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

Hi Colonel Sellers. Here are our comments, as promised. A few of these points cropped up in our reply to Hoovooloo's Modest Proposal at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A623288 so we'll point you to there for our comments where relevant. 1. Punishment policy We're proposing to extend the Transgressions section of the House Rules to explain: * The typical progress from warning through to one week, one month, lifetime ban, but with a note that this process can be made more lenient at the Editors' discretion. * The type of offence that will typically provoke an immmediate lifetime ban (offences such as criminal behaviour or personal abuse of h2g2 staff, as you sugested in Posting 682 in the Lifetime Suspension thread). It's not really feasible to specify in advance every punishment for every possible transgression; those behind the Arbiters Scheme realised this early on, and we agree. However the punishment policy we hope to add to the rules will describe a typical process, which would help. 2. Official reprimands This will also be covered in the transgression policy that we're hoping to add to the Rules, which explains the procedure for gving warnings and suspension notices. Essentially for each transgression (warning, suspension or ban) we will initially email the Researcher from 'The h2g2 Editors' at [email protected]; if this email bounces we will post to their Personal Space under the 'h2g2 Editors' persona; and if they have no Introduction, we will create one for them, and will post to it. These emails/postings will be clearly labelled at the top with something like "This is an official warning from the h2g2 Editors, as described in the 'Transgressions' section of the House Rules at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/HouseRules". It will also explain that further offences may result in a ban/extended ban/lifetime ban. The transgression policy (and the emails/postings sent out to those who are banned) will also stipulate that returning while banned will extend the ban to the next stage (eg one week to one month), and will emphasise that asking others to post for you while banned will be considered a transgression of the rules by both parties. 3. Arbiters Scheme We're looking at the Arbiters Scheme separately and will post there soon, but we cannot implement the version you describe here. In particular the sentence "the Italics *must* commit themselves, in writing, to supporting the decisions of the panel, should their decisions be overturned" is not something we will be considering in the near future. 4. Returning Guide Entries See points 8 and 9 in our posting to Hoovooloo's proposal in the Forum at A623288, which address this point. That's it; we look forward to your response. Nice work! The Editors

Points 1 and 2: I must admit that I have already seen that you were leaning in a positive direction to these proposals since I first posted them, and we've already agreed that an absolute punishment policy is an impossibility, but a general guideline will be a good thing for all parties. I'm satisfied with the outcome here.

Point 3: The Arbiter scheme was never meant to be fully desribed here, so any comments on it are best reserved for the proposal page. However, I think that one of the primary obstacles will be how committed the editors will be to its success. If the arbiters rule strongly that a punishment was unjust, and you ignore or overrule that decision, then I'm afraid the inquiry will have exactly the opposite of the effect it was intended to achieve, and the resulting site uproar would make the SBVM look like a pack of yelping puppies.

Point 4: Retrieving articles is not the issue, because, as you've described, that isn't difficult to do. But I think keeping the unedited entries would be unethical, because everyone who has left the site voluntarily because they were upset has taken their entries down. They do this because they feel that, if H2G2 has nothing to offer them, then it does not deserve their work. Someone who has been banned is going to be upset, and they would, if they could, take down their material before leaving. It simply wouldn't be fair to leave an article up for someone to take and turn into a Guide entry. The only exception I can come up with is when an article has multiple authorship, or if it is a club page. In the case of the former, the other authors could decide whether to keep it or not, and in the case of the latter, the owner might permit it to remain, or else hand off the page to another member. In either case, a bit of communication is all that is required.

Colonel Sellers, glad to see the dialogue opened, and hoping we can accomodate each other more in the near future.

Points 1 and 2: Glad this all sounds good. We'll start talking to the lawyers about the wording today, hopefully.

Point 3: Yeah, let's leave the Arbiters discussion until we've had time to digest it and come up with our full set of comments (which will be posted to the main Arbiters' page).

Point 4: The distinction, which is subtle, is between:

* Us saying that we will delete a banned person's Guide Entries if they request it (assuming copies have been satisfactorily made), or

* Us saying that we will delete a banned person's Guide Entries if they request it (assuming copies have been satisfactorily made), but at our discretion.

It's only in very exceptional circumstances that we won't delete all their entries, and it may be the case that we never leave any banned person's entries undeleted. But we cannot set a precedent that ties our hands when it comes to the contents of the database, not because we know of instances where we think we'll need to keep some entries undeleted, but precisely because we *don't* know if there will ever be circumstances where it is in the interests of the Community to leave some entries undeleted.

It's never good practice to tie one's hands if one doesn't have to, so we do not think it is a good idea to give a 100% guarantee, and we must retain the right to manage the h2g2 database at our discretion.

"Colonel Sellers, glad to see the dialogue opened, and hoping we can accomodate each other more in the near future."

to that.

Point 4: It is my belief that it is the lack of guarantees that is behind the current unhappiness. If a situation were to occur where keeping an unedited entry would benefit the community, you might find the author to be accomodating.

I find it hard to imagine that there might be a page out there someplace which isn't replaceable. I took down my Guide to H2G2 Clubs, which was a valuable community resource, and the Post created a substitute in short order. If people are expendable, pages are more so.

This whole nonsense about discretion is, frankly, laughable. If I recall correctly, the editors can alter the terms and conditions completely at any time, and the changes are immediately binding. suppose the one-in-a-trillion chance really did occur - just change the rules back again. But that's not going to happen.

The best interests of the community are not going to be served by the editors wasting time diddling over the visibility of an infinitessimal proportion of the entries created by the even tinier proportion of the researchers who have been banned. Can you even name a single entry on the site which, if you insta-banned the researcher who wrote it, would have a significant impact on the 'interests of the community' if you deleted it?

The big loss when you ban someone is *always* going to be losing the person you ban - compared to which losing one of their unedited entries is so much scotch mist...

Lucinda: "Can you even name a single entry on the site which, if you insta-banned the researcher who wrote it, would have a significant impact on the 'interests of the community' if you deleted it?"

If we banned Shazz, then every single issue of The Post would be removed along with her. Of course, this is highly unlikely to happen, but it *could*.

You're right Lucinda - we could change the terms if we came up with a situation where banning someone would rent a hole in the Community side of the site (it's never going to rent a hole in the Edited Guide, though it may affect the development of that section, of course). But it would be appalling to have to resort to that sort of behaviour, which is why we need to retain the 'at our discretion' part - at least then people wouldn't be hoodwinked.

Conversely, can you prove to us that we will never be in a situation where banning someone and automatically deleting their entries will harm the interests of the Community? (Given the example above, we don't think you can...)

It's a fairly common belief that you can't prove a negative...

However, almost all of the post itself is written by the 'h2g2 post team', which is made up of more than one person (eg Pastey), and the magna carta (as I understand it) would not require these entries, or other joint entries, to be deleted. If Shazz was banned I imagine the h2g2 post team person would be left in situ. There are a few bits and pieces - the Wowbagger archives, the post page of links, but that's it. All of which is very much replacable.

And, again, the impact of deleting Shazz' unedited entries would be utterly insignificant compared to the impact of losing Shazz. In this hypothetical situation we're considering, Shazz has been banned and specifically doesn't want her unedited entries to remain visible. Do you not think that using your 'discretion' in such a case is likely to alienate her friends, and do vastly *more* damage than simply respecting her wishes?

Lucinda: "It's a fairly common belief that you can't prove a negative..."

This was precisely our point - you can't prove that we will never get into problems with your suggested change, and we think it's quite possible that we *will* get into problems if we make the change.

"However, almost all of the post itself is written by the 'h2g2 post team', which is made up of more than one person (eg Pastey), and the magna carta (as I understand it) would not require these entries, or other joint entries, to be deleted. If Shazz was banned I imagine the h2g2 post team person would be left in situ. There are a few bits and pieces - the Wowbagger archives, the post page of links, but that's it. All of which is very much replacable."

This would indeed be a nightmare - it'd be like a divorce, if Shazz insisted that we delete all her entries (as per the Magna Carta) but there was lots of serious dispute over who wrote which bits. Leaving it to our discretion would help avoid this sort of thing.

However, let's consider a more hypothetical example, in our attempt to demonstrate that incorporating this section of the Magna Carta may potentially cause more harm than good. Imagine that Shazz *didn't* share the editorship with Pastey, and ran the newspaper on her own, but via the Post Team persona. Then we *would* lose everything she wrote, automatically, and the Community would have no choice, which would cause harm to the Community.

(BTW, we'd like to put on the record that we strongly disagree that Shazz's work is "very much replaceable". There's a *lot* of work in The Post, and Shazz is the main mover behind it.)

"And, again, the impact of deleting Shazz' unedited entries would be utterly insignificant compared to the impact of losing Shazz. In this hypothetical situation we're considering, Shazz has been banned and specifically doesn't want her unedited entries to remain visible. Do you not think that using your 'discretion' in such a case is likely to alienate her friends, and do vastly *more* damage than simply respecting her wishes?"

Which is why we would use our discretion to negotiatiate with her to find another caretaker to look after The Post, probably after hiding all her entries pending a hopeful reconciliation. If we automatically had to delete all her entries, with no recourse, then we wouldn't have this choice to start with, and she would be perfectly within her rights to tell us to go away.

You seem to be assuming that we would simply ignore Shazz's wishes and refuse to budge - but you're wrong! What we would do is work with her to find a solution, like we did with the reopening of Matthew Kershaw's Foxy Manor under Mina's auspices. Automatic and irrevocable deletion gives us no way to tackle the issue of the banned Researcher who wants to harm the Community, and this is a bad thing.

Sorry, Lucinda, we're still not convinced by your argument.

What's all this? I thought it was only the editors who were inexpendable?


"Automatic and irrevocable deletion gives us no way to tackle the issue of the banned Researcher who wants to harm the Community." - How does a banned researcher harm the community? Anyway, we've never stated that it should be automatic and irrevocable. As part of the ban message, you ask the researcher if they want their stuff deleted. If they say yes, and you or someone else in the community feels that a page or two would be important, then you or they could speak to the writer about it. And if they say no, well, it's their f**king work, and if you wanted it so bad, you shouldn't have kicked them off.

There are no serious disputes over who writes what in the Post. The account is jointly held by Pastey. All articles are credited to their original writers on the bottom of the page. Anything that is solely the property of Shazz should be deleted, unless you work that out with her.

If a researcher's work is so vital to the community that you feel it must be stolen if they have to be banned, then perhaps that should be taken into account before you ban them. I'm still failing to see any reasonable, or even possible, scenario where

For the record, let it be known that Matthew Kershaw approved of Mina's takeover of Foxy Manor, long after his ban. Still, it would have been nice to actually ask him before hand, wouldn't it?

Colonel Sellers, wondering where ethics went, or if the world ever really had them to begin with.

Matt wasn't banned, and he didn't say it was ok until I emailed him an apology after he had complained. But by that time it had been reinstated to him, and I'd started up a new one.

Colonel: "How does a banned researcher harm the community?"

True, banned Researchers can't directly harm the Community, but if someone is banned and has some entries that are popular Community areas, then they may demand removal of all their entries, to get back at those who banned them, even though removal of those entries may be against the interests of their friends on h2g2. Or they might actually want to try to disrupt the Community if they were angry at people remaining there (perhaps those who had posted to Hoovooloo's Modest Proposal threads in support of a ban).



Colonel: "Anyway, we've never stated that it should be automatic and irrevocable."

It's possible that we've been misinterpreting the last point in the Magna Carta, then. Aren't you were asking us to *guarantee* that if someone is banned for life, we will always delete all their entries if that is their wish (ie the deletion of these entries is automatic and irrevocable once the Researcher has decided)?



Colonel: "There are no serious disputes over who writes what in the Post. The account is jointly held by Pastey. All articles are credited to their original writers on the bottom of the page. Anything that is solely the property of Shazz should be deleted, unless you work that out with her."

That's why we pointed out a different and hypothetical scenario in Posting 8, in answer to Lucinda's original question in Posting 5. You didn't comment on whether that scenario was possible, and whether this was an example that demonstrated how deleting someone's entries could harm the Community.



Colonel: "And if they say no, well, it's their f**king work, and if you wanted it so bad, you shouldn't have kicked them off."

Colonel: "If a researcher's work is so vital to the community that you feel it must be stolen if they have to be banned, then perhaps that should be taken into account before you ban them."

First, we are not stealing anything. Researchers should be fully aware of the fact that they are giving their content towards the greater goal of developing h2g2 and the Guide, and that once it has been given, technically they can't ask for it back. We provide a Delete button as a courtesy, not because the Terms require it. If contributing under these Terms is a problem for some people, then those Researchers should *not* be writing for h2g2... in exactly the same way that authors who might publish their work elsewhere should also be wary. We've never said anything different, but to accuse us of theft is missing the point and ignoring the Terms.

Second, you're saying we should take a Researcher's entries into consideration when considering a ban, but wouldn't this mean that Researchers who wrote lots of Guide Entries would be protected from the transgression procedure that you've asked for in the first two points of the Magna Carta? In other words, wouldn't this force us to be biased towards those who write lots of entries? If so, doesn't this contradict the desires of so many current proposals to aim towards *fairer* decisions?

We judge transgressions on the nature of those transgressions, irrespective of the Researchers' contribution to the Community. Isn't this the only fair way to treat them?



Here's a summary of our position on this at this time:

Consider a lifetime ban in which the Community wants us to retain some entries, perhaps because they have become a good focal point (like Foxy Manor or Camelot) or because the content is particularly important in the development of the Community (like The Post). Would you agree that this situation is possible?

If you agree that this situation is possible, then this is just one example where the interests of the Community could outweigh the interests of a single person - moreover, a person who has forfeited the right to be a member of that Community.

It is for this reason that we do not agree with a 100% deletion policy, because we believe that at times it might be in the interests of the Community to retain those entries. Putting something in the rules that can potentially harm the Community is not a good idea.

Meanwhile, we have always said and will continue to say that we will delete banned Researchers' entries in almost all cases. Sometimes, though, we may exercise the right given to us by the Terms, and may keep some entries on site... because it may be in the interests of the Community to do so.

>>> (BTW, we'd like to put on the record that we strongly disagree that Shazz's work is "very much replaceable". There's a *lot* of work in The Post, and Shazz is the main mover behind it.) <<<

I didn't say that! I did say (or thought I said) that Shazz' *unedited* entries, which are *not* written as the 'h2g2 post team', are indeed 'very much replaceable'. For example, the post guide to h2g2 clubs is one such entry. This entry is replaceable, just as Colonel Sellers' guide to h2g2 clubs was replaceable. (and indeed, was replaced by the post's guide!) Shazz herself is essentially irreplaceable in my opinion - and I don't think I've said anything in this thread or elsewhere which contradicts that.

--- compromise? ---

To be honest, a part of my irritation would go away if you phrased it as "except in exceptional circumstances, we will always delete entries belonging to a banned researcher upon their request", rather than "at our discretion, we will...." - you see the difference? I'd prefer to convince you that the loophole-free version is better yet (of course!), but that might be an option for compromise, should you choose to...

--- community perspective ---

I accept that from a purely community-focused viewpoint, there could potentially exist entries which are community-focus points, which could have an impact on the community if the researcher involved were to be insta-banned and they were deleted. I think that impact is going to be unnoticeable after a couple of week's have passed. I think that it is very very unlikely to occur.

Similarly, there could be entries which could have an impact if the researcher involved were to 'fall out' with some aspect of h2g2 and delete them. The very same entries, in fact! The statistics show that it is vastly more common for a researcher to leave h2g2 under a cloud than it is for them to be banned. Hence, this is a much more common scenario, and one that you have no defences against.

From experience, it appears to me that researcher's who fall out with h2g2 appear to be more likely to be banned, suspended, or given official warnings. Hence, researchers who feel they may be banned in the future may defensively delete (and overwrite) their entries, in case they are banned in the future. I would argue that this deletion is damaging to the community. It may have already happened.

If there was a cast-iron garantee saying that banned researchers may have their unedited entries deleted should they so desire, then this deletion would never happen. This would benefit the community. I feel (though I can not prove) that the likelihood and size of damage from the kind of deliberate deletion scenario that I'm hypothecising here is greater than likelihood and size of damage from the banning scenario you in turn have hypothecised.

Hence, I feel that the potential damage from adding a discretionary clause is greater than the potential damage from not doing so.

--- researcher perspective ---

The second thrust of my argument is that you should consider the interests of the banned researcher as well as the community in general. Even though they may have "forfeited the right to be a member of that Community".

To start off with the obvious - it is good to consider the interests of active researchers, as well as the community. By doing so, you encourage such researchers to participate more actively. I'm guessing that this is part of the reason why you went from exclusive copyright to non-exclusive copywrite. All active researchers may potentially leave h2g2 at some point (temporarily or permanently), so it is good to consider the interests of inactive researchers. That was the reasoning I used to justify the permanence of the 'not for review' marker. I expect it was part of the reason why you tried to discourage criticism of Playboy Reporter when he left.

I also feel that you should consider the interests of banned researchers. Though there are few researchers at any one time who are in any danger of being banned, you do send out a message by doing so. Specifically, people can be sure that even if they are banned, they need not fret about what will happen to them behind their back. That all adds up to build confidence in contributing to h2g2.

In the same way, the BBC privacy policy gives people confidence to contribute to h2g2. A rule that banned researchers forfeited their privacy on banning would practically affect very few researchers, but the mere existance of the loophole might concern people, and discourage contribution from some highly privacy-sensitive people. Similarly with deletion of entries.

shazz

Hi Lucinda.

That sort of wording would be fine - we've tended to debate the desirability of 100% vs discretionary deleting here, rather than the wording, but you're right that the wording portrays things differently (except we wouldn't put "always" in there, as it's not the case that we would always delete entries).



Back to the main discussion, though.

Basically, are you saying that giving a cast-iron guarantee would help to ensure that Researchers who think they're about to be banned *wouldn't* then remove all their entries? But those who have been banned have not been removing their entries anyway, so doesn't that make your argument irrelevant?

Those who *have* deleted their own entries, however, have not been anywhere near a ban, and have done the deletions to make a point (see Colonel Sellers, Hoovooloo and your good self).

We're probably both speculating too much to make a cast-iron argument on either side, because there haven't been enough lifetime bans to demonstrate that the existence or lack of a guarantee would have any effect on their actions. Until such evidence exists, we really wouldn't like to tie our own hands with regard to the h2g2 database...

And Shazz - - we were only being hypothetical!

> "Basically, are you saying that giving a cast-iron guarantee would help to ensure that Researchers who think they're about to be banned *wouldn't* then remove all their entries?"

Yes. Even the partial guarantee would help, of course. But the very people who are falling out with h2g2 would be the same ones who are least likely to trust a guarantee with loopholes, I reckon. You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you...

> "Those who *have* deleted their own entries, however, have not been anywhere near a ban"

Being near a ban, and thinking that you may be near a ban, are two different things. Hopefully the improved clarity on such things you are sorting out now will make such misunderstandings in the future less likely.

I have heard people say that they are considering deleting (and overwriting) their entries NOW, since they feel that they are going to be banned shortly. (information in confidence, so I won't say who or when) I know it is a thought which flashed briefly across my mind, back when LeKZ' entries were still visible.

gotta go...

"I have heard people say that they are considering deleting (and overwriting) their entries NOW, since they feel that they are going to be banned shortly."

Wow, really? That's completely bizarre - nobody is anywhere near a ban at the moment, *especially* a lifetime ban! It'd be interesting to know what it is that makes them think that they are. Possibly a healthy dose of inaccurate speculation expressed as fact? That's the usual culprit...

As you say, making the transgression steps much more defined and adding in new banning processes should help calm down a lot of the paranoia, though we doubt it will ever go away entirely - this *is* the Internet, after all, the natural home of the conspiracy theory. If people want to be paranoid, the little voices will always back up their decision.

BTW, we're hoping to get permission to change the Rules early next week, but no guarantees yet - a key person is on holiday until Monday, which is why it's taking a little while longer than normal to get clearance. But the reaction has been positive, so we're very hopeful...

I was unclear - oops. I meant to say that I have heard people in the past, saying words to the effect of "I'm thinking of deleting and overwriting my entries NOW, since I'm going to be banned shortly".

The english language needs more tenses...

Phew! That's a relief; there's been precious little warning and no banning going on since Arpeggio was banned, which is why we were a bit surprised...

Let's hope the changes discussed here make a difference. We're off to work on the official version of the Modest Proposal, the Transgression section of the House Rules is being checked as we speak, and now it's time to plough through the tome that is the Arbiters Scheme.

See, we do listen!

GRRRRRRR......

I did NOT delete my entries to make a f*****g point!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I deleted my entries because I felt that this damned place does not deserve them.

If I was trying to make a point, I would have shouted to the world that they were gone. I made notices only to the people who required notification, and a note to my personal space, if anyone cared enough to look.

I have also, you may note, agreed with your idiotic, insensitive statement which fueled that deletion. My work is obviously replaceable, and my contributions are clearly expendable. That has been demonstrated.

My work was deleted because I felt that my contributions are not appreciated. And if I were a speculating man, I would guess that Hoovooloo removed his stuff for the same reason. Unfortunately, he's not here to tell us.

Colonel Sellers, wondering how many more writers the editors will chase away through poor interpersonal skills.

FYI the House Rules have now been amended to include a re-written Transgressions process.