|FROM ||Chris Knadle
|SUBJECT ||Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Complaint from NYLUG
|From hangout-bounces-at-nylxs.com Wed Nov 20 13:49:23 2019
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (www2.mrbrklyn.com [126.96.36.199])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25BA5161150;
Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:49:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from yorick.ofobscurity.com (yorick.ofobscurity.com [188.8.131.52])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5406516113A
for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:49:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tor-exit-1.zbau.f3netze.de ([184.108.40.206] helo=[127.0.0.1])
by yorick.ofobscurity.com with esmtpsa
(TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89)
id 1iXV2Q-0006wz-0G; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:49:15 -0500
To: Ruben Safir , hangout-at-nylxs.com,
Brian Gupta , Brian Gupta ,
Robert Menes ,
hannah aizenman ,
From: Chris Knadle
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:48:22 +0000
Subject: Re: [Hangout - NYLXS] Complaint from NYLUG
List-Id: NYLXS Tech Talk and Politics
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> On 11/20/19 1:53 AM, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> If you were the recipient,
>> would you bother to read the policy? Since it's already resulted in a total
>> ban, there seems no incentive to do so.
> It so happens that in this case I did read it and there is nothing in it
> that I remotely violated.
I also read them; the strongest feedback the policy mentions is being asked to
leave an event -- nowhere does it imply that someone will be immediately
disallowed from attending all future events, and certainly doesn't imply that
happening without any discussion.
> Honestly, this email is so inapropriate and libelous, that I have to
> question Brian's emotional stability.
This kind of abusive behavior is worth scrutiny irrespective of who the source
is -- judgment and punishment have occurred in one step, with no opportunity for
discussion of what actually happened. What if claims reported were false,
events misconstrued, or based on miscommunication? Was there really no more
reasonable way of handling the situation than an immediate permanent ban from
all events in perpetuity?
And this is not the first time I've seen Brian accused of libel. The last time
this was brought up and I looked into it I found out Brian's claims were untrue,
right down to the very source quoted from -- and afterwards he continued to
insist the claims were true in plain face of that.
This is exactly *not* the way NYLUG was run when I was last involved with it.
When I was running the NYLUG mailing list, I would occasionally need to suspend
someone, but that always came with an explanation for what section of the rules
had been violated, and a discussion about it with the person having been judged
to have crossed them to insure they understood the rules and what the
expectations were going forward. This was continued even with repeat offenders.
Nobody was ever permanently banned as the first response.
New leadership, new philosophy ... right to zero tolerance policy.
Having a meeting policy or a code-of-conduct is good -- but being heavy-handed
with responses associated with them isn't.
Hangout mailing list