[sudo-discuss] Banning Xavier
Ronald Cotoni
setient at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 00:41:04 PDT 2014
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014-03-12
Conflict Resolution
There is a conflict between Elliott and Xavier.
- Elliot: Tuesday night, 11 March. Elliot said something about a friend
of Xavier (your friend sexually assaulted my friend), Xavier took umbrage
and asked if E wanted X to jump on him or for X to call the police. This
was a verbal exchange. They were separated; X was asked to leave. E is
uncomfortable in X's presence. E seeks a conflict mediation that allows
them to be in separate spaces during the mediation; also that X should be
excluded from the Sudoroom until E feels safe again. E feels that he was
threatened with violence.
- Xavier: To E: "I'm sorry for what you felt last night." X asked to
talk about what E said. E asked what X wanted to talk about X's friend. E
defamed X's friend. X said not to defame X's friend/family (i.e. calling
the friend a rapist). X continued to defend his friend in a strong manner.
- yar: did you threaten to jump him or call the police? Xavier: "maybe,
maybe not, but he defamated my family"
- Jeremy was there and tells his version: X came in, wanted to "make an
appointment with E." E said no. Conversation happened. E: "he's a sexual
abuser" X: "don't talk about my friend that way or i'm gonna kick your
ass." Something about "any other action being a consequence of law" (?)
Entire exchange lasted a minute. No physical interaction.
- Elliot says he de-escalated by walking away
- Xavier feels threatened by the idea of a mediation where he can't come
to Sudoroom. He said "you don't know what jail is". Elliot takes this as
"an additional threat to have [him] in prison."
- Dwight reports on issues at RPS. A conflict happened which seemed
potentially violent but did not escalate to physical violence. They're
making a code of conduct now because they've never had this issue before.
- Elliot: "X threatened a member of RPS with physical violence" Dwight
agrees.
- Xavier: "I don't want to be cowardly attacked, if you want to call a
time and place". There is debate over whether this was a threat to violence
or an invitation to talk.
- A lot more conversations happened. Elliot left. Yar asked Xavier to
leave and he left a few minutes later.
- yar objects to X's rape apologism, manipulative topic-changing,
ideation about violence and dominance, and general lack of accountability.
At this point multiple people feel unsafe with him.
- Not enough quorum to ban?
This seems to me like a discussion was had. I was just pointing out that
before you agree to mediation. I don't know either party so I cannot
really comment.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Hol Gaskill <hol at gaskill.com> wrote:
> hey ronald and all,
>
> i am honestly not up to speed on the details - these are the meeting notes
> from last week https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014-03-05 and i
> see nothing on this topic nor did i see this emailed out as is required for
> consent agenda items. If i recall, a considerable amount of hivemind time
> was taken up in establishing conflict resolution standards. If these are
> not being met by those prosecuting, what does that say about our
> organization? I don't really have a stake in this other than following
> through on what we say we do, as outlined in our articles of association
> (or incorporation):
> Section 3.2 Conflict Resolution Sub-Section 3.2.0 Process
> [image: Diagram] <https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png>
>
> The resolution of disputes and disagreements within *sudo room* is
> encouraged through informal process and the spirit of a collaborative
> environment. There is a process, however, by which issues that are not
> resolved informally and that arise within the scope of these articles of
> association:
>
> 1. The party who seeks resolution finds someone to act as *Conflict
> Steward* in the matter, and works with this *Conflict Steward* to find
> a *Mediator*.
> 1. The *Mediator* is an impartial and uninvolved third party who
> consents to assist, and with whom all conflicting parties consent to work
> toward a solution.
> 2. The *Conflict Steward* organizes meetings for conflict
> resolution and maintains records of all meetings and relevant
> communications among the conflicting parties.
> 3. The *Conflict Steward*, *Mediator*, and the conflicting parties
> arrange to meet to work out a resolution to which all conflicting parties
> consent.
> 2. If at least one conflicting party does not consent to meet, or if
> at least one conflicting party is unavailable to meet in a reasonable time,
> all relevant circumstances considered, or if the *Conflict Steward*
> and *Mediator* agree after at least one meeting that further meetings
> would not be likely to lead to resolution, the issue is brought before the
> group in the following way:
> 1. The issue is added to the agenda of the next official meeting
> scheduled at least one week in the future, and documentation is gathered by
> the *Conflict Steward* and made available to the group at least one
> week beforehand (on wiki), and notice is broadcast to the group (on mailing
> list), but information that would compromise anyone's privacy or dignity is
> not made public. In the description of the issue, the form of remedy sought
> by the plaintiff(s) is included. Both the *Conflict Steward* and
> *Mediator* must give their approval of the factual content of the
> documentation before it is posted. Both the *Conflict Steward* and
> *Mediator* must expressly affirm that the form of remedy sought by
> the plaintiff(s) is consistent with *sudo room's* values<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values>.
> The request for remedy must include an implementation plan approved by the *Conflict
> Steward* and the *Mediator* if it is not obvious how to implement
> it.
> 2. During each meeting's agenda item on Conflict Resolution, all
> unresolved issues on the wiki are brought up for discussion followed by a
> vote.
> 1. First, the *Conflict Steward* presents all relevant
> documentation about the issue.
> 2. Then, a category of severity is established by *consensus* according
> to *sudo room'*s values<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values> and
> the facts of the case. The category determines the voting threshold for
> sustaining a sanction against any party to the conflict. The categories are
> (in order of decreasing severity):
> 1. Conflict calling for membership suspension or termination.
> - *Decision Procedure:* 2/3 vote
> 2. Conflict where only material compensation is sought.
> - *Decision Procedure:* 1/2 vote
> 3. All other conflicts.
> - *Decision Procedure:* Consensus
> 3. Then, the opportunity to represent perspective is granted
> to each conflicting party and to the *Mediator*, and general
> discussion may be held about the issue if any member wishes. The *Conflict
> Steward* co-facilitates with the *Facilitator* in order to
> answer questions specific to the conflict and provides information about
> the history of the conflict by referring to the documentation.
> 4. Then, a brief period of deliberation of definite time is
> held, during which members are free to consider the issue or discuss it
> directly with others.
> 5. Then, members may propose alternative remedies to the
> conflict, along with any appropriate implementation plans.
> 6. Finally, a vote is held on the plaintiff(s)' proposed remedy,
> and then alternative remedies are voted upon in the order they were
> proposed, but only if at least one member indicates that the remedy under
> consideration is still relevant. After all remedies have been considered in
> this way, the matter is considered resolved. The *Conflict
> Steward* then ensures all relevant parties understand the remedy
> or remedies that passed and any corresponding implementation plans.
> 7. Any conflicting party unsatisfied with the decision may place
> an appeal on the agenda in the same way that conflicts are placed on the
> agenda, except that a majority of the group must vote to accept the appeal
> during a meeting, and the process begins anew. The appeal must propose an
> alternative remedy and refer to values<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values> that
> were not served by the original decision.
> 8. If at the end of any step in the process more than an hour
> has passed during the current meeting in considering the conflict, any
> member may request that a majority vote be held on whether to table the
> conflict until the next meeting.
>
> Sub-Section 3.2.1 Principles and Values Specific to Conflicts
>
> In the pursuit of fairness, due process in the resolution of conflicts
> must include:
>
> 1. Presumption of innocence.
> 2. Right to an appeal and a fair process.
> 3. Respect for the privacy and dignity of all members.
> 4. Proportional and effective remedies.
> 1. Restorative <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice> remedies
> are strongly preferred over retributive<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice>
> remedies.
>
> /textwall
>
> I arrived late at the meeting this week and there seemed to be ongoing
> discussion RE recent events and definition of safe spaces. My idea of
> mediation in this case is making clear the fact that threats of violence
> are 100% unacceptable and that only the sudo room standard of safe space is
> in effect here - take it or leave it. There was some issue of defamation
> of character vs accurately describing something that happened between a
> friend of X and a friend of E during which time X exhibited irrational
> behavior which is unacceptable going forward.
>
> My intention is to gauge whether or not the differences are reconcileable
> and if so help chart the course of reconciliation; should it become clear
> that any party is unable to meet our standards of safe space and
> nonviolence, I would report back to the group accordingly.
>
> So I guess I am seeking conflict mediator status if both E and X consent
> and if noone else is already doing this. I am personally not especially
> risk-averse in terms of my own personal safety, though I abhor those who
> would unjustly endager others and after sufficient exploration of the issue
> I would not hesitate to safeguard our members against all such people
> through all available means.
>
> -hol
>
> on Mar 13, 2014, *Ronald Cotoni* <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hol, Did you read the meeting notes from last week?
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01 at att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Threats of violence and zealous defense of violence, add up to a high
>> risk of acts of violence. To my mind that is a cutoff point, and
>> attempting to mediate only prolongs a high-risk situation and potentially
>> makes it more emotionally charged (thus increases the risk).
>>
>> This is all the more so if the threats he made, and the acts he zealously
>> defended, referred to any kind of weapon, other than in self-defense
>> against an immediate threat to one's own life or the lives of innocent
>> others. IMHO the best way to handle this is in a cool and unemotional way:
>> "nothing personal, rules is rules."
>>
>> Any reasonable definition of "safe space" includes that people don't have
>> to worry about encountering someone who may threaten them with violence.
>>
>> Lastly, if you ban him, change any locks or passwords he may have had
>> access to. Even a key that says "do not duplicate" is not a deterrent to
>> someone making a copy themselves or having a corrupt person make one for
>> them.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>> =====
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14-03-13-Thu 5:08 PM, Hol Gaskill wrote:
>>
>> i'm willing to act as a mediator pursuant to our conflict resolution
>> policy
>> on Mar 13, 2014, *Yardena Cohen* <yardenack at gmail.com><yardenack at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> At this point there have been several informal calls for Xavier to be
>> banned. After last night's events I reluctantly agree that he should
>> not be welcome at Sudo until he's accountable for his behavior:
>>
>> * he made threats of violence towards somebody at Sudo
>> * he did something similar at Rock Paper Scissors
>> * he zealously defended other acts of violence committed by a friend of
>> his
>>
>> I'm willing to act as a mediator, but I'm not confident that the
>> problem can be resolved.
>>
>> So I formally propose that he be banned from our space for an
>> indefinite period. Are there any objections?
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttps://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ronald Cotoni
> Systems Engineer
>
>
>
--
Ronald Cotoni
Systems Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20140314/8b51c53a/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list