[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Thu Feb 24 16:55:30 UTC 2011

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Sean Cusack <sean.p.cusack at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would second Quirk's notion that at some point it we should definitely
> bring up process for banning peeps in case we (god-forbid) ever have to do
> this again. I also agree with Quirk that we should wait awhile so people can
> think about the issue with the process here instead of this one instance.
> We've punted peeps before, yah? Salvador Dali? Crazy lady from the street? I
> think everyone on this list can recognize that those processes were handled
> much differently, and didn't generate nearly as much turmoil.
> As a sidenote, I'm super pissed off that some people are essentially
> insinuating that me, and others that are questioning how this was handled,
> are somehow downplaying the severity of sexual misconduct. It's fucking
> ridiculous over the top sensationalism, and the only reason that I can think
> people are doing that is to keep a flame war going which doesn't need to be
> going...so seriously...just stop.
> Because I'm sensing that there is now this crazy animosity towards me, it
> kept me from coming to the space tonite to actually make things, which
> really sucks. So, in an effort to make sure certain people aren't excluded
> because of sexual harassment, other people get excluded for waving a flag
> about how our banning process worked? A+.

I'd like to say as somebody at the meeting, and has been reading the
whole thread, and  intends on joining the consensus to ban Patrick,
the points you raise are entirely fair and reasonable – and were also
raised and considered at the meeting, which I have to say was mostly
very calm and frowny over the two hours rather than constant
garrgghghghghgh torch the disbeliever. Several people made many the
points you make, esp. regarding transparency the need to develop a
process and the importance of process being seen to be done, and the
end-result was attempted to be constructed with those concerns. I
hesitate to use the word majority in these contexts, but I think that
the majority were worried about the same things that you worry about
on the list.

The primary difference was that they got to talk about their worries
directly, be listened to, and interact directly with people who
disagreed but worked to come up with some solution that attempted to
fit everyone's concerns.  Of course, part of your worry right now is
that you didn't get that chance, and weren't involved in that process,
which is one of the reasons why we have a week delay built into
consensus actions.

But really, that extended process works least well when it is
conducted over nb-discuss.  Nb-discuss is a terrible way to either
gauge or project reactions – I've lost count of the number of people
who seem to be projecting a particular emotional stance on nb-discuss
and who when I meet in real life are perfectly reasonable, even about
those self-same topics. I'd strongly urge you to turn up at the space,
chat to people, or if you're still uncomfortable with that, just talk
individually to people like me, who are LOVELY online and off and
wouldn't hurt a tiny flower.

As someone who spends a lot of time, at work and not, worrying about
death-mind-zombies worldwide marching on the unprotected and trampling
over due process, I'm tentatively proud of Noisebridge for how this is
going, and would be happy to spread my surprising calm that things
aren't going to hell in a handbasket to you.


> Sean
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Jared Dunne <jareddunne at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list