[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned
longobord at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 03:15:50 UTC 2011
Sure, but it's a logical fallacy to consider otherwise:
Supposition: the ban decided at last night's meeting was permanent. (there
are only 2 options here)
Proposition: the consensus process is followed through on, and the decision
didn't go through to ban him.
Conclusion: a permanent ban would remain in effect despite the decision of
the membership that he not be banned.
This argument is silly. You can't have it both ways.
"The thing that is really hard, and really amazing, is giving up on being
perfect and beginning the work of becoming yourself."
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Albert Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>wrote:
> I moderated last night's meeting. No one mentioned that the agreement
> to ban Patrick immediately was temporary until consensus was taken.
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com>
> > I want to chime in here since it appears there's something that you,
> > and probably a lot of other people missed...
> > What you propose to happen is what did happen. The ban currently in
> > is temporary until a formal consensus can be reached. This was stated in
> > ban that folks signed and I think Alex was a little irritated for having
> > repeat. I repeat it again... The person in question is not permanently
> > banned until a proper consensus can be reached.
> > For all you new people, consensus at Noisebridge always takes at least 2
> > weeks. This is true with any important decision, and it does not differ
> > here. The first week the issue is raised as to whether the decision
> > be made, arguments are presented and facts are discussed. The intervening
> > week allows people who weren't there to participate in the discussions,
> > their opinions be known and have any outstanding issues discussed. The
> > following week, the consensus decision is made. It is very important to
> > maintaining integrity of the process that you need not be there to
> > participate in a consensus decision. There are many folks who are more
> > willing to represent views other than their own in such meetings,
> > for everyone's voice to be heard.
> > I believe Jason is gathering the information so that we can all formulate
> > informed decisions. I hope this happens sooner rather than later so
> > can move on.
> > So... what are you concerned about again Rikke?
> > Christie
> > _______
> > "The thing that is really hard, and really amazing, is giving up on being
> > perfect and beginning the work of becoming yourself."
> > --Anna Quindlen
> > 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
> >> serves any purpose at this point to attempt a clarification of my
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> to back up the action being taken.
> >> Secondly, I find that reading the excerpt from the discussion and
> >> leading up to the Ban-ifesto again only re-affirms my conviction that I
> >> right to cast doubt on the way this situation has been handled, although
> >> paranoid horrorvisions of a raging lynch mob at Noisebridge have been
> >> to rest (sorry, Al, didn't mean to offend). I'm also much relieved to
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> peruse the evidence for myself. The fact that Patrick himself obviously
> >> feels that his conduct will not live up to public scrutiny only
> >> my belief in
> >> the wisdom of my fellow Noisebridgers on this. Nonetheless, I do very
> >> 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
> >> procedures for later reference, so I would like to suggest that if
> >> events occur in the future, the person in question be temporarily
> >> (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
> >> here] be banned from Noisebridge?' instead, leaving open the option that
> >> accused might be innocent until found guilty by two consecutive
> >> 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
> >> tone with you, so forgive me if I come across as a little sharp. I find
> >> extremely rude and condescending, and would like to make it absolutely
> >> 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
> >> that I'm right to do so. Also, the description on public record of a
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >>> 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,
> >>> stiff, at times. However, I have never found his behavior untoward in
> >>> way. I will of course read the material available tomorrow, but given
> >>> very rapid development of the situation, I feel like I should add a
> >>> in his defense immediately - I've witnessed a lynching before and have
> >>> 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
> >>> 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
> >>> public by a flamewar, and not by the person herself, I can't help but
> >>> that Frantisek may have a point about attempting mediated dialogue
> >>> More than anything, though, I would like to hear from the female in
> >>> - if you are following this discussion, I would like to know whether
> >>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss