[sudo-discuss] [omni-discuss] Elliot Hughes

[Eske Silver]

I agree that both/all side must be heard.
I also agree that first, the community and witnesses must be on the same
page about the *facts* of incidents, without pressure on witnesses, but in
way that doesn't promote a closed bias. At one house I was involved ith, a
list would be made, at the meeting withouth the individual, then each
issue/incident was addressed with the individual present, so that each and
every issue/incident was available for discussion/explanation/etc.
We do already (or damn oughta) have precident for these interactions...

~ Korl

500px.com/eske
510.689.4484
On Jan 12, 2015 3:19 PM, "Ryan" <yandoryn at gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree. (With very little stake in this specific discussion, but in
> these kinds of discussions in general.)
>
> I think that it is impossible to first discuss someone's violent behavior
> with them present. Many people may feel too intimidated to speak up, if the
> perpetrator of violence is present. Because of this, it is not "fair and
> just" to have the person accused of violence present at all discussions.
>
> After a discussion (to which the person accused of violence is not
> present) has been facilitated, it is more possible to facilitate a
> discussion with them present, in order to get "both sides."
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:06 PM, joseph liesner <blue393 at lmi.net> wrote:
>
>> I think it is imperative that when Sudo has a meeting to
>> discuss and/or vote on Matt's proposal that such a meeting
>> be open o the public, at a convenient time and day, and
>> that Elliot and witnesses to his violent behavior be present.
>> Otherwise I would be unable to know if our policies are
>> fair and just.
>> joe
>> On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Matthew Senate wrote:
>>
>> While I wasn't there for this latest instance, this is the second time in
>> our new location (I was present the first time) and at least the fourth
>> instance related to sudo room, of Elliot escalating a situation to a
>> physical, even violent, response on his part.
>>
>> I am no longer willing to tolerate this behavior and continue to risk all
>> the love, care, and work that goes into making all of omni commons, and
>> each collective, a thriving and safer community and space.
>>
>> In sum, it seems evident that Elliot's continued involvement in omni
>> commons is already a greater cost, and even greater potential risk, than a
>> revocation of his privilege to use the space.
>>
>> I propose sudo room in particular revoke Elliot's non-member privilege to
>> access the sudo room, and therefore the omni commons, until Elliot can
>> provide the sudo room membership with tangible evidence of a new investment
>> in the prevention of physical violence and marked improvement of his own
>> behavior in this regard.
>>
>> // Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.omnicommons.org
>> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.omnicommons.org
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20150112/eaadebe0/attachment.html>