Re: [sudo-discuss] johnny ban / process?

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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: > >> #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 >> >> >