[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: how Noisebridge could improve
rachel lyra hospodar
rachelyra at gmail.com
Thu Apr 17 17:35:42 UTC 2014
I notice that in this thread a Very Creepy Person is mentioned over and
over but not by name.
I understand and respect the desire not to needlessly drag someone's name
around on a publicly archived list but I do think it's important, if
someone is banned, that we publicly name them, in order to maintain the ban.
One feature of an organic system is that its components must be reinforced
or they fade away. Do we have a rogues' gallery of predatory offenders? Is
it maintained every time a new ban put is in place? This, as a wiki page,
sounds like an administrative overhead that would not be consistently
fulfilled, tbh. In general I think that this rogues gallery is maintained
in the public consciousness, where we all remember that there are
creepazoids, and if someone is creepy we mentally reference them against
past creepazoids before declaring "hey Rob2.0 is back and sleeping on the
roof again" or else "hey a new creepy stranger is using the roof for a date
spot". when we talk about things I would prefer if we used a name or if
preferred handle so that we can maintain the database in our heads. These
stories are of value to me when there is a way for them to be related to
the perpetrator. Otherwise it's just like the feces I cleaned from the sink
that time, or the dental dam I found in the bathroom during a party... just
another piece of icky trash clogging up the tubes, not helping anyone with
anything, not even disposed of properly.
Creepy felons shouldn't get name protection at the expense of our Creep
Defense System's being able to identify them. The bay area tech scene is
quite small, and someone who is banned from Noisebridge is still likely to
be encountered by those of our denizens who manage to live here and also
leave their house.
On Apr 11, 2014 9:36 PM, "Hannah Grimm" <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, remember that time when there was that guy who liked to hang out at
> NB 24/7, give tours, moderate meetings, & redshirt, but then it turned out
> he was a sexual predator with a history of battering women who was living
> at Noisebridge to evade the regulations about how far from a school
> registered sex offenders are allowed to live?
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Christoph Maier <christoph.maier at ieee.org
> > wrote:
>> As much as I find that it complicates matters,
>> you can devise rules, mission statemens [see
>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/File:Noisebridge_Mission_Statement.JPG for
>> my stab at it],
>> visions, etc. etc.
>> all you want, but in the end, whether stuff works or doesn't depends on
>> specific people and their idiosyncratic way of making stuff work.
>> And those people change from time to time ... anything long-term at
>> noisebridge is beyond my imagination.
>> I can think of a bazillion reasons why what works with Frantisek doesn't
>> work with anyone else.
>> The alternative is that Law Enforcement (i.e. folks who like to enforce
>> laws on others), or chaos.
>> Well, some folks make Chaos AND things work :-P
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That's a romantic idea, but in practicality it's a fragile arrangement.
>>> Whatever you think of having people live in the space (for, against,
>>> "it's complicated"), whether we are zoned for live-work or not, I'm
>>> sure anyone reading this can think of a dozen different reasons why
>>> reliance on a single person's motivations is not a long-term solution
>>> for anything at Noisebridge.
>>> Not that you were suggesting so, Christoph. I am just taking the
>>> opportunity to make the point.
>>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Christoph Maier
>>> <christoph.maier at ieee.org> wrote:
>>> > After running into Frantisek at Seoul Hackerspace, I imagine how
>>> > as trusted squatter-in-residence, would improve both friendliness and
>>> > security of a hackerspace. But some <expletive deleted> tore out half
>>> > kitchen.
>>> > On Apr 11, 2014 7:58 AM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Addendum:
>>> >> Our lack of security can also be chalked up to a failure of
>>> >> Oh, I know we've imagined things, but largely they have been along the
>>> >> lines of doing one or two individual things, which really could not
>>> >> work on their own because of the limitedness of their scope and/or the
>>> >> unfeasibility of the resources (e.g. humans) needed to perpetuate
>>> >> them.
>>> >> We have never totally imagined the security of the space as a system.
>>> >> Please don't take me to mean that security is hopeless. I mean mostly
>>> >> to say that at Noisebridge it is Very Hard.
>>> >> Larger post coming soon.
>>> >> --Naomi
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss