[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Wed Feb 23 20:50:44 UTC 2011

I think that's a wrong message. 

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 11:26 -0800, 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
> 