[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

Patrick Keys citizenkeys at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 04:34:52 UTC 2011

Yeah... that's one of my main concerns. There's at least two sides to every story (see "Rashomon"). Unless alleged "evidence" has been fabricated, there's only two females with any potential claim against me. The primary female was sent two emails after I had already made it clear otherwise that I was generally not interested in her. For the record, after things got "weird" with this specific woman prior to this issue, my twitter account and foursquare account were necessarily password-protected. Lets leave it at that. Additionally, I also asked around prior to this issue to conclude that the woman in question has only been at Noisebridge approximately half a dozen times and is also not a member of Noisebridge.

The second female was sent one potentially obnoxious email and that's really the long and short of that.

Neither woman had been harassed, assaulted, or any other word that's been thrown around here today. All such words are legal claims that have required elements to substantiate. None of the claims thrown around here today could ever be satisfied in any competent court of legal jurisdiction.

No apology was sent because 1) nobody asked for one directly, and 2) to apologize is to concede that I believe that I did something that requires an apology, which I don't.

"Right" and "wrong" are morally subjective. A nobody-is-in-charge anarchist hackerspace is absolutely NOT the appropriate venue to indulge such discussions. An anarchist hackerspace is also NOT the appropriate venue for resolving legal matters, suchas this bizarre and perverted collecting and passing around of the alleged "evidence".

Finally, you can skip the alleged witch-hunt consensus thing. I'm not interested in having one more perverted discussion about me being had behind my back.

Patrick Keys

Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com> wrote:

In addition to the fact a definitive action was taken before people had time to consense, the thing that I'm most disturbed about is that Patrick was never given the opportunity to speak in his own defense to the group, or to reply formally to accusations ("evidence").  Even if he is a total scumbag, he still deserves the opportunity to defend himself prior to banning.  And Noisebridge guard jealously its collective autonomy, which is strengthened when it protects the rights of the accused and insists on hearing arguments from all sides before making decisions. Perhaps there ought to be a formal mechanism to suspend people under emergency circumstances (a certain number of members have to sign a petition)?  A suspension would kick off an eviction process that would give a suspended person the opportunity to defend him or herself, and would build-in time (at least as many meetings as it takes to become a member of Noisebridge) to allow the group to make a cool and considered
decision. a little bit disturbed, Adrian_____________________________________________
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/20110223/4f903b61/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list