The continued harassment of members from Mark Havens and the Blue Tape Ticket


This is one of the hardest posts I have had to write. Over the past weeks, I and a handful of other members have been subject to ongoing harassment from Mark Havens and his associates with the intent of intimidating me and people that support the current board.

This harassment has taken the form of videos posted to YouTube that are intended to libel me and the other candidates. The first of these videos is an outright attack on me as a person, the second is a post of the private disciplinary hearing held for the three complaints against Mark.

For this hearing, a panel of members was appointed to ensure that the hearing would remain fair and avoid bias from me as one of the people involved in the complaint. From the start of the meeting, Mark attempted to discredit the hearing. After the hearing, he proceeded to modify the video by overlaying quotes that imply dishonesty on the part of all involved.

This is troubling for a number of reasons:

  1. Mark never objected to or expressed concerns about the appointment of a panel or the selection of the panel participants.
  2. Mark states in the interview that he intends to keep posting videos about me if he is disciplined for the video that is a personal attack on me. In his own words, he stated that he knows the videos are damaging, this is discussed in the meeting.
  3. Mark is placing these videos with my name attached in places that are relevant to my career outside of the makerspace where they will do the most damage to my professional reputation.
  4. Mark has a history of threats, intimidation, and misuse of member information that is well documented by disciplinary actions from previous boards.
  5. In follow up discussions Mark has indicated he has no intention of following the rules and bylaws of the organization.
  6. By publicly posting the panel interview he creates a culture of fear and intimidation for any member that may wish to submit a complaint in the future. This action creates an environment where a victim of an assault or threats cannot have trust in the system if they need to file a complaint because they know people like Mark can libel and slander them into submission throughout the membership and general public.

For the purposes of transparency here is a summary of the original complaint I filed:

I am filing a formal complaint against Mark Havens for violation of our anti-harassment policy.

Today Mark created a public video on YouTube and posted the link to social channels to slander me.

What? They Mean! (Did we put words in his mouth and hoped nobody would notice?)

The video contains no facts and serves only to attempt to bully and intimidate me.

This is a violation of items 5 and 7 of our anti-harassment policy.

  1. Deliberate intimidation by words, gestures, body language, or menacing behavior
  2. Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes

This complaint has been amended to include the direct threat Mark made to continue to post videos about me publicly and the fact that he did follow through on that threat.

The bottom line for me is that regardless of the election it is not permissible to allow a member to publicly attack another member in a way that can damage their livelihood, health or wellbeing on baseless accusations and character assassination.

I am happy to answer any questions members may have about this complaint and how Mark’s actions are affecting me, my job, and my family.

Thanks, James


FWIW, I have reported each of the Blue Tape group’s videos and social media posts. Not that it does much good.

These videos have been linked on Talk (“displayed” on a DMS platform). Naming a DMS member and accusing them of wrongdoing opens them up to harassment from other members and is definitely a violation of the privacy policy as well.

In addition, the Dallas Makerspace will not provide or display any information which may subject a member to fraud, identity theft, harassment, or provide a means for subjecting the member to increased risk of fraud, identity theft, or which may enable another person to engage in Internet fraud or attack, or may enable another to identify, contact, or distinguish any member, without the express written consent of the member(s) owning the data.


When will the panel that has been appointed rule on this matter?


That I do not know. Based on the fact that the panel members are now subject to a form of retaliation themselves I really don’t know how it will proceed.

I do know that I will continue to do the honest thing and abstain from voting on or even discussing the panel deliberations with the rest of the board. I am doing my best to preserve the integrity of the decisions that we have to make to run this organization and serve all of its members.


How is blaming others for Mark’s actions even fair? Why are you associating the “Blue Tape Ticket” to this?

It looks like several members including John Gorman were present at the meeting. It doesn’t seem private to me.

Mark’s YouTube videos definitely ‘cross the line’, and they represent a concerning lack of judgment that DMS members should factor heavily into their voting decision making.


I should clarify, I can answer most of the questions,I can’t answer questions from Draco because I’ve blocked him since he’s one of Mark’s followers and I no longer engage with his trolling.

Feel free to read his other posts to understand why this is my position.


How do you block people on Talk?



Probably because he already did? You cannot in good conscience claim that he is not speaking for them when he puts their website in his videos.


To Dracos questions:
Because Mark implicated them when he claimed them as his ticket and said that they were together on this. Additionally Kevin provided Mark with a separate video that was posted in the same manor for the same goals.

As to why gorman and others were there, Mark brought them with him. It was not a public meeting, but the people involved in the complaint can bring witnesses. Mark did not call them as witnesses, he just brought them as “observers”.

To imply it was public because Marks guests were there is typical of Dracos trolling tactics.


The video that you claimed is damaging to you, you redistributed in this thread? Mark was talking to you on Pearce’s Unofficial DMS Discord server and to my knowledge hasn’t posted it elsewhere. If it is damaging as you claim, why did you decide to further distribute it? It is unlisted.

To Dracos continued attempt to defend marks harassment:

It is necessary to confront the harassment publicly. I will not stand for Marks harassment or Dracos trolling attempts. It is necessary that the membership sees how Mark is trying to harm me outside of the makerspace.

It’s pathetic how much effort Draco spends trying to deflect criticism from Mark and his reprehensible actions against members.


This is a pretty large fallacy, and seems like you’re grasping at tangential actions that don’t have anything to do with the main point in the hopes of associating a “wrong” action that would invalidate an entire unrelated point, which isn’t how it works. If you’d like to defend Mark’s actions, you’ll need to address the main contention, that he posted videos meant to intimidate and harass that were also potentially slanderous.

@mrjimmy including a link from his original complaint and in his defense does not change the content of something slanderous, nor does it increase the actual or presumed damages. In fact, defending himself may decrease the actual damages, but doesn’t change the fact that the video could be considered damaging. An unlisted video is still considered published.


Mark doesn’t need me to defend him. Mark did, I think, an excellent job of defending himself from clearly politically motivated complaints, in his hearing. It is my opinion that these complaints are only coming up now, to try and ban him before he can be elected. All three complaints recommended Permanent Ban.

I do not appreciate James’ behavior, however.

Neat. You can recommend whatever you want when you write a complaint.

Noteworthy is that this happened in 2016:

Behavior of Two Members
 - Mark Havens
  - Luke Olson moved to pass the motion as "Mark Havens is banned from the Maker 
Space for 9  months effective 4/24/2016, further infractions will warrant consideration 
for a lifetime ban"
  - Motion passed with 3 in favor, Erik Smith and Alex Rhodes abstaining

And the fact these videos came out during the election aren’t polically motivated, or may have something to do with the timing of the complaints?


There was only one video sited in the complaint and James linked to it above. It was only distributed by Mark in the Discord Server and is not a part of his other videos.

Using video to interview people is new to DMS. I think it is a very effective campaign tool and is not harassment by itself. But again, these other videos are not what the complaint is about.

When was the pin incident? Was that 2016?