[matilda] Re: conflict, resolution (continuation)

[Amparo P Gutierrez]

> [matilda] Re: conflict, resolution (continuation)
> Chris chris at aktivix.org
> Sat Dec 3 09:56:41 GMT 2005
> 
>     * Previous message: [matilda] Re: conflict, resolution (continuation)
>     * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Sat 03-Dec-2005 at 03:14:15AM +0000, Amparo P Gutierrez
> wrote:
>> Now, during these last 18 months
> 
> It goes back a lot longer than that, many of us have been
> doing political stuff in Sheffield for a long time...
> none of this is new... I could go on, at great length so
> could many others... I would rather not...


Yes: I pointed out the time 18 months- i have learnt about mozaz and 
yourself. Out of transparency, implying that you may have been friends 
for an even longer time, earlier.


> 
>> he's the only one in the list to continue being
>> moderated. 
> 
> Eric is also still moderated...
> 
>> moderation on the list, virtual moderation only led in
>> this case to an increase of aggression outside...
>> artwork was defaced
> 
> I do not believe that moderation on this list had the
> direct result of the artwork being defaced. 


Now here there is a point of discussion: but following a chain of 
events, this is what happened: moderation on mozaz and 3 others 
initially (Joe, Dan, Cuthbert, mozaz): a few days later, artwork's 
defacement (by 3 persons, Cuthbert included): a few days later: mozaz's 
appears to suffer from a nervous breakdown: Joe unsubscribes: Cuth asks 
for private security to be hired on parties...

Already some other persons have remarked (nd it's somewhere on the 
minutes or agenda) that a space is needed for bitchering", to discharge 
aggression at least verbally.

Rocky's message triggered, as Mozaz pointed out, a string of 
"moderations" . On mozaz' "fantasies" (as they are called) his enemies 
(or the working class' enemies) are embodied in the anarchist federation 
(Rocky and Joe being members of this af). Can't you see the chain?

Alan is right, and perhaps someone could have helped mozaz by not 
imposing such a strict but also ambiguous code of conduct. Particularly 
taking into account that no "negative" feelings are allowed to be 
expressed. IMHO, this is a mistake. Give it a try, let's grant a truce, 
a margin of trust.

PS: This is no trivial matter: it relates to unresolved conflicts 
pointing at our inability (lack of skills) to handle these situations, 
as a collective (Dave may have received skilled training).




Amparo



> 
>> he continues being moderated (banned)
> 
> Moderation is NOT banning. 
> 
> If we wanted to ban someone we would NOT accept any of
> their email to the list would we? As far as I can recall
> there are only 2 emails from this person that have not
> been let through and this was several weeks ago...
> 
> As I have explained before [1]:
> 
>   I think that it'll be approporate to remove the
>   moderation after a period when there hasn't been any
>   emails that need moderation
> 
> If I had read this weeks email with more care there are 2
> emails that I would not have let through [2] because they
> used someones name when it's known that he doesn't want
> his name used on the list and in addition they contain
> fragments of private, off list email... This is why the
> moderation is in place in the first place...
> 
> I'd rather not see this list spend endless time on this
> matter...