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

I can't see any problem with this proposal. Thanks, Hoovooloo. Let's see what the italics think...

GTB

On a first reading, this seems like the most workable proposal I've read so far. It has the advantage over the arbitration system of being :- firstly, less bureacratic and time-consuming for the editors; secondly, less reliant on regular, systematic commitment from community members; thirdly (the main one, really) of course it doesn't ask for any delegation of powers. It's also far simpler to understand, if I may say so...

One point that springs to mind... The editors would need a way of advertising the fact of an impending ban. Just posting up the Guide entry with the information wouldn't in itself be an adequate way of ensuring that all (potentially) interested parties were made aware of the ban. But I imagine the eds posting notices in prominent public areas such as Ask h2g2 and the Community Soapbox would probably be sufficient to solve that.

It doesn't really alter the structural 'top-down' relationship that is in place on h2g2, but I guess that's a deeper problem that's not going to go away overnight, if at all. And if I understand the arbitration system correctly, it proposes to actually *intervene* in disputes as they're happening, to try to minimise the likelihood of even a 'pending' ban situation occuring in the first place. That would seem to be a more far-reaching project, and one that hopefully people will continue to pursue. But this (not so) modest proposal at least allows a space for negotiation and 'give and take' between editors and community members.

It seems like a step in the right direction anyway.

Lear

Hi Lear. Thanks for the feedback. See paragraph 6 of section headed "The Proposal" for a possible way of publicising the fact, added in response to your comment.

Yeah, the whole point is not to alter the structure of h2g2 in any way. The point is to leave the italics in as close as possible to exactly the position they're in at the moment, but give them a way to (a) ban people without looking shifty (b) reinstate people without losing face (c) not have to spend so much time dealing with whining, moaning buggers like me who just won't let this drop until we see some change!

Seriously, I think this would take so little effort on the part of the italics to implement, I'm dying to see what reasons they come up with for not doing it!

H.

Well, we'll see...

Putting a "Suspension Pending" line at the top of the Researcher's personal space would help advertise it a little, but it would probably only be noticed by friends of that particular researcher. After all, how often do you visit the personal spaces of researchers you don't particularly like? I know I try to avoid it myself... And of course that would give a bit of an unfair advantage to the defenders, giving them a better opportunity to present their case. That's why I suggested having the editors posting notifications in neutral public forums - places where most h2g2 users will end up from time to time. Ask h2g2 and the Soapbox are two that spring to mind, but maybe there are other possibilities too.

Another thought... If (hopefully) you get to the stage where the proposal has been refined ready for presentation to the editors, it might be an idea to try some sort of pilot scheme first to test for possible weaknesses in practice. That sounds a bit 'pie-in-the-sky' maybe, but actual bans are so rare (three in over two years, isn't it?) on h2g2 that it would be a shame to have any logistical problems exposed when the process is finally, after who knows how many months, cranked up and set into gear. Rather than asking a real researcher to volunteer to be the persecuted heretic, perhaps a fictional persona could be invented or else maybe take some well-kmown controversial figure from history and put them through the system. Like, say, 'Machiavelli - Saint or Sinner?'

Actually, that might be a bit of fun...

Lear at midnight, letting his imagination run perhaps a little bit too wild

O there they go, picking on Poor Old Niccolo again... I'll have you know that Nic Mac cannot be put thru such a system, because his thoughts and machinations are with us always and everywhere. so there.

Nice work, H'v'loo (I do so like to fool around with your name a bit, )...

What I liked about the arbitration scheme was the informal instalment of one arbiter, neutral and respected by all, but then a bureau-technocratci thing came into it and I'll have to get back there. This one seems to be more a procedure than a tech thing, which makes it feasible, and it's also a clear, unidimensional route to follow, which keeps it transparent.

I wouldn't send people's entries back by email. Give em time to delete what they want deleted or copy to harddisk what they want saved, but putting it all in email is perhaps a bit redundant, no? Thassall...

Lessee what the italix do with this..

Very glad to see this up, Hoovooloo - thank you. It is now linked from the Arbiter proposal, as threatened.

And I applaud your Swiftian title.

-7houyhnhnm7

Thanks 7rob7, I wondered how many people would notice...

H.

Prez:

H'v'loo???? High voltage lavatory? "No, don't sit th...ZZZZTT! Too late..."

Good point about sending entries back by email, the thing's been amended to leave the personal space still up and accessible so that Researcher X can copy anything they want off it during the week. The Management can then just delete the whole thing at the end of the week if they decide to go with a ban. If Researcher X hasn't copied everything... well, it's their responsibility, and as someone pointed out somewhere else, most researchers have disk copies of their entries anyway (although for myself my HDD has only the first drafts. All subsequent alterations as a result of Peer Review are exclusively on the site, so when I get banned for being so sarcastic I'll still need access if I want the good version of what I wrote...

Thanks for the input

H.

Yay thanks.. First time I think I ever made a contentious contrib to this whole critique effort... so far I've been lurking and typing cool-down postings more out of a feeling of general involvement and support than because of a real item to add... glad to finally get a real tuppence in.

Thoughtful contributions are *always* welcome Prez.

You may or may not be aware of this, but some people have found you to be trivial (the name doesn't help) or a distraction (possibly because of your policy so far as you describe it), but I can tell you from very personal experience that if you *think*, really think about this, and contribute, people are very receptive to input, and are prepared and fully capable of completely changing their opinions of others. You're clearly thinking, and thinking clearly (!), and your contribution is appreciated.

Thank you.
H.

*checks ego for bruises*

None found . thanks for the honesty, I had had suspicions about this... and they turn out true, well hey. Guess I'll just have to prove myself, hm?

And the name, well I'm familiar with it now. Don't care much about that.

How soon did it take notice of LeKZ' suspension to be realised by pretty much everyone who cared, with no adverising at all? I favour simply changing the researcher's page, and NOT advertising on volunteer lists - which has the benefit of NOT attracting busy-bodies - only those who are friends with, or have been insulted or hurt by, the offending researcher.

rather than For/Against, perhaps it would be better to create a new page, such that the researcher's page says something like.

"This researcher has been suspended from h2g2 for a week, pending decision on whether to enforce a permanent ban. The reasons and further discussion may be found here: *link*. We apologise for the interruption to your surfing".

Then on the new page, list the arguments, and ask people to start a new conversation with their own thoughts/feelings one way or another. Which helps avoid the polarisation, and allow people to say what they want to say without feeling that they have to be drawn into arguments, or that they have to make a decision one way or the other.

I like this proposal - I actually like it a LOT more than the idea of an arbitration panel, for many of the reasons you give yourself. It's nice and lightweight, which I think is what h2g2 needs at this stage.

I tend to agree about not over-advertising a ban. I argued otherwise above, but your point (Lucinda) about not attracting busybodies has convinced me. True enough, word of mouth would probably draw anyone who really needs to be involved into the discussion.

I would keep the simple 'For/Against' idea myself. I think the disadvantage (encouraging polarisation) is outweighed by the advantage that it concentrates the debate in two easily identifiable and accessible threads. Having a lot of different discussions spraying off everywhere at once creates the danger that a good argument could get buried somewhere down in a thread that never quite took off, and consequently that argument could be overlooked. Also, keeping things simple would make the italics' job more straightforward.

I think the argument would be seen by the people who need to see it - the italics. At the end of the day, that's all that would matter...

Following on directly from Lear:

.....which is *exactly* what I'm aiming for. Minimum work (in fact, *less* work) for the italics, clarity where possible, and the opportunity for sober reflection on both sides.

I want to keep the thing as simple as sleek as possible, because every extra complication makes it less likely to be adopted.

Suggestions for *streamlining* it are very welcome. (remembering that we're asking the people who run this place to change things for us out of the goodness of their hearts and their general sense of what is right - so it better be *really* easy, clear and complete).

Thanks all.

H.