[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Wed Feb 23 22:00:52 UTC 2011

    i now complain about the defensive and divisive 
emotional tone of this discussion. i ask that we all 
calm down some before sending more email. 


On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:12 -0500, Rigel Christian wrote:
> the Appeal to the Dictionary is a cliche.
> 
> still,
> 
> vigilante - any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as
> by avenging a crime
> 
> in the absence of Best Practices for dealing with this type of
> situation, and as a do-ocracy, this is in point of fact exactly what
> has happened. some amount of order must be kept in any group,
> especially one like nb which seems to be growing steadily, because
> different people will give different weight to the social contract
> implicit in using the space.
> 
> that said, i think that if nb were a more hierarchical organization,
> then yes, the appearance of vigilante action would be more troubling,
> because those actions can have the dual purpose of consolidating
> power.
> 
> but who has this kind of power at noisebridge?
> 
> i think that there is something of a category error underneath this.
> 
> so then let's look at outcomes. as a practical matter, what is the
> downside of booting patrick from the space? i think one can reasonably
> say that:
> 1) some people are going to feel a little uncomfortable about it (but
> i also think this would likely happen regardless of the circumstances.
> it is, as rachel noted, a Big Thing), and might even leave.
> 2) ....?
> 
> and upsides:
> 1) people who were harassed will feel safer
> 2) these people might start coming back to the space
> 3) less energy devoted to trying to explain why That Behavior is Not
> OK to patrick
> 4) the people who felt icky about booting him will help ensure that
> some sort of best practice guidelines for this situation are advanced
> for any next times that will happen.
> 
> that looks to me like a net win. it is of course unfortunate about the
> form it takes, but it still seems like a win nonetheless.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Albert Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> 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
> >
>