[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge
Elizabeth Sarah Quirk Goodman
elizabethsqg at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 07:38:27 UTC 2011
I hope that people who come to the meeting or post on this thread will first
take a little time to educate themselves on the effects of sexual harassment
and physical threats, and the pros and cons of various approaches to dealing
To everyone who is making a theoretical point about the Noisebridge process,
as it is already pretty much after the fact, perhaps you would like to
resume such a discussion after this particular issue is resolved. I
personally think we *should* have that discussion, but it is not really
about Patrick and would be better done at the meeting in person, or
afterwards on the list.
In cases of sexual harassment, transparency and delay do not serve merely to
protect the alleged harasser; they are also cruel to the victims (you can
look this up). I wasn't at the meeting nor do I have all relevant
information, but I believe you should know better than to put the burden of
proof continually on the victims of harassment, who will only feel more
anxious and unsafe the more they think people aren't willing to defend
them. I had wondered about what would happen in this sort of situation and
I am gratified to see that the community did not fail to respond to the
needs of its members. It is seriously impressive that there is care being
taken regarding privacy as well.
2011/2/24 Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com>
> Are you just "fairly certain" or can you (or anyone) provide absolute
> assurance that Patrick will have the ability to respond formally to the
> that have been made against him before he is banned? Or is that not how
> work around here? Has Patrick been informed of his right to defend
> and has he been formally invited to answer these *very* serious
> Because until I raised the question, I had not seen any discussion at all
> Patrick's rights with regards to being banned. I had assumed that he had
> banned from your first "ban" email, and that his ban would simply be
> after-the-fact in group discussion. ("Trust us") Apparently I went through
> a hundred emails and I've mistaken (and horrified) the whole time. If I
> then Patrick might be as well.
> I'm sorry for pressing the issue - but I'd like to feel like I'm joining a
> rather than a lynch-mob.
> Also, do you really think that seeking clarification about process is
> all over the email list"? Are you telling me that my only option to trust
> Is this how things work at Noisebridge?
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net>
> To: Adrian Bankhead <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Rachel McConnell <rachel at xtreme.com>; Noisebridge Discuss
> <noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Sent: Wed, 23 February, 2011 20:20:15
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge
> Adrian Bankhead wrote, On 20110223 194552:
> > 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
> > given the opportunity to speak in his own defense to the group, or to
> > 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.
> No decision has been made. I'm fairly sure he's welcome to defend
> himself here, in person to anyone and at the next Tuesday meeting.
> The two things that were established at the meeting were...
> * A bunch of people would like it if Patrick wasn't allowed in the space
> due to reasons related to people feeling unsafe around him, and will
> make this known to him in person if he does show up in the space,
> additionally will ask him to leave. I'm sure some will be more graceful
> then others. A list of these people is attached to the first message of
> this thread. How each of these people actually do the ask will differ
> from person to person. I'm one of those people.
> * A consensus item to be brought up at the next meeting to formally ban
> Patrick from the space. This is giving everyone, including Patrick, a
> week to figure things out. This discussion is part of that figuring
> things out.
> Folks can bitch and moan about how wrong this is. That's great. None of
> you are Patrick. If I was in his shoes, and all that was said about me
> was false, I would have either said something by now or decided that
> this community isn't worth my time and moved on.
> All in all, unless Patrick has a good bullet pointed response to all
> that is against him and resolves our issues, even if we don't reach
> consensus next week (we wont, taking bets now), I think the general tone
> has been established that a bunch of really awesome people would like
> him to not be a dick and/or never to return to Noisebridge again and
> that he's gotten part or all of that message.
> If you think differently, stop bitching about it on the list and
> actually seek us out and talk to us directly about why we feel this is a
> positive course of action tot take for the space. Pissing all over the
> mailing list without actually talking with those involves doesn't really
> help folks.
> Rubin Abdi
> rubin at starset.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss