National Committee meeting regarding Ban of Adam P

nzLARPS
#1

A number of serious issues were bought before the National Committee this week. This matter was escalated to the National Committee by the Auckland Regional Director Mikaere Curtis.

The National Committee, on looking into this matter have voted to accept to start the procedure to ban the member Adam P from NZLARPs and all NZLARPS projects (including Diatribe) for 5 years, as per section 9 of the Constitution. Adam has been sent notice and the details of this. He has until Tuesday to willingly resign from the society with the understanding that the committee will refuse any attempts to re-join for the period of the ban. If Adam wishes to defend against this ban, a National Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday 25th July 2012 at 8pm, in the small room, Ellerslie War Memorial Hall, 138 Main Highway, Ellerslie. All members of the Society are welcome provided they follow the conditions at the end of this post.

The National Committee has not acted or decided lightly in this matter. We seek to support through these actions our Regional Committees, our Game Masters, our Society members and the integrity of the Society itself.

Regards
Scott Kelly
National President
New Zealand Live Action Roleplaying Society

CONDUCT AT MEETING

The meeting will be conducted in a courteous, respectful, orderly manner with a focus on dealing with the issue of the Ban of Adam P.

This will be a meeting of the National Committee, Auckland based members Anna Klein and Michelle Burt will physically be at the meeting. Wellington based members Ellen Boucher and Scott Kelly will connect remotely through a laptop. Also in attendance will be Mikaere Curtis as the Auckland Regional Director and other officers as needed.

Michelle Burt will conduct the meeting as she will physically be there to control speaking orders and peoples conduct.

Current NZLarps members are welcome to attend as long as they obey any respect any rules and other members.

  1. Anyone who wishes to give a report, statement or wishes to speak to the matter, is to advise Scott Kelly via PM, or email to nzlarps@gmail.com, no later than 8pm Tuesday 2012.

  2. A speaking order will be in place as well as time limits.

  3. In the context of disagreement or friction generally, no interjections are allowed, except for Michelle Burt. A chance to respond may be given after the current person has finished speaking.

  4. Speakers are to keep to the issue at hand.

  5. Absolutely no abusive language at all. This includes any language that, in the National President’s (or Michelle’s) opinion, is an attack on someone (whether present at the meeting or not). Examples include (but not limited to) sarcasm, raising your voice, name-calling, abusive swearing.

  6. If an attendee breaks the above rules, Michelle may issue a warning, eject the attendee from the meeting, or enforce further penalties as required.

Auckland Committee Meeting Minutes April 9th 2014
#2

Which tuesday?

#3

Tuesday 24th July. This Tuesday before the meeting.

#4

What’s the reason for the proposed ban? If people are to make reports, statements or speak to the matter, then we need to know.

Edit to add: Sorry, I don’t want to pick the scab etc, but someone has to ask.

#5

The other thing I’d like to know is what actions have been taken or warnings have been given to date.

#6

[quote=“IdiotSavant”]What’s the reason for the proposed ban? If people are to make reports, statements or speak to the matter, then we need to know.

Edit to add: Sorry, I don’t want to pick the scab etc, but someone has to ask.[/quote]
Good points.

In reply, I would like convey that, in my opinion (as NZLARPS Auckland Regional Director), Adam has:

  • Potentially deceived the Society, compounded by this potential deception being in the context of a request for monetary compensation for a purport Elf costume.
  • Potentially brought the Society into disrepute by his dealings with local artisans, in particular with bad debt to said artisans.

There is no place in our Society for this kind of behaviour.

Mikaere Curtis
NZLARPS Auckland Regional Director

#7

ummm…

Has anyone actually asked Adam about these specifically? because to the best of my knowledge he has not been consulted at all on these points.

[quote]* Potentially deceived the Society, compounded by this potential deception being in the context of a request for monetary compensation for a purport Elf costume.

  • Potentially brought the Society into disrepute by his dealings with local artisans, in particular with bad debt to said artisans.[/quote]

If this elf costume is false then perhaps you would like to explain to me how the jewellery and fabric we bought for the fabric costuming is still sitting in my gargage?

I have deliberately remained a neutral party throughout this whole episode (as evidenced by my abstentions in voting and by getting Mike to take the minutes when this matter has been discusesd at council meetings) but this is fast approaching slander. I am only speaking now to try and help everyone.

#8

Can I suggest that all questions or explanations be held for the meeting on Wednesday and that this thread only be used to state facts or findings that are needed for complete understanding of the topic?

Much like what Idiot and Paddy have asked.

Basically what are these serious issues, what was the process followed when these issues were raised, what were the findings when investigated, and why this is the measure the committee feel they must take. Ejection from the community and any sponsored project is the harshest penalty the society can impose so I think full disclosure prior to the meeting will give some comfort to the society.

I for one trust in my committee members and believe they have followed all reasonable action in regards to this matter, but a clear statement about the above requests I think stand the meeting in good stead and make this matter hopefully as clean and fair as possible.

EDIT: It looks like the report compiled by Mike is available. I suggest those with questions should read it first.

#9

For those who are unaware, the NZLARPS constitution is here. Section 9 reads:

[quote]9. EXPULSION OF MEMBERS
The National Committee may at any time by written notice invite any member within a specific time to retire for breach by him of the Rules and/or regulations and by-laws of the Society, or for bringing the Society into disrepute, and in default of such withdrawal to submit the question of their expulsion to a National Committee Meeting and at such meeting the member whose expulsion is under consideration shall if they appears be allowed to offer an explanation verbally and/or in writing and if thereupon two-thirds of the members present shall vote for their expulsion they shall forthwith without releasing him from any antecedent liability to the Society cease to be a member provided that the voting at any such meeting shall be by ballot if so desired by any member of the National Committee.[/quote]

While I’m not in Auckland, and therefore won’t be able to speak, I think I’ll be taking the Committee up on the opportunity to make a submission.

#10

Note that when section 9 talks about “members” voting it means members of the national committee, not whichever members of the society happen to be present. It a national committee meeting, not an SGM.

I’m surprised that Adam’s behaviour at Teonn wasn’t listed as a reason for this action, as it seems relevant to the concern of bringing the society into disrepute. Along with his history of various other disruptive and abusive behaviour, online and in real life. Not that I’m necessarily in favour of this action, but I think the full context is required and past history leading to these events should not be taken as assumed knowledge, so that society members can be informed about what they are discussing.

#11

I would also like to request clarification on what exactly the reason is for the proposed ban? The information given here and that given to me privatly differs significantly and I have asked questions for clarity and recieved no responce nor have I been consulted previously in regards to the two accusations made by Mike.

#12

Hi just a quick response since I am not somewhere I can write a long proper response at this stage.

The list of accusations was not posted here as it was something to be discussed at the meeting and something that was sent to Adam, But we will respond to Members requests and will post the accusations and actions taken as soon as we can.

Also to confirm Ryan’s point this isn’t an SGM, the only people who vote at the end of this are the National Committee members. I’m also not wanting this to turn into an online debate or judgement by “media”. But we will do all we can to keep people informed and answer questions.

Adam the last correspondence I had from you was 8.35pm last night where you asked a question about the Constitution which is now replied too. Every other message you have sent to me was replied to in the same day. So if you believe that I have missed emails or PMs from you where you discuss these other matters can you please let me know so I can reply.

Also if you see areas where there are discrepancies between the letter you went sent and what was posted here I would like to hear about those too, can you please send me a PM breaking down the significant differences so we can sort them out.

Thanks
Scott

#13

I have been keeping somewhat informed of this, my question here is that of devil’s advocate. I feel am suitably removed both geographically and politically from the Society’s gears and wheels to make a somewhat impartial statement here.

In this instance, what would the Society consider as restitution for the “wrongs” done so to speak?

I ask only because for myself, being banned from nzlarps, diatribe and nzlarps project events would drive me insane. I would be absolutely gutted and I can’t imagine this being any easier on Adam. This would motivate me to change pretty quickly! It is gut wrenching and horribly in the public eye.

So if Adam was to make some genuine change, then what would be accepted as penance and amends for his sins (so to speak) such as they are?

What I propose is not so much stopping actions already in motion but essentially giving Adam time to make amends. A delayed or probationary period of say 6 months - 1 year to demonstrate a modification to behaviour and make amends. In this period he would be able to demonstrate genuine remorse and change and become a contributing member of the society.

I know the actions which have led to this decision have come from a number of situations which have not been pleasant for anyone involved. People have definitely been hurt by what has gone down but I would rather see the society heal the rift rather than take this action which I doubt will really solve any issues.

If nothing else, everyone please consider options that are good for everyone involved. This is a very tough issue and it deserves very careful thought.

#14

His overall behavior at committee meetings, on the forums and at games have been felt by many to be unacceptable for a member of this community. Warnings of his actions have been issued on many occasions (during previous incidents involving both the committee members, game organizers and online), and I and others have not seen what we would consider is an acceptable level of change in behavior.

I for one agree that Clause 9 should not be used lightly, and I will not discuss online weither I think its use is justified in this case. But as one that has been involved thus far, I will be at the meeting to state my standing on this issue.

Note: The ban can be lifted, before the end of the 5 year period, at a later date by the national committee if they believe that suitable changes in attitude and behavior have been made.

#15

Hi Adam

As per your PM you are happy with the speed and content of all my replies to you and your questions.

The significant differences you see between this thread and the letter sent to you is ‘the list of issues and reasons for the ban’, are you wanting me to post these to this thread now?

Thanks
Scott

#16

It’s Tuesday. Does Adam wish to defend against this ban action, and therefore is the meeting tomorrow going ahead?

I’ve PMed to advise I will speak at the meeting. Anyone else who wants to comment at the meeting should take note that you need to advise Scott before 8pm tonight.

#17

I don’t want to speak, but I would like to listen in. Is there a Skype number or something that I could dial into?

Thanks,

Steph

#18

I’ve already emailed in my submission, which is what I’d want to say if I was physically present to speak.

#19

After listening to feedback from our members and a number of discussions amongst the National Committee we have changed the wording of, and the conditions of the ban IF it is applied.

Adam’s NZLARPS membership is rescinded immediately
That the membership ban last 5 years with an additional 2 year probation.
That the ban on Adam from attending NZLARPS projects be changed too:
a) Subsequent to the meeting, the Committee will email all findings, reports and minutes relevant to Adam’s ban along with an explanation that they will need to ban him from their projects themselves if they do not want him, to all current projects. (This allows for transparency and for Projects to make their own decisions). Ask them to peruse the documentation and if they decide on banning Adam, to inform of such as soon as is practicable. (so that he is aware of the situation and there is no false expectations)

b) If Adam wants to attend an NZLARPS project he lets the National committee or relevant Regional committee know. NZLARPS will act as the mediator in the request and so insulating both sides from any issues we have had in the past. We will pass on his request to the relevant GMs, and they can decide if they wish him to play (with no influence on the GMs decision). NZLARPS will then respond back to Adam.

c) If the GM decides to accept Adam into their game they take responsibility for all behaviour, and will do all that they can to
mitigate any potential issues and protect the rest of the Society

#20

So this in effect allows GMs to “opt out” of having Adam in them without them having to tell Adam this directly?

Thanks Scott. I think this is a much more balanced ban than what was previously suggested, interfering less with those GMs that are happy to have Adam play in their games.

If the committee want to outsource that process to a single person, I’m happy to be the person Adam goes to when he’s interested in playing in a game. I already do the “sheriff” role on diatribe and I can post the results in the admin section. Just throwing that offer out there.