It’s interesting to note that in your reply, you seem to have ignored my point on censorship and that the original post specifically requested not to be edited, as non-consensual edits had happened in the past.
Then maybe try coming to a meeting? Or reading my posts more carefully. I do this all the time, for example (one of my many), my recent post about standing corrected on the formation of DoubleUnion. I listen to people all the time, and am wrong sometimes.
I had:1) spoken to James about this privately before and 2) brought this up at a meeting previously as a community concern.
I’m not “assuming the worst” that James is some evil person (of course, he is not). Not sure why you would tell someone what they are assuming.
I’m concerned about the activity and distribution of power for admins without collective oversight or clearer definitions in place. That’s why I made this a community thread to start a discussion, not to lambaste James. I think he has overall done a great job of setting up and helping run this forum.
I don’t think you’re attempts to call me out as a hypocrite here are very well founded, but I’m open to improving communication with others and learn from my mistakes.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing.
This has all sorts of disturbing undertones and is bordering on abuser tactics.
Trying to psychoanalyze me as “The Victim” for speaking up about minority inclusion and disability access is highly inappropriate and unexcellent, to say the least.
I have not forgotten this meeting and the hurtful things you expressed toward me during it.
But I suppose even mentioning that just means I’m playing “The Victim”?
Note sure what you are referring to here.
I absolutely 100% acknowledge that my recent Consensus item and some posts have created some unfortunate and unwanted community friction.
It is necessary, unfortunately, to daylight abuse and discrimination in order to affect change.
What is seen as strife and annoyance now has been for a long time the day-to-say experience of minorities at Noisebridge, swept under the rug.
I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea.
It is everyone’s responsibility to make sure everyone is included, safe, and welcome at Noisebridge.
If anyone wants to add to small-c consensus ideas for improving discuss (discourse) admin oversight accountability and / or a new policy around non-consensual edits, it would be nice to read your thoughts. I’d like to keep this thread on topic.