You don't. And for the record, I'm less interested in the physical danger represented by newcomers than the threat of exposure. If we're no longer living in a Morningstar-overseen safehouse, we ourselves will be the only authority responsible for ensuring newcomers don't go outside before they're ready. My concern is that handling freedom of movement for our existing number while limiting early freedom for newcomers if we're all sharing the same space will be difficult when we've only our own authority to rely on. And if someone panics and runs, or is let go by somebody who remembers how much they hated having to wait, and they don't have an ID yet but they already know our location and the faces of whoever happens to be living in our safehouse? Or if somebody develops an active intention to sabotage us, or even just to seek out safety and help from a more widely recognised authority, and knows exactly where we've set up camp?
We're too vulnerable. I would like to be as kind as we can, but there needs to be balance.
I'm looking at a safety net, not an entry exam. I'm not looking to exclude, I'm looking to take care.
But I hear you.
We're not deciding anything now. There's a lot to be done, and a lot of discussion that needs to take place. As you say, we're a community, and I think this needs to be decided as communally as possible.
no subject
We're too vulnerable. I would like to be as kind as we can, but there needs to be balance.
I'm looking at a safety net, not an entry exam. I'm not looking to exclude, I'm looking to take care.
But I hear you.
We're not deciding anything now. There's a lot to be done, and a lot of discussion that needs to take place. As you say, we're a community, and I think this needs to be decided as communally as possible.