[Noisebridge-discuss] Rob 2.0

gnnr gnnrok at gmail.com
Wed Oct 12 05:40:12 UTC 2011


Productive meeting tonight.

We discussed what to do, and the consensus was effectively,

Be it the consensus of Noisbridge that the issue of banning Rob 2.0 (a.k.a. Dank) be deferred until either he or his advocate Mitch or Kelly, gives fair notice and attends a meeting. Until that time he is unwelcome at Noisebridge.

I hope this brings some resolution to the situation, and thankfully things were relatively calm.


On Oct 10, 2011, at 2:47 AM, miloh wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> I just got to noisebridge (sun Oct. 9th 7pm) and Rob was here, working on
> something with Duncan.  I mentioned this to Miloh and Rolf and they said
> they had asked him to leave and he refused.
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking initiative dealing with Noisebridge, pleaes allow me to correct the facts that concern me:
> 
> When we talked yesterday afternoon I never said I asked Rob 2.0 aka dank to leave that day. I said 'I have asked him to leave' (this happened in September and you were there), that I saw him sleeping there (on Sunday Oct 9, 2011), and that I refused to talk to him and refused to be police Noisebridge. I continue to see Rob 2.0 at Noisebridge and I refuse to interact with him.
>  
> Please don't drag Rolf into this, he had negligable interaction with anyone other than the 20 college students we taught electronics and soldering to.  
> 
> I saw Rob2.0 aka dank sleeping in the library when I arrived around 1:15pm. He awoke at 2pm and went to the West desk by the fire escape for an hour, then moved to the (east-center) electronics bench and disassembled a laptop.  He was still at Noisebridge when I left at 7pm.
> 
> 
> I went to Rob myself and asked him if he had been asked to leave, and he
> said he had not.  I asked him if he would be coming to the tuesday meeting
> and he said "maybe".
>  
> I told him that he would be discussed at the tuesday meeting and if he did
> not show up, he would almost certainly be banned.  I said that if he
> decided to show up after being banned, it would be a big deal.  He
> immediately became belligerant and i wasn't really able to say anything
> else after that without him talking over me.
> 
> He told me that if he came back, it would be to "get [his] stuff back",
> and he said that his shit had been stolen from him and he would get his
> shit back.  I interpret this to mean he intends to steal computers from
> noisebridge until he is satisfied that he has stolen as much as he thinks
> was stolen from him, which he has said is thousands of dollars worth of
> servers.
> 
> He also said something about how he would feel bad if he had to "shut this
> place down".  That was clearly made as a threat.
>   
> It was a very unproductive conversation.  but i think it's clear that if
> Rob doesn't show up to the tuesday meeting, it's not because he didn't
> know about it.
> 
> -jake
> 
> 
> 
> I've had to clean up after this rob2.0 aka dank guy multiple times, dealt with unpredictable disruptions from him, and have ended up kicked him out for making messes and being a nuisance to others. It was stated at that time in September that he should attempt reconciliation before return, through a tuesday meeting or nb-discuss. He refuses and continues to haunt Noisebridge.
> 
> -miloh
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111011/bea8f7c8/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list