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

Kelli asked:

"Jimster, I thought one of the reasons why we have a fixed U-number was so that we are readily identifiable for the staff. We have changeable nicknames and I wasn't aware that we were under an obligation not to change them?"

In reverse order, you are not and we do

My point is that what was hugely enjoyable for a great many people was disruptive to some, confusing to others and necessitated spending a few extra minutes per referred complaint to work out who was who. But should we have stamped on it for making our job harder when others seemed to be enjoying themselves?

(Though I would hope the above question could stand as rhetorical, just for peace of mind, I don't think it would have been appropriate for us to do so - which is why we didn't join in, but didn't stop anyone else having fun ).

On Ferrettbadger's point, I don't see the policy as granting us powers to ban anyone on a whim - or at least, that's not how we interpret it. I believe that our response to every transgression must be justifiable and that the reasons for our decisions must be transparent to the person they affect, but I don't personally believe we should hang all our miscreants up on a gate somewhere for the community to pelt with rotten fruit.

Trying to balance visibility on site with showing respect for an individual's privacy is a tricky act to pull off and occasionally we're going to get it wrong. But my own opinion of what we should do is just one of the voices that are being considered for how we handle such matters in the future.

The current full transgression procedure was a great idea and I definitely think it had its place on h2g2 at the time. But the team and the site as a whole has changed since then and I'm not convinced it isn't time for this to be re-examined and for alternative options to be considered. Which is why, although I might be batting back suggestions for practical reasons, that's not to say I'm dismissing anything out of hand. There have been a few suggestions here that are currently not possible to implement, but all it would take is for someone else to suggest a viable alternative and we'd have a new option to play with.

A reminder of the point of the transgressions procedure - what it is, and more importantly what it is not (at least from my point of view as the person who suggested it in the first place).

What it's NOT is a popularity contest, an opportunity to pelt someone with rotten fruit, or in any sense a suggestion that this site is a democracy. It's also NOT intended to be used universally - only *offered* universally to anyone facing a permanent ban.

What it is, or was intended to be, was an opportunity for the staff to take some time to think and gather some evidence before they ban someone permanently from the site.

It was originally suggested because one day, a long time ago, the guy in charge of the site banned someone for life, just like that. The conversations surrounding that decision took up *months*. The TP was suggested, and adopted, as an attempt to show that if the Italics are going to ban someone for life, they are at least going to *pretend* to think about it, for one week.

As I've said before, the intention was to *reduce* the amount of controversy and hence actual *work*, by concentrating discussion into one place, putting a short, specific time limit on the decision process, and leaving it at that.

It was fairly quickly realised that sometimes the TP was NOT appropriate. Specifically, the user being banned should be asked whether they want the bother.

I admit I am much, much less active in all areas of the site than I was when I originally suggested the TP, and therefore cannot speak authoritatively. But I can't see what has changed that makes the procedure any less applicable now than when it was coined.

I might add that I greet the news that the procedure has not been invoked for over two years with mixed feelings. On the one hand, does that mean nobody has been banned in contentious circumstances? If so, then great! On the other, does it mean that people who would previously have been banned have not got that far because of other measures (such as pre-mod)? Possibly. Could be applied to me, that one.

On the gripping hand, does it mean that the procedure sits there, ignored, because it was of its time and is seen as a part of hootoo history, not as part of today's regime? Probably.

I don't know enough about how the site works now to know, or for that matter care, what could or should replace it. I haven't been paying attention, but it seems to me that this is not a site that likes to ban people any more. That's probably a good thing...

SoRB

It seems like certain researchers know the house rules inside out.LW being one of them.It seems his actions doesnt warrant a perment barring.He even qutoed me an house rule,i never knew existed.
I see it,hes either a very naive person.Or a very cunning person.

My thoughts Jimster are just that it either needs to apply across the board or not at all.

If you are saying the site has moved on and things need to change and you want a dialogue about what to do in the future then great. But lets have that debate and change the way we do things afterwards.

I just think it is dangerous and wrong to decide whether or not to apply it depending on how popular/ well known the individual is. Smaks of virtual "face fits" if you see what I mean.

I would also point out Jimster that the Transgressions procedure is not a "willy-Nilly" thing. It is something only considered in the instances of a lifetime ban. The hootoo equivilant of execution.

Crikey looks a bit like I am spamming LW style so sorry about this!

I obviously accept that if someone doesn't want the TP applied and are happy to accept being banned then there is no problem .

>>Has anyone else noticed how much us hootooizens really love a good fuss?<< ferret badger


I will have been on this site 2 years in a few days time, and apart from 3 months when I was away in Oz have posted fairly regularly. There has always seemed to be somebody that lots of people object to. Oezi Ozella, then della, now LW. From a cultural point of view I find this quite interesting in terms of the 'scapegoat' or the kid at school that everyone can't stand. I was wondering if there has ever been an extended period of time on hootoo when there hasn't been someone who is a focus for objection. If LW left tomorrow, would someone new appear to fill the void? Maybe one of the old scapegoats would start behaving really annoyingly again, feeling compelled to play that role?

I am in no way judging anyone on the issue. It's just that I find cultural dynamics fascinating; especially online cultures as we are a relatively new phenomenon.

Redpeck I am a two Ts Ferrett. See my tagline!

!

>> If LW left tomorrow, would someone new appear to fill the void? <<


Aww, but red, didn't you nearly fill the gap between Della and LW ?

Pardonez moi Ferrettbadger!

I played the role in an interesting postmodern way B'Elana. For a little while I made myself the parody of a troll. Purely for research purposes of course.


But I'm mostly charm itself now!

SoRB makes some sound comments there - just as he did when constructing the transgressions procedure.

I'll freely admit that part of my concerns of the TP come from the fact that it does still involve a lot of work - and with the reduction of the number of staff working on h2g2 two years ago, we had to look right across the site at how (at that time) two people could do the work of eight. We've been lucky in that we haven't really been pushed that far where the TP was all that necessary.

A very few people have been banned, and only after we've given them warnings, pre-moderation, more warnings, more pre-moderation and then suspensions. If we receive aggressive, abusive or otherwise objectionable responses to our warnings, we simply extend the period that the moderation covers.

If all that fails, a ban would look likely, but mostly it's worked fine. I personally think that pre-moderation and suspensions help both sides find time to think. And when it's been my turn to write that all-important email, I've always tried to do so in the hope that the person receiving it sees it more as a second chance than a last one. Some recipients have evidently understood that and taken a step back; others have simply refused to accept they'd done anything wrong, which is always a shame. The first step to being 'saved' is wanting to be saved in the first place.

But if the plan behind the TP was to get the people making that decision to think about it, then I'd say it's done the job. Certainly we'd never just ban someone without giving it a lot of thought.

I mean, we'd *think* about it... y'know, fantasise about it, like winning the lottery. But usually we just think why bother? If someone wants to be painted as a martyr, why should we help them achieve it? Pre-mods and suspensions are better (some people call them 'bans' anyway). And if they've really done something illegal to instantly deserve a ban, there's not much we could do to stop that happening.

Anyway, have a good weekend everyone - play safe, and don't go back to those smouldering fireworks.

Jims

But exactly how much work is it Jim?

You create a A page (based on one of the others so no real work there). Send an email.

Then a week later read the "Ban X" and "Dont Ban X" threads to see if they effect what you had been thinking. THen you make the decision.

Apart form reading a ocuple of threads (which I imagine you *always* do when considering whether or not to ban someone for life) I cannot see how applying the TP in these circumstances is *that* much work.

Lets face it is has been shown clearly on hootoo at least that "life means life", an extra week and reading other researchers charater references doesn't seem like that much of a bind. Especially as you are saying it is only very rarely these days that you consider a lifeban.

I have been thinking,say someone is being a pain in miss chat spamming and the like.Instead of moderating.Is it possible to blocked that person/persons user from accesing them forums.
Their are only able to acces their own space etc.Just a thought anyway.

Far more annoying than any troll for me has been the slowness and errors on this site in recent months. Today has been a nightmare. I notice there is a new 'friendly' page now telling me that the site has suddenly got very busy rather than the usual functional 'server too busy' page. If they're redesigning the page it looks like the situation maybe more permanent. I keep hearing how the BBC are making more and more money....At 19.22 GMT this page took 1.5 minutes to load.

(Just a continuation from Ferrettbadgers posting 144.....)

you missed a couple....

There was LekZ..(who apparently has 100 personalities in one body,okay a little bit of an exaggeration with 100..
Result=Banned......(I personally wasn't here for this one,but have "lurked" threads)

Then there was AWOL(ex-LD'er),He did lots of spamming,trolling etc..etc..but the guy was actually very humerous with it..But this went to a public vote.. "why should/shouldn't Awol be banned
Result=Banned

Then there was LD'ers/Telewest users 'v' Saturnine & Aka..these 2 took it upon themselves to snitch to Telewest for using the "magic link" to H2G2 causing total chaos in this place,But it seemed to backfire on them..Many researchers here turned against them for doing what they did..
Result=Both choose not to use the site anymore,

Then there was Liam,this guy went around claiming he was a paramedic,i think he must of thought he would be able to do mouth 2 mouth resucitation over the net or summat,anyway this guy seemed to cause alot of problems.
Result=Banned??

Then there was Della Wars,nearly a few people were banned,but luckly they wasn't,just mostly put on pre-mod,now hopefully this situation has been resolved..(although ive never personally spoke to Hoo/sorb,i think he would have been a great loss to the site,as with a few others)
Result=Put on pre-mod or changed names

And now theres Lord wolfdon...This guy ive never spoken to either,but i can see how he's irritating people,,(personally he irritates the life outta me when i'm reading threads.If he's in any i am in i just tend to ignore him,or leave the thread).
Result=awaits with bated breath..

So if you don't mind i'll pull up me comfy chair and get the out ready..

And of course we all know it was meant to say baited breath,and not bated breath,

Oh and i would also like to point out that the above post were observations/lurking of the site made by me and no other party was invoved/hurt or harmed in the process..

"awaits the next installment of the LW soap-opera"

I did mention the "Digibox Fiasco", but I must have missed Awol and Liam.

They cannot have frequented *my* bits of hootoo....

also Cutiechops it wasn't a "vote" about AWOL if it went to the TP then the Ban Reasearcher/ Dont Ban Researcher threads were about character references or new evidence.

It isnt a vote.

And he was never amusing. 'Foul-mouthed troll' is about the best I can find to say about him. I'd rather have His Lordship on the site than AWOL any day.

B

FB..Awol saga was either last year or year before,i can't remember,but i do remember some sortta vote about him...not that it matters anyway..


MB...Sorry i didn't really encounter a nasty side of Awol,(obviously not lurking aswell as i thought),he was always okay with me,and thats why i said he was quite humourous.plus he changed his name frequently,that i couldn't keep up with him so didn't see all of his conversations...