Unblock Walter on Talk

[artg_dms]

Walter Anderson wrote the following:

Anyone who was at the meeting would easily recall that in the lengthy conversation that was had about this matter, one of the issues that came up – from a question from a board member asking why this wasn’t an Infrastructure issue – is that Infrastructure said they would have likely executed bans of this sort already but they didn’t feel like they had sufficient support for doing so as being within their unilateral power. (

George, Individual memories are always questionable. What you describe isn’t in the minutes for the meeting, therefore it didn’t happen. There is no record of that issue.

Of the many, many misrepresentations of that meeting that have occurred on this board – 90% of them from people who weren’t even there – the greatest must be that this was an action the board initiated.

Sorry, but if you are implying I misrepresented anything, you are misinformed. Two board members previously tried to silence me in December. Claiming I lied about one of them. That board member was told, by the other three board members that it wasn’t a DMS issue that if he felt I lied, he could sue me for libel (which I am still awaiting). In this case, a new member filed a complaint. I asked specifically what the ‘charges’ were and the PM listed on the minutes were the total of the charge’s I was given. Which is why I didn’t bother to show up for the meeting. Sitting for hours to defend myself against a charge so patently absurd was a waste of my time. At no point, according to the minutes, did anyone even discuss what RULE my post broke… They just jumped to apparently dozens of unsubstantiated allegations and an apparent misrepresentation of the the flags. Andrew stated I had 82 flags. He didn’t discuss how many different people filed those flags, but witnesses have reported that Alex claimed nearly all of those flags were from him, his wife, Brooks, and Marrissa… So four people… He also said I had ‘fewer’ positive flags. Completely ignoring that I have 5,200 Likes (over a thousand more then the next most liked person), and that those Likes are from well over a 100 different people…

[quote=“slinkygn, post:67, topic:18846, full:true”]
Ironically, it’s a good thing that Walter notes that there was precedent previously – particularly that the only prior precedent was an act performed (as he himself acknowledges) by a board member, not by the Infrastructure Committee. Thanks for the clarification, Walter. The board does have precedent of this being within their authority and of such being an acceptable use of it by the broader membership, as the prior case shows. So the objection is apparently to, what, the unanimous Infrastructure team being given that authority explicitly in this case, set as precedent for others? [/quote]

Again, you seem to be misreading. I said a Talk Admin (I believe he may have been the only Talk admin at the time) decided on his own to ban a member for a month. Yes, he was also a board member, but no board action was involved in the decision. It was a single persons decision. It is important for everyone to understand that outside of a board meeting where they make collective rulings, individual board members have no more authority then any other normal member. They can’t make ‘rulings’ or act on their own recognizance. Only chairs and other officers of the corporation have additional powers above regular members. And those additional powers are clearly delineated.

[DanielHooper]

What you describe isn’t in the minutes for the meeting, therefore it didn’t happen.

That is silly.

Any way you look at it, this ban was death from 1,000,000 pinpricks. All those drops of blood add up.

[AlexRhodes]

but witnesses have reported that Alex claimed nearly all of those flags were from him, his wife, Brooks, and Marrissa…

Again Walter will present alternative facts and will hide behind hearsay. In that meeting I said that I wish more people used flags as my guess is that it’s mainly Brandon, Brooks myself and a few others that did most of the flagging. I never mentioned my wife. It was in relation to all of talk not just you.

You ask what rule you’re breaking, I will say https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#Code_of_Conduct specifically number 4.

There are a few other misrepresented items but the list is long and my time is short.

[MellissaRhodes]

witnesses have reported that Alex claimed nearly all of those flags were from him, his wife, Brooks, and Marrissa… So four people

As the “his wife” in this scenario, I’ll go ahead and speak for myself.

I almost never get into the Talk drama churn because I, like most members, am not here for that. I also TRY to use Talk in a way that best utilizes my time. I’m an active member and want to know what’s going on. So I scan the list of topics under the New category, click on the ones I want to hear about, and then “dismiss all” on the rest. That said, I’m following this thread because it’s one that affects me anytime I want communication about the Space.

I support Walter’s Talk ban and this is one example of why. I think he often spreads misinformation that leads to fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I’m not entirely sure that’s his intent as I’ve met and interacted with him many times at DMS(you wouldn’t think that because apparently he doesn’t know my name.) and he’s usually helpful, friendly, and sweet. He might actually believe the things he writes.

I’m not sure how to check but I’d guess I’ve flagged less than 10 posts on Talk. I’ve talked to @LisaSelk about this and apologized for not being a better forum user, I see the garbage and just scroll by.

And I guess Walter did say that he heard from “witnesses” but that’s his M.O.-- like how he heard that a board member had inappropriate romantic contact with a vendor. Or how he heard that another board member didn’t inform a chair that a major donation was being made to their area. Or how he heard that the reason our lawyer was selected was strictly for how cheap he was.

I love this place. I’ve put countless hours in, I’ve taken off work for it, I’ve shown up for most member meetings and most board meetings. I’m not saying this to brag, because let’s be real, there’s a bunch of other members that do the same thing. I’m just trying to say I put my heart into DMS but I am not here for this noise.

[bscharff]

I love this place. I’ve put countless hours in, I’ve taken off work for it, I’ve shown up for most member meetings and most board meetings. I’m not saying this to brag, because let’s be real, there’s a bunch of other members that do the same thing. I’m just trying to say I put my heart into DMS but I am not here for this noise.

My exact thoughts.

[Robert_Davidson]

Claiming I lied about one of them. That board member was told, by the other three board members that it wasn’t a DMS issue that if he felt I lied, he could sue me for libel (which I am still awaiting)

Walter since you don’t give up you did lie you accused me of having previous relationship with the insurance agent.

Others feel free to read about it here.
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/d-o-insurance-characters/15156/9

Let’s look at the facts

I went to school from 2007-2010

Erin went to school from 1999-2002 at a different school

I was in Junior High when Erin started college.

Walter again to repeat what I said again please stop spreading misinformation

For anyone wanting further information on D&O insurance please visit this thread where Walter again tries to spread misinformation.
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/simply-voting-and-this-years-board-of-directors-election/19074/107

If you would have even walked to the next room you would have known I was the one saying this does not belong here and moderators should be handling this type of activity, It was only when the moderators told me that they were worried about what type of legal action you would go after them with that I was in favor of blocking you on talk.

To be honest Walter I don’t care one way or the other about you but what does frustrate me and I will fight you on is when you constantly threaten volunteers with lawsuits I have a problem with that.

My position on the issue remains unchanged I will fully support the moderators ability’s to regulate the forums.

[slinkygn]

As a member of that infrastructure team I think you are getting a little carried away with your statements of unanimity. I can attest that, at least as far as the “moderator team” is concerned, there was not a unanimous agreement.

My statements were of unanymity among those attending the board meeting. The Infrastructure chair and vice chair were there, representing the governing opinion of the infrastructure team. Minority dissent is always welcome to speak in a deliberative assembly, of course.

[slinkygn]

Sorry, but if you are implying I misrepresented anything, you are misinformed.

I implied (EDIT: expressly stated) a large number of people misrepresented things. I certainly didn’t name anyone and will note that I don’t recall you misrepresenting anything, and thank you for that, @artg_dms . (Though I honestly only recall the most egregious misrepresentations, as there have been so many as so much time has passed.)

EDIT: Oh, never mind, that apparently wasn’t @artg_dms talking, but Walter. Well, Walter, of course you misrepresented things. You are playing games of Telephone, because you decided to sit 50 feet away from the meeting instead of in the meeting room. I don’t blame you for your misconstruing what occurred.

You may recall, by the way, that I was actually standing immediately there when you were first told that the meeting had resulted in you being banned from Talk. So, again, I have good faith that at least some of your misrepresentations are due to the game of Telephone and not to yourself – as I heard what you were told, in person.

[slinkygn]

I think you’ve got a bit of selection bias going on there. Luke previosly claimed the same in this thread, except that the poll was in favor of Walter.

Yes. Both would exhibit selection bias.

The selection bias of the poll in that thread you quote is toward Talk members – and moreover, Talk members who frequent the board on a regular basis, or put another way those that would bother to wade into the sorts of muck we sometimes get into.

My selection bias would be toward the people that actually attended the meeting.

Given the inevitability of selection bias in non-random samples to begin with, I feel very comfortable that my sample is more relevant than that in the poll.

[mblatz]

2. there was unanimous agreement on by all who attended.

No, there wasn’t. I was there.

Even the infamous question of whether anyone could name a way Walter’s presence on Talk had in any way been positive recently, which one Talk member has stated left him “uncomfortable,” was unanimous

No, there wasn’t. I was there.

Of the many, many misrepresentations of that meeting that have occurred on this board…

…your representations in this thread would be right up there toward the top of the list.

[slinkygn]

Even the infamous question of whether anyone could name a way Walter’s presence on Talk had in any way been positive recently, which one Talk member has stated left him “uncomfortable,” was unanimous

No, there wasn’t. I was there.

You make the same objection twice in the same post, so – since I was there too, of course – I’ll ask: What objection did your bionic hearing allow you to hear when the question was directly asked by the board member to those seated there, in those following 10 seconds of silence, that I did not hear?

And since there have been a few misrepresentations of very basic principles of meeting procedure here, I’ll note two of them in the following, one of them relevant to this thread and one of them relevant to an error Walter made – I’ll stop saying he “misrepresented” things, as that is clearly not working, and state that he is “wrong about” things; hopefully that’ll be clearer.

1. A unanimous decision is one reached without objection. It is related to a decision “by acclamation,” where instead of yeas and nays taken the chair simply states, “is there any objection to the motion?” As a matter of definition, in a 100 member body, if a decision has 2 yeas, 0 nays, and 98 abstentions, the decision is reached unanimously.

2. Minutes, properly formed, are the official organizational record of what was done at the meeting – what action was decided to be formally taken by a deliberative assembly. In other words, it contains 1) motions made, seconded and put before the body, 2) the disposition of said motions (whether they were adopted or failed), and 3) paltry little else. In particular, discussion should in the majority of cases not appear in minutes, for a wide variety of very good reasons.

That does not mean that what isn’t in the minutes didn’t happen. It means direct action – a motion and a vote – was not taken due to whatever it was. In this case, a motion was already on the floor and this was merely within the context of discussion of that motion.

[bscharff]

You make the same objection twice in the same post, so – since I was there too, of course – I’ll ask: What objection did your bionic hearing allow you to hear when the question was directly asked by the board member to those seated there, in those following 10 seconds of silence, that I did not hear?

I’m with @slinkygn. I didn’t hear a single person speak up and object in those 10 seconds.

[Robert_Davidson]

No, there wasn’t. I was there.

Sitting at the board table, I never heard a single person. So if you did say something it was not loud enough for us to hear it.

[mblatz]

I’m happy acceding the technical point on what constitutes a unanimous vote or decision, although not recognizing the abstention for what it was is a bit disingenuous. But to pretend that there was unanimity on this topic in that meeting is certainly a misrepresentation.

I don’t remember those 10 seconds explicitly, but I do remember concluding relatively early on in the discussion that whatever decision the board was going to make had already been made, and so didn’t really see much of a point in making much further vocal comment.

I’ll note that several comments and points that were made during the meeting did not make it into the minutes – I understand why – but that’s a good argument for making at least a voice, if not video, recording of such future proceedings.

[zmetzing]

The selection bias of the poll in that thread you quote is toward Talk members – and moreover, Talk members who frequent the board on a regular basis, or put another way those that would bother to wade into the sorts of muck we sometimes get into.

And are these not the people who would most likely be affected by Walter’s posts on Talk? Since the poll is anonymous, there is no reason for those in favor of his ban not to speak up, so it should pretty accurately reflect the ones who want the ban continued. Even in the face of this, 3/4 still say “bring him back”.

My selection bias would be toward the people that actually attended the meeting.

Those people either had an axe to grind, or didn’t know that Walter was the subject of the complaint. Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

(edit: This post has been redacted. The final quote and response was a personal insult, which was unnecessary and shouldn’t have been typed in the first place. My apologies to slinkygn for the outburst. See the edit log for details.)

[tmc4242]

Posted on Walter’s behalf:

---

Alex Rhodes wrote:
Again Walter will present alternative facts and will hide behind
hearsay. In that meeting I said that I wish more people used flags as
my guess is that it’s mainly Brandon, Brooks myself and a few others
that did most of the flagging. I never mentioned my wife. It was in
relation to all of talk not just you.
Mellisa Rhodes wrote:
And I guess Walter did say that he heard from “witnesses” but that’s
his M.O.-
Since the minutes failed to record your statement, I only had the
statement of witness,
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/discourse-flag-counts/19506/11

There were others, despite Mrs. Rhodes assertion. People frequently
share such things with me, but ask that I not name them, since they are
afraid the board (at least a few of its current members) will choose to
find some excuse to punish them. Something that some board members have
shown a pattern of doing.
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/got-banned-getting-banned-trying-to-get-banned-with-your-help-change-is-coming/8648/16

Also, I have been waiting for nearly a month for the data that would
directly address this particular issue. A month where the board has
FAILED to properly respond to a legal request for the data. And before
YOU misrepresent that request, the only NAMED flaggers I requested were
those on the board (or accounts linked to theirs). The latter naming is
needed to address yet more possible violations of conflict by law…

You ask what rule you’re breaking, I will say
https://dallasmakerspace.org
/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#Code_of_Conduct12 specifically number 4.
Frankly, I am amazed that you can write that with a straight face. If
you ignore all of the allegations (for which no complaints were filed
and therefore I had no opportunity to defend myself) as YOU SHOULD HAVE,
and restrict yourself to the actual text of the PM for which I was
banned from Talk you have to be kidding if you think that rises to a
justification for my banning from Talk. If it does a few on the current
board should have been banned from Talk quite a while ago, as well as
MANY other posters on Talk… So lets drop the pretense that your acted
properly on this. This is particularly when you essentially ignored the
threat of phsyical violence I received from the gentleman who complained
about me…

Mellisa Rhodes wrote:
… like how he heard that a board member had inappropriate romantic
contact with a vendor.
Well, its funny you would choose that particular tidbit. The FACTS are
that a member, Allen, told me that Robert bragged about his Tinder
‘date’ and how it led to the current Cintas contract. I raised the
issue as a conflict, without naming Robert. It was Robert himself who
responded that Yes, he met the Cintas saleswomen through the Tinder
dating site, but that it wasn’t a conflict. I then went on to document
that conflict. One of several such conflicts. Here is the thread which
PROVES my assertions concerning that failure to follow our conflict by
laws…

Tool request continued

Walter is referring to me and it’s no secret or negative. I met a person on tinder just like I have met people on a daily bases. We had a great conversation and they told me that they worked at Cintas. I was like that is great, at the time I was focusing heavily on safety equipment so I asked for a quote to get more fire extinguishers as well as get a quote to get first aid stations and an AED station. I can’t remember if I used director funds at the time to get the fire extinguishers inspec…

The enforcement of our conflict by laws is vital to the space. They
exist to prevent real and significant issues. The FACT is that prior to
my raising this issue, prior boards rarely had any board member recuse
themself for conflict. The current board had more such recussals in
their first 3-4 months then ALL board in DMS history… I commend you
Alex, since MOST of the prior board recusals were yours.

As to the other items in your list, yes, there were members (including
current board members) who told me exactly what I wrote. And there were
witnesses for those statement beyond me. The difference is that I am
willing to publically call out our board when they do such things in a
manner that isn’t transparent… Someone needs to.

Surprisingly, if I was continually spreading the lies you’ll claim, one
of you would have been able to successfully prosecute a formal
complaint against me about it… Or even more significantly a libel
suit… The fact is that things such as Roberts Tinder relationship
with the CIntas saleswomen were common knowledge long before I became a
member. BUT no one bothered to risk the ire of board members to raise
the concerns and get them dealt with, so that we actually followed our
by laws. If there is a rumour of misconduct by a board member, it
should be dealt with openly and without rancor. If its false, then it
gets dismissed and we move on. BUT the same is true if it is true. It
needs to be dealt with…

[MellissaRhodes]

Since the minutes failed to record your statement, I only had the
statement of witness

And yet the witness right below it in that thread, @merissa is dismissed?
https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/discourse-flag-counts/19506/12?u=mellissarhodes

The difference is that I am
willing to publically call out our board when they do such things in a
manner that isn’t transparent… Someone needs to.

Yes please do call out board members, committee chairs, or other members when you see something is wrong. The problem is, you state things as fact, you put all of your trust in second hand accounts and spread gossip in a way I think is damaging.

After I posted that list of gossip spread I thought of another. A smaller scale but just as inflammatory. When you asserted that the Lemons car was stored at Brandon and Merrisa’s house and was basically a personal project that we(the makerspace) were funding for Brandon.

Your gossip spreading is especially a problem for us because we as an organization don’t have the best memory–we have members here that don’t see the pattern because they’re new or they’re not on Talk regularly and they’ll assume you’re telling the truth.

[Robert_Davidson]

Allen, told me that Robert bragged about his Tinder
‘date’ and how it led to the current Cintas contract. I raised the
issue as a conflict, without naming Robert. It was Robert himself who
responded that Yes, he met the Cintas saleswomen through the Tinder
dating site, but that it wasn’t a conflict.

Walter again you are basing your information of third party accounts which are not true you act like this was some conspiracy. Correct me if I am wrong but we are talking about 2014 now? I don’t even believe you were a member at the time. It was no secret that I met a Cintas fire rep on tinder and asked if she could get me a quote on fire extinguishers as at the time it was need because we had just moved in and only got the bare minimum to get us through the CO. I then shared the quote with the board of directors at the time and it was a decent deal to get us fire extinguishers and it was unanimously passed at that BOD meeting.

[zmetzing]

When you asserted that the Lemons car was stored at Brandon and Merrisa’s house and was basically a personal project that we(the makerspace) were funding for Brandon.

I would like some clarification on this point: Is the Lemons car a personal project of Brandon, or is it owned by DMS and administered by the Automotive group?

[Robert_Davidson]

It is absolutely a DMS project.