[sudo-discuss] johnny ban / process?

[Johnny]

I object that sub-section 3.2
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Ban#Section_3.2_Conflict_Resolution>
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
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png> 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.

As stated in the same section 3.2.1 of sudo's own articles, conflict
resolution should proceed in "the spirit of a collaborative environment"
(ibid), and that the conflict, whatever it is, should be sought to a
*restorative* and not *retributive* end (sub-section 3.2.1).

Furthermore, my presumed innocence (3.2.1) and respect for privacy and
dignity (3.2.1) has been grossly violated by whatever process was followed
last week at the sudo meeting, not to mention previous gossip that
precipitated call to action and judgement without process.

A vote for consent is not process.

In short, the entire process was hijacked by an accusation and nobody in
the system did anything to see that due process was served.  The same
process yall have worked so hard to codify to maintain a happy space.  Only
now that I have been "served" does anybody point to the code of laws and
say what must follow.

In fact that same code does claim that I have rights within this supposed
system, if I can even be said to be allowed to suppose section 3.2 is
followed. Contrast this to a previous email in this thread stating I have
"no rights".  Well, do I, or do I not?

Sub-section 3.2.1 states I have "right to an appeal and a fair process";
 clearly a fair process has not been followed, and it's a "right"...

if people are to take this process seriously, then this "case" needs to be
tossed on account of "mistrial".

I'm perfectly willing to undergo a process if it attempts to live up to the
code of conflict resolution.






On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Marc Juul <juul at labitat.dk> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>
>> To do otherwise discredits our important conflict resolution process and
>> disregards the basic rights of the accused.
>>
>
> Reminder: This is not a trial and we have no concept of "rights of the
> accused". It is bad that Johnny was not told that he was banned. The
> conflict resolution process is only available if a willing mediator and
> conflict steward is available and is only likely to resolve the conflict if
> both parties are willing to engage in mediation.
>
> Johnny should be aware that he is also banned from Noisebridge per our
> cross-safe-space-ban policy.
>
> The safe spaces mailing list has been notified.
>
> --
> marc/juul
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20160720/a03eeed3/attachment.html>