[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Ryan Rawson ryanobjc at gmail.com
Wed Feb 23 21:05:41 UTC 2011


I think demanding that sensitive evidence of crimes of a sexual
harassement is itself a form of harassement.

Sometimes things are just done better in person, and ultimately
noisebridge is a physical space. So I don't think its above board.

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
>



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list