on Mar 14, 2014, Ronald Cotoni <setient@gmail.com> wrote:

https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014-03-12

Conflict Resolution

There is a conflict between Elliott and Xavier.

Elliot: Tuesday night, 11 March. Elliot said something about a friend of Xavier (your friend sexually assaulted my friend), Xavier took umbrage and asked if E wanted X to jump on him or for X to call the police. This was a verbal exchange. They were separated; X was asked to leave. E is uncomfortable in X's presence. E seeks a conflict mediation that allows them to be in separate spaces during the mediation; also that X should be excluded from the Sudoroom until E feels safe again. E feels that he was threatened with violence.

Xavier: To E: "I'm sorry for what you felt last night." X asked to talk about what E said. E asked what X wanted to talk about X's friend. E defamed X's friend. X said not to defame X's friend/family (i.e. calling the friend a rapist). X continued to defend his friend in a strong manner.

yar: did you threaten to jump him or call the police? Xavier: "maybe, maybe not, but he defamated my family"

Jeremy was there and tells his version: X came in, wanted to "make an appointment with E." E said no. Conversation happened. E: "he's a sexual abuser" X: "don't talk about my friend that way or i'm gonna kick your ass." Something about "any other action being a consequence of law" (?) Entire exchange lasted a minute. No physical interaction.

Elliot says he de-escalated by walking away

Xavier feels threatened by the idea of a mediation where he can't come to Sudoroom. He said "you don't know what jail is". Elliot takes this as "an additional threat to have [him] in prison."

Dwight reports on issues at RPS. A conflict happened which seemed potentially violent but did not escalate to physical violence. They're making a code of conduct now because they've never had this issue before.

Elliot: "X threatened a member of RPS with physical violence" Dwight agrees.

Xavier: "I don't want to be cowardly attacked, if you want to call a time and place". There is debate over whether this was a threat to violence or an invitation to talk.

A lot more conversations happened. Elliot left. Yar asked Xavier to leave and he left a few minutes later.

yar objects to X's rape apologism, manipulative topic-changing, ideation about violence and dominance, and general lack of accountability. At this point multiple people feel unsafe with him.

Not enough quorum to ban?

This seems to me like a discussion was had. I was just pointing out that before you agree to mediation. I don't know either party so I cannot really comment.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Hol Gaskill <hol@gaskill.com> wrote:
hey ronald and all,

i am honestly not up to speed on the details - these are the meeting notes from last week https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014-03-05 and i see nothing on this topic nor did i see this emailed out as is required for consent agenda items. If i recall, a considerable amount of hivemind time was taken up in establishing conflict resolution standards. If these are not being met by those prosecuting, what does that say about our organization? I don't really have a stake in this other than following through on what we say we do, as outlined in our articles of association (or incorporation):

Section 3.2 Conflict Resolution

Sub-Section 3.2.0 Process

The resolution of disputes and disagreements within sudo room is encouraged through informal process and the spirit of a collaborative environment. There is a process, however, by which issues that are not resolved informally and that arise within the scope of these articles of association:

The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as Conflict Steward in the matter, and works with this Conflict Steward to find a Mediator.

The Mediator is an impartial and uninvolved third party who consents to assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work toward a solution.

The Conflict Steward organizes meetings for conflict resolution and maintains records of all meetings and relevant communications among the conflicting parties.

The Conflict Steward, Mediator, and the conflicting parties arrange to meet to work out a resolution to which all conflicting parties consent.

If at least one conflicting party does not consent to meet, or if at least one conflicting party is unavailable to meet in a reasonable time, all relevant circumstances considered, or if the Conflict Steward and Mediator agree after at least one meeting that further meetings would not be likely to lead to resolution, the issue is brought before the group in the following way:

The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting scheduled at least one week in the future, and documentation is gathered by the Conflict Steward and made available to the group at least one week beforehand (on wiki), and notice is broadcast to the group (on mailing list), but information that would compromise anyone's privacy or dignity is not made public. In the description of the issue, the form of remedy sought by the plaintiff(s) is included. Both the Conflict Steward and Mediator must give their approval of the factual content of the documentation before it is posted. Both the Conflict Steward and Mediator must expressly affirm that the form of remedy sought by the plaintiff(s) is consistent with sudo room's values. The request for remedy must include an implementation plan approved by the Conflict Steward and the Mediator if it is not obvious how to implement it.

During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all unresolved issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a vote.

First, the Conflict Steward presents all relevant documentation about the issue.

Then, a category of severity is established by consensus according to sudo room's values and the facts of the case. The category determines the voting threshold for sustaining a sanction against any party to the conflict. The categories are (in order of decreasing severity):

Conflict calling for membership suspension or termination.

Decision Procedure: 2/3 vote

Conflict where only material compensation is sought.

Decision Procedure: 1/2 vote

All other conflicts.

Decision Procedure: Consensus

Then, the opportunity to represent perspective is granted to each conflicting party and to the Mediator, and general discussion may be held about the issue if any member wishes. The Conflict Steward co-facilitates with the Facilitator in order to answer questions specific to the conflict and provides information about the history of the conflict by referring to the documentation.

Then, a brief period of deliberation of definite time is held, during which members are free to consider the issue or discuss it directly with others.

Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the conflict, along with any appropriate implementation plans.

Finally, a vote is held on the plaintiff(s)' proposed remedy, and then alternative remedies are voted upon in the order they were proposed, but only if at least one member indicates that the remedy under consideration is still relevant. After all remedies have been considered in this way, the matter is considered resolved. The Conflict Steward then ensures all relevant parties understand the remedy or remedies that passed and any corresponding implementation plans.

Any conflicting party unsatisfied with the decision may place an appeal on the agenda in the same way that conflicts are placed on the agenda, except that a majority of the group must vote to accept the appeal during a meeting, and the process begins anew. The appeal must propose an alternative remedy and refer to values that were not served by the original decision.

If at the end of any step in the process more than an hour has passed during the current meeting in considering the conflict, any member may request that a majority vote be held on whether to table the conflict until the next meeting.

Sub-Section 3.2.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts

In the pursuit of fairness, due process in the resolution of conflicts must include:

Presumption of innocence.

Right to an appeal and a fair process.

Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members.

Proportional and effective remedies.

Restorative remedies are strongly preferred over retributive remedies.

/textwall

I arrived late at the meeting this week and there seemed to be ongoing discussion RE recent events and definition of safe spaces. My idea of mediation in this case is making clear the fact that threats of violence are 100% unacceptable and that only the sudo room standard of safe space is in effect here - take it or leave it. There was some issue of defamation of character vs accurately describing something that happened between a friend of X and a friend of E during which time X exhibited irrational behavior which is unacceptable going forward.

My intention is to gauge whether or not the differences are reconcileable and if so help chart the course of reconciliation; should it become clear that any party is unable to meet our standards of safe space and nonviolence, I would report back to the group accordingly.

So I guess I am seeking conflict mediator status if both E and X consent and if noone else is already doing this. I am personally not especially risk-averse in terms of my own personal safety, though I abhor those who would unjustly endager others and after sufficient exploration of the issue I would not hesitate to safeguard our members against all such people through all available means.

-hol
on Mar 13, 2014, Ronald Cotoni <setient@gmail.com> wrote:
Hol, Did you read the meeting notes from last week?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01@att.net> wrote:
Threats of violence and zealous defense of violence, add up to a high risk of acts of violence. To my mind that is a cutoff point, and attempting to mediate only prolongs a high-risk situation and potentially makes it more emotionally charged (thus increases the risk).

This is all the more so if the threats he made, and the acts he zealously defended, referred to any kind of weapon, other than in self-defense against an immediate threat to one's own life or the lives of innocent others. IMHO the best way to handle this is in a cool and unemotional way: "nothing personal, rules is rules."

Any reasonable definition of "safe space" includes that people don't have to worry about encountering someone who may threaten them with violence.

Lastly, if you ban him, change any locks or passwords he may have had access to. Even a key that says "do not duplicate" is not a deterrent to someone making a copy themselves or having a corrupt person make one for them.

-G.

=====
On 14-03-13-Thu 5:08 PM, Hol Gaskill wrote:
i'm willing to act as a mediator pursuant to our conflict resolution policy

on Mar 13, 2014, Yardena Cohen <yardenack@gmail.com> wrote:

At this point there have been several informal calls for Xavier to be
banned. After last night's events I reluctantly agree that he should
not be welcome at Sudo until he's accountable for his behavior:

* he made threats of violence towards somebody at Sudo
* he did something similar at Rock Paper Scissors
* he zealously defended other acts of violence committed by a friend of his

I'm willing to act as a mediator, but I'm not confident that the
problem can be resolved.

So I formally propose that he be banned from our space for an
indefinite period. Are there any objections?
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
--
Ronald Cotoni
Systems Engineer
--
Ronald Cotoni
Systems Engineer