[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: how Noisebridge could improve

Thu Apr 17 17:59:33 UTC 2014

Any list like this needs context, links, or data on the incidents to be
useful. There is for me some difference between 'convicted of felony
assault' and 'emailed tom a lot'.

And this list sure as fuck doesn't include Jesse z.

So like I said, excessive admin overhead for the list and its ensuing
inaccuracy means this delicate little flower right here will be continuing
to rely on her meat computer for figuring out who the creepy douches are.

I invite anyone who wasn't constantly subjected to the sexual harassment
tax ever since they passed four feet in height and had the audacity to go
out in public (ie most dudes) to spend a bunch of time maintaining this
list. Me? I have a finely tuned apparatus for detecting creeps, based on
the privilege of being showered in creepy attentions for much of my life.
The real problem is that when I hang out with mostly dudes (aka every
technology space ever) they don't believe me when I reference my apparatus.
And then the creepazoids need a fucking felony conviction under their belt
before The Dudes will believe that they are a fucking problem.

I still want to know the name of the creep who became a redshirt and then
got banned. So I'll know if I ever run into him.

R.
On Apr 17, 2014 10:38 AM, "Adrian Chadd" <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.JPGfor 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140417/61890336/attachment-0003.html>