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

Post comments supporting the restoration of researcher Symphony's account here.

Assuming all of this is true, then you've got my vote. If it isn't, then obviously they should be.

Why doesn't Jim request the IP address logs?

If there is *no* proof that she's LeKZ, Symphony's account is to be restored.

I don't think that this conclusion is disputed.

I cannot say anything about hir character as I never met her.

Wouldn't looking up the IP addresses basically solve all of this? It's a moderate price to pay

I don't know Symphony, although I was mildly interested in the account when I randomly came across it long before this latest fiasco. It didn't seem to be doing very much then either though. Perhaps I should have bothered to say hello at that point.

I also don't know Mistdancer. This could be taken as a negative thing but it's really more of a positive one. I've never seen them do anything wrong or be dishonest that I could tell.

I *do* know something about the italics. They tend to take the word of malicious, dishonest and ignorant informants over that of well educated and honest people. They are frequently dishonest themselves, eg the recent EdPol issue another previous instance of lying about doing anything which might qualify as investigating. That was in a situation where I already knew the truth, unlike this one. However, the pattern of behaviour in this case does seem remarkably similar. Given that the account did nothing wrong, the only "evidence" has to have been the word of someone and, if Symphony is in the UK and not LeKZ, then they must have been lying about investigating too or they would have found this out. That leaves them calling reading the informant's email and looking at a couple of Symphony's posts "investigating" - which I regard as a dishonest use of the word.

So at the moment, for me, Mistdancer has a whole lot more credibility than the italics and I vote that Symphony be unbanned. This is more about justice and retraction of defamation of character (ie italics declaring Symphony an unsuitable person by their actions) than utility though, since Symphony does not appear to have used the account much.

It's not about credibility, SEF. And I think your 'vote' is just dumb, for a number of reasons, mostly that it's an opinion and not factual.

Let's let them find out. I don't see how a discussion about personal opinions is relevant to fact.

That makes your vote even more ridiculous, Jodan, since you have no valid reasoning at all. At least Tube "voted" (stated the obvious) in both places because of lack of personal knowledge.

I, on the other hand, do have good reason to doubt the veracity and actions of the italics, which leaves Symphony/Mistdancer's zero rating as higher than the staff's negative one.

I'm not placing a 'vote', SEF

And we aren't voting. That's like voting for who you would like to win a football game. It isn't going to affect the outcome

Jodan (post 2): "Assuming all of this is true, then you've got my vote."
Jodan (post 8): "I'm not placing a 'vote'"

Elapsed time: approx 3 hours.
Memory: approx that of a goldfish (but travelling near light speed or on the edge of a black hole)



Getting back to the issue, I actually agree with most of HVL's points on the other thread just as we were largely in agreement in Mistdancer's journal (despite appearances to the contrary). The main difference is that I can see how Symphony might want their good name restored, whereas HVL (who is already a multiple account holder) doesn't seem to give any weight to that idea.

Oh.

Pah.

hmmmm.....



this is tricky.


i think it is time to abandone fact entirely. the internet does not run on fact. information can, and does, change at the will of the owner of that information, twisting and turning realistic truth until nothing is impossible and nothing is verifiable. straight out of 1984....

i've read all the information on arpeggio, and i've decided that it is impossible to detirmine at this point with the current "fact".

therefore, i'm giving symphony the benifit of the doubt.



jodan, SEF, play nice!

Re-reading my post 5, I find I somehow managed to overtype another bit which I didn't notice (as opposed to all the ones which I did notice and correct). I'm beginning to think I should remove or otherwise disable the Insert key on my keyboard as this is happening too often.

Anyhow, there were actually 2 separate examples of previous italic dishonesty being cited and it should have read: "eg the recent EdPol issue *and* another previous instance of lying about doing anything which might qualify as investigating."

"The main difference is that I can see how Symphony might want their good name restored, whereas HVL (who is already a multiple account holder) doesn't seem to give any weight to that idea."

Not entirely sure why it's relevant that I have several accounts, but then I'm not really pay 100% attention, so that's maybe not surprising.

Anyhoo, I don't give weight to the idea of "restoring good name", because I don't see how Symphony's name has been impugned. So the staff think the account is being run by LeKZ? There are two possibilities:

1. The account IS being run by LeKZ (who may be quite capable of faking IP headers, and has recently posted me emails from .co.uk domains, the headers of which I didn't bother to check), in which case Symphony doesn't exist, or does exist, created the account and handed it over to LeKZ, or whatever. In any such or similar case, the ban is justified and Symphony has no cause to complain because any damage to her name is from her own actions. [I personally regard this as unlikely]

OR:

2. The account is not and never has been run by LeKZ. Symphony isn't her, and hasn't allowed her access to the account. The staff have therefore made a mistake, which makes the staff look stupid and Symphony look unfortunate. [I regard this as much more likely, and possibly deliberate]

In either case, however, the "accusation" of "being LeKZ" doesn't sound like cause for complaint, the very much more so because it appears Symphony and LeKZ are friends. Since when is being mistaken for one of your friends a stain on your character or reputation?

You'd have to have a pretty low opinion of a person if you thought the mere idea of someone thinking you were them was a slight on your character.

I'm not exactly LeKZ's biggest fan, but if (in some parallel universe) I managed to get my account summarily shut down without recourse to the trangressions procedure because I was mistaken for her I would be

(a) highly amused
(b) perversely slightly flattered and
(c) posting again inside five minutes, from an identically named account, with an identical personal space

I certainly wouldn't waste time trying to prove my identity before opening another account. If the staff demonstrate (as they have) that they have no use for their own procedures (i.e. the transgressions process), they certainly can't expect me to cooperate.

And if they shut down my new space, I'd open another. And another. And every new account the staff forced me to open would generate a new email to Ashley Highfield's office cc'ing the Daily Mail, demanding to know why a licence-fee paying member of the public was being harassed by the staff of, and denied access to, a BBC website.

That's what I'd do. That's what Symphony *could* do.



I said "don't restore", in the other thread, because it is indisputably quicker and simpler for Symphony to simply start another account - something she, as a non-banned member of the public who is not LeKZ, is perfectly at liberty to do if she really wants to. The fact that she hasn't, combined with other factors, strongly suggests to me that she simply doesn't want to.

H.

Yes, I think its obvious what *you* would do from previous examples of merely being on pre-mod. However, not everyone wants to have multiple accounts.

It is also not a question of what Symphony's opinion of LeKZ is, but what the generally perceived opinion is. LeKZ is one of very few people to be banned. This is supposed to require conduct which is both completely unacceptable and far worse than everyone else's. That is the obvious implication of being banned. So the defamation is by this implication rather than by any fact of LeKZ being a bad person.

NB If the person's behaviour is not obviously far worse then that of other non-banned people then the whole thing is blatantly unfair and prone to favouritism and discrimination. I happen to believe that applies generally anyway on the available evidence.

PS We don't actually know that Symphony *hasn't* already quietly opened a new account. That would necessarily not be declared by friends if it had occurred. It is a different approach from the obvious repetition of personal space and name which you seem to favour though. Although I haven't actually looked for any more "Symphony"s (distant cries of "I'm Symphony", "No, I'm Symphony and so's my wife!").

"However, not everyone wants to have multiple accounts."

I'm not suggesting she has multiple accounts. I'm suggesting one, at a time.

Defamation by implication? This rather requires that you care what other people think. Most people who sue for slander or libel are people who are already in the public eye, and therefore to whom a reputation is valuable because they depend on their public profile for their income. However, they have generally to show not only that the allegations are untrue, but also that the characterisation of them has shown them in an unfavourable light and has negatively impacted on the opinion a reasonable person would have of them. For instance, Elton John would have a hard time convincing a court I'd libelled him, even if I'm lying in a claim that he gives 90% of his income to AIDS charities.

Gillian Taylforth famously and expensively failed in her libel action against The Sun newspaper which had portrayed her as, shall we say, a bit of a slapper, partly because her public behaviour backed up that image (I recall part of the evidence was video footage of her simulating oral sex with a large sausage at a party). The Sun's defence was that they hadn't damaged her reputation, because she was already known to be... fun-loving, shall we say. The court agreed, and Ms. Taylforth was considerably out of pocket as a result.



Has Symphony's reputation been damaged by the accusation of being LeKZ? I don't think so - not in my eyes at least. Quite apart from anything else, did Symphony even HAVE a reputation to speak of before she was banned? I'd not had anything to do with her, and she wasn't the site's most visible or vocal member or anything (one of the many reasons why I didn't think she was LeKZ...). She didn't post much in Askh2g2, she'd written nothing for the Post or Peer Review, hadn't commented on any entries there as far as I know, hadn't engaged in any talking points. Her engagement here, and hence any "reputation", was fairly minimal.

Would *anyone's* reputation suffer by the accusation of being LeKZ? I don't think so. The problem is (for those going down the route of "defamation") that in order to appear to be LeKZ, one must by definition be voluble, outspoken, literate, knowledgable, articulate, persistent, and generally fairly interesting. A reasonable person who stopped to think even for a second wouldn't regard being accused of being LeKZ as something that could be called defamatory.

The only possible negative connotation would be the implicit accusation that you are lying about who you are - but that is neither specific to LeKZ (several other people have been banned), nor particularly difficult to sort out, if you care to.

H.

You said "A reasonable person who stopped to think even for a second" but I said "what the generally perceived opinion is". We are not talking about the same people. You are talking about the intelligent, well-educated and erudite minority who have the ability to comprehend and reason for themselves and are not afraid to use it. I was talking about the majority of humans and therefore probably h2g2 users, since no site demographics have been shown which would shift the local majority in the necessary direction for them not to simply assume that being banned means someone was very bad indeed and much worse than everyone else.

PS One could of course apply your "This rather requires that you care what other people think." selectively to eliminate the opinions of all those who are not erudite.

It has got to the point where it's a principle at stake here. Symphony may well be so bruised by their treatment here that they don't feel that they can handle another account whereby they can be so open about their personalities. However, my main concern is the method by which the account has been closed. No discussion, no procedure followed, just, so I believe, a complaint by fellow researchers and Wham Bam Thank You Ma'am, account closed.

On what grounds? they thought it was the return of a banned researcher. At present, I understand that a question has been asked as to what constitutes proof of identity. Has an answer been received?

OK, Symphony is (we are informed) in the UK. Symphony had/has an account, a password, a BBC identity, perhaps something known only to them and discoverable by the PTB?

I have reason to believe that Symphony lives in my vicinity +/-50 miles. I am willing to meet up with Symphony, have them tell me a password/previously agreed statement, whatever & pass this onto the PTB. If I am mistaken as the their whereabouts, perhaps someone else in the UK in their vicinity would be prepared to do the same.

I'm truly sorry that it has come to this. I had hoped that this could have been discussed by all, researchers and italics in a calm, cool manner, and I sincerely hope that is hasn't all come down to a matter of 'face'