[Noisebridge-discuss] misogynist loser visiting noisebridge

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Wed Dec 25 00:25:44 UTC 2013


On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can answer that question:
>
> Yes, I do mind. It is tedious and tiring to recount the details each time
> and often they "don't count" or are somehow deemed insufficient. So I'd
> rather not.
>
> I know this will be met with the usual "witch hunt" and "what about false
> accusations" and other tropes that are as dead end as they are predictable.
> I want to keep this thread productive. Hannah might want to talk about it,
> but I don't. That's a sucker's game.
>

You should use your special power you implied members have  to silence
dissent then, Al :)

> Back to the point, Noisebridge membership does have the additional
> privileges that Hannah outlined. In addition, it really *never* been the
> case that "we only have one rule" has been true. Currently there are
> policies that differentiate members and nonmembers besides blocking.
>

So, the rules changing I don't mind, but rewriting history I somewhat
object to. There's a rich history of members working to minimize the
amount of power they have in the interests of creating a community
where visitors, regulars and members can all contribute equally.

I know that this is changing, but the people doing the changing should
be proud of their changes, rather than deny that  anything has
happened at all.

Could you spell out what the historical policies are besides blocking
that only members have? I think people have listed the ones required
by the byelaws and laws of california, which include voting for the
board.

The code of conduct doesn't say anything about permanently banning
someone, and Noisebridge has established that anyone can ask anyone at
Noisebridge to leave and come back to the next meeting, where they
*can* be banned.

In my defence of the code of conduct, that's pretty much what I've
been defending. If it's more than that -- and I or Tom or Jacob
Appelbaum or Al can ban permanently somebody at the drop of a hat, I'd
like to know, and have that clarified in some way. That's a big leap,
and probably requires the code of conduct to be clarified at some
points.

d.


> Hi,
>
> "two literal rapists." Would you mind going into more details?
>
> -a
>
> On 24 December 2013 10:25, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Danny,
>> This is simply false; there are absolutely privileges to membership
>> besides
>> blocking, though most of them are recent.  For example, you are not
>> supposed
>> to be in the space unless you are a member or sponsored by a member
>> (associate or capitol-M).  While anyone can ask someone to leave and not
>> come back until the next meeting (at which point people can have a vote to
>> ban them), but the anti-harassment policy allows a member to ban someone
>> who
>> is violating the anti-harassment policy, without having to go through
>> consensus.  If such an action is decided to have been done in error, the
>> membership can then allow them back via consensus.  Essentially, for the
>> case of harassment, the way we remove harassers is flipped: now a harasser
>> is removed by default, and it takes consensus to bring them back, instead
>> of
>> people who have been accused of rape multiple times being allowed to stay
>> if
>> they can find just a single patsy to vote for them.  One of the
>> concessions
>> that was made at the meeting was that only members would be able to
>> banhammer a harasser.  We also had to accept a trial time period instead
>> of
>> a permanent policy and agree that it wouldn't be allowed to be implemented
>> retroactively to get it passed.  I'm not a fan of those concessions, but
>> given that there were not one but two literal rapists at that meeting, I
>> think we did pretty well for ourselves.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are no privileges to membership, apart from blocking (and a
>>> currently entirely theoretical first dibs on hacker shelves).  Anyone
>>> can ask anyone to leave. Or at least, that used to be the case.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit disturbed that the direction we're taking seem to be taking
>>> powers *away* from visitors to Noisebridge.
>>>
>>> d.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Because the anti-harassment policy predates the associate members
>>> > existence,
>>> > and I don't know the rules around associate members well.  Did the
>>> > meeting
>>> > in which we created them give them all the privileges of NB membership
>>> > EXCEPT the block, or did it specifically just give them the ability to
>>> > be in
>>> > the space?  If it's the former, then any member would be able to remove
>>> > them.  This would be nice, since there should (theoretically) always be
>>> > a
>>> > member in the space anytime we have people there.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Why does it need a "capital M" member?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > "Trolling" is a deceptively benign term.  If anyone sees someone put
>>> >> > up
>>> >> > similar fliers again, please grab a capital-M-member and have them
>>> >> > ask
>>> >> > that
>>> >> > person to leave and never come back.  This behavior is clearly
>>> >> > covered
>>> >> > by
>>> >> > our anti-harassment policy, and as a result doesn't require
>>> >> > consensus
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > ban.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> "It's nothing bitch shut up" isn't well-meaning, it's just
>>> >> >> trolling.
>>> >> >> Take
>>> >> >> the flyer down, toss it, and continue hacking. But do message the
>>> >> >> list
>>> >> >> again
>>> >> >> if this anonymous coward keeps putting them up.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> -Al
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM, johny radio <johnyradio at gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Jake <jake at spaz.org> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> i'm wondering if this person was some well-meaning activist
>>> >> >>>> trying
>>> >> >>>> to
>>> >> >>>> start a discussion.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> or trying to set a honey trap. Yes, i agree with you Jake.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list