[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals
jim at systemateka.com
Sat Nov 16 05:50:06 UTC 2013
JS: My replies interspersed below:
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 21:36 -0800, Snail wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
> An anti-harassment policy, it seems to me, as I
> wrote in an earlier reply, may be mis-applied or
> prematurely applied. Community response can easily
> be overly harsh. I think this has been the case
> several times in NB history, very sadly for all
> of us.
> Someone who needs support may reach too
> quickly for formal support and miss an opportunity
> to discover one's own inner strengths. I think
> this is common and certainly has happened way too
> Can you specifically name which times?
JS: not without digging through tons of email archives,
which I won't do. If you're serious, then I think
your request is unreasonable.
> You say "several times", but I do not know which you are or not
> talking about.
one fellow was banished and told to get
psychological help; he was irate that people
whom he felt were not hackers were using the
another fellow was banished because he was
asking for dates way too much. he certainly
did not understand "no", and he certainly was
way too pushy.
in both cases the community response seemed
to me to be too quickly unified against the
people who were banished. In the first case I
believe the banishment was wrong; in the second,
I think it was probably right, although poorly
> To me, I have felt community response was never
> overly harsh. In the interest of clarity, can
> you list them here?
JS: your take is different from mine. No, I
will not dig through the enormous amount of
email of the NB discuss list to drag out the
sad and in some cases angry--unnecessarily
angry, in my view--claims and counterclaims.
> Otherwise I may again mistake something you are saying.
JS: are you trolling me?
> ............. _ at y
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss