[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned
jim
jim at systemateka.com
Wed Feb 23 21:52:01 UTC 2011
bring the topic up for discussion in some
weekly meeting, let the notes propagate, get
consensus the following meeting.
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:04 -0800, Shannon Lee wrote:
> what are the normal procedures for this?
>
>
> --S
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
> you didn't follow the normal procedures; you took action
> extraordinarily. by definition that's in the neighborhood
> of vigilante action. note that so is putting out a fire.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 12:53 -0800, Albert Sweigart wrote:
> > I'd just like to say that last night's meeting was one of
> the most
> > well attended meetings I've seen in quite a while. And I
> have never
> > seen such a diverse and large group of Noisebridge members
> agree on
> > something so consistently. Your idea that this is *anywhere*
> close to
> > "vigilante action" is incorrect.
> >
> > -Al
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:43 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > i wasn't there and i'm sure lots of other members
> > > and regular participants weren't there. i worry that
> > > this has been a little too close to vigilante action
> > > for my comfort.
> > > rachel's initial email somewhat addressed this
> > > discomfort in asking that those of us who were not
> > > there trust the action at least until we see the
> > > "evidence", i.e. basis for this drastic action. okay,
> > > i'll suspend my alarm for a little bit, but the burden
> > > is on you all who took the action.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 10:02 -0800, Albert Sweigart 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Shannon Lee
> (503) 539-3700
>
> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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