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

>Oh and btw, LW *does break the House Rules. That's why he was on extended premod for so long.<

And unless I'm mistaken he's now *off* pre-mod, and along with all others who have ever been subjected to that is presumed to have done his time and paid his debt to society.Added to which, I've seen several people posting with much wailing and nashing of teeth that he *doesn't* break the house rules, and that this is the cause of distress and anxiety.

>I'm unsubbing for a while<

Careful you don't trip over your petticoats.

Well, how about a system where if a certain number (say, 25) of Researchers are able to give a proper grievance against another Researcher (and I mean PROPER grievances, not just saying "he's a w*nker and I don't like him"), that researcher is then put through a variant of the transgressions procedure (which, for example, could have the same penalties but for shorter time periods, but never result in a lifetime ban as it would be more short-sharp-shock than "sending them to the Gulags")

Look, if 'being an annoying little tit' were against the house rules, then there's plenty of long-time Researchers that would've been banned at various points over the past few years. Myself included, probably.

Put it this way: Isn't there some boring, boring old fart in your local? One that's always at the end of the bar, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting customers and bore them with indepth details of their boring life? And has the Landlord barred him?

No, thought not.

Because that's still mob rule really, Mr. D. And what's classed as a 'proper grievance'? 'He called me a rude name'? Well, that's against the House Rules anyway.

>>Careful you don't trip over your petticoats<<

Ah. I see. Feel free to ignore my last then. I thought initially you were here to help sort this out, rather than just stirring.

There is no need to change the system as the system works. The problem here is that people haven't used the complaints system properly, or even at all in some cases, and then whinge because they aren't getting their own way.

<>

Well, I've yet to see any better ideas.

<>

That would have to be decided but things which fall outside the House Rules but are still highly undesirable (general hostility, crying wolf, etc.) would be the best bet.

You miss the point. This whole situation has blown up because people *always* feel it necessaary to announce 'I'm leaving' before sweping out the door of this site. Same with unsubbing.

Just do it, and stop trying to agrandise the action by the self-important announcing of it. If people care where you've gone and why, they'll ask. If a few more people stopped treating this site like some form of bad Victorian melodrama we'd all be a damn sight happier, I'd suggest.

Kerr, I think the point was made a couple of years back about another researcher that being a stupid is not against the house rules.

>>The problem here is that people haven't used the complaints system properly<<

That's certainly true. I can see why it wouldn't be a good idea to advertise the need to appeal moderation decisions if you want TPTB to see them ... but, had I known that earlier, I'd certainly have made use of it.

I appealed a moderation decision once (not one about LW before anyone asks), and I *still* had to e-mail TPTB to get something done about it.

>>You miss the point. This whole situation has blown up because people *always* feel it necessaary to announce 'I'm leaving' before sweping out the door of this site. Same with unsubbing<<

Fair enough - and a fair point too - but you could have said that instead. My point is that there's enough bad feeling round here already: from what I've seen on site you're a reasonable man and I know that Kea's motives are good, that she's genuinely concerned about something and trying to discuss it rationally.

Can we just have a bit of that sort of 'benefit of the doubt'?

>As for 'witch hunt' - I've seen a few people suggesting that because he's not on site at the moment, then we shouldn't be talking about this. Actually, I feel it's useful to get as much talking done while he isn't here so as not to cause him distress (believe me, he doesn't read backlog).<

So it's ok he doesn't read the backlog and we can say whatever we like. I fail to see how this is a good thing. Just sounds like picking on the loneliest kid in the playground and agreeing to trip him up when he comes out from the bogs is what it sounds like to me.

Just another very unsubtle example of social exclusion where we all pretend to know better then Wolfden what would hurt and upset him.

Some conversations have gone on at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F615?thread=1360342 . I expect that any useful input would be just as welcome there.

BureauGris said:
"There is no need to change the system as the system works. The problem here is that people haven't used the complaints system properly, or even at all in some cases, and then whinge because they aren't getting their own way."

I'm not convinced about this--I think the whole affair has shown a bit of a gap in the House Rules, where behaviour that is technically within the rules can still disrupt sections of the site. Was it Jimster earlier who raised the idea of specifically including "anti-social behaviour" along with flooding and spamming, as against the house rules? I wonder about this--on the one hand, it might be a way to prevent people disrupting threads that others enjoy, but on the other hand it might end up as a "we don't want you in our gang!" kind of social exclusion.

I haven't been personally affected this time around, since I rarely look at Ask or Chat, but I can remember getting quite frustrated when for a long period what looked like a load of new contributions to Forum threads was just one poster bookmarking her place in them. That particular irritation was within the rules, and still managed to put me off checking my conversation list, so I can see how the nuisance value can be multiplied a hundredfold when it comes to a prolific poster.

Azara

First law of mediation:

Just because they are wrong, doesn't make you right.

I'm surprised no one has drawn the obvious analogy between the LW situation, and another very well known situation and similar situation which happened within the last year (and resulted in 2 bannings).

Can't we learn anything from the 1st to apply to the 2nd? How about the data provided in total?



From the descriptions posted here - by both sides of the argument - this sounds strikingly like the Della Wars/Dirty Angles affair. It seems clear to me that the cure used in that case worked- 2 researchers were banned, and there was outcry, which rapidly died out, and things rapidly got better.


--
So why is it so hard to recognize that *both* groups committed fouls, and need a time out? Beatifying LW (as is being done here) gets us as far as "witch hunting" him. Draw the line in the middle between the extremes and solve the problem. The polarization is really the problem.

>>The polarization is really the problem<<

Beatifying LW? Who has done that? I don't recall anyone saying he isn't irriating

I was about to ask the same question, FK. I'd be the first to admit that LW is a bore, and irritant and a pain in the arse.

>>Beatifying LW? Who has done that? I don't recall anyone saying he isn't irriating<<

Maybe not, but this has been a feature of the whole affair, that well-intentioned researchers, seeing one against the many, rush to LW's defence just as a matter of principle. Entirely decent behaviour.

But from the other side, it occasionally comes over as a tad condescending: 'grow up, it's not so bad, you can always ignore him' from people who may not even have encountered him on site. Also the idea that those being preached to are doing what they're doing because they just like being a 'mob'.

Whereas both sides have good intentions, the best interests of the site at heart and, depending on your perspective, either holier-than-thou or lynch-mob approaches.

Which is why I was applauding what Dealer said about polarisation. Few who've been involved in this have come out of it looking good (though there certainly are exceptions) - but what we do now depends on us not just splitting into seperate camps and slugging it out.