[Noisebridge-discuss] misogynist loser visiting noisebridge

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Tue Dec 24 20:15:08 UTC 2013


I can answer that question:

Yes, I do mind. It is tedious and tiring to recount the details each time
and often they "don't count" or are somehow deemed insufficient. So I'd
rather not.

I know this will be met with the usual "witch hunt" and "what about false
accusations" and other tropes that are as dead end as they are predictable.
I want to keep this thread productive. Hannah might want to talk about it,
but I don't. That's a sucker's game.

Back to the point, Noisebridge membership does have the additional
privileges that Hannah outlined. In addition, it really *never* been the
case that "we only have one rule" has been true. Currently there are
policies that differentiate members and nonmembers besides blocking.

Hi,

"two literal rapists." Would you mind going into more details?

-a

On 24 December 2013 10:25, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
> Danny,
> This is simply false; there are absolutely privileges to membership
besides
> blocking, though most of them are recent.  For example, you are not
supposed
> to be in the space unless you are a member or sponsored by a member
> (associate or capitol-M).  While anyone can ask someone to leave and not
> come back until the next meeting (at which point people can have a vote to
> ban them), but the anti-harassment policy allows a member to ban someone
who
> is violating the anti-harassment policy, without having to go through
> consensus.  If such an action is decided to have been done in error, the
> membership can then allow them back via consensus.  Essentially, for the
> case of harassment, the way we remove harassers is flipped: now a harasser
> is removed by default, and it takes consensus to bring them back, instead
of
> people who have been accused of rape multiple times being allowed to stay
if
> they can find just a single patsy to vote for them.  One of the
concessions
> that was made at the meeting was that only members would be able to
> banhammer a harasser.  We also had to accept a trial time period instead
of
> a permanent policy and agree that it wouldn't be allowed to be implemented
> retroactively to get it passed.  I'm not a fan of those concessions, but
> given that there were not one but two literal rapists at that meeting, I
> think we did pretty well for ourselves.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are no privileges to membership, apart from blocking (and a
>> currently entirely theoretical first dibs on hacker shelves).  Anyone
>> can ask anyone to leave. Or at least, that used to be the case.
>>
>> I'm a bit disturbed that the direction we're taking seem to be taking
>> powers *away* from visitors to Noisebridge.
>>
>> d.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Because the anti-harassment policy predates the associate members
>> > existence,
>> > and I don't know the rules around associate members well.  Did the
>> > meeting
>> > in which we created them give them all the privileges of NB membership
>> > EXCEPT the block, or did it specifically just give them the ability to
>> > be in
>> > the space?  If it's the former, then any member would be able to remove
>> > them.  This would be nice, since there should (theoretically) always be
>> > a
>> > member in the space anytime we have people there.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why does it need a "capital M" member?
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > "Trolling" is a deceptively benign term.  If anyone sees someone put
>> >> > up
>> >> > similar fliers again, please grab a capital-M-member and have them
>> >> > ask
>> >> > that
>> >> > person to leave and never come back.  This behavior is clearly
>> >> > covered
>> >> > by
>> >> > our anti-harassment policy, and as a result doesn't require
consensus
>> >> > to
>> >> > ban.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "It's nothing bitch shut up" isn't well-meaning, it's just
trolling.
>> >> >> Take
>> >> >> the flyer down, toss it, and continue hacking. But do message the
>> >> >> list
>> >> >> again
>> >> >> if this anonymous coward keeps putting them up.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Al
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM, johny radio <johnyradio at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> i'm wondering if this person was some well-meaning activist
trying
>> >> >>>> to
>> >> >>>> start a discussion.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> or trying to set a honey trap. Yes, i agree with you Jake.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131224/aa9419c3/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list