On page 7 of this thread, Simon offered the following two possibilities for AAWA not wanting to further indulge the identity of the guilty party:
a) It genuinely was a 3rd party who maliciously setup a copy-cat group, stole your identity (name and logo) and outed people. Yet despite all of this you continue to protect their identity and they get away with no hint of doubt over their character, free to harm other people in future. Way to help the community !!
b) It wasn't a 3rd party at all which would be another reason for you to be so adamant not to name the person involved (previous claims etc...)
Per fizzywiglet’s post, along with several other corroborations, we now know that the correct answer is (b). Since we are seemingly not allowed to expose her name in this forum, I am forced to use ‘her’ or ‘she’.
So… (to borrow the phrasing of the illustrious AAWA President), to re-cap:
An AAWA representative/coordinator (not sure in what capacity she serves) added people into the group’s Facebook page without permission. When confronted by a user who was outed, she said something to the effect of it would be too much work to invite people to join one by one.
This person (she) has been involved with AAWA months before the official launch and well into the planning and embryonic stages. She was/is closely involved with the AAWA president since she was contacting people on his behalf in making the YouTube launch video, and evidently played some role in the production of the video itself. Though she is not a listed member of the advisory board, the very fact that she was involved before there even was a group lends credence to the fact that she was/is an official AAWA representative and coordinator.
So this was not just a random volunteer who got overexcited and started adding people to the Facebook group, as we first were led to believe. This is someone who had the AAWA’s official sanction in her representative/coordinator work. By failing to acknowledge her name or even existence, the president has left a few open questions.
Did the AAWA sanction what she did at the time? Did they know what she was doing and approved? Did they at first give her the go-ahead, and then pulled support once this situation became evident? Or did they have no clue as to what she was doing at all and only found out about it after the fact?
These are all reasonable questions to ask, which unfortunately have not been answered. The next logical step would be to detail what steps were or are going to be made to rectify the situation with their representative (she). Perhaps a statement from the offending party? Even an acknowledgement that a person affiliated with their group did indeed add people on Facebook to their group and as a consequence, outing people as apostates who were until now not looked upon as such?
The name has been outed. You know who we are talking about.
To borrow another line from the AAWA president:
We await your response.
