WTF?! <br><br>No growth or change is possible until everyone admits the truth of
the reality of a situation. In all these discussions, there is some
spin/belief about how it is "inappropriate to pursue a ban during a<b> suspension period</b>", "after the <b>suspension</b> is over", "the problem of overriding the <b>suspension</b>", how "<b>the suspension</b> is working", and "while <b>a temporary hiatus</b> from entering the space<b> is on for them</b>" or that "he's on "<b>voluntary suspension</b>"". His behavior in volunteering to take a "sabbatical" (as I call it) is
nothing but the is a classic technique of psychological manipulation
used by disturbed personalities. This one is particularly is called "<a href="http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/03/31/giving-assent-as-manipulation/">Giving assent</a>." <br><br>Where do we think we took action? Jay hi-jacked the process, took control of the situation-- even from Rubin (see below)-- and I have no doubt that Jay is reading all this debate about HIM, chuckling
with his auditory hallucinations in great pride and feeling of
self-accomplishment in manipulating Noisebridge. God-willing, this will
be his "15 minutes" of fame; It is probably the most attention by the
greatest number of people with the most empathy that he has ever
experienced (and likely will experience) in his violent, self-centered,
parasitic, "traumatized," misunderstood/creative life in his own reality. Any concern that he is NOT aware of what is written in this
discussion list or reported in the meeting notes is seriously
questionable in my view. <br><br>A friend of mine who works with victims says the only thing worse than dealing with disturbed personalities is dealing with those who have been conned by them. Those who have been manipulated simply psychologically have a huge blind spot-- an ego eclipse, as she puts it-- that keeps them from admitting not only that the world is full of people with sinister perspectives/sociopaths, but further that their judgment and raw hope in human nature could ever be flawed. Manipulators play on this through a variety of behavioral and psychological techniques: lying, denial, rationalization, selective in-attention/attention,
diversion, evasion, covert intimidation/threats, playing the victim, giving assent, seduction, projecting the blame, feigning
innocence, feigning confusion,guilt-tripping, and brandishing anger. As situations escalate, this continues as they become more invested in their past judgments and they subconsciously dig in their heels, seeking any opportunity to avoid proactive action despite the logical pleas of others trying to support them to take preemptive defensive and preventive action. It is only when there is some HUGE event-- like a murder with fingerprints on the knife matching the disturbed person-- that denial and guilt-tripping can't hold back. But even then, victims of manipulation WANT to believe SO MUCH that a known danger has "hope" for change, they'll put themselves and others at risk despite clear evidence to the contrary and a history that suggests change. They are hoping in vain, despite the risk and a probability of change is greater than that of an asteroid the size of Texas hitting earth in the next five minutes.<br>
<br>As much as I-- and the others who are part of the community that
regularly uses the space-- would like to say that Noisebridge took
permanent, proactive action to protect Noisebridge from this known
threat returning to again make it a "weird and scary" and unsafe feeling
place, the truth of the reality is that <b>Noisebridge did <u>NOTHING</u></b>.
All that energy, time, emotion, investigating, listening, reading,
writing, talking, yelling, traumatizing (me, not him), and stressing led
NO WHERE. It wasn't even a consensus decision-making process, since
there was no path proposed to take ANY action.<br>
<br>Let's be clear: Jay did not offer, nor is "on" any sort of suspension, despite the
spin reflected in the minutes and in communications since. There is
nothing "on" him forbidding him from entering the space. As I recall,
his exact words we're to "take a voluntary leave of one month," which
others spun back to him as a suspension. Lest there be any doubt to
anybody worried about doing anything while a suspension or temporary
hiatus is "on" or kicking him "while he's down", I gently defer to the
following excerpt from the notes of the meeting in which Jay momentarily tipped his cards:<br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><b><i>Jay volunteers for a suspension for a month, and come back on October 6th.<br><br>Jake says that will reasonable.<br>
<br>Rubin disagrees with issuing a month suspension, and threatens to block.<br>
<br>Jay points out he's volunteering to leave, and Rubin, despite being a member, cannot actually block people's voluntary actions.</i></b><br><br></div>He's manipulating us from taking action, he's giving assent.<br>
<br>Jay
is first-rate manipulator; He's gotten this far with it and, quite
frankly, it works. Noisebridge is a perfect target for his type -- by its consensus process decision-making,
fluid/dynamic/anarchic environment, generally shared intrinsic value
of "being excellent to each other", and the malaise/apathy/neuroticism (at times) that rarely is proactive or preventative in dealing with problems but instead reactive by necessity when problems become huge. It looks for ANY opportunity to avoid taking action and will even go so far as to convince itself that it took action when it did not (or re-framing the truth to create that belief).<br>
<br>As far as Jay's response to Danny somehow leading Danny to the flawed conclusion that he is not ever coming back to Noisebridge, I would ask that everyone re-read what he WROTE-- not what we'd like to believe he wrote. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about never coming back to the space. Instead, it is evasive, feigning innocence/playing the victim, It is again manipulative and evasively vague. How anyone could take this as him saying he's not ever going to come back to Noisebridge is beyond me. It is not just a "thanks" but cleverly employs an subtext of subtle shaming, feigned innocence, guilt-tripping, and being victimized. It's purpose is to get Danny (and others) to do EXACTLY what Danny proposed: NOTHING. This would pave the way for his future return-- maybe not immediately-- with a "clean slate" and perhaps even a new cast at Noisebridge. <br>
<br>Why would he ever return? Because he now knows that he cannot only win the battle, which he has done-- he got Noisebridge to think that it somehow took action instead of putting off doing so until some hypothetical future where we get the joy (and trauma for me... oh, and Jay) of going through another 25,000 characters of pointless communications regarding him, several workdays of wasted time in building consensus for nothing, and at least one LONG Tuesday, plus severe Postdramatic Stress Disorder-- but win the war. Why would he come back? Besides the fact that our environment is an inadvertent breeding ground for such behavior/personalities, Noisebridge offers basic resources de facto that are
needed and essential for survival<br><br>I have *NO* doubt that he will return, barring a permanent block. Those of us who have
endured his presence know first-hand his patterns of
disruption/contrition/disruption/contrition,
and there is valid concern about personal safety in the space when he is
present. Please, remember that when he drunkenly tripped and knocked the beer I was holding onto Kayle Macbook keyboard, he was once again apologizing for an earlier disruption and in the process of attempting to give me a make-up HUG, WHICH I HAD ALREADY CLEARLY STATED WAS *NOT* OK with me as I was eating my burrito and, well, simply not wanting to hug a slurring, drunk, alcohol-reeking, filthy person. Maybe somehow that was being excellent, but I draw the line at sharing my body for another's needs when I have said NO.<br>
<br>Based on experience, observation,
and his mumbling ramblings of word salad that have included threats to hurt or kill those he at
times imagines/perceives as "talking about" him when he is in the space,
I am concerned. Based on his state of being intoxicated, his not respecting the body space of others, and his known
history of refusing to leave the space when asked by everyone, this should be an absolute no-brainer. And, yes, without even considering the disappearance of the microscope, lest we lose focus.<br>
<br>The guy is slick, conniving,
knows which buttons to push/levers to pull, and-- I have to
acknowledge-- is VERY good at it. Noisebridge: please, for once, do something preventative and proactive to prevent this from becoming "Groundhog Day".<br><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Danny O'Brien <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com">danny@spesh.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<p>So, given that Jay has said he's not coming back (people are free to email him to confirm this language), I'm going to withdraw my proposed consensus items, because I don't believe NB should pursue pre-emptive rules (people are free to take my language and propose it themselves). </p>
<p>I'm not going to block, because I am personally, currently, uncomfortable wielding proxy power without being at a meeting; I haven't thought this out entirely and don't begrudge others: it just feels wrong to me.</p>
<p>I would ask, though, for the meeting to consider what a ban would achieve, given that the guy has said he's not coming back, and the moment he does everyone here would chase him out anyway (or if they would't, are unlikely to change that behaviour in the face of some magic new rule).</p>
<p>Also, what kind of new microscope would people like?</p>
<p>D.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="h5">On Sep 20, 2011 2:53 PM, "Christopher Lincoln" <<a href="mailto:cclinco@gmail.com" target="_blank">cclinco@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">
> I had purposely tried to avoid getting involved in this issue about Jay. I<br>
> was not there for any of the episodes described previously in the mailing<br>> lists, nor have I been to any of the meetings where this has been discussed<br>> and when this does come to trial on October 11th, I’ll most likely be<br>
> absent. So please do not take this message as an endorsement or commentary<br>> on Jay in specific.<br>> <br>> What I do want to comment on is precedent. How we handle this situation with<br>> Jay can and will be used in the future when dealing with new problems that<br>
> arise. Our approach must reflect how we would like Noisebridge to handle<br>> these situations not only when we are the accuser (as it is now), but also<br>> when we are the accused.<br>> <br>> I for one would find it unacceptable, if somebody were to accuse me of<br>
> misconduct, for the community to put me on trial and pass judgment while at<br>> the same time deliberately denying me the ability to participate in the<br>> proceedings or to defend myself against the leveled allegations. If you<br>
> were the one to be accused, would you find these proceedings to be<br>> acceptable?<br>> <br>> With this in mind I will be at the meeting tonight, and I will block any<br>> motions that attempt a trial in absentia.<br>
> <br>> <br>> Christopher<br>> <br>> P.S. Jake, sorry about sending this message to you twice. After sending it<br>> to just you, I thought it would be best to let the rest of the message board<br>> also know my stance.<br>
> <br>> <br>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Jake <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">jake@spaz.org</a>> wrote:<br>> <br>>> i'll be here october 11th but i'm also bringing it up tomorrow.<br>
>> if anyone feels like blocking banning a thief and liar, show up and let<br>>> noisebridge know you care..about lying thieves.<br>>><br>>> -jake<br>>><br>>><br>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:<br>
>><br>>><br>>>> If someone has been this big of a problem, I would prefer if the model we<br>>>> use to deal with them defaulted towards 'return of problem person allowed<br>>>> only after a meeting where they are discussed and have an advocate<br>
>>> present'<br>>>> instead of a default setting where time erases all wounds.<br>>>><br>>>> If someone is accused of making women socially uncomfortable we go all<br>>>> ballistic on them, but if they steal our shit they get a simple time out?<br>
>>> This kind of bullshit behavior is just as alarming to me as Harassing the<br>>>> Womenfolk. I want us to treat it as a Big Deal, and I don't feel safe<br>>>> with<br>>>> this person returning to the space until the meeting where we discuss the<br>
>>> fallout from his actions AND HE MIGHT GET BANNED instead of allowed back<br>>>> in.<br>>>><br>>>> We are not toddlers, and timeouts are good for defusing tense feelings,<br>>>> not<br>
>>> solving real problems.<br>>>><br>>>> I will be note taking october 11th, and that date works great for me.<br>>>> Jake?<br>>>><br>>>> I do NOT think jay should return before the meeting about him, regardless<br>
>>> of<br>>>> when we have it.<br>>>><br>>>> <a href="http://mediumreality.com" target="_blank">mediumreality.com</a><br>>>><br>>>> On Sep 19, 2011 7:43 PM, "Danny O'Brien" <<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com" target="_blank">danny@spesh.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jake <<a href="mailto:jake@spaz.org" target="_blank">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<br>>>> was<br>>>> >> necessary, after he returns for a second helping and takes the rest of<br>
>>> the<br>>>> >> microscopes.<br>>>> >><br>>>> ><br>>>> > In the interest of pointing out the potential compromise positions, I'd<br>>>> say<br>
>>> > that if this one fails, it's entire possible to propose a second<br>>>> banz0ring<br>>>> > session on October 11th.<br>>>> ><br>>>> > That would give Jay an opportunity period from the 6th-11th to come in<br>
>>> 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<br>>>> with<br>>>> > this contingency.<br>
>>> ><br>>>> > These two proposals would I think comply with all members' current<br>>>> 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<br>>>> and<br>>>> > microscope-hating anarchy (and not the good kind of anarchy, the baad<br>
>>> 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*<br>
>>> 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<br>>>> 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<br>>>> 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" target="_blank">rubin@starset.net</a><br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> >> ______________________________**_________________<br>>>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br></div></div>>>> >> Noisebridge-discuss@lists.**<a href="http://noisebridge.net" target="_blank">noisebridge.net</a><<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>><br>
>>> >> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/**mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-**discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/**mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-**discuss</a><<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a>><div class="im">
<br>
>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>><br>>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>>><br>>><br></div></div>
<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" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>