[Noisebridge-discuss] Meeting notes 2011-09-13

[Just Duncan]

WTF?!

No growth or change is possible until everyone admits the truth of the
reality of a situation.  In all these discussions, there is some spin/belief
about how it is "inappropriate to pursue a ban during a* suspension period*",
"after the *suspension* is over", "the problem of overriding the *suspension
*", how "*the suspension* is working", and "while *a temporary hiatus* from
entering the space* is on for them*" or that "he's on "*voluntary suspension
*"".   His behavior in volunteering to take a "sabbatical" (as I call it) is
nothing but the is a classic technique of psychological manipulation used by
disturbed personalities.  This one is particularly is called "Giving
assent<http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/03/31/giving-assent-as-manipulation/>."


Where do we think we took action?  Jay hi-jacked the process, took control
of the situation-- even from Rubin (see below)-- and I have no doubt that
Jay is reading all this debate about HIM, chuckling with his auditory
hallucinations in great pride and feeling of self-accomplishment in
manipulating Noisebridge.  God-willing, this will be his "15 minutes" of
fame;  It is probably the most attention by the greatest number of people
with the most empathy that he has ever experienced (and likely will
experience) in his violent, self-centered, parasitic, "traumatized,"
misunderstood/creative life in his own reality.   Any concern that he is NOT
aware of what is written in this discussion list or reported in the meeting
notes is seriously questionable in my view.

A friend of mine who works with victims says the only thing worse than
dealing with disturbed personalities is dealing with those who have been
conned by them.  Those who have been manipulated simply psychologically have
a huge blind spot-- an ego eclipse, as she puts it-- that keeps them from
admitting not only that the world is full of people with sinister
perspectives/sociopaths, but further that their judgment and raw hope in
human nature could ever be flawed.  Manipulators play on this through a
variety of behavioral and psychological techniques: lying, denial,
rationalization, selective in-attention/attention, diversion, evasion,
covert intimidation/threats, playing the victim, giving assent, seduction,
projecting the blame, feigning innocence, feigning confusion,guilt-tripping,
and brandishing anger.  As situations escalate, this continues as they
become more invested in their past judgments and they subconsciously dig in
their heels, seeking any opportunity to avoid proactive action despite the
logical pleas of others trying to support them to take preemptive defensive
and preventive action.  It is only when there is some HUGE event-- like a
murder with fingerprints on the knife matching the disturbed person-- that
denial and guilt-tripping can't hold back.  But even then, victims of
manipulation WANT to believe SO MUCH that a known danger has "hope" for
change, they'll put themselves and others at risk despite clear evidence to
the contrary and a history that suggests change.  They are hoping in vain,
despite the risk and a probability of change is greater than that of an
asteroid the size of Texas hitting earth in the next five minutes.

As much as I-- and the others who are part of the community that regularly
uses the space--  would like to say that Noisebridge took permanent,
proactive action to protect Noisebridge from this known threat returning to
again make it a "weird and scary" and unsafe feeling place, the truth of the
reality is that *Noisebridge did NOTHING*.  All that energy, time, emotion,
investigating, listening, reading, writing, talking, yelling, traumatizing
(me, not him), and stressing led NO WHERE.   It wasn't even a consensus
decision-making process, since there was no path proposed to take ANY
action.

Let's be clear:  Jay did not offer, nor is "on" any sort of suspension,
despite the spin reflected in the minutes and in communications since.
There is nothing "on" him forbidding him from entering the space.  As I
recall, his exact words we're to "take a voluntary leave of one month,"
which others spun back to him as a suspension.  Lest there be any doubt to
anybody worried about doing anything while a suspension or temporary hiatus
is "on" or kicking him "while he's down", I gently defer to the following
excerpt from the notes of the meeting in which Jay momentarily tipped his
cards:

*Jay volunteers for a suspension for a month, and come back on October 6th.

Jake says that will reasonable.

Rubin disagrees with issuing a month suspension, and threatens to block.

Jay points out he's volunteering to leave, and Rubin, despite being a
member, cannot actually block people's voluntary actions.*

He's manipulating us from taking action, he's giving assent.

Jay is first-rate manipulator; He's gotten this far with it and, quite
frankly, it works.  Noisebridge is a perfect target for his type -- by its
consensus process decision-making, fluid/dynamic/anarchic environment,
generally shared intrinsic value of "being excellent to each other", and the
malaise/apathy/neuroticism (at times) that rarely is proactive or
preventative in dealing with problems but instead reactive by necessity when
problems become huge.  It looks for ANY opportunity to avoid taking action
and will even go so far as to convince itself that it took action when it
did not (or re-framing the truth to create that belief).

As far as Jay's response to Danny somehow leading Danny to the flawed
conclusion that he is not ever coming back to Noisebridge, I would ask that
everyone re-read what he WROTE-- not what we'd like to believe he wrote.  It
says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about never coming back to the space.  Instead, it
is evasive, feigning innocence/playing the victim,   It is again
manipulative and evasively vague.  How anyone could take this as him saying
he's not ever going to come back to Noisebridge is beyond me.  It is not
just a "thanks" but cleverly employs an subtext of subtle shaming, feigned
innocence, guilt-tripping, and being victimized.  It's purpose is to get
Danny (and others) to do EXACTLY what Danny proposed:  NOTHING. This would
pave the way for his future return-- maybe not immediately-- with a "clean
slate" and perhaps even a new cast at Noisebridge.

Why would he ever return?  Because he now knows that he cannot only win the
battle, which he has done-- he got Noisebridge to think that it somehow took
action instead of putting off doing so until some hypothetical future where
we get the joy (and trauma for me... oh, and Jay) of going through another
25,000 characters of pointless communications regarding him, several
workdays of wasted time in building consensus for nothing, and at least one
LONG Tuesday, plus severe Postdramatic Stress Disorder-- but win the war.
Why would he come back?  Besides the fact that our environment is an
inadvertent breeding ground for such behavior/personalities, Noisebridge
offers basic resources de facto  that are needed and essential for survival

I have *NO* doubt that he will return, barring a permanent block.  Those of
us who have endured his presence know first-hand his patterns of
disruption/contrition/disruption/contrition, and there is valid concern
about personal safety in the space when he is present.  Please, remember
that when he drunkenly tripped and knocked the beer I was holding onto Kayle
Macbook keyboard, he was once again apologizing for an earlier disruption
and in the process of attempting to give me a make-up HUG, WHICH I HAD
ALREADY CLEARLY STATED WAS *NOT* OK with me as I was eating my burrito and,
well, simply not wanting to hug a slurring, drunk, alcohol-reeking, filthy
person.  Maybe somehow that was being excellent, but I draw the line at
sharing my body for another's needs when I have said NO.

Based on experience, observation, and his mumbling ramblings of word salad
that have included threats to hurt or kill those he at times
imagines/perceives as "talking about" him when he is in the space, I am
concerned.  Based on his state of being intoxicated, his not respecting the
body space of others, and his known history of refusing to leave the space
when asked by everyone, this should be an absolute no-brainer.  And, yes,
without even considering the disappearance of the microscope, lest we lose
focus.

The guy is slick, conniving, knows which buttons to push/levers to pull,
and-- I have to acknowledge-- is VERY good at it.  Noisebridge:  please, for
once, do something preventative and proactive to prevent this from becoming
"Groundhog Day".



On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:

> So, given that Jay has said he's not coming back (people are free to email
> him to confirm this language), I'm going to withdraw my proposed consensus
> items, because I don't believe NB should pursue pre-emptive rules (people
> are free to take my language and propose it themselves).
>
> I'm not going to block, because I am personally, currently, uncomfortable
> wielding proxy power without being at a meeting; I haven't thought this out
> entirely and don't begrudge others: it just feels wrong to me.
>
> I would ask, though, for the meeting to consider what a ban would achieve,
> given that the guy has said he's not coming back, and the moment he does
> everyone here would chase him out anyway (or if they would't, are unlikely
> to change that behaviour in the face of some magic new rule).
>
> Also, what kind of new microscope would people like?
>
> D.
> On Sep 20, 2011 2:53 PM, "Christopher Lincoln" <cclinco at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I had purposely tried to avoid getting involved in this issue about Jay.
> I
> > was not there for any of the episodes described previously in the mailing
> > lists, nor have I been to any of the meetings where this has been
> discussed
> > and when this does come to trial on October 11th, I’ll most likely be
> > absent. So please do not take this message as an endorsement or
> commentary
> > on Jay in specific.
> >
> > What I do want to comment on is precedent. How we handle this situation
> with
> > Jay can and will be used in the future when dealing with new problems
> that
> > arise. Our approach must reflect how we would like Noisebridge to handle
> > these situations not only when we are the accuser (as it is now), but
> also
> > when we are the accused.
> >
> > I for one would find it unacceptable, if somebody were to accuse me of
> > misconduct, for the community to put me on trial and pass judgment while
> at
> > the same time deliberately denying me the ability to participate in the
> > proceedings or to defend myself against the leveled allegations. If you
> > were the one to be accused, would you find these proceedings to be
> > acceptable?
> >
> > With this in mind I will be at the meeting tonight, and I will block any
> > motions that attempt a trial in absentia.
> >
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > P.S. Jake, sorry about sending this message to you twice. After sending
> it
> > to just you, I thought it would be best to let the rest of the message
> board
> > also know my stance.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> >
> >> i'll be here october 11th but i'm also bringing it up tomorrow.
> >> if anyone feels like blocking banning a thief and liar, show up and let
> >> noisebridge know you care..about lying thieves.
> >>
> >> -jake
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> If someone has been this big of a problem, I would prefer if the model
> we
> >>> use to deal with them defaulted towards 'return of problem person
> allowed
> >>> only after a meeting where they are discussed and have an advocate
> >>> present'
> >>> instead of a default setting where time erases all wounds.
> >>>
> >>> If someone is accused of making women socially uncomfortable we go all
> >>> ballistic on them, but if they steal our shit they get a simple time
> out?
> >>> This kind of bullshit behavior is just as alarming to me as Harassing
> the
> >>> Womenfolk. I want us to treat it as a Big Deal, and I don't feel safe
> >>> with
> >>> this person returning to the space until the meeting where we discuss
> the
> >>> fallout from his actions AND HE MIGHT GET BANNED instead of allowed
> back
> >>> in.
> >>>
> >>> We are not toddlers, and timeouts are good for defusing tense feelings,
> >>> not
> >>> solving real problems.
> >>>
> >>> I will be note taking october 11th, and that date works great for me.
> >>> Jake?
> >>>
> >>> I do NOT think jay should return before the meeting about him,
> regardless
> >>> of
> >>> when we have it.
> >>>
> >>> mediumreality.com
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 19, 2011 7:43 PM, "Danny O'Brien" <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> yes I can see why you wouldn't want to be the only one propping up
> Jay,
> >>> >> because I will ask the notetaker to record exactly who is objecting
> to
> >>> >> banning Jay, and those people will be asked later why they thought
> it
> >>> was
> >>> >> necessary, after he returns for a second helping and takes the rest
> of
> >>> the
> >>> >> microscopes.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > In the interest of pointing out the potential compromise positions,
> I'd
> >>> say
> >>> > that if this one fails, it's entire possible to propose a second
> >>> banz0ring
> >>> > session on October 11th.
> >>> >
> >>> > That would give Jay an opportunity period from the 6th-11th to come
> in
> >>> and
> >>> > steal all the microscopes, of course.
> >>> >
> >>> > So if that period of what I will call "temporary microscopy
> saturnalia"
> >>> > isn't acceptable, someone can also move to extend Jay's ban (or more
> >>> > technically, insert an involuntary period of bannination between
> Jay's
> >>> > voluntary one, with goes out of date on the 6th to the 11th) to cope
> >>> with
> >>> > this contingency.
> >>> >
> >>> > These two proposals would I think comply with all members' current
> >>> concerns
> >>> > that I am aware of, and perhaps give time to reconcile the hundred or
> so
> >>> > more that will surely instantly arise to take their place.
> >>> >
> >>> > Blocking either proposal would of course be an indication of sour
> grapes
> >>> and
> >>> > microscope-hating anarchy (and not the good kind of anarchy, the baad
> >>> baad
> >>> > kind) and people doing so should be put on a list for all to see.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm not going to be here for any of this stuff, being in an *actual*
> >>> court
> >>> > of law that week, but I'll put it in as a suggestion in tomorrow's
> notes
> >>> > anyway.[1]
> >>> >
> >>> > I also, as I mentioned to a few people, I emailed Jay telling him
> that
> >>> > there's a proposal to ban him, and advising him it's probably
> sensible
> >>> for
> >>> > him to stay the hell away from our amazing whirling dervish of an
> >>> > organization for all time.
> >>> >
> >>> > Al, would you like me to suggest he check out Ace Monster Toys? [2]
> >>> >
> >>> > Hail Eris!
> >>> >
> >>> > d.
> >>> > [1] Has anyone actually volunteered to be the note-taker at
> tomorrow's
> >>> > meeting yet? Oh, noooooooo.
> >>> > [2] I kid! I was going to send him down to Biocurious.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Rubin Abdi wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Kelly wrote, On 2011-09-18 23:28:
> >>> >>> Is there
> >>> >>> someone who will be at the meeting next week to block / defer the
> ban
> >>> for
> >>> >>> future consideration?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I know of others out there who feel the same, I would appreciate it
> I
> >>> >> wasn't the only (vocal) one at this next meeting.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Rubin
> >>> >> rubin at starset.net
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >> ______________________________**_________________
> >>> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.**noisebridge.net<
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> >>> >>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/**mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-**discuss<
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110920/71725850/attachment-0003.html>