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

The matter came up in our founding thread, and I agree that it deserves separate discussion.

Shunning defined: a behaviour exercised, implicitly or explicitly, by members of a discussion thread toward a specified researcher. The shunned researcher's posts are ignored, and conversation flows around and past his/her posts as if they were rocks in a stream.

This is capital punishment if exerted permanently, and is the strongest sanction available to bring about discipline, when applied temporarily.

There's no doubt that it is a very powerful weapon. When one of our own posts is ignored (usually unintentionally), we take pains to bring in back to the attention of the other participants. Not posts like "" or "Me too", but posts which ask questions or speak to specific researchers, or which propose definite ideas. When this happens to us, we all feel a bit put out.

If we are offering our page as a place to adjudicate the practise, then we should be available to both sides. We should proffer advice to groups who consider that they have a problem member, and we should also consider complaints by those who feel they are being unfairly shunned.

What constitutes shunnable behaviour? We should determine this as exhaustively as possible.

I think we also agreed that it is regrettable practise to shun a researcher without (1) giving them an opportunity to redress their behaviour (2) telling them in advance that they are about to be shunned and why.

Shunning is without a doubt the most leathal form of web punishment available, I think it is more effective than trying to lock people out of a site.
(on a site like this it is impossible to lock out effectivly, the culprit only needs to generate a new email address and re-register to defeat it)

However most of the sort of posts we are talking about tend to be either one off's (mistakes) or are spam posted by someone who does not understand the way this site works (typically newbies).

In the case of "mistakes" most people are quite good at realising, after the event or when sober, that their post was inappropriate to the thread.
I suspect that most of these are made just after closing time in RL.

In these circumstances it is probably best to just ignore the interuption (unless of course you can turn it to your advantage ).

It would be a good idea to have a look at the "offenders" homepage to see if they are a newbie in which case some friendly advice about the way we operate as a community would be good thing.

Most of the spam comes from relative newbies who get frustrated with the time it takes for the rest of us to notice their big idea.

If the post is from a spammer a reply on their homepage suggesting better ways of advertising (Peta picks etc) and requesting they desist from trying to spam other fora, as all it does is annoy the regulars and will backfire on them in the long run.

I think deliberatly shunning all of that researchers posts should be reserved for those who are persistent and deliberate offenders.

Thankfully this site (unlike some others) is relativly free of these.

In such cases the offender must always receive warnings before sanctions are applied. otherwise all it will do is to annoy them and spur them to further disruption.

The question of how and where they should be warned need to be thought out.

Should it be in the forum concerned or on their homepage?
Who should issue the warning?
How should such a warning be worded, after all we want them to reform and join in not storm off in a huff.

Even if they have been warned they decide to be troublesome.
What further action should be taken.

one option is to to keep up the shunning until they get bored and go away.

Another option since the real pains are a pain in many fora not just one, is to spread the action to other fora with the agreement of those involved.

The enforcement of such a sanction depends on the participation of all the other researchers in the fora concerned, so all the other participants in a forum must be in agreement before it can be applied.

This leaves a question of how a researcher who has been shunned can recant and get themselves reinstated in the fora.

Is it time limited?
or
does it exist until they make a sensible contribution?

You know, I think this is getting a little carried away. We're talking about punishments for pretty insignificant crimes. There have been lots of times on forums where I have seen inapproriate posts, but they are usually handled by the participants in a reasonable way. When I have the opportunity, I turn it into a joke. The inappropriate post forces the participants to think of a creative way around the problem. Spam can simply be ignored whenever and whereever it pops up, or, as Lil did, it can be creatively dealt with. End of problem. If someone is particularly offended, they can post a message to the offender's home page and point them to this article, or otherwise politely let them know that they have offended. If it goes beyond that, (as happened in one case that I know of), it is usually sorted out by the participants, one way or another (I'm sure no one likes to contibute to a forum where they know the participants disapprove of them). Anyway, I don't think is requires a set of laws and punishments.

BTW, the article is great. I just think it should be left at that.

Another btw: Lil - what roll-playing forum were you ignored in? Hope I wasn't there.

The place where I was ignored? I don't want to beat a dead thread.

Pettiness and insignificance are so much in the thread of the beholder!

Consider a typical spam by our eager advertiser in these contexts:
"Virtual quoits! Great fun! Come on over and see my quoits at ---!"

That might be insignificant in a cafe forum with a lot of coming and going and simple asking for coffee, and it might be easy to stonewall in a real-subject thread such as are occurring in the feedback forum right now.

But researchers are justly proud, in many cases, of the story they are acting out ex tempore. And the egregiousness of TIMELORD's intrusion into a rock garden Zen meditation is hard to beat. It may be in the introduction that researchers should spread the news about their new projects, but I KNOW Peta et.al. never intended to sanction spamming.

Perhaps a neutral solution would be a Page of Gentle Admonishment to which the offender could be referred by the offended party. Such a page could explain the things we are thrashing out here in an impersonal way.

*Shudders at the thought of being shunned*

I played ZGI and didn't get these kind of chills.

Yes, some intrusions are pretty brash, but usually they are short-lived and can be dealt with (as Courtesy did so well) and forgotten. It would be nice if it didn't happen in the first place, but that isn't what this thread is about - this thread is about sanctions. It's that aspect that I thought had gone a bit too far and didn't really see the need for, as such intrusions are already dealt with in a reasonable manner. The idea of a "good practices" page is a good one. It would complement this article and might help prevent such intrusions.

Actually, when you think of it, it is amazing how well-behaved people generally are.

Well, I think that some of this friendliness is because everyone usually treats everyone else fairly well. Even the super villain and super heroes don't get into word exchanges. Plus, most people here have a similar, slightly skewed way of looking at reality. Some are more off their rocker than others, but not enough to make too many conflicting differences rise up.

The only really acrimonious exchange I have seen was on this thread: http://www.h2g2.com/F41474?thread=54917 where a researcher playing a character in an ongoing story started a thread on the page of a researcher who was, esentially, violating continuity. The thread was to let the offending researcher know what he was doing wrong and how he could correct it. He got angry and posted an "f--- you all" in the story thread. Eventually, the differences got worked out in the thread on his page, and he began posting to the story thread again, albeit with a decidedly bitter tone. Nevertheless, it got worked out in a reasonable way, even for a fairly severe case.

Yes, that was an uncomfortable incident. A shame people didn't take care of it sooner.

I agree with you Garius. Most intrusions are not deliberate and people here rarely set out to offend. I'm not keen to see official or unofficial sanctions being carried out on h2g2. If individuals don't want to talk to each other thats up to them, but organised shunning of any kind is really anti-social.

I like the idea of a 'good practices' page though. Newbies are bound to be unaware of netiquette, and would probably find this very useful and interesting.

I agree with you, Peta, that organised shunning is anti-social, and really hurts, too. I hope that the existence of something like a page of "Gentle Admonishment" is as far as matters ever need to go.

As you'll see from our other, somewhat more lengthy thread, we have deliberately pulled back from the idea of official sanctions in our choice of language. It's hoped that the mere existence of this page will put the ideas of threadiquette and continuity into the minds of researchers _before_ they spam or act thoughtlessly.

Hi Lil

Anything that helps people to behave thoughtfully at h2g2 has to be a good thing. I'm sometimes surprised by how good the vast majority of people are. Encouraging people to think before they post has to be a good thing...

I have to admit that I was being a bit of an "agent provocateur" in my first post just to see how stirred up people got.

I'm pleased to see that the actual result was nil

This obviously means that
A) I'm not much good at stirring it up

and

B) h2g2 is as friendly as ever

Given that some humans are VERY persistent at being imbeciles. What are inclined to do if shunning is met with a stream of further vitriol & profanity...

- Moving In Mysterious Ways.

Persistent imbecility tempered with obscenity is a regrettable combination of traits. Fortunately, such an instance is easily identified and can therefore be referred to Peta. If she agrees that harassment is taking place, she can use her powers of sanction. If the condition of the thread after intrusion by the persistent imbecile is such as to silence and/or drive away other researchers, Peta also has the power to excise the offending element.

I think the only real difficulty with explaining to people about stuff like this is dealing with it quickly. I think the longer and more tense a problem gets, the harder it is to deal with in the long run.

I agree with Affi the longer something is left the harder it is to sort out.
However sometimes a polite word does not work and in those cases, my experience in other places is that if an individual having been warned decides to get "arsey" the only option is to sit it out.
In most cases they burn out and get bored with it in a couple of days with the result that they give up and leave the area.

After all throwing a tantrum is only effective if other people take notice.

Since the real pains tend not to confine their activities to one forum, within this site it is more than likley that their actions would have brought them to the attention of Peta and her team and they would almost crtainly be in breach of the site terms and conditions, dealing with that is a matter best left to those at the towers.

I agree with that.

I've been involved in a couple of unpleasant exchanges (and I'll admit, even been the cause of them), and I definitely agree that quick action is the best kind of action. Usually they seem to be generated by misunderstanding... it's so easy to mistake a person's tone in a text forum. A few posts addressing the misunderstanding clears the air in jig time. I've never seen persisitently poor behavior of a level that would merit a measure like shunning, myself. If I think someone is going on like a prat in a forum, I'll ignore them myself, but if others want to interact with that person, they are welcome to.

The question was raised about who is responsible for letting the offender know when they are violating the rules of threadiquette for that particular thread. It seems to me that the structure of H2G2 has lent itself to a clear definition of authority in forums. Usually it is unspoken, but in the more organized discussions, it is usually understood that someone there is "in charge", so to speak, and the others in that discussion defer. At Lil's Atelier, Lil takes an active hand in guiding the discussions by starting new forums, and she also sets the tone for the types of discussions that will take place there, and the people who participate follow her lead. bluDragon does the same thing at the Dragon Queen threads. And for some reason completely inexplicable to me, every time there is a disagreement about policy or threadiquette in the FFFF threads, they insist that I, of all people, settle the matter. Anyway, when someone posts to your articles or your homepage, they tend to defer to you as an authority figure in that thread. That's not to say that others in the discussion can't issue warnings, just that there's a subconscious desire to obey when it comes from that thread's ringleader.

Half of you probably think the above was insane drivel... but I think the other half are beginning to notice something about your own habits and instincts...

I would also like to say that there are other ways to deal with things you find offensive than stern disapproval. I can remember one instance where I came across an insulting and stereotyping post about America (who doesn't find one of those at least once a week ), but, rather than get upset, I engaged in a friendly dialogue that showed that that person was being a bit myopic, and was rewarded at the end with something along the lines of "yeah, I think you've got a point there." Education is a better method, when available, because it will ensure that that person no longer has the need to post that sort of thing.

I think you've got a point about the 'ringleaders' of forums.