12 Jan
2015
12 Jan
'15
3:33 p.m.
I agree that both/all side must be heard.
I also agree that first, the community and witnesses must be on the same
page about the *facts* of incidents, without pressure on witnesses, but in
way that doesn't promote a closed bias. At one house I was involved ith, a
list would be made, at the meeting withouth the individual, then each
issue/incident was addressed with the individual present, so that each and
every issue/incident was available for discussion/explanation/etc.
We do already (or damn oughta) have precident for these interactions...
~ Korl
500px.com/eske
510.689.4484
On Jan 12, 2015 3:19 PM, "Ryan" <yandoryn(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree. (With very little stake in this specific
discussion, but in
these kinds of discussions in general.)
I think that it is impossible to first discuss someone's violent behavior
with them present. Many people may feel too intimidated to speak up, if the
perpetrator of violence is present. Because of this, it is not "fair and
just" to have the person accused of violence present at all discussions.
After a discussion (to which the person accused of violence is not
present) has been facilitated, it is more possible to facilitate a
discussion with them present, in order to get "both sides."
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:06 PM, joseph liesner <blue393(a)lmi.net> wrote:
I think it is imperative that when Sudo has a
meeting to
discuss and/or vote on Matt's proposal that such a meeting
be open o the public, at a convenient time and day, and
that Elliot and witnesses to his violent behavior be present.
Otherwise I would be unable to know if our policies are
fair and just.
joe
On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Matthew Senate wrote:
While I wasn't there for this latest instance, this is the second time in
our new location (I was present the first time) and at least the fourth
instance related to sudo room, of Elliot escalating a situation to a
physical, even violent, response on his part.
I am no longer willing to tolerate this behavior and continue to risk all
the love, care, and work that goes into making all of omni commons, and
each collective, a thriving and safer community and space.
In sum, it seems evident that Elliot's continued involvement in omni
commons is already a greater cost, and even greater potential risk, than a
revocation of his privilege to use the space.
I propose sudo room in particular revoke Elliot's non-member privilege to
access the sudo room, and therefore the omni commons, until Elliot can
provide the sudo room membership with tangible evidence of a new investment
in the prevention of physical violence and marked improvement of his own
behavior in this regard.
// Matt
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss