[Noisebridge-discuss] Patrick being banned

Christie Dudley 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.

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 6:41 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.
>
> -Al
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I want to chime in here since it appears there's something that you,
> Rikke,
> > and probably a lot of other people missed...
> > What you propose to happen is what did happen. The ban currently in
> effect
> > is temporary until a formal consensus can be reached. This was stated in
> the
> > ban that folks signed and I think Alex was a little irritated for having
> to
> > 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
> should
> > be made, arguments are presented and facts are discussed. The intervening
> > week allows people who weren't there to participate in the discussions,
> let
> > 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
> than
> > willing to represent views other than their own in such meetings,
> allowing
> > 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
> everyone
> > 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
> it
> >> serves any purpose at this point to attempt a clarification of my
> standing
> >> 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
> is
> >> 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
> point
> >> 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
> evidence
> >> to back up the action being taken.
> >> Secondly, I find that reading the excerpt from the discussion and
> flamewar
> >> leading up to the Ban-ifesto again only re-affirms my conviction that I
> was
> >> right to cast doubt on the way this situation has been handled, although
> my
> >> paranoid horrorvisions of a raging lynch mob at Noisebridge have been
> laid
> >> to rest (sorry, Al, didn't mean to offend). I'm also much relieved to
> hear
> >> 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
> meeting
> >> 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
> the
> >> 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
> ban
> >> 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
> to
> >> peruse the evidence for myself. The fact that Patrick himself obviously
> >> feels that his conduct will not live up to public scrutiny only
> strengthens
> >> my belief in
> >> the wisdom of my fellow Noisebridgers on this. Nonetheless, I do very
> much
> >> 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
> 'legal'
> >> procedures for later reference, so I would like to suggest that if
> similar
> >> events occur in the future, the person in question be temporarily
> suspended
> >> (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
> name
> >> here] be banned from Noisebridge?' instead, leaving open the option that
> the
> >> accused might be innocent until found guilty by two consecutive
> meetings,
> >> 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
> level
> >> tone with you, so forgive me if I come across as a little sharp. I find
> you
> >> extremely rude and condescending, and would like to make it absolutely
> clear
> >> 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
> convinced
> >> that I'm right to do so. Also, the description on public record of a
> fellow
> >> 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
> the
> >> 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
> 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
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110223/b678c03c/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list