George Morris on the SS list

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

The fees are charged by JAMS. Not Safe Sport. No one, not even in criminal trials, is forced to appeal. It’s optional. She is very misleading about the fees.

No one is forced to appeal, but even an ardently pro-SS person like me thinks that the opportunity to appeal is an important safeguard to protect the rights of the accused (and thereby strengthen the legitimacy of SS).

If you want to avail yourself of an appeal of your SS sanction, you, the respondent, must pay for the arbitration yourself. So you pay JAMS, not SS. The point is that the cost of arbitration of a SS sanction is borne by the respondent, not by SS. (Except in the case of hardship or if you win the appeal.)

 I have no problem with the respondent paying the arbitration costs, as that creates the right incentives, and the alternative is that the costs are paid by SS = taxpayer = me. 

 But there are fees. Of all of Bonnie Navin’s complaints, this one is basically correct. If she is morally outraged that the accused pay for their defense and arbitration, she can channel that outrage into Go Fund Me campaigns to raise money to pay her to defend these people. All of that seems harmless to me.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

No one is forced to appeal, but even an ardently pro-SS person like me thinks that the opportunity to appeal is an important safeguard to protect the rights of the accused (and thereby strengthen the legitimacy of SS).

If you want to avail yourself of an appeal of your SS sanction, you, the respondent, must pay for the arbitration yourself. So you pay JAMS, not SS. The point is that the cost of arbitration of a SS sanction is borne by the respondent, not by SS. (Except in the case of hardship or if you win the appeal.)

I have no problem with the respondent paying the arbitration costs, as that creates the right incentives, and the alternative is that the costs are paid by SS = taxpayer = me.

But there are fees. Of all of Bonnie Navin’s complaints, this one is basically correct. If she is morally outraged that the accused pay for their defense and arbitration, she can channel that outrage into Go Fund Me campaigns to raise money to pay her to defend these people. All of that seems harmless to me.

Yes but you are missing the point. She is making people think it’s Safe Sport who is charging.

Also, she defended Tommy Serio pro bono. You wouldn’t know it based on Kathy’s much shared post on Facebook.

It is really not hard to go through life without defending yourself against criminal allegations.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

Yes but you are missing the point. She is making people think it’s Safe Sport who is charging.

Also, she defended Tommy Serio pro bono. You wouldn’t know it based on Kathy’s much shared post on Facebook.

It is really not hard to go through life without defending yourself against criminal allegations.

Here is MY point:
I agree (gasp) with Bonnie Navin that the option to appeal an interim suspension or a final sanction is an integral part of overall SS procedure that works toward protecting the respondent and thereby supporting the legitimacy of SafeSport. Availing yourself of arbitration is optional, but it is important that the option is there.
If you, as respondent, want to exercise your right to arbitration, the respondent pays the arbitration costs, not SS, not the reporter. Makes no difference whatever whether you make the check out to “SafeSport” or “JAMS”. The accused bears the cost of arbitration. Also defense costs.

       So there are fees if you want to avail yourself of the important protection of independent arbitration.  Why bash BN when she correctly says “There are fees”?

       Now BN undoubtedly thinks SS= taxpayer=you and I should pay arbitration and defense fees, and there I disagree with her.

[punchy]

((?? Nobody likes Moby Dick? Not even Chapter 89 fast fish loose fish? One of my all time favorites? Anyone? Anyone? It’s even about laws, so it has some relevance to this discussion!))

[YankeeDuchess]

@punchy

((?? Nobody likes Moby Dick? Not even Chapter 89 fast fish loose fish? One of my all time favorites? Anyone? Anyone? It’s even about laws, so it has some relevance to this discussion!))

“Fast fish loose fish” is in Moby Dick?

We have the literary antecedent to “Red fish, blue fish”?

[anon6923113]

@YankeeDuchess

Here is MY point:
I agree (gasp) with Bonnie Navin that the option to appeal an interim suspension or a final sanction is an integral part of overall SS procedure that works toward protecting the respondent and thereby supporting the legitimacy of SafeSport. Availing yourself of arbitration is optional, but it is important that the option is there.
If you, as respondent, want to exercise your right to arbitration, the respondent pays the arbitration costs, not SS, not the reporter. Makes no difference whatever whether you make the check out to “SafeSport” or “JAMS”. The accused bears the cost of arbitration. Also defense costs.

So there are fees if you want to avail yourself of the important protection of independent arbitration. Why bash BN when she correctly says “There are fees”?

Now BN undoubtedly thinks SS= taxpayer=you and I should pay arbitration and defense fees, and there I disagree with her.

You are aware that IF the accused chooses to go to arbitration, and Safe Sport is overturned, Safe Sport reimburses the fees the accused had to pay. Correct? It was part of Michael Henry’s presentation.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Virginia Horse Mom

You are aware that IF the accused chooses to go to arbitration, and Safe Sport is overturned, Safe Sport reimburses the fees the accused had to pay. Correct? It was part of Michael Henry’s presentation.

Yes, which is why having the accused pay arbitration costs upfront, and having the arbitration costs reimbursed in the 1% of cases in which the appeal is successful creates the correct incentives. If the respondent did not bear the costs upfront, lots of respondents would appeal, even though the probability of winning the appeal is low.

[mountainbells]

About the funding of Safe Sport…I took from the presentation that most of the funding comes from the Olympic movement with some external funding. There are also some fed grants that have express restrictions against use for investigation. He didn’t say exactly what those grants were used for. So, at this point there is no taxpayer money that could conceivably pay for arbitration. Correct me if I got it wrong.

[RegentLion]

Who is this Duncan fellow? Here’s one more of his Facebook comments… bolded portion mine… is he saying that GM having sexual relationships with minors is “building connections?”

“I’m not trying to shame any victims. I’m not trying to dismiss anything. I’m a survivor I’ll be at I’m sure not as severe as many stories. And we think about immigrant stories now a days… …It’s important to be compassionate and empathetic and to find restorative ways to move forward. I learned this from a specialist in the LA County school system that travels to the different schools and studies things like the key factor in school shootings. And that was disconnection. And here’s a guy confronting that, and being committed to creating connection whatever the starting point is.

And Jonathan actually worked for me briefly- so many aspects of his life were set up to crash and burn.

There is a tradition in Western culture, and in history of using the sacrificial lamb.

But nothing heals. My director, who just lost his wife thought many times about how the real essence of Christ was he was the last sacrificial lamb. And the tradition of blaming was supposed to end with him.

A little deep for this discussion but…”

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

Yes, which is why having the accused pay arbitration costs upfront, and having the arbitration costs reimbursed in the 1% of cases in which the appeal is successful creates the correct incentives. If the respondent did not bear the costs upfront, lots of respondents would appeal, even though the probability of winning the appeal is low.

Ummm it’s not upfront. This is what I and others are talking about with BN and her misinformation. Please watch the presentation.

[TheMoo]

@RegentLion a good overview of DM can be found in the live stream thread.

[RegentLion]

@TheMoo

@RegentLion a good overview of DM can be found in the live stream thread.

I get that he’s a blow hard… I read that thread but I don’t know who he is in the industry (?)

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

Ummm it’s not upfront. This is what I and others are talking about with BN and her misinformation. Please watch the presentation.

By “upfront”, I meant that if the respondent wants arbitration, they must pay prior to the arbitration happening (upfront), then are reimbursed after the arbitration if they win their appeal. Essentially, the loser pays the costs of arbitration.

[mvp]

@mkevent

Capall

I don’t think the people referencing Lolita are trying to make those who didn’t read the book feel illiterate .

Lolita is written from Humbert’s (the pedophile) (or however he is classified) point of view. Because if this, the reader tends to see him as a bit less of a monster because he gets to put his spin on the events that occurred.

Lolita was a little girl (12?) when she met him. Her normal 12 year old behavior was viewed as seductive from someone with a proclivity towards towards being sexually attracted to children.

I believe what mvp is trying to explain is that any normal adult would read the book and be disgusted and appalled by the writers narrative. Being sexually attracted to children and acting on it is just wrong, no matter how sympathetic the narrator may seem.
Humbert puts the spin that Lolita seduced him and ruined his life, when in fact it was he who stole her innocence and ruined hers.

It is all about perspective. Blaming the victims (as what happens in Lolita) is what we are seeing with the ISWG group.

No matter how persuasive a narrator may be, it never makes the act of violating children or teens acceptable. Period.

Yes, kind of, but more:

1. Folks ought to consider just how they think about power in sexual relationships if they use the term “Lolita” to refer to the (female) apparently innocent, yet strangely and irresistibly perpetrator of the relationship. If you use that uncritically, you have entered Humbert’s universe. If, on the other hand, you read the whole thing as sick, sad and frightening exploitation of a child, you inhabit my universe. But I acknowledged, too, that I’m an usual reader insofar as I have lived a version of like that looks more like Dolores’ (Lolita’s) life than Humbert’s. I have read no criticism of Lolita, but I imagine that Nabokov thought most of his readers were in between these two positions, leaning more toward my position when they were watching someone else’s pedophilia.

2. That said, every time someone says something like “boys will be boys” they naturalize some form of exploitative sexual relationship. When they say, “Yes, but she was wearing a mini-skirt/drunk/walking by herself at night/lied to get into the bar,” they redistribute power between perp and victim, adult and child, just as Humbert attempted to do in the telling of his story to us.

3. The point is that it’s not clear to me just what we think “any normal adult” would think. In fact, that is why the victim blaming gets produced and consumed. If all of us saw this as something as plain as the sexual exploitation of a helpless child (Lolita is an orphan, by the way), the epithet, “Lolita” to refer tongue-in-cheek to a promiscuous girl would not have meaning.

Because of the #MeToo movement and a whole bunch of other changes, we are all now being required to think way more carefully about sex and power than we were before. I think that’s great. But I don’t think everyone is there yet, nor wants to be introspective about how they consume and spread ideas like children seducing adults.

[TheMoo]

@YankeeDuchess

By “upfront”, I meant that if the respondent wants arbitration, they must pay prior to the arbitration happening (upfront), then are reimbursed after the arbitration if they win their appeal. Essentially, the loser pays the costs of arbitration.

And? That’s not any different from any other type of appeal.

[Belowthesalt]

@ladyj79

Hawthorne’s short stories are way better than his novels.

The reform group members can’t exhibit empathy for the victims, because they’ve channeled their empathy to people who rape children.

I’m an English professor who has never read a lot of things, Moby Dick is a hard pass.

There’s always Huston’s movie, with Gregory Peck, and Richard Basehart (wonderful voice) as Ishmael. ;0) There is a very interesting story about the filming of that movie in Alan Villiers’ book, The Way of a Ship. They wanted to hire him as their sailing expert, he declined, then on vacation in Wales a year or two later he saw an odd ship at the Cardiff dock and that’s what they were trying to film on. He got dragooned into sailing it, against his better judgment.

[Ubu_Goober]

@TheMoo

In all fairness this is coming from someone who believes his 10 year old daughter can make her own choices about having sexual contact with an adult and she has to live with those choices. He also believes that one is ONLY a victim if they choose to remain quiet about abuse. If nothing else, he’s consistent.

He would also seem to be “conditioning” her to the idea of voluntarily pursuing restorative justice over other recourse should she ever be unfortunate enough to find herself in a position to have to make that choice…

[mvp]

@YankeeDuchess

How can the movie be 1955 with Jeremy Irons as Humbert?

I think I got the movie’s date wrong. Hang on (googling): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita

The novel was published in 1955. The movie(S!) were 1962 and 1997.

[YankeeDuchess]

@TheMoo

And? That’s not any different from any other type of appeal.

   I have zero problem with the loser paying the cost of arbitration, zero problem with people creating or donating to GFM drives to pay arbitration fees for probably guilty people who want to appeal. 

     Just didn’t understand the need to bash BN when she says, “There are fees.”  This strikes me as a true statement. There are fees. Entirely sensible and legitimate fees, in my view.

[TheMoo]

@Ubu&Goober

He would also seem to be “conditioning” her to the idea of voluntarily pursuing restorative justice over other recourse should she ever be unfortunate enough to find herself in a position to have to make that choice…

I will refrain from speculation because I do not know him. It’s a sensitive topic and many statements raise my eyebrows, however it would be irresponsible of me to express any opinion beyond commenting on his words and how they read.