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…
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…