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

Xyroth, I hate it when people read my mind and post what I'm thinking before I do!

I'd also be interested in having somebody point me to an instance where the editors admitted to having made a bad decision outside of the realm of factual errors. Editors = humans. Human = fallible.

Given that the editors are, in the final analysis, answerable to everyone who logs onto h2g2 in addition to being charged with interpreting the BBC rules within the context of h2g2, they're under pressure from all sides. All of their decisions (that we, here, know of) are subject to some degree of scrutiny. They have to feel the pressure. Middle management is not a comfortable place. It's true that the researchers are not paid staff, but the middle management analogy holds... pressure from below and from above.

I can't say that I think that the editors would lose respect, or anything else, if LeKZ were "pardoned" after some number of months, or a year. People have been known to modify decisions or opinions after having had time to think about some of the implications in the past. I know I have.

I hate using this next analogy...

When my kids were young, I had to tell them "no" a lot. That comes with the territory of being a parent. Because I had also taught them to question authority, my "no" was usually followed by their "why?"

Usually, I had a good explanation, and provided it. That didn't make them any happier about the "no," but they usually understood. Sometimes, after the "why?" I had to admit to myself that the only reason was that I didn't feel like doing or allowing whatever it was. On those occasions, I'd reply to the "why?" either by admitting that, or by saying something like, "You're right. That was pretty arbitrary," and then reversing myself.

I don't think they respected me less for that. (Although I have to admit that my son is a Republican. I've obviously failed somewhere!)

BTW, in case it wasn't obvious, I hated using that analogy because I don't see the h2g2 researchers as children and I don't see the h2g2 editors as parent figures. I hope and believe that they don't see themselves as parent figures either!

Colonel Sellers,

Your summary of LeKZ's experiences here strikes me as pretty accurate, except for one thing you left out. While everything you describe was going on, they managed to crank out three entries that are now in the edited guide, collaborate on a fourth, and would have had a fifth had they not requested that it be pulled when they were banned. This was within the space of a couple of months.

You guys are reading my mind... (Yes, it's the large print version!) Colonel Sellers, Hoovooloon, and a girl called Ben have covered all the bases - but I still feel the need to put in my 2¢.

• I would love to see LeKZ come back to h2g2. But because of her confrontational nature, I believe that she will find it impossible to interact in any open community. (This is stuff I've already discussed with her, so I don't feel guilty about posting it here.) As she herself has said, it's impossible for her not to respond angrily to what she perceives as ignorance and thickheadedness. And while we know that the members of h2g2 are above average when it comes to community interaction, we're not saints. She isn't interested in special handling or coddling, and that's what it would have took for her to maintain a membership in h2g2. Zeus only knows how long she would have remained a researcher if it hadn't been for the XX post.

• LeKZ has said herself that it was a mistake for her to have posted the XX message, and she regrets doing so. She also maintains that it contains no meaning, and that it was wrong for her to be banned for something that contains no content (as it was posted). I am of two minds about this. I don't doubt her sincerity. Then I look at the post. It's impossible to reconcile the two ideas and come away sane! This is why I'm so interested in the Arbitration/Telephone Sanitizers proposal. Giving her a chance to defend her position in front of the community would have alleviated much of the conflict that we're perceiving now. I think that the Arbitration scheme would have come up with pretty much the same conclusion - but with less resentment toward the Big Bananas. (Here's an idea... they've been talking about doing a test Arbitration run; LeKZ's ban is a perfect situation to run through. We've got proponents of both sides of the issue here - what do you think?)

One last thing: "I also saw that the events that preceded the XXX post could have happened to me, or to others here, and I am trying to stop the next person having the same problem that lekz had."

Xyroth - not to shoot you down, but LeKZ already had a shaky situation going on when she posted the XX message. (Read the message from the editors)

On the other hand... (I have five fingers) I am in full agreement with you. I like this community - I don't want to leave it, and I want everybody in it to have a good time, get along with each other, and achieve something worthwhile from it. If somebody is having a problem fitting into the community (and has expressed a desire to do so) then I want to find a way to make that happen.

Gotta go... talked too much and haven't said enough. Oh, well!

- Lentilla

I doubt it's ever easy for anyone with the responsibility to make decisions for other people's welfare to admit that they might have been reacting too forcefully, especially if they believe the decision was justified, overall. I'm not a parent, so I'm opinionating again (as usual) but if I were, I'd be awfully concerned that if I appeared indecisive to those in my charge I'd spend way too much time engaging in power struggles and far too little time working toward the stability of the family. I think I'd mostly have to decide that nurturing independence is a necessary thing, but family security takes precedence.

I think it requires a great deal of courage, and an extraordinary amount of personal integrity to admit that one might have resolved issues differently given further thought. I think there's a risk involved. I also think the risk is worth it, as long as you're dealing with people who have the capacity to analyze the issues without taking them personally. But I don't think that applies if those whom you're responsible for take every admission of human error, or misjudgement, as an example of incompetence.

What do you think, NBY?

Well, there goes someone else (Colonel Sellers) mentioning me again. Will they ever learn?

The way I see it theres only half a dozen people who actually see it 'Arpeggios' way and every one else is either neutral or agrees with the italics. If course these half a dozen people are real 'rabble rousers' (with the exception of Lucinda and xyroth who are really quite mild chaps). I'm sure the rest are all already marked down in a file somewhere- the FBI probably

I can only repeat that I find the perceptions of these half a dozen people 'seriously out of whack' with what I understand to be 'reality'

For instance Colonel Sellers is basically speaking a lot of rubbish in his post again. There were many other impolitities from Arpeggio in the infamous 'Intelligence' thread other that really longish post Colonel Sellers mentions. And as for the ACES and other people insulting Arpeggio they were only reacting to far more nasty and aggressive postings from Arpeggio. In every single case where someone insulted Arpeggio I can show you another post where Arpeggio attacked them or someone else first, and Arpeggios posts were in every single case equal to or MORE agressive than the counter-attack.

If you're going to insult other people first you can hardly start whining and complaigning when they insult you back can you? And if your're going to get so tremendously upset by insults that you end up in hospital and post something as extreme as the X'd post then you've got serious problems and for the sake of your own health you shouldn't be using public forums on the internet at all.

Perhaps I should put in a bit of an apology of sorts - I'm sorry for making those nasty posts about Arpeggio - I didn't mean most of those things - it was 'heat of the moment' . Thats all I'm conceding though.

Bit unfortunite that I got to be involved with the controversy but again, I must disgree with Colonel Sellers and others who think Arpeggio would still have been here if it wasn't for the 'Intelligence' fiasco.

Even if the 'Intelligence' thing had never happened, I feel it would have only been a matter of time before a personality as volatile as Arp ran into something or someone else that they didn't agree with and went 'ballistic'

Like others have noted... Arpeggio is quite prepared to 'dish out insults' but it appears that she is quite incapable of dealing with even minor critisism in return.

I'm just here lurking, must say some of the recent posts have been bliss. .

Once more, can we bring this away from disussing someone who cannot respond here, and whose reactions cannot even be reported, and bring the subject back to defending "the NeXT LeKZ"?

Discussing hypothetical situations if even more pointless than discussing the past.

We cannot change the past.

We *can* change how we feel about it now, and we can change the future, but we cannot change the past.

***B

that should be "preventing the NeXT LeKZ"
B

Although the fact remans that there are alot of assholes out there and someone is eventually going to have to be banned againe at some point I am shure of it. maby I am just being pesamistic but I really dfeel that we cannot have a site without the oppertunaty that people could get thrown off it or then what would be the point in having rules?
I mean its a little like the biritish schools isnt it, they have these runs and no real way to punish people, yes suspend them from school and give them a free holyday for gods sake its what they want, so really if you carnt ban people from using the site it cind of destrys any real form of colntrole that the site has and then there would just be chaios becase you would get evry ass hole who heres about the place comming on and making a nusence of themselves

Playboy Reporter:

I'm guessing, since I'm a member of the SBVM and you have not specifically excluded me, that you consider me a "rabble rouser". And if you think I "see it Arpeggio's way", well, I have three words for you - "Jewish American Princess". (subtitles for the uninformed - this phrase represents a fundamental divergence of opinion between myself and LeKZ on a single point of interpretation. That divergence of opinion has *not* affected mutual respect, humour and general agreement on other matters.)

PR, please don't think I'm complaigning about critisism - there'll be no impolitities here, agressive or otherwise, but I must disgree with you on a couple of unfortunite points.

Firstly, if Col. Sellers mentions you it is because you are *relevant*. If you're going to get upset by even being *mentioned*, much less insulted, then perhaps you shouldn't be using public forums on the internet at all. If you're not upset, why the and the ?

Secondly, as I and I think almost everyone here understands it, Arp was banned, rightly or wrongly, *for the X post*. The whole Intelligence thread was peripheral - important as context, but no more than that. It simply was not *that* that caused the ban. You, or anyone else, may speculate that if she hadn't posted the X'd post, something else would have got her banned. All so much speculation.

Finally, you haven't "got to be involved with the controversy". Unsubscribing is easy. Many people who were involved have done it. The "respectable researcher". The person to whom Arpeggio addressed the post which got her the week's suspension. These people are quite happy to forget it and move on. You are perfectly at liberty to do so as well. This thread has moved on, too. We're now more concerned here with effecting change which will prevent a repeat of the LeKZ event. We want to improve the H2G2 experience for everyone. If you've a positive contribution to make - welcome! If not...

H.

PR: "If course these half a dozen people are real 'rabble rousers' (with the exception of Lucinda and xyroth who are really quite mild chaps). I'm sure the rest are all already marked down in a file somewhere- the FBI probably"


The FBI targets criminals, and not for petty crimes. Do you believe that some people here might actually feel insulted by this?


Tube

Colonel #649: For form's sake, at least *pretend* you don't know who is behind the Editors persona... (Actually, Posting 645 was written by more than one person - fooled you!) Anyway, trying to prevent another flare up is a good goal, so that gets a from us. However, for the record, all the decisions with regards to Arpeggio's warning and bans were made by the whole h2g2 team. Even with all the discussion in this Conversation, we have to be completely honest and say that we would *not* do things differently. The various arguments we've seen - that she didn't post the x'd out Posting, that it was random gibberish and wasn't meant to be offensive, that it was x'd out and therefore technically not an offensive Posting, that there was a conspiracy theory brewing up against her, and so on - have made absolutely no difference to the opinion among the whole h2g2 team that we made the right decision. We even brought in someone from outside the team to help provide another perspective, and once they'd seen what happened, they didn't even hesitate in agreeing with our decision. The majority of people on h2g2 agree with this decision, and although it's always good to consider developing the Community to try to prevent negative events, we genuinely have no regrets about the way this was handled. If we felt we were wrong, we would change our minds and announce it in public - and we buy into the analogies and musings frome Not Banned Yet in #661 and Mother of God in #663. This lack of u-turning is *not* down to stubbornness on our part, it's down to the fact that we *all* still believe that we did the right thing. Nothing we have seen has changed anyone's mind.

Ben #652: That part about banning without a warning is, as the Colonel said in #653, only aimed at those who flaunt the rules so appallingly that there's no question of them staying. The child porn account is exactly the sort of thing we're aiming this at, and this sort of 'catch-all' is *never* going to be removed. Anyone who runs a website like this has to have the ability to close down accounts at will (find us one that doesn't retain that right!) and all we can say is that this method has never been abused and won't be... and you just have to trust us on that one.

Colonel #653: You suggest describing which sorts of offences might end up in an instant ban, but this is not an approach we are happy taking. Listing offences is, as 7rob7 pointed out in #654 and Tube in #659, an impossible and never-ending task, and although we might be able to include some examples as guidance, we're not sure even this is a good thing, as a list of example offences can still be (and will be) misinterpreted by those who really flaunt the rules.

Subcom #658: To be honest, the one thing we would like to change is the title of 'lifetime suspension' for this Conversation! Mark plucked that title out of thin air, because it sounded right at the time. It still sounds right, but of course, it isn't. It's a ban, it's an expulsion, it's not supposed to be a euphemism, and our apologies for any conspiracy theories this might have sparked off.

xyroth #660: Comparing editorial feedback with feedback about lifetime bans is a bit unfair. The Guide Team (Chris, Sam and Ashley) deals with Guide Entries, and to be honest it's no skin off anyone's nose - particularly ours - if the author wants to make a change (as long as it's not totally off the wall!). It's our 'customers' who write and edit the content, every editorial process in the world is imperfect to some degree, and it's easy and correct for the Guide Team to think 'the customer is always right' when they do their support. With weightier pan-Community matters, especially upholding the rules, it's a completely different kettle of fish, and it's unfair to compare the two. Ben, you also compared the two in #642, and we must protest! (Nicely, but we're still protesting. ) Re your 'note to italics': don't worry, we're not taking your comments personally. Re your PPS: we've been addressing the key points brought up here; if there's anything outstanding that is relevant and hasn't been covered before, highlight it. We don't have the time to scour this entire Conversation, not surprisingly!

Not Banned Yet #661: Just for the record, there isn't any pressure from 'upstairs'. They trust us to get on with things, and get on with things we do, and they thoroughly back us up when we make decisions (because these decisions are reached after sifting through all the available information and making a careful decision). There is obviously a kind of 'pressure' exerted by us having to meet the pan-BBC Producers' Guidelines, but it doesn't come from above. They're actually very pleasant, helpful and supportive.

Playboy Reporter #664: Very good of you to post your 'apology of sorts'. Much appreciated, and in keeping with the tone of this Conversation. Let's all keep it this way...

agcBen #666: Right on! A good sentiment, especially considering it was Posting number 666... Let's try to steer clear of discussing the details of the Arpeggio ban as much as possible, as she is not here to defend herself. Besides, as we said above, our minds haven't changed on the matter since the beginning of this Conversation, and lessons can be learned for the future without getting bogged down in the details too much.

Tube #670: Chill out, Tube - have a cup of . This just sounds like a flippant remark about the FBI (well, it came across like that to someone who doesn't live in the USA).

Hello Colonel,

As I feel that your remarks(and not just yours btw) also seem to be aimed at me let me reply to this specific part of the whole shebang. You may notice that this is my first post in this incredibly long thread... And I don't intend to write much more here unless I am specifically targeted.


You wrote:

{quote}
- Several people began posting incredibly rude things to her, on and off her page. ***Some of them waved ACE banners, saying they represented the entire community***.
She reacted as a cornered beast, and fought back.
{endquote}

About this waving with Ace-badges. Of course I realize that I was the first one to criticize Arp. on her own homepage. I actually thought that that was a more decent thing to do than post in the Intelligence-thread as it had already sort of turned into a flamewar. I was deliberately straightforward and did not use much diplomacy because there was none to be found at the time in her postings either. I took it that she would be able to stand some criticism herself, and not to be any sort of crybaby.

Now as for the waving with badges : it seems that nobody has read what I actually *wrote*. Unfortunately I cannot find the infamous "There's no intelligence around here"-thread that this lady started on her own page any longer. I would have liked to quote my exact words.

But anyway, if you can find it yourself you can see I did NOT say "I am an Ace and us Aces think this about you...". I merely pointed out that due my being an Ace my attention was drawn by the intelligence-thread and all things connected. Indeed, Ms. Arp. could have/may have deduced that the Aces were watching. This was not a secret as it is one of the tasks of Aces in the first place. I was just the first one to say it out loud(AFAIK).

The response was a vitriolic post that went a h*ll of a lot further that what I wrote. Or do you agree with the lady in question that greeting me with "Sieg Heil" and "Towelmeister" was polite ? Tactful ? Diplomatic ?

So *please* do not include me on your list of "People who needlessly aggravated Arpeggio" And don't put me on your list of "Aces who were abusing their position" either. It is far from the truth and insulting and anyone who reads my original post can see that for him/herself.


To conclude my input(now that I'm responding anyway) :

Several people, including Arpeggio, have said that I was asking retorical questions. This is *not so*! But even if I would have done just that : retorical questions can be the startingpoint to a broader discussion. They can divert the attention to specific nitpicking and give the discussionpartner a chance to put everything in a broader perspective. Unfortunately this did not happen. Instead she started ranting and raving about me being a liar etcetera. Why ? Because I didn't agree with some of the stuff she said. Because I confronted her. Because I said "I don't agree". This type of Arpeggio-explosion has occurred several times after my contact with her. So I ask you : Who was the problem ?

As far as I have been able to see Arpeggio was/is a very intelligent person. She doesn't know the first thing about human interaction though. Let alone about tact and diplomacy. From someone who is/claims to be so incredibly bright I would have expected a somewhat more balanced response than "Dear Towelmeister, Sieg Heil". Saying that is as good as saying "Go away, I don't want to discuss this with YOU. You're an as*h*le". Fair enough, I complied to that request. So she cut herself off from any serious conversation with me. Not the other way round. I would not have written my post in the first place if I would wanted to have nothing to do with her.


Towelmaster.

Typo-alert!

{quote}
They can divert the attention to specific nitpicking and give the discussionpartner a chance to put everything in a broader perspective.
{endquote}

They can divert the attention *away from* specific nitpicking and give the discussionpartner a chance to put everything in a broader perspective.

TM.

Minor conspiracy? Hardly. Choice of language (deliberate or accidental) to effect how people saw the event - definately. They certainly didn't use 'lifetime suspension' because it was clearer or easier to type...

Do you really think someone would read lifetime suspechan and think that ment that she could come back?

? I'm working my way through a pot of Japanese Greeen Tea (with fried, dried rice in it to give it a slightly nutty flavour) ATM.
And No, I didn't feel insulted personally. Notice the absense of ?

Tube

Well, it looks like the knives came out again, but we amazingly seem to have made it through in one piece. I will just say again that I applaud those here who are trying to have a reasoned and thoughtful discussion. I think there have been some great things to come out of it so far, and I look forward to seeing what else is to come.

In terms of the whole "waving ACE badges about", it doesn't seem to be so much of an accusation to me, but it illustrates an interesting problem that arises in some conflicts. Various members here belong to volunteer schemes (often identifying them in their names), and it can be hard for some users to distinguish when people are speaking as a person or as their position (I'm not really clear if this occurred in the case in question). I ran into this problem several times as a Scout, where I would make a personal suggestion, and then be horrified to see it interpreted as some sort of official Scoutly pronouncement. Obviously, this misinterpretation can also apply to heated arguments. I'm not really sure what can be done about this, but I think the Italics are on the right track in separating their official and personal postings into separate accounts.

The surest way, imo, would be to remove the ACE/Scout/whatever bit from your nickname and only add it when 'signing' a post in that official function (like "I recommended this entry ... Tube - Scout). And leave it out when saying things 'personally' ("You could add something about ... Tube").

Tube

Yeah, that's pretty much what I started to do (well, now I'm no longer a Scout anyway). But I think it was part of the problem here, is that people didn't know when Mark said something whether he was speaking officially or informally. Led to a bit of confusion there.

"No intelligence here" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F70186&thread=120504

-myre {*runs away and hides*}