[Noisebridge-discuss] misogynist loser visiting noisebridge

[Liz Henry]

I did not realize any of this though I have been following as best I
can without actually being at the meetings. Is this actually the state
of policy right now?

I thought that the current state of things was such that it was easier
for anyone at all to kick out misbehaving people and ask them to come
back on Tuesday, because they are encouraged that it's the right thing
to do by our various policies; not that members can ban someone just
any old time.

The policy here

https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Anti-Harassment_Policy

 says,

"People violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the
space or the event at the discretion of any Noisebridge member. "

I don't think that does or should mean banned.  It also doesn't mean
that non-members can't ask people to leave.  In short, anyone can ask
anyone to leave for bad behavior and come back to a Tuesday meeting.



- Liz


On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 10:25 AM, 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
>



-- 
Liz Henry
lizhenry at gmail.com

"Electric ladies will you sleep or will you preach?" -- Janelle Monae

"Without models, it's hard to work; without a context, difficult to
evaluate; without peers, nearly impossible to speak." -- Joanna Russ