[Noisebridge-discuss] Finding a way to deal with potentially violent people in the space Re: Patrick being banned

Wed Feb 23 22:11:26 UTC 2011

    well-said. we might take a lesson about having 
strong feelings: maybe use a great deal of restraint. 


On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:36 -0800, Rachel Hospodar wrote:
> Deep breath, al.
> 
> I think that we are discussing here, not this specific instance, but
> some lessons we can take for the future.
> 
> I'd like to create some guidelines for people to refer to the next
> time we have an untoward incident. Having a suggested process that can
> be referred to will help give people a sense of agency in responding
> to threatening circumstances in the future.
> 
> mediumreality.com
> 
> On Feb 23, 2011 1:15 PM, "Albert Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'll try to stay calm in this response, but I have very strong
> > feelings about this.
> > 
> > Patrick's immediate removal was absolutely necessary. Absolutely.
> The
> > situation is, we either bar Patrick from the space, or we are
> > effectively kicking out the women who don't feel safe or comfortable
> > at Noisebridge. And we send them the message, "we don't take this
> > seriously."
> > 
> > Even amidst all this, there are many who have concern for Patrick's
> > own privacy (and the privacy of the people he sent these sexual and
> > unwelcome emails to), which is why people don't want to post the
> exact
> > emails. But nobody kept anyone from coming to the meeting last
> night.
> > 
> > I want to repeat that: Nobody kept anyone from coming to the meeting
> > last night. If you were not there, it was because you decided not to
> > be there. And I hold your opinion as coming from a position of
> > ignorance.
> > 
> > I'm sorry to sound harsh, but this waffling position is the entirely
> > wrong one to have. Patrick has refused to talk to multiple people
> who
> > wanted to talk to him about his behavior, has refused to apologize
> for
> > any of his actions, and I have no reason to believe someone asking
> him
> > (and "asking" is not what they should be doing) to go to a cafe for
> a
> > week while we discuss would dissuade him at all. At all.
> > 
> > Again, I'm sorry for being so blunt about this. But I hold this as a
> > very serious matter and the only people I read taking a "we should
> be
> > more public about this" or "this is an unfair witch hunt" are the
> ones
> > who did not bother to show up at last night's meeting.
> > 
> > If you would like to know more, than you can talk to me or Rachel H.
> > about it in person.
> > 
> > -Al
> > 
> > p.s. Yes, again, I'm sorry for sounding so frustrated.
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Sean Cusack
> <sean.p.cusack at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks Rachel :)
> >>
> >> Yes. To reiterate...I'm not defending anyone, I'm also not
> proposing that
> >> anyone be banned...why? Because I have no information. And that is
> >> fine...I'm undecided about all sorts of things at Noisebridge
> because I
> >> trust decisions of fellow NBers - I would not be surprised at all
> if I
> >> completely agreed with everything that has happened.
> >>
> >> I threw my last e-mail out there to just bring up a point that
> Rachel and
> >> Jason both caught: banning people is a Big Thing, and like all Big
> Things
> >> should probably be done with consensus...or at least evidence
> publicly
> >> available. At this point, consensus next week doesn't really
> matter, and
> >> therefore whatever evidence will be presented no longer matters
> either - I'm
> >> pretty sure Patrick won't ever feel welcome again, and thus
> probably won't
> >> come by again even if this isn't brought up at all next week. So
> >> essentially, with no evidence available for the public viewing,
> we've banned
> >> someone from the space. Wow.
> >>
> >> May I propose the following for future occurrences in case we ever
> have to
> >> consider banning someone again:
> >>
> >> Catch the person at the door, and say "hey, maybe hang out
> someplace else
> >> for a day or two? Like a cafe?" Then, gather a group of peeps to
> consense on
> >> it in a day or two (so, post it to the list, what will be
> discussed, bring
> >> some evidence, etc...not just talk to peeps in the room). I'm sure
> if its
> >> something as severe as banning a person, those that are interested
> really
> >> will make time to come by...or show up on IRC. After consensus,
> *then* tell
> >> the person they aren't welcome at the door if they come by again,
> and etc.
> >> etc. etc.
> >>
> >> I think if this whole situation would have gone down in the above
> manner, it
> >> would have still excluded Unsafe Person(s) from the space
> immediately in for
> >> safety, and if would also give the accused a fair chance to come
> back into
> >> the fold if he or she wanted to, and was found to be not as
> unexcellent as
> >> originally proposed.
> >>
> >> Just a thought that I wanted to throw on record in case someone
> needs to
> >> scour the e-mail archives about how this was handled this in the
> past -
> >>
> >> Sean
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Rachel Lyra Hospodar
> >> <rachel at mediumreality.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> i think sean is right to point out that we have made it impossible
> for
> >>> this person to return as a happy part of our little society
> regardless
> >>> of how the consensus goes.
> >>>
> >>> it was decided by each of us individually to do this because of
> the
> >>> serious nature of his actions, and his repeated lack of remorse or
> >>> understanding of the issues.  when patrick's unexcellent behavior
> has
> >>> been raised to him, he refuses to acknowledge it.
> >>>
> >>> maybe the option that each of us chose, individually, to take as a
> >>> result of the information revealed at the meeting was too much,
> too
> >>> soon.  it would certainly be really really important to not
> ostracize
> >>> someone in an irrevocable fashion based on spurious, incomplete,
> or
> >>> uncorroborated reports.  However, that is not the case here, and i
> would
> >>> like to believe that multiple members of the space who are AFRAID
> of the
> >>> person in question can, with evidence, allow others a doocratic
> license
> >>> to get rid of potentially violent and harrassmentiferous people in
> a
> >>> more expedient fashion than consensus allows.
> >>>
> >>> R.
> >>>
> >>> On 2/23/2011 11:26 AM, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> >>> > If you dont trust your fellow loving noisebridge members,
> perhaps you
> >>> > should ponder if this is the place for you.
> >>> >
> >>> > Ultimately on things like this it boils down to TRUST.  Who do
> you
> >>> > trust more?  Are you REALLY saying that you dont trust a fairly
> large
> >>> > contingent of noisebridge members and you think that the problem
> is
> >>> > with those people, not with he-who-shall-not-be-named?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Sean Cusack
> <sean.p.cusack at gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >> I want to point out one little thing here before we that is
> sort of
> >>> >> getting
> >>> >> lost in the cross fire:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I don't know all the details surrounding what Mr. P has done,
> and agree
> >>> >> that
> >>> >> it could be completely correct to ban him from the space based
> on the
> >>> >> info.
> >>> >> However, we have set up a situation here that is pretty
> alarming. A
> >>> >> small
> >>> >> group of people do-ocratically elected themselves judge and
> jury of Mr.
> >>> >> P.
> >>> >> Let's think about this:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Step 1: A group of people want to ban someone from the space
> and say
> >>> >> they
> >>> >> have some evidence that will be presented. For those not in the
> know,
> >>> >> this
> >>> >> could or could not be reasonable based on the evidence, right?
> >>> >> Step 2: Said person to be banned enters the space, and *is*
> kicked out
> >>> >> by a
> >>> >> subset of people (presumably some that were on the initial
> e-mail).
> >>> >> Note...no real consensus has taken place, and no evidence has
> been
> >>> >> presented
> >>> >> to anyone outside of a small group of people.
> >>> >> Step 3: Patrick agrees to leave
> >>> >> Step 4: An e-mail gets sent to the list saying "this was bad,
> but trust
> >>> >> us...it was what needed to happen".
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Reading it in those steps, does this not sound like some gitmo
> style
> >>> >> bullshit? So, if the consensus process decides that Patrick
> shouldn't
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> banned, then what? Do you really think he'll ever come back
> into the
> >>> >> space
> >>> >> given how he was treated?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Again, I'm not denying the fact that maybe P's actions warrant
> him
> >>> >> getting
> >>> >> booted. I don't have a vagina - so I wasn't hit on. I don't
> know the
> >>> >> details. I'm just saying that having a small group of people
> running
> >>> >> around
> >>> >> making decisions that are this severe is mafia-esque. Although
> I don't
> >>> >> really think we can do anything at this point to salvage the
> situation
> >>> >> (regardless of what happens during the consensus process), I
> sincerely
> >>> >> hope
> >>> >> that god-forbid if this situation presents itself again, people
> don't
> >>> >> resort
> >>> >> to vigilante justice (btw, last I heard, we were going to have
> an
> >>> >> intervention!), and bring it up in a more formal sense before
> just
> >>> >> acting on
> >>> >> what a subset of people thought was correct at the time.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Sean
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Albert Sweigart
> <asweigart at gmail.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I would also like note that this was discuss for a couple
> hours last
> >>> >>> night at the weekly meeting. Lots of people from all over the
> spectrum
> >>> >>> of "what Noisebridge ought to be" were there, and EVERY SINGLE
> PERSON
> >>> >>> supported barring Patrick from coming back to the space.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> In Patrick-style bullet points:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> * This isn't about his personality quirks or obnoxious mailing
> list
> >>> >>> posts, it's about him sexually harassing people.
> >>> >>> * He's harassed multiple people.
> >>> >>> * He refuses to talk with others about it, change his
> behavior, or
> >>> >>> even admit that he's done anything wrong or apologize.
> >>> >>> * It's to the point where multiple women feel uncomfortable
> enough
> >>> >>> that they would avoid Noisebridge if Patrick could still come.
> >>> >>> * This is exactly the situation that calls for banning from
> ever
> >>> >>> physically entering the space again.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Also, he's stolen our printer. He clearly said he donated it (
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-February/020804.html
> >>> >>> ) but took it back this morning when he was told he couldn't
> come back
> >>> >>> into the space.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> -Al
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:26 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
> >>> >>> <rachel at mediumreality.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> hooray!  well-put, VonGuard.  I will chime in to say that
> while
> >>> >>>> people
> >>> >>>> must trust that our doocratic decision was made in good
> faith, we did
> >>> >>>> not yet consense on banning patrick because of how our
> consensus
> >>> >>>> process
> >>> >>>> works - everyone will have a chance to view the evidence and
> decide
> >>> >>>> for
> >>> >>>> themselves.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> There is evidence.  This is not a witch hunt.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> We are viscerally and hugely concerned for the safety and
> well-being
> >>> >>>> of
> >>> >>>> the vast majority of our users, and feel that this negative
> person's
> >>> >>>> behavior has passed beyond something that we can influence
> and/or
> >>> >>>> help
> >>> >>>> to improve.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Noisebridge exists to provide a safe space to hack, not as a
> place to
> >>> >>>> help those who behave reprehensibly to improve themselves.
>  We aren't
> >>> >>>> banning him from humanity, just our workshop.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> R.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> On 2/23/2011 9:04 AM, VonGuard wrote:
> >>> >>>>> So, I just wanted to nip this in the bud: We are all very
> >>> >>>>> appreciative
> >>> >>>>> of
> >>> >>>>> advice from newcomers, but if you are watching all this
> Patrick Keys
> >>> >>>>> drama
> >>> >>>>> from the outside, and you think to yourself "Hey, that's
> some very
> >>> >>>>> unexcellent behavior towards Patrick!" I ask you to stop and
> think
> >>> >>>>> for
> >>> >>>>> a
> >>> >>>>> moment.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Noisebridge is a super accepting space. It was only after
> tremendous
> >>> >>>>> discussion, debate, and evidence gathering that we decided
> to ban
> >>> >>>>> him.
> >>> >>>>> Until
> >>> >>>>> the next official meeting, most of you are just going to
> have to
> >>> >>>>> trust
> >>> >>>>> that
> >>> >>>>> we have made the best decision for Noisebridge here. That is
> why so
> >>> >>>>> many
> >>> >>>>> names were appended to the bottom of that email. This was to
> say "We
> >>> >>>>> are
> >>> >>>>> signing to say this is legitimate, and that this action
> needs to be
> >>> >>>>> taken."
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> This was actually never about personality, or even about the
> mailing
> >>> >>>>> list.
> >>> >>>>> This was about Patrick making women at Noisebridge feel
> unsafe. This
> >>> >>>>> was not
> >>> >>>>> done based on any form of speculation or jumping to
> conclusions.
> >>> >>>>> This
> >>> >>>>> was
> >>> >>>>> done after a careful, considered process where it was
> decided that
> >>> >>>>> not
> >>> >>>>> banning Patrick was the same thing as banning a number of
> women who
> >>> >>>>> would no
> >>> >>>>> longer come to Noisebridge because of his presence and his
> unwanted
> >>> >>>>> attentions, and his stalking behavior.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Noisebridge has plenty of socially awkward geeks. We all
> know that
> >>> >>>>> if
> >>> >>>>> yer a
> >>> >>>>> chick at Noisebridge, someone might stare at your boobs.
> Awkward
> >>> >>>>> though
> >>> >>>>> this
> >>> >>>>> is, it's actually OK. Sure, it's not the most polite thing
> to do,
> >>> >>>>> but
> >>> >>>>> it's
> >>> >>>>> harmless. Women and men at Noisebridge are still perfectly
> free to
> >>> >>>>> behave
> >>> >>>>> like women and men. This is very far from what is taking
> place here.
> >>> >>>>> Patrick's behavior was well over the line of acceptable.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> This was not a witch hunt. This is not a precedent for
> banning
> >>> >>>>> annoying
> >>> >>>>> or
> >>> >>>>> creepy people. This was about physical safety in and outside
> of the
> >>> >>>>> space
> >>> >>>>> for ladies with whom Patrick had crossed the line, and
> continued to
> >>> >>>>> cross
> >>> >>>>> the line after being told to stop.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Finally, I will say that the "intervention, mediated
> talking" route
> >>> >>>>> had
> >>> >>>>> already been tried with Patrick. If you are interested in
> reading
> >>> >>>>> more
> >>> >>>>> about
> >>> >>>>> Patrick's complete inability and unwillingness to listen to
> ANYONE
> >>> >>>>> about
> >>> >>>>> ANYTHING, there are about 4 months worth of email backlogs
> in our
> >>> >>>>> archives
> >>> >>>>> documenting his complete inability to listen and understand
> people's
> >>> >>>>> problems with him. It's a pattern with him.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> This extended to also being unable to accept the word "no!"
> from
> >>> >>>>> women.
> >>> >>>>> And
> >>> >>>>> that makes me want to do something truly terrible to him.
> But
> >>> >>>>> instead
> >>> >>>>> of
> >>> >>>>> hurting him or assaulting him online or offline, we all
> decided to
> >>> >>>>> solve
> >>> >>>>> this within Noisebridge's processes. Believe me, there are
> others
> >>> >>>>> here
> >>> >>>>> who
> >>> >>>>> would have done far worse to him given the chance. The man
> is a
> >>> >>>>> menace,
> >>> >>>>> and
> >>> >>>>> does not even treat women like people. They are sexual
> objects to
> >>> >>>>> him,
> >>> >>>>> ones
> >>> >>>>> that owe him sexual attentions, in his eyes.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> This is not someone we will ever be allowing back. He is
> pure
> >>> >>>>> fucking
> >>> >>>>> scum,
> >>> >>>>> and he is absolutely the antithesis of everything
> Noiserbridge
> >>> >>>>> stands
> >>> >>>>> for.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Let it be known: you cannot sexually harass or endanger
> ANYONE at
> >>> >>>>> Noisebridge. You will be banned if you do so and do not
> correct the
> >>> >>>>> behavior
> >>> >>>>> when you are told to stop. This is the precedent we're
> setting. And
> >>> >>>>> I
> >>> >>>>> think
> >>> >>>>> it is a very good one. Everyone should be safe at
> Noisebridge. And
> >>> >>>>> no
> >>> >>>>> one
> >>> >>>>> should feel unsafe outside of Noisebridge because a person
> >>> >>>>> associated
> >>> >>>>> with
> >>> >>>>> the space is following/harassing them.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> If you are still not convinced, come to the meeting next
> week. I
> >>> >>>>> agree,
> >>> >>>>> this
> >>> >>>>> is all quite ugly, but at the end of the day, this is 100%
> Patrick's
> >>> >>>>> own
> >>> >>>>> fault. Noisebridge remains %99.999 inclusive. But stalkers
> will
> >>> >>>>> NEVER
> >>> >>>>> be
> >>> >>>>> welcome.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Rikke Rasmussen <
> >>> >>>>> rikke.c.rasmussen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I know that my being very new at Noisebridge may cause some
> of you
> >>> >>>>>> to
> >>> >>>>>> find
> >>> >>>>>> it inappropriate for me to interfere in this matter, but I
> hope
> >>> >>>>>> you'll
> >>> >>>>>> bear
> >>> >>>>>> with me and hear me out. I've met Patrick multiple times
> through
> >>> >>>>>> Tastebridge, and know him only as polite, if perhaps a
> little
> >>> >>>>>>  formal,
> >>> >>>>>> even
> >>> >>>>>> stiff, at times. However, I have never found his behavior
> untoward
> >>> >>>>>> in
> >>> >>>>>> any
> >>> >>>>>> way. I will of course read the material available tomorrow,
> but
> >>> >>>>>> given
> >>> >>>>>> the
> >>> >>>>>> very rapid development of the situation, I feel like I
> should add a
> >>> >>>>>> comment
> >>> >>>>>> in his defense immediately - I've witnessed a lynching
> before and
> >>> >>>>>> have
> >>> >>>>>> no
> >>> >>>>>> desire to see another.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Exclusion is the worst punishment  Noisebridge has because
> of the
> >>> >>>>>> no
> >>> >>>>>> policies-policy, our equivalent of capital punishment, and
> I do not
> >>> >>>>>> feel
> >>> >>>>>> that the crime merits this measure. It is as big a deal as
> the
> >>> >>>>>> offended
> >>> >>>>>> party chooses to make of it, but since this has only been
> brought
> >>> >>>>>> out
> >>> >>>>>> in
> >>> >>>>>> public by a flamewar, and not by the person herself, I
> can't help
> >>> >>>>>> but
> >>> >>>>>> feel
> >>> >>>>>> that Frantisek may have a point about attempting mediated
> dialogue
> >>> >>>>>> first.
> >>> >>>>>> More than anything, though, I would like to hear from the
> female in
> >>> >>>>>> question
> >>> >>>>>> - if you are following this discussion, I would like to
> know
> >>> >>>>>> whether
> >>> >>>>>> you
> >>> >>>>>> feel that this is reasonable?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I hope it's clear that I'm trying to pour water, not
> gasoline, on
> >>> >>>>>> the
> >>> >>>>>> fire
> >>> >>>>>> here.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> /Rikke
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> >>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>> >>>>>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> >>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>> >>>>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> >>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>> >>>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> >>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>> >>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >>> >>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss