[sudo-discuss] Banning Xavier
David Keenan
dkeenan44 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 15 22:51:51 PDT 2014
I just wanted to say that I agree completely with Marc's position. Like,
vehemently agree.
If some shit goes down and there is a clear antagonist, that person needs
to be banned from the space until the conflict resolution happens. That
should incentivize the antagonist or both sides as the case may be to
remediate the situation posthaste.
I have seen several times over the last year where some combination of
Jenny, Matt, and Marc to their great credit directly confront people who
have been aggressive or banned, and made them leave. I really appreciated
those direct interventions and feel we ALL can do more to help enforce our
safe space policy, and especially BAPS folks in my opinion. Marc especially
in my view deserves recognition for not taking shit and stepping up.
Bottomline, we can't have a community without a safe space.
David
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jehan Tremback
<jehan.tremback at gmail.com>wrote:
> Good job guys, maybe it really was worth coming up with all those rulez a
> couple years ago.
>
> -Jehan
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Hol Gaskill <hol at gaskill.com> wrote:
>
>> I would not oppose a temporary ban in conjunction with conflict
>> resolution in parallel, it just seemed like what was being proposed was
>> banning outright without an attempt at 1 on 1 discussion. did any
>> disinterested third party reach out on this individually or did it all go
>> down in the meeting? I agree safety of our members is an overriding
>> concern. I got the sense that X was willing to participate in the process
>> as he came to the meeting and left when Jordan asked, at least the time I
>> saw, so I am optimistic that this can be resolved. He did ask me if I
>> wanted to come talk about it when he left but I declined, wanting to hear
>> it from Jordan, so I get the sense that I might be able to communicate the
>> group's expectations effectively and gauge his response. I don't really
>> have contact info for X though, so maybe if whoever is at sudo when he
>> comes today to recover his possessions can pass my number on to him. Or
>> Xavier if you are reading this drop me a line. I propose adding the
>> following subsection to the articles:
>>
>>
>> Sub-Section 3.2.2 Maintaining Safe Space During Conflict Resolution
>>
>> In the event that a conflict stems from one or more members being
>> threatened by another member of sudo room or a member of the wider
>> community, a temporary ban may be placed that person until the conflict has
>> been resolved. Concensus in this case may be obtained at any sudo room
>> meeting and must be ratified online over a period of 24 hours in the event
>> quorum is not met at the meeting. Should the person being banned fail to
>> participate constructively in the conflict resolution process as determined
>> by the membership, the ban shall become permanent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Someone please improve the description of the fast track consensus
>> process or any other parts.
>>
>>
>>
>> also this is our public-facing definition of safe space right now;
>>
>> A *safe space,* which is defined as:
>>
>> - "A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed,
>> without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on
>> account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender
>> identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental
>> ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and
>> dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."it
>>
>> It doesn't seem like the unsafe feeling was on account of any of the
>> listed parameters so we may want a clearer definition. It's a no brainer
>> that safe includes personal safety so anyone with detailed thoughts on the
>> definition of safe space may want to touch up this area of the articles to
>> reflect our shared concerns.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just want to capture all of this in our root document so that we never
>> form a habit of routinely break our own rules because we did not make good
>> enough rules in the first place. Laws are made under an archaic and in my
>> opinion obsolete process (though obviously the gears are still spinning) -
>> we have a chance here to stand on the shoulders of generations of giants
>> and forge a way of doing things where the expectation is that we govern our
>> own behavior, and that those unable to govern their own behavior will not
>> have a hand in steering the ship. To me this idea is pretty fucking cool,
>> so please forgive me if I seem dogmatic, but unless we write all of this
>> down and test it and share it for others to fork, this experiment runs the
>> risk of vanishing without a trace, or worse, being co-opted into a system
>> just as bad as the one that motivated us to fork it in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>> safely,
>>
>> hol
>>
>>
>> on Mar 14, 2014, *Marc Juul* <juul at labitat.dk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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)
>>>
>>
>> I agree that conflict resolution should take place, but I also think it
>> is not acceptable for Xavier to be allowed in the space until the mediation
>> has completed successfully or he has been banned. This is obviously not an
>> isolated incident, but at least two incidents with threats of violence and
>> multiple witnesses. This goes beyond a personal conflict. If we allow
>> Xavier into our space until this has been resolved, then we are not abiding
>> by our commitment to safe space.
>>
>> We should work to modify our articles such that we can immediately deal
>> with incidents where there is violence or threats of violence.
>>
>> I think it is important that our values can overrule our procedures,
>> which then can lead to changed procedures. Matt proposed something similar
>> for the articles recently, to the effect of "our rules cannot be used
>> against us".
>>
>> It is not ok that not having quorum can prevent the temporary exclusion
>> of an individual threatening violence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20140315/aba1c6a0/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list