On Wednesday, July 20, 2016, Marina Kukso <marina.kukso@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@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@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@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@labitat.dk> wrote:


On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist@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@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss



_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss



_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss