[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: how Noisebridge could improve

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/people/banned.md

.. it could likely do with some descriptions though. "Scud", "Kyle",
"Kara" etc all require way too much context to be able to identify.



-a


On 17 April 2014 10:35, rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> 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.
>
> R.
>
> 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
>>>> > Frantisek,
>>>> > as trusted squatter-in-residence, would improve both friendliness and
>>>> > security of a hackerspace. But some <expletive deleted> tore out half
>>>> > the
>>>> > 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
>>>> >> imagination.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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
>>> 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
>