On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist@gmail.com> wrote:

I object that sub-section 3.2 Conflict Resolution has not been followed in the least.

If it had been followed, then there would have been a facilitator chosen before the meeting where a decision is made about my access. This is plainly indicated by this graphic on the wiki and the text of that section.

Had this been followed, I would have been notified of conflict before judgement, and I would not have been subjected to treatment I received tonight by the law abiding members of sudoroom. I should have been notified by the facilitator as to the fact that I was involved in a conflict before judgement. That did not happen.

Any member of any Omni collective can invoke an instant temporary safe space ban and then subsequent mediation and/or meetings can decide if the ban should be lifted or become permanent:

https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy#4..E2.80.8E_.E2.80.8FConsequences.E2.80.AD_.E2.80.ACof.E2.80.AD_.E2.80.ACUnacceptable.E2.80.AD_.E2.80.ACBehavior

Yes you should have been informed that the safer space policy had been invoked. That was a mistake. If any volunteers are available to act as conflict steward and mediator then they will contact you. Note that in sudo room articles are our guidelines and consensus can overrule any existing rules including invoking/revoking bans. It looks to me like there has been no meeting with enough members for quorum since this happened (can someone verify or correct this if they attended recent meetings?). If this is correct then you are temporarily banned based on the safer spaces policy until mediation can conclude or a decision is made by a quorum of minimum 10 sudo room members. If there has been no consensus decision with quorum then you are not banned from Noisebridge. I apologize for that statement (I was not at that meeting and may have misinterpreted the wiki notes).

marc/juul