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

[hol at gaskill.com]

i think people we know can be easier to read/predict than people we 
don't, which could convey a sense of safety to some, and perhaps 
confusion to others who perceive that rules are not being applied in a 
fair or just way.

the problem of how to scale conflict resolution as the number of members 
and visitors grows i believe will hinge on the willingness of new 
members to learn about our existing conflict resolution procedures and 
A) volunteer to take a role in the process, B) review these procedures 
critically in light of new evidence and take the time to propose 
revisions.  it would certainly be problematic to have the same people 
who take care of the day to day running of the space also default to 
mediating multiple simultaneous conflicts.  we are seeing huge uptick in 
interest in the space and our success very much depends on thorough 
onboarding.

On 2015-01-12 16:40, niki wrote:

>> WRT Elliot, I haven't been around enough lately to know, but it sounds
>> like we've kicked out many strangers for less and never thought twice.
>> It's so much easier to be lenient with a familiar face, but that's not
>> "fair"...
> 
> I think the notion of a universal fairness that can be applied to all 
> people in all situations is kind of problematic... I think applying (or 
> claiming to apply) the same rules in every instance fails to take into 
> consideration things such as upbringing, culture, class, education, 
> mental and or emotional ability.
> 
> I do think we should take into account the person and their 
> relationship to our community. Obviously, if someone is making someone 
> feel unsafe, I think it's okay to ask them to leave but the reason why 
> strangers are often kicked out for less w/out thinking twice is 
> generally because the relationship that *is* the community is not there 
> in the same way it is for people who we interact with every day.
> 
> I don't have an answer and I know that's probably annoying but I would 
> like us to challenge a cookie-cutter approach to dealing with 
> individuals and situations - at least to have a conversation about it 
> even if we continue to employ the existing model in the meantime.
> 
> Maybe implementing a system that is more nuanced is impossible on a 
> larger scale but I would like to consider it. A topic for visioning / 
> strategy session, perhaps...
> 
> N
> 
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:11 PM, yar <yardenack at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Eske Silver <eske.silver at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> We do already (or damn oughta) have precident for these 
>>> interactions...
>> 
>> Sudoroom has many long-standing policies for this. First, any Sudoroom
>> member is empowered to ask a non-member to leave at any time. Second,
>> when a person's presence makes someone else feel unsafe, we ask them
>> to leave and not return until the end of a conflict resolution process
>> (if they want one). The process involves a mediator and steward having
>> private meetings and then reporting back afterwards. Facts and
>> arguments are not hashed out at a public meeting unless the process
>> has failed spectacularly. We've never had to do that.
>> 
>> Sudoroom values fairness, but we have always prioritized safety over 
>> fairness.
>> 
>> WRT Elliot, I haven't been around enough lately to know, but it sounds
>> like we've kicked out many strangers for less and never thought twice.
>> It's so much easier to be lenient with a familiar face, but that's not
>> "fair"...
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]


Links:
------
[1] https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss