[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

[Jared Dunne]

Patrick-

The meeting on Tuesday will not be behind your back should you choose
to attend.  I personally would like to see you attend.

I think you can be abrasive, arrogant, and a know-it-all at times,
especially on the mailing list.  I've accepted that's who you are and
I'm not expecting you to change your personality.  That said, for all
the shit that people give you, I think you have made some positive
contributions to the space and the community.  For that reason and on
principle, I wouldn't support banning you with out a major reason.  I
feel like some of the allegations floating around would clear my
threshold, if true and should you continue to fail in both seeing and
acknowledging the problem with your actions.

If you would like to work through this situation and eventually resume
being part of the NB community, then I would encourage you to attend
the Tuesday meeting.  Your accuser(s) will not be present (to my
knowledge) but they will have reps there to speak on their behalf.
Things might get tense still but at least there would be a chance for
dialogue.  That said, if you show up with your arrogant and
condescending hat on you will not be helping your case.  Additionally,
people are not going to be interested in hearing any of the
rationalizations or excuses you have been emailing.  I'd encourage you
to look deep inside yourself and find the humility to acknowledge any
and all of your missteps, and work with the community to establish a
path for addressing their concerns and most importantly the fears of
your accuser(s).

Jared-

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Patrick Keys <citizenkeys at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>