[sudo-discuss] johnny ban / process?

[Jenny Ryan]

https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Conflict_Resolution_Policy

On 20 Jul 2016 1:27 p.m., "Marina Kukso" <marina.kukso at 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?
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:24 AM, robb <sf99er at 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 at 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 at 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 at labitat.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist at 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 at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160720/992e87b4/attachment.html>