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

Post comments opposing restoring researcher Symphony's account here.

*If* there is proof that she is LeKZ, Symphony's to be banned.

I don't think that this conclusion is disputed.

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

"*If* there is proof that she is LeKZ, Symphony's to be banned."

Pedantic but crucial technical point - it doesn't quite work like that, Tube.

The correct, and quite different formulation, is -

If there is NO proof that she is NOT LeKZ, Symphony's to REMAIN banned.

The Quincy/Satyadoodaa event about 18 months ago demonstrated the difficulties inherent in trying to prove that an account is being operated by a particular person, particularly if the person(s) concerned is uncooperative and even more so if they are tech-savvy.

That's why the principle on h2g2 has, unfortunately, had to be set for technological reasons to "guilty until proven innocent".



My own opinion has been expressed before, but I'll state it here again, for the record:

1. The transgressions procedure should have applied - this would then all have been over in the space of seven days instead of dragging boringly on and on. That's what the procedure was FOR, among other things, in case anyone has forgotten.

2. IF the staff are not satisfied with the proof of Symphony's non-LeKZness, the account should remain closed. Them's the rules, if you don't like them you don't have to use the site.

3. IF Symphony isn't LeKZ, she's not a banned person, so there's absolutely no reason, morally or in the rules of the site, why she shouldn't simply start another account, use the same name, copy the GuideML from her old homepage, resubscribe to all her old conversations, and continue using the site as before. Indeed, there's absolutely no reason for her not to have already done so.

Of course, the staff could close that account too, which would be mildly inconvenient for about three minutes until she could open another. The staff could close that, too - but then they'd be getting dangerously close to actionable harassment and discrimination, I think. Shutting her account down the first time is merely inconveniencing her. *Repeatedly* preventing a (licence-fee-paying?) UK resident member of the public from using a BBC site on the grounds she's someone else...? Probably not a really good idea.

Of course, this also requires that Symphony actively WANTS an h2g2 account. On the incredibly sparse evidence available to me, she doesn't seem to really want or need one. Apart from anything else, if she did, why hasn't she simply opened another already?

Summary:

Don't restore the account. If Symphony wants to use the site, it is the work of two minutes to start a new account, and probably five more minutes to copy her old page to the point where she can continue as if nothing has happened. Doing that would actually be easier and quicker than going to the bother of trying to prove her identity to the staff.

Her continued absence merely suggests more strongly each day that she doesn't want an account here - she just wants to be the subject of conversation here.

"There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."

So leave the account closed. It's what Symphony appears to want...

H.

I rather agree with most of HVL conclusions; namely that it does not appear that Symphony has been particularly proactive it restoring their own account. Therefore I agree it follows that they do not seem to particularly desire one.

Ferretbadger, while that may be true, if they desire one at all they don't deserve to have it pulled under a false premise. Just because they might be too disinterested / shy / incapable to make a huge fuss with the Italics shouldn't mean their account gets wrongly deleted.

Point taken and understood; however I said before that it cannot be too difficult for someone to prove that they are not LeKZ (espicially given that they are apparantly on different continents) and therefore the apparant lack of action on the part of Symphony makes it look to me that they either

a)Dont care

or

b)Cannot prove they are not LeKZ

Perhaps these are unfair conclusions but still that is what I think.

But whether or not they care, it's important to get it right this time, as it sets a precident for future cases.

Point of interest?: Symphony emailed proof of their identity/location to the italics on Thursday. A read-receipt was received back on Friday morning. Nothing since.

The emails are now up on the website linked to on the main page.

Oh, and another point : Symphony could open as many accounts as they wanted. If they used the same name, and didn't hide who they were, those accounts would also be banned/closed.

Now, considering that LeKZ are known to have opened 5 accounts subsequent to the banning of the Arpeggio account (and are suspected [not proven, as far as I'm concerned] to have been behind 2 others), wouldn't Symphony doing that be pointed to as "LeKZ-like behaviour"? Surely that's the last thing they should be doing?

"Symphony could open as many accounts as they wanted. If they used the same name, and didn't hide who they were, those accounts would also be banned/closed."

And your evidence for this is...?

Until it's tried, I don't know that would happen, and neither do you.

And as I've said several times - if those accounts WERE repeatedly suspended for no other reason than that someone has complained that they think Symphony is LeKZ, Symphony should begin complaining IMMEDIATELY to the highest levels of BBCi, starting with Mr. Ashley Highfield, and cc'ing any of the tabloid press one thinks might be interested in another way to bash the BBC. "Beeb website staff discriminate against disabled" - I can see it now.

A headline like that would be rather bad at any time, but it boggles the mind that the staff would even consider putting themselves in this position right now... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3173909.stm

One rather botched and mishandled account closure I would suggest is something we could all safely ignore as mere incompetence - second and subsequent ones would smack of victimisation.

"LeKZ are known to have opened 5 accounts ...and ...2 others), wouldn't Symphony doing that be pointed to as "LeKZ-like behaviour"?"

Not at all.

"LeKZ-like behaviour" is a person who knows full-well they are personally banned from the site opening an account deliberately despite that ban, and then lying about it and trying to conceal who they are (and failing). It is further the opening of more than one account at a time - something I'm not suggesting.

"Hoovooloo-like behaviour" such as I'm suggesting, by contrast, would be a blameless UK resident who has rather inconveniently lost access to a website they probably pay a licence fee to help fund, and who has broken no rules of that site at all, regaining access to it and making no secret of it.

The contrast is striking. There's no defense for the first. There's no NEED to defend the second, as it's perfectly reasonable.

Symphony, if they're who and where they say they are, has broken no rules. They've irritatingly lost access to one account here, true - but I would tend to view that, at this stage, as an annoying technical glitch, and if it were me I'd probably rejoin and start a thread on the "Bug reporting" page saying "Hey, guess what? There's a bug in the site - if some moron thinks you sound like someone else, your account stops working! Can you fix this bug? It suXXORs!", or similar.

H.

"if it were me I'd probably rejoin and start a thread on the "Bug reporting" page saying "Hey, guess what? There's a bug in the site - if some moron thinks you sound like someone else, your account stops working! Can you fix this bug? It suXXORs!", or similar."

A thought just occurred to me - perhaps closing an account is a one-way switch, and the Italics don't currently have the tools to turn a "banned" account back on... That would explain thye delay...

(thye = the )

We seem to be getting into urban legend territory here.

Did Symphony live in the same house as Arpeggio, but with
different phone lines? If so, and if Arpeggio lives in
Colorado but Symphony lives in the U.K., isn't that the
largest (or at least longest) house in the world?
Did Symphony move to the U.K. so as not to be in the same
house? Would it help if Symphony moved to another planet?
Another galaxy? What could be done to establish enough
distance, then?

Are all the researchers in Arpeggio's home town going to
have to furnish proof that Arpeggio never dropped in on them
and typed a couple words on their computers? How would anyone
prove it?

"perhaps closing an account is a one-way switch"

I think I've seen the disproof of this one in the backlog I've been checking, Peet.

U198801 (formerly called Luke Skywalker) went through the transgressions procedure on A835445, which would have included being technologically banned for the duration. Yet it was decided not to ban him for life, which would have led to the account being unbanned technologically again.