[Noisebridge-discuss] Proposal to ban Adam by consensus

Sat Sep 28 12:22:27 UTC 2013

Idk if it really has failed at governing itself. Since last May I have
learned html/css, some Javascript, a ton of python (finished the beginning
class and am now in intermediate), have a working knowledge of LED
programming, as well as a hundred other more or less technical skills
(kombucha and whatnot). I have been to sudo room and still see noisebridge
as having more potential. There is something at work in noisebridge that is
so real and human, it goes beyond society or law or simple rules. There is
a process that because noisebridge has no leaders, everyone sooner or later
realizes the leader in themselves. Something like that I feel.happening.
It's dialectical and ironic in nature that a higher order is forming out
zero imposed leadership, but it slowly is and it's organic structure
reaches everyone. This is a great example. We failed at governing
ourselves, but not really, this guy is no longer welcome and the sky isn't
falling down. And what does everyone gain from it? We all gain, as a
community and individually, the experience of governing ourselves and that
process longterm is more powerful for noisebridge and the world than any
sterilized, managed organization. There is a need fulfilled by sterile,
managed organizations, but there is more possible for humanity and more to
be learned by not giving up on noisebridge.
On Sep 27, 2013 10:11 PM, "Ronald Cotoni" <setient at gmail.com> wrote:

> No, you can tell this by the meeting notes.   There was no "Ron". "Ronald"
> or setient on it.   Frankly, I am on the side of not renewing the lease and
> trying to get out of it as soon as possible with Noisebridge shutting down.
>   The community has failed at governing itself.  Most of the members and
> people who helped found Noisebridge no longer attend for a variety of
> reasons.  Mitch is one of the few that still attend but he travels a lot.
> He may or may not be aware of the issues that plague the community but that
> isn't enough.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Nicholas LoCicero <
> nick.locicero at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You must not have been at the meeting several members swore at Adam..
>>
>> Had you been there, you'd see my email as nothing more than a feint echo.
>> On Sep 27, 2013 10:58 AM, "Ronald Cotoni" <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wow.  Judgemental much Nicholas?  I would suggest keeping name calling
>>> off the list.  It is detrimental towards you and people taking about this.
>>> You are also saying you don't care if it is true or not, which is also
>>> another strike against you.  Not saying that I do not think being a sex
>>> offender is serious business but yeah.  You also have to be aware that I do
>>> not think you can legally live in San Francisco and be a sex offender.  You
>>> have to live X distance from schools, but since SF is so dense, there is no
>>> such place.  Does Adam live in SF?  Could it be a different person with the
>>> same name?
>>> Now personally, I think we can help with these issues by having multiple
>>> members step up to the plate and actually do SOMETHING for the community.
>>> By this I mean whenever the space is open, having a few members there to
>>> sort of make sure it is excellent.   I am not a member, so I have no such
>>> say in things.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Nicholas LoCicero <
>>> nick.locicero at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, Cedric, there is a zero tolerance policy on fighting at most
>>>> California schools and kids can be permanently banned from attending. The
>>>> term is expulsion. It's very common.
>>>>  On Sep 27, 2013 3:43 AM, "Nicholas LoCicero" <nick.locicero at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ronald Cotoni
>>> Systems Engineer
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ronald Cotoni
> Systems Engineer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130928/8f702be6/attachment-0003.html>