h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Look nice, just a few thoughts:

1. This sounds like the ban will be because of a single occurance, I belive normally only a chain of occurences will lead to this and it should be obvious so that new researchers that encounter this description of the process won't be intimidated about the house rules. I personally broke them a couple of time (posting links or defermatory content about some news broadcasting network and stuff.

2. Are you going to tell the rest of the reset of the researchers about any e-mails you get from the ban candidate and about their content?

3. "The Editors may also make an announcement on the Community Soapbox, if appropriate." - I think it should ALWAYS be posted because otherwise noone will be there to post to the threads.

4. If you decide to reactivate, the additional "punishment ban" look a bit childish to me, but that is just me, and I was never punished as a kid with things like grounding and this sort of punishment. So I don't belive in it and maybe I don't count...



Dancer

"1. This sounds like the ban will be because of a single occurance, I belive normally only a chain of occurences will lead to this and it should be obvious so that new researchers that encounter this description of the process won't be intimidated about the house rules. I personally broke them a couple of time (posting links or defermatory content about some news broadcasting network and stuff."

Normally a single event will trigger things off, so in a sense it *is* all because of a single occurrence... just one that comes after a series of others! We've just added a new Transgressions section to the House Rules which explains the stages that bans go through, so we'll add a link to this process to point it out.

BTW, it's *very* unlikely that breaking a moderation rule will get you anything except a standard moderation email, or possibly a warning if you persist against specific Editorial requests. To get banned, you really have to try hard!

"2. Are you going to tell the rest of the reset of the researchers about any e-mails you get from the ban candidate and about their content?"

We can't; they are confidential. However we can mention that we received email from them, but that (for example) they didn't sway our decision. We'd treat their email like any other private communications on the subject; we'd mention their existence, but we're not allowed to spill their contents.

"3. "The Editors may also make an announcement on the Community Soapbox, if appropriate." - I think it should ALWAYS be posted because otherwise noone will be there to post to the threads."

This was discussed in detail in the Forum off Hoovooloo's oiginal version, and the consensus was that we would announce it at our discretion. We refer you there for the reasons.

"4. If you decide to reactivate, the additional "punishment ban" look a bit childish to me, but that is just me, and I was never punished as a kid with things like grounding and this sort of punishment. So I don't belive in it and maybe I don't count..."

It depends; if they have already been banned for an offence for a month (according to the House Rules) and then repeat the same offence, *but* there is a decent mitigating circumstance (perhaps they just got their divorce through and posted without thinking) then it might be best to change the lifetime ban to another month's suspension. As always, it's a part of the decision process, but we think it's important for us to have the choice, rather than having to choose between life or just the week's remand. It's in the interests of the Researcher, if you think about it; the more choice we have, the less likely we are to ban for life.

All is answered, thanks


Dancer

I like it. It adds the degree of clarity the process has been lacking to date.