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

Look SEF I do not doubt what you are saying; it is just that as we agreed to terms and conditions which effectivly say that we can be banned at any time for any reason, any ban cannot therefore be defamatory. That is just my opinion but I am not a lawyer and therefore cannot know that for sure.

Is there not such a thing as a resposibility to the leaders for social grace?

-- DoctorMO --

This is a personal response, and not an invitation to discussion either.

" HVL has persisted in finding ways to transform statements by supporters into arguments against that support while professing, on the surface, to be in support of restoration."

Not paying attention, as usual, it seems.

F136338?thread=310231&skip=2&show=1

I quite categorically stated, and have repeated several times, that I think the sensible course of action is to leave the account closed, and for Symphony to simply open another. It takes, shall we say, a certain sort of mind to interpret that as "in support of restoration".

"HVL (and other accounts that might well be run by or for him judging by their style, content, vocabulary, and apparent intent and which he may or may not be aware of participating in)"



To even suggest that I may be running accounts I am not aware of is more than a little sad, and I tend to think says more about the sort of person who could come up with that suggestion than it does about the person being talked about. Only one person has posted here to my knowledge whose control over their own actions is so damaged that they seriously suggested that they were capable of operating an account without being wholly aware of it or even their own identity as the operator. No prizes for guessing who ThAT was.

For the record, I have two accounts other than this one which might reasonably be described as "active". One I haven't used for over a week, the other for over three weeks. I have not used either of those other accounts in relation to this discussion.

I am rather intrigued to know what "other accounts" match my own in "style, content, vocabulary" etc. and are therefore suspected of being, in some sense, me, or at the very least run for me if not by me.

"I will not speculate why HVL ... seems to feel this *his* responsibility, but I will observe that he seems to have a personal interest here that has little to do with Symphony's situation."

I feel it is my responsibility to record my opinion. That's what these threads are for. I do have a personal interest, and it goes to the root of Symphony's situation. I like(d) this site. I'd like to see it run well. When it is run well, it is an excellent piece of work to which I'm proud to have contributed. When it is run badly, I feel uncomfortable being associated with it. Therefore if I see something being done badly, I tend to stick my oar in.

I would further observe that I did not know Symphony, I did not initially publicise her banishment, I didn't link to the initial discussion thread from active "Ask h2g2" threads, I did not author the faux-Transgressions Procedure page and I did not solicit opinions. All these things were done by other people, and I don't see those people being accused of "harrasment" (sic).

"I, who have no reason to expect him to ever listen to me, take this opportunity to call this behavior to his attention and ask him to stop this harrasment."

I will immediately stop "this harrasment" if anyone can tell me who exactly I'm harassing. I'm honestly baffled at the accusation, if not particularly surprised given its source.

"This is a place of opinion and his 'logic' is not required"

Pardon me for attempting to justify my position. I didn't realise I'd fallen in amongst Creationists...

"... and, I suspect, is not wanted by anyone posting here."

Obviously it's not wanted by *you*, B., but then it never is. But if my opinion was unwanted, I'm honestly interested why O. (fka NBY) would provide me and others in a thread I had started with a link to the original conversation thread on Mistdancer's space. I'm also baffled, if my opinion is unwanted, why O would start up this space and this thread specifically to ask for people's opinions. I'm further baffled why, if my opinion is so very unwelcome, you're the very first person to suggest as much.

But hey, I'm prepared to believe, as you seem to, that you, personally, represent all of everyone's opinion's on this thread, and quietly withdraw my support for Symphony's right to an account here.

Way to go at alienating people on your side, big man.

H.

I think it is pretty evident that all the people who are contributing to this thread care about the outcome.

"care about the outcome"

I'm not sure that is evident. Did HVL say he cared about the outcome at all? Jodan didn't even seem to be able to make up his mind whether or not he was voting.

Anyhow, I'll try once more to explain about banning:

1. Just because the BBC or the staff say something, that doesn't make it true. HVL has already pointed out the email privacy issue. There are other areas of the HouseRules which are also dubious. So it is not correct to assume that what they say is actually the legal position. You have probably signed any number of disclaimers on things, eg your computer software. These say they aren't liable for any damage in order to stop people from even trying to claim. When tested in court, such companies have previously been found to be liable despite this standard disclaimer.

2. What is it that you think when you see a banned account? Is it:
(a) The staff have used their powers to randomly victimise this innocent person because they (i) had nothing much else to do or (ii) the person was even in danger of throwing the staff's "mean callous heartless exterior into sharp relief".
(b) The nice staff have protected me from this evil person.

If you answer anything other than (b) then you are probably lying to yourself. There will be a few people who recognise the possibility of the (a) options (eg if the HouseRules are taken to be true) but it will not even cross most people's minds that the staff would ban someone for something they didn't do, on little or no evidence. Hence defamation by implication.

No, I don't care a bit to be honest. Someone's leaving who I'd rather not see leaving over this, but other than that, I leave it up to you guys to bicker about.

As another example of the absurdity of taking the HouseRules to mean anyone can be banned at any time for no good reason, perhaps you would like there to be one such banning every week. The account number would have to be picked completely at random to eliminate any possible staff bias which might lead to the idea that they ever had any reason. It could be done by machine and with an independent adjudicator - possibly on one of the existing UK lottery shows. Each week a "lucky" winner would then be banned for life just to prove that there is no stigma at all attached to banning.

So, do you still think the rules are true and that you would normally believe anything other than (b)?

I belive that people are victims of the BBCs generic machinery (which the italics are bound by) I say we find a way around it. somehow, because I dout very much that italics egos on such matters could be deflated without nails and bits of wood. reason I say these two slightly difrent things in the same context is that the italics will suport the system till death (or at least as much as from what I've seen) so there not about to turn around and say 'Oh sorry we were wrong'

-- DoctorMO --

SEF:

I am afraid my reaction to such a ban is not seen in your Black/White terms. My very presence on this thread indicates that I have some issue with the way the PTB sometimes operate. However I rather feel that you read to much into your "Italics are all against SEF" nonsense and perhaps your arguments would have more credence if you didn't always have your "I am always right" attitude.

That shows you haven't been paying attention.

I didn't say the "Italics are all against SEF" but neither is it nonsense. You are the one being black and white about that. I am as specific as I can be about where the italics (and others) are wrong. Sometimes stuff gets hidden for that very reason. Anyone who is too slow won't see it. Though I suppose if someone is another sort of "slow" then they may still not see it even if it isn't hidden.

I also never said "I am always right". I'm too right for that. There have been only a couple of instances since arriving on h2g2 where I have been wrong. In those cases I apologised immediately - which is much more than almost anyone else round here has ever done, especially the staff. However, I do have a much better than average chance of being right on many things. This is not really a matter of luck though, as that makes it sound, but of judgement (intelligence and education).

The thing is you do not have a monopoly on intelligence and education; other people who come to different conclusions from you are not wrong simply by virtue of not thinking what you do.

Sorry if I snapped in my prev post but I was a little unhappy; I do not think that either options

a)malicious staff out to get people
b)holier than thou staff, who are never wrong and only help people

are correct. I prefer

c)reasonable staff who generally do a good job, but sometimes makes mistakes and do wrong things because they are human.

Therefore I generally support what they do but sometimes have cause to complain (eg this incident and the gentlemans guide to the camcorder).

I have read the off-site e-mails and feel that Symphony has been judged without basis. If tptb do not wish to correspond after receiving evidence, then where does this leave all of us?

Kaz, have you seen <./>T310233</.> (specifically post 8)?

While they seem to have done just about everything else wrong in this case so far (eg trusting an informant without evidence, failing to follow the proper procedure, failing to respond to Symphony's previous email on what evidence was required), there is still hope they may yet get it right.

correct me if i'm wrong, but there is quite a lot in between the italics removing someone on pure lark, and removing them for good reasons.

i think what happened is that someone was mistaken, or was given false information.

and anyway, amidst all this arguement, why do we care so much?

if this person turns out to be LeKZ, then they'll be banned later any way, when solid facts are available.

"someone was mistaken, or was given false information"

Which is why if the staff had showed good judgement they wouldn't have acted on a tip-off from an unreliable source, unsupported by evidence and against their own procedures etc etc. The BBC must have been through all this sort of stuff before with news stories!

Thanks SEF, I wasn't aware of that posting. I look forward to hearing something sensible to explain all of this.

The reason why we care is that this not just about whether or not Symphony should or shouldn't be banned. But also about the towers staff not following proper procedures and doing the banning "On the sly".

I worry that if the transgression procedure is not followed that this damages the site as a whole.

It won't damage the site if they only ban people who break the house rules.

This one might be an exception. I don't know.

And as I said, I don't care.

" why do we care so much?
if this person turns out to be LeKZ, then they'll be banned later any way, when solid facts are available."

A lifetime ban is the h2g2 equivalent of capital punishment. We care so much because if we must have it (and it seems we must) we'd rather it was applied fairly, and preferably AFTER solid facts are available.

Also, to be pedantic, if this person turns out to be LeKZ, then they'll not be "banned later". If it's LeKZ, they're already banned, thank you so much.

But if it's NOT LeKZ - what then?

And there's the nub of it - we care so much, or rather we SHOULD all care so much, because if it can happen to Symphony, it can happen to you, or me, or anyone.

I don't personally much like the idea that some paranoid snitch can go to the Italics and say "so-and-so sounds a bit like LeKZ", and that on that basis and little else an account can be quietly shut down and a blameless individual denied access to this publicly funded site without fanfare, explanation or evidence. It does't reflect well on the snitch, and it doesn't reflect well on the staff that pander to them and ignore their own procedures to do so.

It makes a mockery of the idea of h2g2 as a "Community". The reason this site is so "sticky" is that it's *not* just a messageboard. Instant, no-discussion bans are what you'd expect on something like a mere messageboard, and probably for that reason tend to attract the kind of people who say the sorts of things that get them banned.

h2g2 has mechanisms to deal with such people and one of the most effective is premoderation. It's a rap on the knuckles and a VERY effective way of making someone control themselves, because they know that if they don't censor themselves, all their typing is wasted and invisible behind a "this posting is hidden" notice. The kind of boorish moron who gets regularly banned from messageboards simply doesn't, usually, have the attention span to engage in h2g2 enough to be a bother, or if they do, they learn some valuable lessons in restraint.

It's a very worrying sign if the staff are now going down the route of simply banning people without using the procedures they claim on their own help pages to apply. It means they're effectively sticking two fingers up to the "Community" and saying "we're in charge, and if you don't like it you can f**k off". It's reducing h2g2 to a messageboard - and who wants that?

Losing access to a messageboard is no big deal. You simply sign up again under a different ID and carry on, until you lose interest or grow a second braincell.

Losing access to your account on h2g2 SHOULD be a real loss. It should be a loss because ideally, every user should have an investment in coming back here - entries to nurse through Peer Review, comments to make on the writing of others, poems in the Post, projects through the University, or even just friendships made and maintained. They should have a history here that they'd not like to lose. And one acknowledgement that that loss is significant is not applying it summarily and unreasonably to someone without the right of explanation or reply, ever.

The staff, however, now seem to think it better to simply cut someone off, just like that, despite all the available evidence that it's better not to, that it's better to engage, to listen, to explain.

It's a worrying indication of how little importance they attach to the idea of h2g2 and what it has become. I'm not going to go off on one about "what Douglas would have wanted", partly because that's tacky and I didn't know the man, but also because I think to a large extent what he would have wanted isn't relevant. He suggested a snowflake, and said "let's build a blizzard".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/Welcome-DNA

Well, the blizzard is here, in full effect, and has been for some time, and it can't and won't conform to the vision or expectation of any single person. Unfortunately it can be stopped in its tracks and destroyed by the actions of a very few people, if they decide they don't want a blizzard any more.

I don't want to see h2g2 reduced to a little plastic snowglobe on somebody's desk, tiny and controlled and fake in every respect.

Why do we care so much? That's my answer. Anyone else?

H.

Isn't everyone blowing it out of proportion a bit though?

Taking out one snowflake isn't going to lose the blizzard unless people treat it like this.

Uch. I hate it when I get all 'big picture'.