[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

Frantisek Apfelbeck algoldor at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 17 23:09:10 UTC 2013

I think that the statement below my email is one of the most sensible anti-harrasment policies which I've seen so far made by a major if not biggest and well respected hacker body on the planet CCC club. Interestingly the world man/male or woman or female is not there a single time which I believe is very appropriate and in agreement with what Jim (and others) are saying. Also at the end of the statement you can see another thought which Jim is defending - direct problem solving rather than making a public announcements of single accidents (which yes maybe misinterpreted especially because of variety of nationalities/believe groups etc. being presents) to whole international public and press before they are actually clarified. That doesn't mean at any case that they leave such a behavior without response if it is reported. I've been present and actually asked to give my opinion on behalf of a man who was being closely watched by the orga representatives
 (angles) because of incident/s being reported on him (and who did not do anything inappropriate in my pretense quite otherwise). However and that is a point which you should all keep in mind, if someone says they were harassed that may be true and it may not, they can either misinterpret the behavior of the other or they can be just lying. Not giving the other side a chance to explain and defend themselves is definitely not OK and it is unexcellent. I believe that this may be one of the issues of Noisebridge when any behavior which seems like being in this group tent to be treated as matter of fact something what reporting=guilty and the clarifying procedure is very hardly pushed/limited.

I'm aware that being harassed is not fun, happened to me many times in my life and it is very hard to tackle/identify and confirm that it was really the case. I think that the standard procedure of Noisebridge where reporting accident immediately to the people around you, preferably members of community or members, asking help, discussing it with wider circle later on (if necessary) and going for the discuss and meetings if there is need for that, that should work quite fine, however that need quite coherent community which is physically in the place. Of course if there is an accident which proves to be the real case than the knowledge should be shared in the group so people can keep they eyes open, but step by step. If  there is some emergency situation like extreme physical violence etc. in the game then you call the number which I believe is still around to get extra support from members or rather you get police, if someone has the gun well we are
 not equipped for that, they are.




29C3 Anti-Harassment Policy 
The Chaos Computer Club is, by its chapter and by common consent, a galactic organization of all life forms, regardless of their age, gender or upbringing. 
We are dedicated to providing a safe and comfortable experience 
for everybody attending our events, regardless of age, gender, sexual 
orientation, race, physical appearance or disability. We do not tolerate harassment of participants of the Congress in any form. As stated previously, we also don't tolerate life forms who refuse to share this openness towards others. 
The Congress has always been a place where people can enjoy 
technology and culture, no matter what their background is. To keep it 
that way: If someone is misbehaving and you want support, let the 
Congress volunteers (Engel) know, they will be glad to help. Have the courage to ask us! 

Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck

biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker


"There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

On Monday, November 18, 2013 7:35 AM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:

    Great start, and thank you! 
    I don't think I suggested not reporting, just 
not reporting to a formal authority. 
    Why is this about women only, and why is my 
opinion not welcome--after all, that's all I'm 
doing, presenting my point of view. Do you think 
that seeing one's self as a victim is okay? 
    Why do you say I'm ignoring anyone's experiences? 
I have no idea what others feel and have not so 
claimed. I am certainly open to listening and 
considering, as I think is obvious by my replies 
in this email thread. 
    It's dis-empowering to be harassed if you let 
it be. 
    Who has blocked banishment in the face of 
several women's testimonies? I believe not I, 
though I certainly dislike the process of 
banishment as well as the entire fuss. That said, 
I've made none of the claims you suggest. 

    I dislike the trend to any policies other 
than treat each other excellently. Why is my 
opinion not welcome in the group? 
    You're right that to report any problems 
to disbelief is dis-empowering, certainly 
discouraging. But in such a case, shouldn't one 
take courage and fight back? I think so. 
    Bystanders intervening is right. I never 
suggested otherwise--are you suggesting I have? 
    I have not claimed to know better than 
anyone else; do not accuse me of things I have 
not said or done, that's offensive (but not 
dis-empowering to me--I refuse to accept that 
false criticism, and I'm fighting back)! 

    I've read your email and thought about what 
you've said. I am defending my right to express 
my opinions about life and feelings, and others 
have a right to take them or leave them as they 
choose. I am not dictating or telling anyone 
anything. Why do you think I am? I hope you'll 
answer that question. 

    Of course you know your own feelings better 
than I: you've told me little of your own 
experiences. I can only know your lived experience 
if you share it with me; if you wish not to, don't 
blame me for expressing my point of view, especially 
one that I mean in kindness. 

    My choice is to defend my right to express my 
point of view as well as to listen and think about 
whatever you have to say, and I believe I've 
repeatedly demonstrated that. 

    Again, I thank you for taking the time to 

On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 13:56 -0800, Hannah Grimm wrote:
> Jim, you're still defending the statement "it's dis-empowering to
> perceive one's self as a victim and turn to a community for support."
>  You even defend this statement with a notation saying "# 7. I mean
> this", so it's clear at this point that there is no misunderstanding
> going on.  Let me explain why people are mad: you do not get to tell
> women what is or is not empowering.  If women say that having an
> anti-harassment policy and a community that comes to their defense
> when they report harassment is empowering, then you need to listen to
> what these women are saying.  Ignoring the statements and experiences
> of women and telling them that you know what they feel better than
> they do is the very definition of mansplaining sexist bullshit.  
> It is disempowering to be harassed.  It is disempowering when you
> report harassment only to find that they do not believe you.  It is
> disempowering to try to remove an abuser from the community only to
> find that your efforts are blocked by an individual who refuses to
> kick someone out without absolute proof (oh, and the testimonies of
> multiple women apparently don't count).  
> That's disempowering.
> Here are things that are empowering: having an anti-harassment policy,
> being taken seriously, bystanders intervening to tell people that
> their actions are NOT OKAY when they grab your ass, banning people who
> have a history of battering or stalking women, hearing everyone tell
> people on NB discuss who say sexist bullshit that they are wrong and
> need to shut up.
> That's empowering!
> This is my lived experience, as a woman, for things which are and are
> not empowering.  Now here are your options: you can listen to my
> experiences and recognize that I know my own feelings better than you
> do, OR you can continue to defend this statement and thereby claim
> that you know what women feel better than they do.
> Your choice.
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 12:29 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
>         What snarky comment about people being excited...?
>         The sincere reply I made below her paragraph?
>         I did not intend snarky; I agree.
>         On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 11:48 -0800, spinach williams wrote:
>         > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:43 AM, jim <jim at systemateka.com>
>         wrote:
>         >         On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 03:44 -0800, spinach williams
>         wrote:
>         >         > that's an oversimplification if ever there was one
>         >
>         >         > JS: but off the mark?
>         >
>         > yes.
>         >
>         >         > naturally, people would be quite excited to
>         finally be
>         >         treated like
>         >         > human beings within a community of their peers.
>         it's kinda
>         >         nice,
>         >         > pretty excellent to be met with the basic level of
>         decency
>         >         men hold
>         >         > for those they consider people. definitely
>         something to get
>         >         excited
>         >         > about.
>         >
>         >         JS: certainly! I agree, always have.
>         >  then why the snarky comment about people getting excited
>         over it?
>         >
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131117/b8294e58/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list