Proposed rule change (addition).

[Mr Ed]

Currently as it stands there is no explicit rule against breaking tools. The consequence of this is more or less that you can smash up at least 3 expensive bits of kit before you get banned under the general 3 strikes grievance procedure. This arrangement is terrible for the hackspace since it is a strong discouragement for people to bring in good tools or to maintain existing equipment. While adding rules is best avoided, it's pretty clear now that the current rules are not up to the task.

I propose inserting a new rule under "Etiquette" (and renumbering the remaining rules) which reads:

7. Equipment should be treated with care and respect. If you break any equipment you are expected to pay for a replacement. Failure to do so may result in being banned.

As far as I can see, this works perfectly fine under the existing grievance procedure with the existing 3 strikes rule. For example, someone breaks a piece of expensive equipment and doesn't pay. They receive a formal warning. If they continue to not pay, then after, say, two weeks they can receive a second formal warning for continuing the bad behaviour. After continued failure to pay after another two weeks would lead to a third formal warning and a ban. This works because the object of the grievance is not breaking the kit, it's failing to pay. And the point of the procedure is that if people keep on behaving badly they get banned.

Note the rule does not say "if a piece of equipment fails while you are using it". If it breaks due to normal wear and tear, that's not against the rules. However someone goes in for excessively heavy, aggressive use of equipment, even old, worn equipment causing it to break then they certainly should make sure the hackspace gets a replacement.


-Ed

[David Murphy]

I'd be a bit wary of this. Def need to define the difference between breaking something and it breaking while you happen to be using it more clearly.

A certain level of reasonable breakage is expected. When i'm just showing people how to use a jewellery saw at least one blade breaking is an average for every newbie just for learning. There's good-faith amature mistakes while trying to learn and then there's people who don't give a fuck and I don't want to punish the former.

If you don't hold a tool exactly right and stress it a little wrongly but in a way that 99 people have done before without it dying but thanks to a thousand such incidents in the past the tool finally gives up the ghost: breaking or breaking while using? Because that could turn it into one hell of a game of hot potato and incentive amature fixes.

i'd at least want to make it explicit

"If you break any equipment"

should be

"If you break any equipment through misuse or improper use"

Rather than having it as an unstated intent for people to argue over later when this originating post is long forgotten. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mr Ed]

On Sunday, 8 May 2016 14:31:19 UTC+1, David wrote:

 
 

"If you break any equipment"

should be

"If you break any equipment through misuse or improper use"

That sounds like a reasonable change.

-Ed


 

[deanforbes]

The rule makes absolute sense, policing or enforcing could be difficult

[Stephen Lavelle]

The reworded version sounds okay, but have there been many cases in the past where a rule like this would have been enforceable? (no need to name names)

Maybe the rule itself could be a deterrent.

Or maybe frustration at having an unenforceable rule could be bad for morale and outweigh the benefits.

Or maybe this will result in people refusing the acknowledge that they've broken tools if they can't pay for replacements ( though if ye look at past admissions of responsibility for breaking equipment, ye can judge whether or not that's a problem ).

I'm not a basement dweller (where most of the breakages happen), so take me opinions with a grain of salt :)

best,

s

[Eugene Nadyrshin]

Mixed feeling about this,

Most of the activities at the hackspace operate on the basis of trust, and that has worked relatively well. However recently people have been abusing some of the equipment and it's unfrair on the maintainer(s) who have to waste their time because someone wasn't careful when using equipment X.

Having said most equipment has wear and quite often will break though normal use and it's unfair for that person who happens to be using it at the time it breaks.

It's the outright banning I have an issue with, though I am happy with the grievance procedure to be applied where there is a relatively clear case of equipment misuse (as determined by the maintainers) and the person in question refuses to pay for (or source) a replacement within say a month.

And yeah, enforcement will be difficult.

Mentar

--

[deanforbes]

Most of the power and hand tools I had as an apprentice over 30 years ago I still have and still work  (what I don't have I lost due to a break-in) I would suggest they have had thousands of hours use and that includes kit I have bought in the last 5 to 10 years (which I don't believe is the case for hackspace kit) yet it fails due to wear and tear :-) 

is it normal use or the  "accepted hackspace burn rate" for most tools, is what I would muse over

On Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:53:17 UTC+1, Mr Ed wrote:

[chrisbob12]

Generally agree that it would be very hard to implement and the proposed rule misses the distinction between breakage due to accumulated wear/abuse and acts of acute muppetry.

It is a problematic situation, and it would be productive to be able to say what the ideal future state would look like, before we identify hard and fast controls.

My two ha'porth: there seem to be four cases requiring different treatments for breakages, not all of which would be rules.
1 AC-noded equipment.
2 Personal loans.
3 Protected kit. Like Pl(a)ywood.
4 Uncontrolled kit.

[Paddy Duncan]

My 2p:

It is covered by common sense and decency, and if that fails there are rules 1, 2, 3 and 4.
I don't think we need any more specific ones nor the lawyering they could provoke.
Paddy

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 09:43:30 UTC+1, mentar wrote:

Mixed feeling about this,

Most of the activities at the hackspace operate on the basis of trust, and that has worked relatively well. However recently people have been abusing some of the equipment and it's unfrair on the maintainer(s) who have to waste their time because someone wasn't careful when using equipment X.

It's unfair to more than the maintainer. It's unfair to other users of the kit and it's unfair to the community as a whole since it discourages participation.

 

Having said most equipment has wear and quite often will break though normal use and it's unfair for that person who happens to be using it at the time it breaks.

I absolutely agree. The suggestion (which I agree with) is to change the wording to add "If you break any equipment through misuse or improper use"
 

It's the outright banning I have an issue with, though I am happy with the grievance procedure to be applied where there is a relatively clear case of equipment misuse (as determined by the maintainers) and the person in question refuses to pay for (or source) a replacement within say a month.

Out of interest, why are you not in favour of outright banning? If someone wrecks an expensive bit of kit, and refuses to pay, why would you want the person around any longer? Or, to put it another way, how much stuff are we allowed to smash up before being banned? 

Or to put it another way, the grievance is not for breaking the kit, it's for not paying to replace it. Continuing to not pay after warnings should rack up more warnings, just like continuing to sleep in the space after a warning will rack up more warnings. Persistent refusal to replace the kit (much like persistent sleeping) should result in a ban.

And yeah, enforcement will be difficult.

Indeed! This isn't a panacea which will magically prevent bad members from existing. However it does provide an obvious and formalised mechanism for getting rid of people who are bad for the community in this particular aspect. I believe that mechanism is missing or not clear enough under the current rules.

-Ed

 

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 09:58:19 UTC+1, deanforbes wrote:

Most of the power and hand tools I had as an apprentice over 30 years ago I still have and still work  (what I don't have I lost due to a break-in) I would suggest they have had thousands of hours use and that includes kit I have bought in the last 5 to 10 years (which I don't believe is the case for hackspace kit) yet it fails due to wear and tear :-) 

is it normal use or the  "accepted hackspace burn rate" for most tools, is what I would muse over

I agree with Dean on this one. Yes, if you buy cheap tools and use them heavily then they will wear out. However quality tools last a long time under even heavy use. The massive burn rate of good tools at the hackspace is due to abuse and misuse.

I think that currently there is some weird unspoken rule or part of the culture that it's OK for tools to break all the time. It's not OK and absolutely should not be part of the culture

-Ed




 

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 10:52:38 UTC+1, chrisbob12 wrote:

Generally agree that it would be very hard to implement and the proposed rule misses the distinction between breakage due to accumulated wear/abuse and acts of acute muppetry.

It is a problematic situation, and it would be productive to be able to say what the ideal future state would look like, before we identify hard and fast controls.

Please see the change to the rule which specifies abuse/misuse. Do you find that OK?
 

My two ha'porth: there seem to be four cases requiring different treatments for breakages, not all of which would be rules.
1 AC-noded equipment.
2 Personal loans.
3 Protected kit. Like Pl(a)ywood.
4 Uncontrolled kit.

Why should these be different cases?

-Ed


 

[Aden]

Beginers are going to break things, it's how people learn. People pay membership fees and this should be enough to cover breakages. Go find a professional machine shop if you don't want to be around people trying to learn.

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 12:12:59 UTC+1, PaddyD wrote:

My 2p:

It is covered by common sense and decency, and if that fails there are rules 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all about safety, not breaking kit through misuse that isn't safe.

I don't think we need any more specific ones nor the lawyering they could provoke.

Given the general state of the tools and the astonishingly high burn rate, I disagree that what we have is sufficient. I'd also add that knowing that known tool-smashers are still around, I've been almost 100% put off ever loaning or donating tools to the space now. How many other people have been silently put off?

-Ed


 

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:02:23 UTC+1, ad...@aden.org.uk wrote:

Beginers are going to break things, it's how people learn. People pay membership fees and this should be enough to cover breakages. Go find a professional machine shop if you don't want to be around people trying to learn.

I only award you a 3/10 for this one. It's not your finest work.

-Ed


 

[David Murphy]

If you're a professional then you spend a few months as a novice fumbling round, damage a few tools and then learn better and eventually you can go decade without quality tools breaking.

I know very few professionals who, with a straight face can say they've never ever broken a tool through stupid mistakes.

The hackspace has something like 20 to 40 new novices through the door every month.
If the average person makes a novice mistake just once then we'd expect >20 tools seriously damaged per month.

Happily we seem to have an attrition rate somewhat lower than this.

Do we want to penalize all these people or just the Muppets who ignore you when you say "no, don't use that chisel as a crowbar"?

Also, do we want to take into account the ability to pay?
Some members have very little cash and would effectively suffer an automatic ban if they tripped while carrying a £100 drill on account of not being able to come up with 100 quid.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Mr Ed <edward...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Mr Ed]

On Tuesday, 10 May 2016 15:13:35 UTC+1, David wrote:

If you're a professional then you spend a few months as a novice fumbling round, damage a few tools and then learn better and eventually you can go decade without quality tools breaking.

Yes, but you are mixing up two very different things. Fouling up is normal. Smashing up someone else's stuff and not replacing it is incredibly rude, novice or not.
 

I know very few professionals who, with a straight face can say they've never ever broken a tool through stupid mistakes.

I've broken tools. I've even broken tools lent to be by other people. Do you know what I did when that happened? I ordered a replacement for next-day delivery. However, I have never broken what I would class as an expensive tool like a lathe chuck or a router table.
 

The hackspace has something like 20 to 40 new novices through the door every month.

Yes, but do we want the kind of community who welcomes and nurtures novices or the kind of community where wanton destruction is the norm and normal social codes like paying for things you break are entirely absent?
 

If the average person makes a novice mistake just once then we'd expect >20 tools seriously damaged per month.

Happily we seem to have an attrition rate somewhat lower than this.

Are you sure about that? The hand tools are in a constant state of flux and degradation.

 

Do we want to penalize all these people or just the Muppets who ignore you when you say "no, don't use that chisel as a crowbar"?

How on earth is it penalizing people expecting to fix something they broke? It's just common decency on their part.

And it's a GREAT way to learn. You make an expensive mistake, you don't make it again.
 

Also, do we want to take into account the ability to pay?

I'm happy with the "pay what you want" membership fee so members who pay more than the minimum (I do) effectively subsidise membership for those who couldn't afford it otherwise. What I'm not happy about is subsidising other people's tool smashing habits.

Some members have very little cash and would effectively suffer an automatic ban if they tripped while carrying a £100 drill on account of not being able to come up with 100 quid.

See the part "may" in the rule, not "will". As always some discretion is required.

-Ed


 

[Chris Brasted]

Please see the change to the rule which specifies abuse/misuse. Do you find that OK?

Yes, that provides more clarity.

Why should these be different cases?

Because we screen users for two of them and not for the other two; you could aggregate it down to two groups: controlled and uncontrolled. I suppose I was thinking more about preventative measures: don't let inappropriate users play with the kit in the first place.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/london-hack-space/q1oDIHmaZD8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[deanforbes]

I actually disagree that breaking things is "how you learn"

I believe there is no excuse even for a beginner to break anything - proceed with caution, if it screams or shudders stop 

a beginner may use more consumables as they may be heavy handed but thats about it 

As apprentices we had to pay for all breakages it is remarkable how few there were (even 1.5mm drill bits surprisingly long) 

On Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:53:17 UTC+1, Mr Ed wrote: