[Noisebridge-discuss] misogynist loser visiting noisebridge

Tue Dec 24 22:18:15 UTC 2013

Hi,

Thanks for the information! Yes, I see your point now.

-a

On 24 December 2013 14:12, Liz Henry <lizhenry at gmail.com> wrote:
> Re "two literal rapists". Maybe you have information I don't have.  I
> don't think that is accurate, though.
> I would like to be pretty specific on the details.  Maybe it will help
> more people understand
> why we get upset about trying to establish this kind of boundary at Noisebridge.
>
> By my reckoning there were several people I think of as sketchy and
> with whom I was not comfortable
> making policies about harassment:
>
> - one person known to have been accused of sexual assault with the
> accusation public on the list and at meetings;
> - one who was accused of harassment to some of the board but which did
> not end up being public;
> - one dude who a few people knew was on the sex offender list (That
> would be J. Adam Moore)
> -- Specifically for "lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14".
> That could mean a lot of things
> -- Moore also has a recent, public criminal record of harassment and
> domestic violence (which was not known yet at the meeting)
>
> I would not call that two rapists.  It's one guy accused of assault,
> one accused of annoying
> harassment, and one convicted sex offender.
>
>
> - liz
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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