[Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to ban Adam by consensus

[Nicholas LoCicero]

Look at the situation. It obviously matters. If you are as decrepit in
morality as that cockroach adam, I don't even care whether or not his
sexual offense is truth, just use it to keep him out of the building.

Or realize that when you talk about someone who has recently damaged the
hearts and minds of our community, bringing up the pattern is common sense.
It's matter of fact. Like someone's driving record.
On Sep 26, 2013 4:59 PM, "Rachel McConnell" <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:

> Cedric,
>
> The whole point of the sex offender registry is so that the information
> can be made public. You are welcome to ignore it. But some people, quite
> legitimately, wish to take special care when dealing with a person who has
> been convicted of a sex offense. Consider how few sex offenses are even
> reported, much less result in a conviction. Chances are close to 100% that
> a woman you know has been the victim if a sexual assault of some kind. Lets
> consider giving her a second chance to NOT be assaulted.
>
> Cedric. You probably won't be banned from Noisebridge. It is hard to ban
> people, even known sex offenders. They have many ardent defenders.
>
> -Rachel
>
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:16 PM, "C. Honnet" <cedric at honnet.eu> wrote:
>
> I was actually expressing my concern about the denunciation of whatever
> happens in someone's past.
> It just doesn't seem fair to throw that publicly.
>
> But I'm happy to hear that this "2nd chance" exists at noisebridge.
> I don't know how yet, but I guess I might be banned myself one day, so
> it's useful to know, lol...
>
> Thanks for this precision ;)
> Cedric.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Frantisek Apfelbeck <algoldor at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> I do respond to all what you rise in your email just the "2nd chance"
>> concerning banning. It is understood long term  that non of the bans in
>> Noisebridge is for "life time" it is for "certain inexact period" and after
>> that lets see again. So second chances - yes, but in time.
>>
>> That is at least how I feel about that after few years on the list and
>> several involvements with the place.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> FAA
>>
>> Frantisek Algoldor Apfelbeck
>>
>>
>> biotechnologist&kvasir and hacker
>>
>>
>> http://www.frantisekapfelbeck.org
>>
>>
>> "There is no way to peace, peace is the way." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
>>
>>   ------------------------------
>>  *From:* C. Honnet <cedric at honnet.eu>
>> *To:* "noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net" <
>> noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 27, 2013 6:57 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* [Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to ban Adam by consensus
>>
>> This is definitely sad...
>> ...but is this "sex offender" reference really related to this particular
>> problem ? (I didn't hear it at the meeting)
>>
>> Related or not, I don't think that it should be publicly spread like
>> that, this kind of denunciation is not fair.
>> Deserved condemnation or not, what happened to the right to a 2nd chance
>> ? (what about privacy?)
>> Isn't Noisebridge about educating people ?
>> What about the doubts for a justice system that might fail ? (it's made
>> by imperfect humans)
>>
>> On the fight itself, I'm just wondering:
>> Even at school, do you get definitively banned when you fight ?
>>
>> And about banning, I saw a guy calling the police to kick someone out
>> during the meeting. Can't we do it more properly/excellently ?
>> Personally, I would definitely prefer to be punched.
>>
>> On the other hand, I have only heard it and not witnessed it but "power"
>> problems in an anarchist organisation is quite fucked up.
>>
>> Just my humble point of view, I hope I didn't offend anyone.
>> Excellently yours, (or doing my best at least)
>> Cedric.
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: bfb at riseup.net
>> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:32:13 -0700
>> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to ban Adam by consensus
>>
>> At the end of last night's meeting, a consensus proposal was brought to
>> ban Adam (Joseph Adam Moore) from Noisebridge. Adam was asked not to
>> return to Noisebridge until the Tuesday meeting. I don't feel this is
>> necessary. In cases of physical assult, a zero tolerance policy is in
>> order.
>>
>> Adam was reported to have struck someone in the neck twice (see notes for
>> details)
>>
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_09_24#Proposals_for_next_week
>>
>> Additionally, Joseph Adam Moore is a registered sex offender.
>> http://meganslaw.ca.gov
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130927/30fc6bca/attachment-0003.html>