How do we deal with members potentially bringing the party into disrepute?
Danyl Strype
Public
Seen by 295
Andrew McP has now gone beyond attacking me and misrepresenting the outcome of proposals, is our Loomio group, and is now making incorrect and potentially libellous comments about me on other Loomio groups.
> "I should apologise to the entire group, as my associate has a grudge against me for not agreeing on an issue which is now settled by a recent central government decision.
> I had not thought that he would cross over groups and make more cowardly political attacks while the rest of my party has rejected both his proposals to strike my right to free speech, however I guess if he will alter my comments to say what he wants simply because he started the threads and controls them, then he is not reasonable on these matters.
>I am truly sorry to every regular participant here that strypey has tried his trickery on this group, it seems he cannot pass up serving his cherry picked "research" as evidence on health.
>I am deeply embarrassed to be associated with the grudge which I have stated for the past month that I have no further interest in. I am so sorry everyone."
Anybody who has read both the threads in question in our Loomio group, my comments in that thread on Vaccination, and Andrew McP's replies, can see that he is making stuff up, and smearing me in the process. This really has got to stop. If we can't even get consensus on modest actions to address Andrew McP's obvious trolling and personal abuse, the Code of Conduct isn't worth the KB of storage the text takes up.
I have offered what I think are very fair and reasonable actions. Does anybody have any constructive suggestions on how to address this?
Poll Created Fri 27 May 2016 9:42AM
Interaction Ban (IBAN) between Strypey and Andrew McP. Closed Fri 3 Jun 2016 9:02AM
This proposal didn't reach the level of response required to take it any further. The point is moot now anyway, being that Strypey has since resigned from the party.
Overview
Although there has already been a call go out for an IBAN between these two pirates on the matter of health issues, I propose here a general IBAN between Strypey and Andrew McP. This would prevent any interaction between these two pirates on our Loomio discussion forums for a period of three months from the date the proposal is accepted by a majority of the PPNZ membership, excluding Strypey and Andrew themselves, who are requested to recuse themselves from voting on this proposal.
How the IBAN will function
During the period of the IBAN, Strypey and Andrew McP will be disallowed from commenting on any discussions started by each other, from voting on proposals started each other, and even from contributing to discussions and proposals started by any other pirate if one or the other of them have already subsequently posted / voted in / on it. This last edict will mean a first-in policy between them, such that whichever of them comments / votes first, the other is disallowed from replying / voting in that discussion / proposal during the period of the IBAN. Furthermore, both are proscribed from mentioning the other, for whatever purpose, on our Loomio forums, during the period of the IBAN.
Breaches
If this proposal is accepted by a majority of the membership, it will be the responsibility of the entire membership to enforce the IBAN, and to notify the membership (in a thread in the Hospitality subgroup) of any infractions and breaches. In the event of a breach, the membership will then need to decide on any further action at that time, in accordance with the CofC. As both Strypey and Andrew McP will be proscribed from mentioning each other, it is naturally assumed that neither would be allowed to inform the membership about a breach by the other, as such notification from them would itself constitute a breach.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 20.0% | 1 |
|
| Abstain | 40.0% | 2 |
|
|
| Disagree | 40.0% | 2 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 24 |
|
5 of 29 people have participated (17%)
Robert Frittmann
Fri 27 May 2016 9:43AM
As the proposer, I am in agreement with the proposed IBAN as outlined.
Andrew McPherson
Fri 27 May 2016 9:52AM
I abstain, yet remain happy to act in accordance with the wishes of the wider party.
Danyl Strype
Fri 27 May 2016 10:23AM
Conflict of interest. No position taken as requested.
Tommy Fergusson
Fri 27 May 2016 1:03PM
I recommend the parties mentioned stop interacting, voluntarily. BUT for enforcement (on @strypey in particular), I'm not comfortable with that. I would need to see specific breaches Strypey has committed to warrant this. I believe none exist.
Hubat McJuhes
Sat 28 May 2016 1:15PM
Tommy is spot on.
Robert Frittmann Fri 27 May 2016 10:31AM
@strypey @andrewmcpherson Thank you both for agreeing to abstain from this process. I look forward to seeing what the rest of the PPNZ membership think of this proposal.
David Peterson Fri 27 May 2016 11:20AM
If this passes, would both agree to it?
Andrew McPherson Fri 27 May 2016 11:23AM
Yes, I will. I think the other party seems to be throwing down some demands on another thread as seen in the latest comments here :
https://www.loomio.org/d/GX820gfl/code-of-conduct
David Peterson Fri 27 May 2016 11:35AM
"Andrew McP has now gone beyond attacking me and misrepresenting the outcome of proposals, is our Loomio group, and is now making incorrect and potentially libellous comments about me on other Loomio groups."
I think @strypey is stretching his point here very very very thin?! (unless you can come up with better evidence, as I searched through the entire thread top to bottom)
Almost to the point I have to stop and wonder then ask... when does it become not McP harassing Strypey but is instead Strypey harassing McP?! You're treading a fine line here, at least.
Andrew McPherson Fri 27 May 2016 12:05PM
I have tried consistently to bring a peaceful conclusion to this without much success for a month now.
Tommy Fergusson Fri 27 May 2016 12:54PM
I searched through the entire thread top to bottom
Where the outcomes of proposals are concerned, due to the bug identified, you will not see this in the thread.
I haven't seen what the original text of those proposal outcomes (even though I probably have an archived email of it), so I'm not taking a position. But your logic is wrong.
David Peterson Fri 27 May 2016 1:50PM
Is Loomio hella buggy like fvck?!
Robert Frittmann Sun 29 May 2016 9:00AM
This proposal seems rather irrelevant now, in light of Strypey's resignation from the Party. However, I'll leave it to run its course, to see what other pirates think of it, and as a cooling-off period, allowing for the possibility for Strypey to rescind his resignation.
@tommyfergusson, I wouldn't consider the proposed IBAN itself as "enforcement" against either of them. It is merely a tool to allow them both to take a step back. I agree with you that this should be voluntary anyway on both their parts, but as that didn't seem likely, the IBAN was proposed. Any "enforcement" would need to come from the membership in response to a breach of the IBAN by either of them, and should be accompanied, as you so rightly say, with evidence of the specific breach.
Danyl Strype · Fri 27 May 2016 8:59AM
As I said in my position statement on the proposal here by @andrewmcpherson , once again he is filibustering. He is free to stop said discussion without a binding formal proposal, so this proposal is actually an attempt to bind my ability to speak. As such, my taking a position would be a conflict-of-interest. If a supermajority of 75% or more (with at least 5 members taking a position) agree that Andrew McP is the aggrieved party here, and that his behaviour has been beyond reproach, then I will respect that outcome.