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

My two cents: Relax, everyone. These guys are trying to publish guidelines to let us know that they are concerned with following the rules that are necessitated by being a public entity, therefore totally responsible for everything posted.

How about worry about it where there is a problem, or test case? Will the first researcher wrongfully wronged please speak up? Yes, I would find a way to do so, being careful not to break any other rules. I trust the italics' judgement. We have to trust them. We have to be trustworthy, like don't make up a test case, or falsely accuse.

This is a great site, with great intent. Glad to be here. MD

There have already been two test cases: A681086 and A681374, and you could argue that elements of A659540 contributed to this clarification of the rules.

BTW, if anyone wants to discuss things like whether 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to private websites like this, then it's a good idea to check out the relevant discussions on the pages above, or to start something up in the Community Soapbox on the subject. This isn't really the best place to discuss policy, as it's just an announcements page, but we'll happily join in discussions on the topic.

Also, this addition to the rules was specifically requested by Researchers involved in the above cases, so there are lots of good discussions there that are pertinent.

while I don't dispute the amount of suspicion in the two test cases you mention, and thus the authority (and to some extent justification) for a ban, there is a whole lot of difference between what those two pages say, which amounts to "this is suspiciously like someone banned" and what various posts under the editors account claim which amounts to "we have absolute proof that this is the aforementioned someone who is banned".

It is particularyly unhelpfull to editorial credibility to mention such lightly detailed justifications in response to queries like I made in post 20.

The only thing less helpfull to credibility would be to have not mentioned them.

I can understand quoting those cases considering the hypothetical case was accusing peta of being lekz, but the general question which almost totally ignored applies equally well to being accused of being the next banned researcher who has nothing even remotely connecting them to lekz.

given the case of someone living in britain (and thus unable to be lekz) who has stlistic similarities to a hypothetical banned researcher (also living in britain), how do you as the editors defend researchers against arbitrary accusations of being a banned researcher?

and you can't use ip address, as most british people don't have a fixed ip address (and if they are on aol it doesn't even prove if they are british or american).

NOTE: I am not making up an arbitrary case here, as due to the editors style of making authoritarian pronouncement, it does become significant.

although a lot of it could be resolved if they would back of on the "it's true 'cos we said so" type statements and use less absolute statements that are just as good.

Perhaps you didn't spot this part in Posting 22?

"BTW, if anyone wants to discuss things like whether 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to private websites like this, then it's a good idea to check out the relevant discussions on the pages above, or to start something up in the Community Soapbox on the subject. This isn't really the best place to discuss policy, as it's just an announcements page, but we'll happily join in discussions on the topic."

It looks like you want to talk about this aspect of the site rules, so why not start up a new discussion in the Community Soapbox?

Also, if you want to discuss the bans of any specific Researchers, then you should do that on the relevant ban pages, but we're not going to get involved in specific discussions about recent bans, for details outlined in Posting 68 here:

F80756?thread=164844&skip=60&show=20

Whatever, this Conversation is definitely *not* the place to discuss matters such as these...

I have put this on the Community Soapbox.

F55683?thread=167542

-Spike A.

Marjin, I never told anybody my real world address on the net, not serious companies not other subjects. I'd find it quite inacceptable to have to do so for using a service that doesn't actually deliver something to my real world door. It feels too much like sending your address to unknown companies so that these can sell them to others and so on and then receiving lots of things I don't want. Whatever, I'd feel very uncomfortable with my address in some far away company's database.

Max,
maybe it is indeed a bit strong, to give so much info just in case an identification should be necessary in extreme cases.

But a number of companies do have my real adress, as I ordered things that had to be delivered, like books, PC, ADSL.

And if you fill in a form inside a shop, they can also put that into a database, so there is probably more known about you than you realise.