[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

[Charles Tang]

So much contention, so little mailbox room.

On Tuesday, 25 February 2014, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> With all due respect, you have not seen the extreme.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No but we are at the other extreme.  There are infinite points between
> and
> > we need to find the happy balance with our awesome and excellent ideals
> and
> > the rest of the world and all of humanity.  Ideally everyone else adopts
> > these rules and is just nice to everyone.
> >
> > On Feb 25, 2014 8:21 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, in other words, you see the world in black and white.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > The same thing can be said of the opposite and this is where we are
> now.
> >> >
> >> > On Feb 25, 2014 8:20 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm with you.
> >> >>
> >> >> What I'm pointing out is that -- and I do like most of the rules and
> >> >> policies that have been made so far -- our culture is a work in
> >> >> progress.  Taking all existing policy decisions as sacrosanct puts
> >> >> Noisebridge into a more and more fragile and rigid stance where it
> >> >> can't adapt or improve.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > I would say anything that has passed consensus is also a rule until
> >> >> > consensus changes it.   I would also say that the harassment policy
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > common sense and speaks of treating others with respect which falls
> >> >> > under be
> >> >> > excellent but due to differing definitions of excellence we needed
> to
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > more specific since we suck at policing ourselves.   Ideally we
> >> >> > should
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > other members stepping in and saying stop being unexpected but
> >> >> > everyone
> >> >> > hates confrontation and when someone confronts someone we have tons
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > bike
> >> >> > shedding and victim blaming. Not great For Us And Our Image.  I
> hate
> >> >> > being
> >> >> > the laughing stock of the hackerspa ce com.unity.   I hate that we
> >> >> > couldn't
> >> >> > make a safe enough space for everyone to feel comfortable so
> another
> >> >> > space
> >> >> > had to be made with more logic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Feb 25, 2014 7:50 PM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I would say that the only permanently binding "rule" at
> Noisebridge
> >> >> >> is:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Be Excellent to Each Other
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Everything else is an experiment.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com
> >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > I would say whatever is in the bylaws and on the wiki is what it
> >> >> >> > is.
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > believe that means a hackerspa ce that has a community that has
> >> >> >> > issues
> >> >> >> > dealing with things due to a variety of issues one being victim
> >> >> >> > blaming
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > others being unable to effectively deal with most basic issues.
> >> >> >> > What
> >> >> >> > do
> >> >> >> > you think noisebridge is?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140225/f235111c/attachment-0003.html>