<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">If we are certain of what was taken or damaged and by whom, could we request compensation for the<div>amount it cost the space. I don't think the community should have to bare the cost of destructive acts.</div><div><br></div><div>Gavin<br><div><div>On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:10 PM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><p>If someone has been this big of a problem, I would prefer if the model we use to deal with them defaulted towards 'return of problem person allowed only after a meeting where they are discussed and have an advocate present' instead of a default setting where time erases all wounds.</p><p>If someone is accused of making women socially uncomfortable we go all ballistic on them, but if they steal our shit they get a simple time out? This kind of bullshit behavior is just as alarming to me as Harassing the Womenfolk. I want us to treat it as a Big Deal, and I don't feel safe with this person returning to the space until the meeting where we discuss the fallout from his actions AND HE MIGHT GET BANNED instead of allowed back in.</p><p>We are not toddlers, and timeouts are good for defusing tense feelings, not solving real problems.</p><p>I will be note taking october 11th, and that date works great for me. Jake?</p><p>I do NOT think jay should return before the meeting about him, regardless of when we have it. </p><p><a href="http://mediumreality.com/">mediumreality.com</a></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sep 19, 2011 7:43 PM, "Danny O'Brien" <<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com">danny@spesh.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jake <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>>> yes I can see why you wouldn't want to be the only one propping up Jay,<br>>> because I will ask the notetaker to record exactly who is objecting to<br>>> banning Jay, and those people will be asked later why they thought it was<br>
>> necessary, after he returns for a second helping and takes the rest of the<br>>> microscopes.<br>>><br>> <br>> In the interest of pointing out the potential compromise positions, I'd say<br>
> that if this one fails, it's entire possible to propose a second banz0ring<br>> session on October 11th.<br>> <br>> That would give Jay an opportunity period from the 6th-11th to come in and<br>> steal all the microscopes, of course.<br>
> <br>> So if that period of what I will call "temporary microscopy saturnalia"<br>> isn't acceptable, someone can also move to extend Jay's ban (or more<br>> technically, insert an involuntary period of bannination between Jay's<br>
> voluntary one, with goes out of date on the 6th to the 11th) to cope with<br>> this contingency.<br>> <br>> These two proposals would I think comply with all members' current concerns<br>> that I am aware of, and perhaps give time to reconcile the hundred or so<br>
> more that will surely instantly arise to take their place.<br>> <br>> Blocking either proposal would of course be an indication of sour grapes and<br>> microscope-hating anarchy (and not the good kind of anarchy, the baad baad<br>
> kind) and people doing so should be put on a list for all to see.<br>> <br>> I'm not going to be here for any of this stuff, being in an *actual* court<br>> of law that week, but I'll put it in as a suggestion in tomorrow's notes<br>
> anyway.[1]<br>> <br>> I also, as I mentioned to a few people, I emailed Jay telling him that<br>> there's a proposal to ban him, and advising him it's probably sensible for<br>> him to stay the hell away from our amazing whirling dervish of an<br>
> organization for all time.<br>> <br>> Al, would you like me to suggest he check out Ace Monster Toys? [2]<br>> <br>> Hail Eris!<br>> <br>> d.<br>> [1] Has anyone actually volunteered to be the note-taker at tomorrow's<br>
> meeting yet? Oh, noooooooo.<br>> [2] I kid! I was going to send him down to Biocurious.<br>> <br>> <br>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Rubin Abdi wrote:<br>> <br>>> Kelly wrote, On 2011-09-18 23:28:<br>>>> Is there<br>
>>> someone who will be at the meeting next week to block / defer the ban for<br>>>> future consideration?<br>>><br>>> I know of others out there who feel the same, I would appreciate it I<br>
>> wasn't the only (vocal) one at this next meeting.<br>>><br>>> --<br>>> Rubin<br>>> <a href="mailto:rubin@starset.net">rubin@starset.net</a><br>>><br>>><br>> <br>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
>><br>>><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br><a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>