20 Jul
2016
20 Jul
'16
11:10 a.m.
Marina,
I appreciate your offer, and your past willingness to mediate. However, due
to the results of the past mediation, I am not comfortable having you
mediate at this time.
Your repeated suggestion that Johnny might just be joking and I should
reframe his insults/harassment as humor did not prove to be helpful, as
evidenced by his subsequent criminal breaking and entering and physical
assault. I also did not feel that his words in your presence were sincere,
as he repeated some of his inappropriate behavior very soon afterward.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 10:56 AM Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com> wrote:
aside from any other issues, i sincerely doubt
that this is a game to
johnny given that he wants to participate in the space..
let's focus on "restorative" instead of "retributive" - johnny
seems (to
me) to want to follow the process in a good faith way. for anyone who is
more familiar with the omni and sudo remediation process than i am, any
ideas on how to move forward from here?
Accusations are one thing but the way people choose to respond to
accusations is usually a very good predictor of whether they end up with a
resolved conflict and regaining access to the space.
After Johnny's comments in this thread I predict that he will not be
allowed back any time soon.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:24 AM, robb
<sf99er(a)gmail.com> wrote:
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
#swish?
really, this is all just a game to you johnny?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
_______________________________________________ Hi Johnny,
Is it true that Lesley's has a temporary restraining order against you?
That seems to rise above mere "gossip and accusations", and seems like it
would be substantial enough to trigger at least a temporary ban.
Also, it's the nature of interpersonal conflicts that there may not be
any more than "accusations" available to make a decision on. So if someone
states that they feel unsafe around another person, it may be justified to
remove that other person from the space at least temporarily, until a
better informed decision can be reached.
Patrik
On Jul 20, 2016 2:16 AM, "Johnny" <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
that link says if "someone's safety is at risk, a temporary ban may be
placed". it says nothing about how, and obviously is meant to deal with
clear present safety issues, not gossip and accusations.
abusing that vague apparatus of the super-system to ban people on mere
claims is totally fascist and supremacist behavior.
defending it is also fascist.
calling out for the record that Marc, Matt, Cere, Sigma, Jeremy are
fascists for consent to abuse system and unjustly override process without
sudo quorum; ya'll better not step on any cracks!
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Marc,
>>
>> No quorum you say? Sub-Section 3.2.2 "Maintaining Safe Space During
>> Conflict Resolution" states that my ban would have had to been ratified
>> online without quorum.
>>
>>
> The sudo room space, being part of Omni, is also subject to all Omni
> rules, including the Omni safer space policy which I linked previously.
>
> --
> marc/juul
>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss