[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

meredith scheff satiredun at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 02:33:50 UTC 2011

I find the 'it didn't happen to me' argument less than flimsy- it is
foolish. If any part of your community feels harassed it is your civic duty
to do something about it.

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Rikke Rasmussen <
rikke.c.rasmussen at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is painfully clear that I have failed in my stated mission to pour water
> rather than gasoline on this fire. I'm uncertain of whether or not it serves
> any purpose at this point to attempt a clarification of my standing in this
> matter, but here goes:
> First, I would like to make it clear that my initial reaction early this
> morning was based on my perception of events at the time (the sequence is
> pretty well documented by Christina on
> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Y_U_BAN_PATRICK). As a female and
> (although new) very regular visitor at Noisebridge, I felt obliged to point
> out that my own experience of Patrick does not well match the "creep",
> "scum" and "stalker" who has been portrayed on this list, and that apart
> from two obviously misogynist comments and accusations of a case of
> harassment made in the course of a public flamewar, I had seen no evidence
> to back up the action being taken.
> Secondly, I find that reading the excerpt from the discussion and flamewar
> leading up to the Ban-ifesto again only re-affirms my conviction that I was
> right to cast doubt on the way this situation has been handled, although my
> paranoid horrorvisions of a raging lynch mob at Noisebridge have been laid
> to rest (sorry, Al, didn't mean to offend). I'm also much relieved to hear
> that some form of mediated dialogue has already been attempted. However,
> like Sean, I cannot help but feel that the discussion at next week's meeting
> will necessarily be *post facto* - the hole in the ceiling is there, and
> it is too late to build consense on whether or not it should have been made
> in the first place. Patrick is now effectively, if not officially, banned
> from Noisebridge, likely for good.
> That being said, I do not - repeat, *not*! - claim that the decision to
> ban Patrick is wrong. In fact, given the reported overwhelming agreement at
> yesterday's meeting, I will probably agree with it once I've had chance to
> peruse the evidence for myself. The fact that Patrick himself obviously
> feels that his conduct will not live up to public scrutiny only strengthens
> my belief in
> the wisdom of my fellow Noisebridgers on this. Nonetheless, I do very much
> question the way the sentence has been executed, though. As Rachel said,
> this is not about Patrick, but about what we can learn about our own 'legal'
> procedures for later reference, so I would like to suggest that if similar
> events occur in the future, the person in question be temporarily suspended
> (and announced as such) while everyone has a chance to formed a
> substantiated opinion and participate in the consensus process. The
> accompanying email might be entitled 'Urgent discussion: Should [insert name
> here] be banned from Noisebridge?' instead, leaving open the option that the
> accused might be innocent until found guilty by *two* consecutive
> meetings, thus including in the consensus process those unable (not
> unwilling!) to attend on any given night.
> Last, but not least: VonGuard, it is very difficult for me to keep a level
> tone with you, so forgive me if I come across as a little sharp. I find you
> extremely rude and condescending, and would like to make it absolutely clear
> that I do not appreciate being told to trust you, your friends, the
> membership, Santa Claus or anyone else for any of the following reasons:
> - other people agree with you (lots of people can be wrong)
> - you know what's best for me (and everyone else)
> - you had no other choice (or no other sound argument)
> - you have information that I don't (but you won't share)
> - you've told me to more than once
> The fact that you take offence that I would cast doubt on the legitimacy of
> the course of do-ocratic action here only makes me all the more convinced
> that I'm right to do so. Also, the description on public record of a fellow
> human being as completely broken begs professional qualification: please
> provide.
> I am on my way to Noisebridge, and will spend the evening familiarizing
> myself with whatever material is available. Look forward to continuing the
> constructive debate of how to handle this sort of thing in the future.
> /Rikke
> 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




A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110223/2ab64664/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list