[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

rachel lyra hospodar rachelyra at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 11:07:59 UTC 2011

"Adrian Bankhead" <invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, in the name of "do-ocracy", we have the ability to ban people even
before the group has reached consensus.  And because there is no due
process, the banned person can't defend themselves.  Do I understand this

Thanks for asking! You, and I think many others, do not have it right, in
just this way.  We all have the ability to choose how we act towards each
other. The letter-signers were a group of individuals present when the
evidence was all unveiled together for the first time. As individuals we all
together decided to shun a member of the larger community. As individuals we
all together command quite a bit of community respect. This is why what we
have done seems official. It is our mistake that it seems so official, but I
think that is a result of the number of people, the esteem in which their
opinions are held, and the level of gravity to which they (we) are assigning
the evidence.  We are so convinced that we all stepped up to personally take
irrevocable and distasteful action.

(and we do all need to work later on recording our lessons from this
experience. Maybe you Alarmed People can write the form letter for Persons
Under Consideration of Banning? Then you can help future conflicted souls
find the right way to convey to you, dear readers, the proper amounts of
distress and authority.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110224/4a27a6b1/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list