[Noisebridge-discuss] [SPAM] Re: Close noisebridge, to fix noisebridge

Gavin Knight gnnrok at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 00:12:55 UTC 2013

Seemed that the IV drug use started some of this debate so it sounds like
we define people who use nb to shoot up as unexcellent and asked to leave.
Additionally people who are violent and cause fights can be defined as
unexcellent and asked to leave. Finally people who engage in sexual
harassment have been considered unexcellent and asked to leave.

So if you fit into one of those categories then maybe that person is not a
good fit at noisebridge. If you have not been disruptive, involved in
physical altercations, using noisebridge as shooting gallery or harrasing
other sexually or otherwise than it seems you are exempt based on previous
ejections from the space
On Jun 2, 2013 1:19 PM, "Mitchel McAllister" <xonimmortal at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am seeing a very troubling concept being given tacit support here.
> The idea that people can be asked to leave for "spending too much time at
> Noisebridge" is, to put it plainly, bizarre.
> The people that I have seen targeted lately by this line of thinking do
> not live at Noisebridge. We all know that. They live elsewhere, and that
> has been demonstrated.
> I'm not even going to bother with the question of "how long is too long".
> That's just the sinkhole that swallows the real issue.
> I was under the impression that Noisebridge was supposed to be an open,
> nonjudgmental, non-bigoted space. I was under the impression that people
> could only be asked to leave because of their actions.
> The people being told to leave, under this aegis at any rate, have not
> done anything wrong. They are not guilty of omission, either. Their
> presence in the space has not deprived anyone of any civil or human right,
> has not deprived anyone of any resource of Noisebridge, and has not
> prevented anyone else from using the space.
> So what, exactly, are they guilty of? Who have they been unexcellent to?
> Whose rights have been violated? What person or entity has been endangered?
> The first hackerspace that I wrote about, back in 2003, had a tradition of
> repeating one thing at the beginning of any meeting: "We're not making
> decisions for anyone else." This was, among other things, meant to remind
> everyone that any proposal applied to the proposer *first*. It also
> reminded everyone that their rights ended at the end of everybody else's
> nose.
> What I am seeing is a proposal that is meant to solve a problem, but does
> not solve the problem that it is supposed to, but to solve a problem that
> is not a problem.
> The people who are "living" at Noisebridge aren't being targeted here. I
> can point to four or five people who rarely leave for more than an hour or
> six. However, those people are not being confronted, because they can sit
> and have nice warm fuzzy conversations with members, or they can
> demonstrate some kind of technical knowledge or achievement (or at least
> talk like they can). One person has been "living" at Noisebridge almost
> non-stop for the past two weeks, despite being confronted on it.
> The people that I am seeing targeted are being asked to leave over
> specious reasons. "You're not hacking", yet the confronter has no idea
> whether the "suspect" is hacking or not (in one occasion, the confronter
> insisted that only "coding" was valid hacking!). "You're a social [sic]
> hacker", yet the person speaking doesn't have the first clue what the
> "suspect" is actually working on.
> I am not seeing rational arguments here. I am seeing knee-jerk reactions.
> I was told a few weeks ago that I should leave because my "tone" on the
> email list was offending certain people. Yet, one of the most offensive
> acts of trolling that I have ever seen was allowed to float past on the
> email list, with no sanctions or consequences whatsoever.
> I will admit that I get annoyed when I see people walk in, plop down on
> the couch, and go to sleep. I get irritated seeing people come in to sit
> around and argue loudly about politics or activism. I get very irritated
> when I see people pontificate about how they are the only real hacker in
> the space and everyone else should genuflect to them.
> But we already have "rules" regarding that behavior. People are not
> supposed to be sleeping here. Disruptive people are asked to leave. Okay,
> we don't have a rule covering pompous assholes, but so far laughing at them
> seems to work wonders.
> The first step in problem-solving is actually defining the problem. So
> far, the only definition I have seen is "those people are ruining
> Noisebridge OH NOES !one!!oneone"
> Can we please have a rational discussion on this for a change?
> - Reverend Mik McAllister
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130602/64c4158d/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list