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

I thought the reasons for not using the transgressions procedure when an account was closed because it was believed to have been opened by someone already banned from the site were good ones.

I wish Symphony well in clearing up the mistake if a mistake has been made.

I agree with Waz and don't have the tech ability to contribute anything more useful

I'll go along with that too, although I have to admit to being confused by this part of the entry:

"The Editors may not participate in the Conversations below, although it would be nice if they did."

Does that mean 'may not', as in 'No, you may *not* do that' or as in 'Maybe they will, maybe they won't', because if it's the former (which is how I took it on first read-through), the sentence is ambiguous


Scout

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/A787098
Especially:
"It's worth noting that the procedure is always implemented, even in apparently open-and-shot cases. " (sic)
and:
"The scheme has now been implemented across all DNA sites"
This should, if it's got pretensions to accuracy, read "except the site that originated it, h2g2."
Also, there should have been an announcement on the Announcements page that the Transgressions Procedure was being abandoned or modified.
I didn't see any such announcement.
H.

Researchers' reactions to these cases remind me of the way people talk about big scandalous trials ala OJ Simpson, the Jon-Benet Ramsey murder, Scott Peterson, etc. People who don't know anything about the situation beyond what they've heard in a five minute tv news report feel qualified to judge whether someone's guilty, because they've formed a gut reaction.

Realistically, most h2g2 researchers will never know enough about these situations first-hand to adequately judge whether editorial decisions are fair or not. Even witnesses like those quoted in the page above this conversation are dubious, because these are people we've never met that we may know nothing about. Witness testimony is only as strong as the witness, and it's not like we can run a background check or look up someone's social security number, or whatever the equivalent might be in UK or Bali or NZ.

Most of the expressions about whether these people should stay or go are just rehashed arguments of whether you have faith in the Editors or not.

"Open and shot case" Well there's no way back from one those!

Point taken H. What I thought is not what the rules say. I was under the impression that at the end of the last round of closing accounts on the basis that they'd been opened by a banned researcher, there was discussion about, and agreement on, not going through the character witnessing process for such cases.

"Most of the expressions about whether these people should stay or go are just rehashed arguments of whether you have faith in the Editors or not." Agreed. But I thought the witness procedure worked very positively in Luke Skywalker's case. Sometimes it's appropriate and used properly, sometimes not.
Waz

There's also the self-censorship issue.

Probably well over 100,000 people have signed on as researchers
here, and then self-censored themselves by never being heard
from again. If it's hard to get people to return when you *want*
them to return, think what an obstacle it would be to convince
an unfairly banned researcher to keep fighting for reinstatement.
Some people, even if they are inncocent, might say it's too
much trouble and go where they're wanted.