[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: how Noisebridge could improve
pnaomi at gmail.com
Sat Apr 12 14:50:44 UTC 2014
*Kindly*, spinach... I was wrong about that guy too. I assumed he was
good for the space. I have reconsidered that idea, and not just
because of his criminal history.
I believe in second chances. What I have stopped doing is
intellectually overriding my gut sense of unease about people spending
inordinate amounts of time at Noisebridge and taking on "authority"
positions more often than asked for.
Humans are not very good at reading other humans in their intentions.
We are STUPID BAD at it. A kind-looking face and a charismatic
personality easily bias us towards forgiving behaviors that should
serve as warning signs.
Do we have any evidence that The Guy in Question would have eventually
caused someone harm? No, that's impossible, now that he's been
banned. But we should use warning signs like overuse of the space in
combination with learned history about that person to become duly
If we don't use that information, and someone *is* harmed, then we are
not just stupid bad at reading people, we are a bad organization.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 7:44 AM, spinach williams
<spinach.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2014 7:35 AM, "Naomi Most" <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, we're apologizing for felons to justify why being in the space all
>> the time is a good thing?
> no, just stating facts as i've observed directly.
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss