nos, about 6 yesses or general approval of e-AA in this area, and several suggestions for more discussion of anonymity. Other responses examine the issue of anonymity in general, and the idea that some members may have more than one persona online.

Responses:

We do not explain to new people – maybe we could do better here. But,
most of the explanation should come at the beginning or end of the chat
meetings and I thought our goal was to cut down on the cut and paste for
those meetings.


Anonymity, and its various meanings in AA, needs to be talked about
more. Overall though I think we do as well as they do anywhere with
this. We don't see too many eruptions and posting of private stuff, or
too much gossip (unless you all aren't including me in the loop!). Just
the "normal" amount.


Most the time we do ok at it. I think anonymity should be talked about
more and explained.


We've had lengthy discussions about anonymity v. gossip, privacy v.
convenience, security to avoid publishing a member list into a search
engine ... I think they're good areas to continue talking. We can all
grow in our discernment and develop best practices as the group grows.
We're hit some walls on this one and had some hard lessons over the past
year in this area. Let's hope we share that experience in a way that new
members appreciate the group conscience.


I think the concept is explained, but the people who seem to go against
this grain are not always new people. "We" as a group can only really
reflect what the members do - so again, emphasizing the
principles/personalities thing, anonymity, and so forth, is the best we
can do. I think it's second AA nature for the most part, but we could
share more on this topic.


Yes, Anonymity is successfully observed at e-AA (mostly, only a rare
breach occurs). I would also venture to say that some "members" are more
than one "member" and represent themselves in a "pretend" way at our
venues...I suspect this happens for various reasons but I truly dislike
this type of deceit as it allows people to intrude into private
" sharing" situations where they don't belong...by being deceitful and
pretending to be someone else the person that is doing it WASTES our
time and takes away from our true direction and quest. I consider this a
rave personal violation...how do we stop it? I don't know.


Yes


yes


Yes


I think so...


I sure hope so!


hope so


I don't recall this being explained, but I myself know the 12th
Tradition.


It seems to me that I'd have more control over my anonymity here than I
ever could in f2f.


...Not sure ...Different with internet as everything is recorded


Some of the outspoken members are too anal about their own anonymity,
which indicates they have more recovering to do. If someone really needs
anonymity that much, they should keep quiet and let someone who doesn't
have such a problem do the talking. The "principle" of anonymity was
never intended to be abused the way it does. Even Bill wrote something
to this effect, so I don't expect the issue to go away.


The problem is that I disagree with this whole concept. This is an
al-anon concept. In AA we have to Share our Experience Strength and
Hope. Therefore, where I am going to meetings they have changed this
idea to "What you hear here take it home and use it, who you see here
stays here." I have often repeated someone else's story if I thought it
would help another alcoholic I just didn't use their name and I have to
say that my 4th step was thorough enough that I wouldn't mind my story
being used to help another alcoholic as long as it was done with
discretion.


No. In fact, we go out of our way to show new folks that anything they
say can and will be used against them some day. Some of the folks here
got emails that go back for years and years.


> From what I have read in the members list, I don't honestly think so.


NO/NO

Back to 2004 Inventory Index