[Noisebridge-discuss] about policy vis-a-vis true excellence

Hannah Grimm dharlette at gmail.com
Wed Mar 26 20:59:53 UTC 2014


People will rules-lawyer our rules, yes.

People will also rules-lawyer unwritten community standards like "be
excellent."

"Be Excellence" didn't prevent people from groping me in the space.  It's
not enough.  We've tried it, and we've had too many gropings and slurs and
sexual assaults to pretend it's working.  Let's try writing down rules, and
see how that goes for a while.


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> (A new thread to continue the discussion; I don't want it to warrant a
> [drama] tag; I am trying to prolong just this one particular strand
> out of that horrendous thread.)
>
> to Al:
>
> I'm not sure that Rachel's point is that we will "just have to live
> with meth-selling".
>
> I think her point has more to do with an assertion, based on a lot of
> real-world observations, that the things you write down will always be
> contorted and misused by bad people -- especially /smart/ bad people
> -- and that it's "badness" you should be on the lookout for, not
> people exhibiting a certain type of behavior that you have written
> down as bad.
>
> And further, that the written policy can blind you to the existence of
> real non-excellence specifically *because* smart-bad people typically
> use policy to their own benefit.
>
> Adherence to a firm written policy ahead of calm, rational, and
> empathic discourse is a trojan horse of a meta-policy that ruins
> communities from the inside out.
>
> I hope some of you would consider reading Antifragile, by Nassim Taleb.
>
> --Naomi
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Rachel, we've never made people buy beer when they become members. That
> is
> > not "built-in" to the membership process, and is just a joke. Often times
> > members do not buy beer when they come back, and I always speak up and
> say,
> > "Actually, you don't have to and fine if you don't, so don't feel
> > obligated."
> >
> > Anyway, I'm not even sure what this thread is about anymore. First it was
> > discussing the recent procedural change, then Rachel makes claims on
> > Noisebridge's "charter" (not to be confused with "bylaws"), then Will
> brings
> > up the problem of people trying to sell meth in the space, then Rachel
> says
> > that to solve the meth-selling problem we should "build a better society"
> > (that will be... a bit of work) and that we will just have to live with
> > meth-selling at the space, then Rachel talks about how "safe space"
> can't be
> > defined in an un-abusable (if I'm wrong about that, I'd really like a
> > practical definition of it from Rachel)...
> >
> > We can address all of these issues, but it's going to involve a lot of
> work
> > because as nice as "be excellent" is, people are going to have sincere
> > disagreements about what that means. That's why we have to sit down,
> write
> > out whatever small part of excellence we propose, and come to agreement
> on
> > it. Otherwise, this is just a long-winded thread where much is spoken but
> > not much is communicated.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:43 AM, William Sargent <
> will.sargent at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I've thrown out many people, including Jake 2.0.  But since you bring it
> >> up:
> >>
> >> Cynthia put down Noisebridge as her place of residence, which is against
> >> the terms of the lease.   This was mentioned at both meetings.  Jesse
> and I
> >> asked her to leave and come back at the Tuesday meeting, the very next
> day.
> >> She refused.
> >>
> >> Then more people asked her to leave.  Then, once there were six or seven
> >> people, they started shouting at each other.  At that point, calling the
> >> police was the best way to deescalate the situation, believe it or not.
>  She
> >> locked herself in the bathroom once she heard the police were coming.
> >>
> >> The Tuesday meeting the next day had multiple people, including Kelly
> say
> >> she felt safer in the space for not having Cynthia in it.   When weev,
> who
> >> still had his trial lined up, says that he wanted the Police to come
> into
> >> the space and remove her, I feel pretty confident about having made the
> >> right call.
> >>
> >> I didn't know that Jesse smoked pot outside until after the second
> >> meeting.  Likewise, I didn't know about Jesse sexually assaulting
> someone,
> >> because it hadn't happened at that point.
> >>
> >> Will.
> >>
> >> On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:29 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <rachelyra at gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> This metric unfortunately falls apart when in a situation like I was in
> >> with Jesse z, who was emphatic that smoking only certain types of dried
> >> plants on the public sidewalk outside of Noisebridge was acceptable &
> safe ,
> >> while being so intoxicated on his own personal blend of drugs as to be a
> >> threat to his own safety as well as that of others.
> >>
> >> This metric, while having noble goals, can be gamed by any perpetrator
> >> pointing their own finger, forming a circle of people claiming their
> safety
> >> is endangered.
> >>
> >> Seeking to provide a safe-as-possible space occasionally means deciding
> if
> >> someone is being an asshole.
> >>
> >> I'll mention now, since I cannot help but think of it every time I think
> >> of Will, that he and Jesse z called the cops INTO the space once to
> evict
> >> cynthia from the bathroom.  She wasn't in there doing drugs, just hiding
> >> from the actual people obligingly fulfilling her paranoia. This was
> during I
> >> time when I regularly saw groups of people rally to kick out someone
> who was
> >> say, stealing, or sleeping frequently at the space. Cynthia wasn't doing
> >> those things, she was just a harmless nutjob.
> >>
> >> I am sure, Will, that you have many good qualities but good enough
> asshole
> >> metrics to reference off of might not be one of them, nor a cool head
> in a
> >> stressful situation.
> >>
> >> One tool I found particularly striking from Sudo room (god help me I am
> >> suggesting Sudo room is doing something better than Noisebridge) was
> this
> >> phrase - we value safe space over ideology. This phrase was incredibly
> >> valuable because it suggested the hierarchy of relative values of two
> things
> >> we hold dear, and thus was a machete in a thicket of arcane rules that
> were
> >> being endlessly quibbled by 3 dudes who wrote them. People who like to
> argue
> >> with each other should be allowed to do so, but.
> >>
> >> When the rules are too complicated they are the domain of those who
> >> maintain and understand them. A vital part of the Noisebridge screed is
> >> built around keeping it simple enough to be understood & debated by
> >> everyone. Whatever 'it' is, and whatever you crazy kids are up to with
> >> yours, and whatever you are calling it nowadays.
> >>
> >> R.
>
>
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> _______________________________________________
> 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://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140326/f7236968/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list