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

Doh!!!! delayed simulpost...

I don't think you can use this thread as a similar example of suspicious discovery I.V., since you posted it on a page which people are supposed to check! However, the speed of various arrivals and willingness to leap in without knowing anything and in support of all members of the relevant clique without caring whether or not those individuals were in the right is part of other points.

The Works Cat

im not in the least bit surprised, but i agree it is more important for
the staff to know their assumptions are wrong, and some of the aces

SEF
re: post 1922

yeah i think i posted it in the right place but im suggesting some that openly admit and the other few that dont looking in my conversations and reading my posts found it there rather than on the aces home page or whatever it is called

i didnt expect overwhelming ace support for my opening post by any means but id hoped it would be looked into and taken seriously..the fact that my emails i was asked by h2g2 to send have been 'lost in the post' somewhere speaks volumes to me

Re post: 1900 SEF

Nah, I hoping anybody that has syuck it out for at least three years has something about them. Plus is a good length of time for people to show their true nature.

Possibly have a minimum of two years on site before somebody could even apply to become an ACE, giving five years of a proven track record before application for another level above ACE?

Of course these 'prefects' that I was thinking of would not be just staff appointed, there would still have to be peer review within the ACE group, possible *always* ask on Soapbox for the puplics view too?

It would have to be a 'pet' resitant scheme.

True long term users can be as bad as newbies, having longer to work out how to (ab)use the system... Maybe an annual vote to keep such 'super ACEs'?

"show their true nature" - but to whom. People are not equally perceptive and the true nature may be bad but approved.

"five years of a proven track record" - that would be a prefecture of zero then since the site isn't quite 5 (to judge by page dates).

SEF:

Show to anybody and everybody who cares, and wishes to be part of h2g2, contribute to it, without ending up feeling it a waste of time and effort.

Yes the site may not be 5 *yet* but if you start with 3 years now for 'prefects', 2 years for regual ACEs, and be dynamic enough to alter the system as an when time permits.

I was working under the premis the site will contine to exist for longer than five years... But I not so sure the way things are with it.

I see you've already visited the <./>SectionHeads</.> page, ie prefects. Somewhere around the place is an explanation of why it was abandoned as a bad idea. I found F66119?thread=252263 as possibly the last time it was proposed again. I would have thought it was obvious that it would just lead to more underline power games and mobs. A recent example of why it is bad is the unofficial section head of the CAs (as given away by the words of another CA) - which is why it is so ironic just who replied in that thread.

Re Post 1915:

> ok hands up anyone else who can spot the contradiction?

No, Insomniac Vampire, you have misunderstood my posts.

Let me quote the *full* contents of the relevant sentence of post 1843, as you have misrepresented my views. "I am an ACE, and I assure you that the ACEs were *not involved* any more than any other community member[1]". This does not necessarily mean that fewer ACEs posted to the page than non-ACEs; it means that the ACEs as a group were not notified as to the existence of the page, and also that the ACEs were not told in any way what to say. I do not mean that some researchers who happened to be ACEs were not notified by their friends as to the existence of the page - I *cannot*, and *do not*, deny that this may have happened - I mean that the ACEs as a *whole* were not notified, by the staff or in an email in the ACE forum, that the Transgressions Procedure was being carried out. In other words, as I wrote earlier, the ACEs were given no special treatment. This is a fact which I know because I *am* an ACE, and so I mentioned it above, to give some measure of proof that I knew that it was a fact, and not based on rumours.

Perhaps it will help if I say that when I say 'the ACEs', I mean the ACEs group, not a group of h2g2 researchers who happen to be friends, and some or all of which happen to have an ACE badge on their page. To give an example, if I posted to one of my friend's, who happened to be an ACE's, personal space saying "Hey, you know researcher [name]? He's annoying.", this would not be telling the ACEs that researcher [name] was annoying, this would be telling my friend, another h2g2 researcher who happened to be an ACE, that researcher [name] was annoying. Incidentally, this would arguably be against the ACEs code of conduct, but would not mean that the ACEs (as a *whole*) had broken the code of conduct, but that I had broken the code of conduct. Before these words are misinterpreted, I have never posted to anyone's personal space saying or implying "Researcher [name] is annoying".


Re Post 1919:

> heres a thought, at least 2 im aware of including myself, (no doubt countless others), researchers WERE being discussed in the aces forum alerting people who had never come across these researchers before and they saw a biased and 1 sided view of them from other aces/pals with a dislike or grudge

As I have said many times before, the ACEs as a group were not notified that the Transgressions Procedure was taking place. These emails were sent *after AWOL had been banned*.

> much like a trial that gets press coverage and taints a jury's opinions only this wasnt a trial it was a stitch up and 'SOME' aces should stick to their job

You have misunderstood the purpose of the Transgressions Procedure. It is so that other community members have an opportunity to bring to the Editors' attention any information that will be relevant to the Editors' decision. How many people post to each thread is irrelevant. Whether the people that post are volunteers or not should also be irrelevant. The final decision is with the Editors, and may not reflect the views of the community. Whether it does or not is irrelevant - the majority do not have to support a lifetime ban for it to be made, or vice versa.

> nstead of inventing new 1's..but contrary to the belief of some this thread is NOT specifically about Awol

I know. But you mentioned him in post 1842, prompting my first reply for months in post 1843. As soon as you let the matter drop, and just accept that the decision was made by the Staff to ban him *for life* after following the correct procedure, I, too, will let the matter drop.


Rho

SEF: No, not seen any of that. I had an idea, presented it. Then started adding parameters as you questioned the practicality of the idea. You could have said sooner, somebody had a idea like it already?

However I am of a mind "so what" if a similar discussion had taken place. I do see some parity between a few events*. Is it such a bad thing to look from a fresh viewpoint without prejudice?

*Though prefer to not spell it out, leave people to think for themself not just accept things. The truth has many versions, a lie but one.

"Any of that" means the thread.

I had 'fallen' onto A439148 before now, from looking at something else <./>Bruce</.> had done.

I took A439148 to be about Gurus ...and remeber thnking how untidy this site is, not filing its history for later generations to follow.

History? Unlike the MBs, pages and posts here are largely preserved (although sometimes hidden) - it is just that search is so bad and there isn't enough deliberate linking I suppose. There are pages documenting the software version changes though plus the announcements and old announcements (see <./>NamedEntries</.> for this stuff - some of it concealed). There is also U230056 now.

However, checking the backlog and comparing notes with current events and other people takes time and effort. Which is partly why there are so many people not realising lots of bad things about the site go way back with very little attempt having been made to improve them - more in the way of denial, silence and cover-up.

U230056 Front Page Archive. *finally*

As a curio... A1911296 Ace Statistics.

Hi Rho,

"I mean the ACEs as a *whole* were not notified, by the staff or by an email in the ACE forum"

Some good points, doesn't it seem rather inconsistent to you though that some people can post what they have seen in the "ACE" forum and others can't?

Re Post 1934:

> doesn't it seem rather inconsistent to you though that some people can post what they have seen in the "ACE" forum and others can't?

As I understand the Code of Conduct, it depends on what is said. That is, my personal interpretation of the rules is that forwarding emails or describing confidential topics discussed is not acceptable, but, in most cases, stating that no emails were sent about a particular topic at a certain time (here, at the time between the start of the Transgressions Procedure and the lifetime ban) is acceptable.

Rho

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

trigger happy