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

Nicholas LoCicero nick.locicero at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 03:03:03 UTC 2013


I think it should cost something to be a member. Money or time. That could
be the motivator to be excellent. Membership...
On Jun 2, 2013 7:48 PM, "Corey McGuire" <coreyfro at coreyfro.com> wrote:

> ++
>
> The only trouble is enforcing the one rule.  And how does one enforce it
> all night?
>
> How about Rewarding excellence for being a contributing member by allowing
> such people total access to the space.  Without saying that not being a
> contributing member is unexcellent, it could be said that there are hours
> where only contributors are allowed due to established records of
> excellence.  Another excellence condition would be, if there are fewer that
> 3 excellent contributors, all others must leave.
>
> This is challenging to the over ethos of Noisebridge, but every other
> business has the right to close up shop or otherwise deny service due to
> staffing constraints.  Sure, it creates a class system at noisebridge, but
> it also creates a karma threshold for recognition, motivation, and reward.
>
> Because, as it stands, what is the reward for contributing to Noisebridge?
>  What is the motivation to not be trash?  The reward or punishment are both
> boring meetings that many of us can't attend.
>
> I know yet another opinion, but none of us want to see this place die.
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Gavin Knight <gnnrok at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler - Albert
> Einstein <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein>
> Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo Da Vinci<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_Da_Vinci>
> Perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when
> there is nothing left to take away - Antoine de Saint Exupéry<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_de_Saint_Exup%C3%A9ry>
> Keep It Simple Stupid - Kelly Johnson<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Johnson>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130602/2930a96f/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list