<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:18 PM, gnnr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gnnrok@gmail.com">gnnrok@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">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<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I interviewed both Jay and the only witness about all of this at some length. Honestly, I tried my hardest to be Hercule Poirot about it with tricksy questions, but really I couldn't get anything conclusive beyond a protestation of innocence and a slightly blurry witness claim. In the end, I couldn't, with the evidence in front of me, decide between the two points of view. Jake has a pretty good description of a more damning, motive-based take on the whole thing in an earlier email.<br>
<br>Which is actually by-the-by. The main thing that came out of the last time all of this bannination happened was that the one thing that people cannot work with at Noisebridge is when a) one person's view of what happens during confrontattions doesn't match everybody else's, b) they seem intractable when confronted, and when c) others are scared or feel threatened by that person's presence in the space. All of those claims were made pretty consistently by lots of people about Jay, people whose opinions I respect, and I am sure will be happy to come forward at meeting (though do not often speak on this list).<br>
<br>I think those are actually the criteria by which people are told not to return to the space, and Jay reaches to that level. It's fortunately not something where we need to dust for fingerprints or anything. There is always a danger that it can just be a scapegoating action. Which is why we have this slightly long-winded dance of the consensus ruling.<br>
<br>Not that it actually matters BECAUSE WE'RE JUST A HACKERSPACE, and people have not yet died of being denied us.<br><br>Anyway.<br><br>d.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;"><div><div><div class="h5"><div><div>On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:10 PM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:</div><br><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/" target="_blank">mediumreality.com</a></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sep 19, 2011 7:43 PM, "Danny O'Brien" <<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com" target="_blank">danny@spesh.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> 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 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" target="_blank">rubin@starset.net</a><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>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></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>