[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

[jim]

JS: This is the email that seems to me to have 
begun the unpleasant turn of this thread: 
    My replies interspersed below: 


On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 13:16 -0500, Ceren Ercen wrote:
> In This Thread:
> 
> 
> a bunch of people who don't attend meetings and don't give a shit
> about (or aren't personally affected by) the problem bitch about
> attempts to address it. 
JS: this seems to stereotype others and 
uses antagonistic language. 

> (potentially flawed attempted, but uh, ATTEMPTS. you know, the thing
> where you do the work, take the criticism, and go to all the meetings,
> and write out the proposals.) 
JS: not specific; pretty antagonistic, though. 

> None of you even halfway tried to parse that this shouldn't affect
> pseudo-anonymous membership, you just started moaning.
JS: insulting, seems to me, and with such 
a broad brush! 
> 
> Jim, you're particularly anti-constructive when you're not personally
> affected. The only time you give half a crap about transients is when
> they steal tools. I think I remember you trying to make a policy about
> a mini room becoming a locked supply closet for only your electrician
> stuff, when you were concerned about it. But dealing with serious
> harassment issues? They don't exist to you, you're just
> mister-sit-in-the-road-and-block.
JS: now you're getting personal. What a shovel 
full of blame you've hoisted. Insults and, I 
claim, misrepresentations. 
    Harassment issues don't exist to me? 

> Frantisek, you explicitly broke the rules to sneakily live in NB for a
> significant amount of time, and then charmed your way around censure
> and banning. And you've don't feel you've lost any moral high-road you
> are trying to sling around with "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" of
> membership and problematic presences in the space? That's ballsy.
JS: more insults. 

> - Ceren, uselessly telling people to shut up from across the country
JS: your antagonism and insults started a good fire; 
be proud of yourself over there in hell.  


> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Jacob Appelbaum
> <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
>         Jake:
>         > I agree with you that members of noisebridge should not have
>         to identify
>         > themselves online in this way, and I am willing to
>         proxy-block on your
>         > behalf and on my own volition as well.  Although i suspect
>         there will be
>         > plenty of other people to block it without me.
>         
>         
>         Thank you - please do so on my behalf - we should not have a
>         membership
>         purge by shitty policy trick. It is awful enough to
>         effectively remove
>         anonymity from those in the space, it is even worse to force a
>         status
>         symbol or affiliation from people.
>         
>         All the best,
>         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