I find it kind of humiliating that this has to be so public. I feel that it shows poor judgement on my part to have ignored and suppressed my own feelings for so long in this situation. The humorless feminist straw man is a scary thing to be policed with, if I have an excuse. I give people the benefit of the doubt, I accept a lot of communication styles, so I laughed the first half dozen or so times he called me something awful in a way that was plausibly-kidding-but-really-not.

And that's how I wound up spending months getting harassed, having my sleep disturbed, by someone who felt entitled to treat me any way he liked. Who respected my physical autonomy so little that he could threaten to hurt me, and laugh when I was afraid, and touch me when I told him not to.

Marina, we never agreed to that. I agreed to have some understanding of Johnny's position of not remembering one thing he said due to being very drunk, and acknowledging that there might be other factors at play, but that's absolutely what happened.

There was no talk of me being evicted or kicked out until he drunkenly told me he'd "almost kicked me out like three times over sexual tension." He doesn't remember this, but he said it.

His email that tells me to get out was a direct reply to my email telling him his behavior was inappropriate and scary and needed to stop.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 11:10 AM Lesley Bell <zvezdalune@gmail.com> wrote:

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@labitat.dk> wrote:

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

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