But crucially, I don't think S&R have that evidence, nor do they have your training, nor do they have your past history.
The second and third parts of that are, of course, true. The first part - I did write about it extensively. I don't have time to dig up links right now (I'm getting ready for a con that starts this evening), but the posts are tagged with Judah's name.
I do know that Rachel is aware of stuff like the Meet the Predators post and the MOs of serial offenders because I presented it to her and other Arisia and Boskone staff during a BARCC workshop that she requested.
Scott has repeatedly referred to past situations and it's clear to me that he's using those to model this situation. What I hear you saying is that either those past situations were not handled the way you'd've liked them to be, or they're not appropriate models for this situation. Does that seem accurate to you?
I don't know enough about the past situations to judge. The key thing I don't know, so I can't know whether to disagree with Scott's decisions on them, is that I don't know if anyone in those prior situations was a violent offender. I believe that if one party is a violent offender and the other their victim, the logical and responsible choice would be to disinvite the violent offender. However, I do not know if that's the case in their prior RO situations. If that was the case, yes, I'd say their way of handling it was irresponsible, but I do not have sufficient data to make that call. By a long shot.
Another factor there is that Scott claims that both parties negotiated who'd go to which event, which is odd, as an RO forbids all contact, and therefore any such communication would be in violation of the RO. So... that's curious.
Being mistaken is not the same as being insane or illogical.
I've never said "insane" in this conversation, FTR. I do believe that someone can be mistaken without also acting illogically, but I don't see that as the case here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 04:07 pm (UTC)The second and third parts of that are, of course, true. The first part - I did write about it extensively. I don't have time to dig up links right now (I'm getting ready for a con that starts this evening), but the posts are tagged with Judah's name.
I do know that Rachel is aware of stuff like the Meet the Predators post and the MOs of serial offenders because I presented it to her and other Arisia and Boskone staff during a BARCC workshop that she requested.
Scott has repeatedly referred to past situations and it's clear to me that he's using those to model this situation. What I hear you saying is that either those past situations were not handled the way you'd've liked them to be, or they're not appropriate models for this situation. Does that seem accurate to you?
I don't know enough about the past situations to judge. The key thing I don't know, so I can't know whether to disagree with Scott's decisions on them, is that I don't know if anyone in those prior situations was a violent offender. I believe that if one party is a violent offender and the other their victim, the logical and responsible choice would be to disinvite the violent offender. However, I do not know if that's the case in their prior RO situations. If that was the case, yes, I'd say their way of handling it was irresponsible, but I do not have sufficient data to make that call. By a long shot.
Another factor there is that Scott claims that both parties negotiated who'd go to which event, which is odd, as an RO forbids all contact, and therefore any such communication would be in violation of the RO. So... that's curious.
Being mistaken is not the same as being insane or illogical.
I've never said "insane" in this conversation, FTR. I do believe that someone can be mistaken without also acting illogically, but I don't see that as the case here.