[Noisebridge-discuss] tonights meeting, banning Jay

[Danny O'Brien]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:

> At last weeks' meeting, there were a number of people who were on-board
> with permanently 86ing Jay, the person who spilled beer on Kayla's computer
> and many other non-excellent actions and episodes.
>
> I specifically and repeatedly expressed that I was proposing a permanent
> ban, and a few people stated that they would block on principle, saying that
> banning someone is a consensus item that requires a week's advance notice
> for discussion.  After the meeting, I spoke with Jason (i think) who agreed
> that a permanent ban was appropriate and walked toward the notetaker stating
> that he would make sure the weeklong process would begin.  I don't see my
> proposal mentioned anywhere in the meeting notes but I did make the proposal
> and I think people should consider that proposal tonight.
>
> I will not be attending the meeting, because of something else happening.
> But I wasn't the only one who thought we had had enough of Jay, and aside
> from folks playing Devil's advocate (to a fault) i think we had consensus
> last week.  Either way, here are some things to consider:
>

 Consensus takes two meetings -- one where the proposal is brought up, and
added to the "proposed consensus item" list (so that people have advance
warning), and then another to actually have the discussion. No-one proposed
the consensus item until after the meeting.

Jay is already on a month voluntary suspension, and we have a bunch of stuff
to go over tonight, so what I'll do is add it as a proposed consensus item
this week, and then the consensus can happen next week.

I imagine a few people will feel that Jay should be able to respond during
the final  consensus discussion anyway -- we've offered that before to
people who were already effectively under a ban. We'll talk about whether
that is what we want today.

d.



>
> Jay said "Last Night Duncan spilled a beer on Kayla's computer, then tried
> to blame it on me. I was nowhere near him nor was I anywhere near the
> computer."
> https://www.noisebridge.net/**pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/**
> 2011-September/024790.html<https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/024790.html>
>
> Kayla said "Last night at noisebridge a man known as to me as Jay was
> inebriated and spilled beer on to my $ 3000 15in Macbook Pro."
> https://www.noisebridge.net/**pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/**
> 2011-September/024794.html<https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/024794.html>
>
> Duncan said "Last night he was very intoxicated and, as I sat next to Kayla
> on the couch eating a burrito and enjoying the 1 beer I got with it, he came
> over to get a laptop off the table and wanted to apologize for an outburst
> he had at me earlier.  All fine and good until he decided he wanted a hug
> from me, comes over into me sitting down after I'd verbally thanked but
> declined, stumbles on a power cord, and drunkenly slurs/knocks into me...
> knocking the newly opened beer in my hand and splashing it all into the
> keyboard of Kayla's Macbook Pro laptop.  Seeing it was his intoxication that
> had caused it, Kayla was furious as her computer was dead by appearance.
> https://www.noisebridge.net/**pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/**
> 2011-September/024798.html<https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/024798.html>
>
> Instead of reading Jay's long other emails denying responsibility for
> everything he's accused of, just look at the simple fact that he lied to
> everyone about his involvement with this one, very serious incident. There
> are several more people who witnessed the events that night including Rolf
> and Alex and there is no doubt about what happened.
>
> I think this one statement alone should be enough for us to realize, as a
> community, that this person can't be trusted in the space or allowed to come
> to noisebridge ever again.
>
> As if that weren't enough, i think it's clear at this point that Jay stole
> the Carl Zeiss microscope and sold it on Castro street.  You can read about
> the discussion in the meeting notes:
> https://www.noisebridge.net/**pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/**
> 2011-September/024838.html<https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-September/024838.html>
>
> But the crux of it is this.  A few days before the meeting Duncan had asked
> someone (RayC?) if a microscope was missing.  RayC asked around and Mike Kan
> confirmed that the black Carl Zeiss microscope was missing. Duncan told RayC
> that he had seen Jay selling a microscope along with other items on the
> street in the Castro.
>
> I found out about this on Tuesday, and before the meeting I talked with
> Mike and Danny about it.  Danny interviewed Duncan before the meeting and
> Duncan shrank back from certainty about seeing a microscope when he saw Jay
> selling on Castro, but he gave RayC permission to repeat what he had told
> him earlier (that he had seen one).
>
> During the meeting Jay was asked what he does for money, and he listed
> activities which included selling his artwork on the sidewalk of the Castro.
>  This confirmed that he had been selling things from where he was seen by
> Duncan.  The microscope is definitely gone:
> http://www.arsmachina.com/**carl_zeiss_binocular.htm<http://www.arsmachina.com/carl_zeiss_binocular.htm>
>
> So the only possibilities are:
> 1. Jay stole the microscope and sold it on Castro, and Duncan saw it.
> 2. Duncan is a clever mastermind who stole the microscope and framed Jay
> for it, after spotting him innocently selling Artwork on the Castro and
> inserting the story about seeing a microscope there.
> 3. Duncan noticed that the microscope was missing and decided to chance
> that it wasn't borrowed by someone on the discuss list (as I am doing) and
> used the opportunity to frame Jay, after spotting him at the Castro and
> modifying his story only slightly to make it seem true.
>
> Option 1 is the simplest, we already have proof that Jay is a liar and not
> responsible for his own actions or even his own words.
>
> Options 2 and 3 are unlikely because while Duncan is known to have "seen"
> things that others think were only imagined, it would take a very clever and
> sinister imagination to integrate the missing microscope into an
> already-acknowledged true story of Jay selling items on Castro.
>
> Options 2 and 3 are even more unlikely because if Duncan was actually a
> clever mastermind bent on framing Jay for the theft of the microscope, he
> would not have shrank back from being sure of seeing a microscope among Jays
> items for sale precisely when he was being interviewed by Danny.
>
> All this is on top of the fact that Jay lied and said he had nothing to do
> with the beer being spilled on the computer.  He might as well say that he
> wasn't even at noisebridge that night, with five people yelling at him to
> leave for half an hour (or however long it was).
>
> When Duncan came to RayC and asked if a microscope was missing, it was
> because he had seen it at Jays' street sale. Duncan may be a wingnut who
> says wacky things, but Jay is a thief and has done more than enough damage
> to our community to be told never to return.
>
> -jake
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110913/68e522d3/attachment-0003.html>