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

Nice one My Red Dice.

Xyroth, you are right. Unless PR manages a personality change he will create similar disruptions in the future. Nice to know the arbitration scheme will be needed afterall.

Much more seriously:

Italics - Martin says he has been sent "an email today via an anonymous remailer, from one who claimed to be Playboy Reporter {but there is of course no way to be sure}, telling me that if I did not immediately cease 'associating with LeKZ', then I would risk being thrown off h2g2, being arrested by local law enforcement, and losing my job." (Post 912)

In your own words (884) "Personal threats are not acceptable and *no-one* should be expected to to tolerate them."

I am going to point out that so far as I am aware LeKZ always signs her posts and emails, and usually posts and mails in public forums. She may be loud and angry, but she is honest about who and where she is.

Someone has threatened Martin un-tracably and semi-anonymously with sanctions which are only within your remit to impose. It is either PR, or someone pretending to be PR.

If Martin chooses not to follow it up with you it is his call. I am concerned about the nastiness that is revealed, though this matter is for Martin to raise with you, and for you to discuss with PR.

*worried - again*

a bowl of petunias called Ben

well if we want it to go constructive can we make anything out of the newest situation, of him who must not be named feeling that he must leave after being ferly insulting to alot of people, of cors this is my opinion but I think he braught in on himsel, but any way I really think insults have no place any where espechally not in a place people go to enjoy thmselve so is there any thing that can be done?
should anything attully be done?

Lucinda #914: "As I understand it, the Colonel was moderated not for using there heretofore of unknown blasphemous proportions word 'c****n', but for not obeying the h2g2 editors when they requested that this thread not degenerate into a flame war."

Spot on! Keep moving along, nothing to see here, nothing wrong with the word "cretin" per se, etc, etc...

Ben #921: "If Martin chooses not to follow it up with you it is his call. I am concerned about the nastiness that is revealed, though this matter is for Martin to raise with you, and for you to discuss with PR."

That's exactly right; we obviously can't comment on something that has happened completely outside of h2g2 and which we haven't been asked to be involved in.

Oh, one more thing while we're here.

Someone wondered above why the Editors hadn't commented on any of the schemes mentioned in this Conversation. It's because they're all still being discussed, debated and written by the various groups. We'll comment on them when they're presented to us as schemes that are "finished" and ready for our comments, but not before: the point is often made how these are Community-driven ideas, so we're leaving the Community to finalise their ideas before getting involved.

We think this makes sense; we're sure that us commenting prematurely would skew the debate before the ideas have been properly formulated.

From the moderation e-mail:

"Your posting has been removed because it is against the terms and
conditions of h2g2 to post material that is offensive. You
specifically call another Researcher, Playboy Reporter, 'a cretin'.
That is not acceptable. This is the reason for the removal of your
Posting."

From the Editors, posted above:

"Spot on! Keep moving along, nothing to see here, nothing wrong with the word "cretin" per se, etc, etc"

But hey, feel free to make things up as you go along...

The problem I have with this whole thing isn't even the c****n who cannot be named. The problem I have is the treatment he receives. He makes a trolling post, and the Editors rewrite it in "milder" tones, and repost it? The "mild" version, reposted by the Editors, still calls people idiots and jerks?? And before anyone can react, the Editors pre-emptively squelch the conversation???

What I see here is two people who have great difficulty fitting in to the community, two people who are incredibly emotional and volatile. One is abused, hounded, and driven away. The other is sheltered and coddled by the Editors. This whole situation absolutely reeks.

Lucinda, I would have to say, judging by the content that you suggested, that the email was indeed from He Who Cannot Be Named. The threats you say he makes are very consistent with the threats he has already made to She Whom We Are Gathered Here To Morn.

Colonel Sellers, finding it increasingly difficult to leash his temper

Hello Colonel, good to see you, as always.

So naming the abusee is a moderatable offense? But hurling abuse at a group isn't?

Just checking. If that is the rule, then that is the rule.

(I try not to hurl abuse, anyway. Just direct it with surgical accuracy, but that is another thread).

We really DO need SOME clearer guidelines. I am beginning to agree with the Colonel, that there appear to be some double standards going on here.

Has PR been warned for being rude to people on site, by any chance?

The bowl of petunias joke is wearing thin, now...

***B

Playboy's had posts hidden, and should have been given a reason in each case for the hiding. Whether he has received an Official Warning is (rightly) something we cannot know unless Playboy chooses to reveal it (which seems unlikely).

I'm assuming that Playboy wrote the milder post, not the editors. The special treatment was being able to place it in the position of the moderated post, rather than having to repost. The editors have always made moderation reasons up after the event, so there's nothing noteworthy there. Remember the whole homophobe list malarky?

I initially thought that the severe threats to Playboy that the editors mentioned must have been private by email (or even post!), but it occurs to me that Playboy has deliberately kept his email, address, et al, absolutely secret (and bragged about it in one case). So they must have been public, I guess. I haven't seen such threats - but then, I haven't been looking.

-Martin

"But hey, feel free to make things up as you go along..."

Thank you Colonel, we will do.

The reason given in the moderation email *is* accurate - if you had not been offensive to Playboy Reporter then your Posting would not have been removed, but you were, so it was. As it was right after we had specifically asked people in this thread *not* to do that, we obviously had to remove your Posting. What else would you expect following a request from the Editors asking for good behaviour?

It'd be good if we could move on as soon as possible; Colonel Sellers has said his temper is at breaking point, but it would be disappointing if it exploded here. We've asked for calm debate in this Conversation, and we'd really like to see it, so let's move on from talking about Playboy Reporter, emails outside of h2g2 and all the rest of the stuff that's boiling people's blood, and let's get back to the constructive discussions that were happening here.

Then we can unsubscribe again.

Lucinda #927: "The editors have always made moderation reasons up after the event, so there's nothing noteworthy there. Remember the whole homophobe list malarky?"

Care to expand on this, Lucinda? As we recall, we hid that entry because of a potential defamation, but the author accused us of homophobia without taking the time to read our reasoning. When we explained the *law* to him, he understood, and agreed that we should have taken it down. The fact that he never got round to editing it and putting it back up again is his choice.

Not sure what we did wrong there - could you elucidate?

I hope this will be my last posting about #849 and what followed.
Some facts in chronological order and from my not omniscient point of view:

1. PR posts something that is moderated straight away (#849).
2. PR states that s/he will drop hir identity on H2G2 and causes a re-worded version of #849 to be put up. The re-worded version was such that the people putting it back up, you, the Italics, must have been aware that it would cause "some reaction”.
3. People do react.
4. PTB come and say that PR wants to make a quiet departure from hir old identity and people should not start a flame war.


I suggest that posting #849 was a mistake.
It was a mistake by PR if s/he really did want to make a quiet departure. (Besides the point: Seeing that s/he did want to say the things said in #849 so badly that s/he got a re-worded posting put up, I am inclined to doubt that.)
It was a mistake by you, Italics, to put the re-worded version back up. Did you really believe that the ones explicitly mentioned (and others) would not react? Would it not have been the quietest way of letting PR drop hir old identity to not re-post #849? There would IMO have been much less heat if #849 had never seen the light of day (again).
(Re-)posting #849 is a way of making the departure of PR a noisy one.

I feel the quietest way for PR to leave would have been to not post #849, have hir account with H2G2 deleted and to sign on anew.

Maybe something to be considered in the future.
Just my two cent, no hard feelings

Tube

"'But hey, feel free to make things up as you go along...'

Thank you Colonel, we will do. "

The "making things up as you go along," in this instance, refers to the unique reality warp that took place here. If you specifically state that cretin is acceptable, after specifically stating that my posting was removed for calling him a cretin, and mentions the aggressive nature of my post in light of the "request" to keep my objections to myself as an "oh, yeah, and another thing...", then you're making up reality as you go along, not rules. Either you understood what I meant, and the big grin is a smartassed remark designed to irritate me even further, or it totally went over your head.

Remember, nobody likes a smartass.

And I see that the questions of favoritism have gone completely unanswered...

> "Care to expand on this, Lucinda?" Sure, since you ask - I wasn't going to bring up old news. The original list was (if I recall) a list of homophobic people, including various famous and semi-famous people. It urged researchers not to vote for them or use their products. The original reason given was that it was removed for being 'campaigning'. Peta confirmed this, saying specifically that 'campaigning' was against the terms and conditions. This was later discovered to be incorrect, and the alternative explanation of 'harassment' was given. It's best if people read the threads for themselves - I provide links. What did you do wrong? Well, I originally proffered it as an example of you making things up as they go on, which isn't necessarily wrong, and appears to be something you are proud of. But since you ask, I would suggest that the following things went wrong: * making incorrect pronouncements on the house rules as if they are gospel * removing something before you are sure of the reasons (as opposed to leaving them pending until you know one way or another). * failing to apologise for providing incorrect information on the house rules * Tony's criticism of the BBC was misinterpreted as a *personal* criticism of the italics. This bringing of personalities into the issue was not helpful. * The Amnesty International Petition entry *STILL* hasn't been updated. There was good stuff too: * You quickly cleared up that there was indeed some uncertainty in the decision. * You explained why the entry had a 'deleted by author' message. * You provided extra clarification on the ruling and where campaigning crossed into harrasment. Links to the two relevant threads: -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=109968 http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F63734?thread=109935

Let's try a simple question - "Is it acceptable to call a researcher or an ex-researcher a cretin?"

I'll throw you a 50/50 lifeline for free:
A) yes
B) no

If you like, you can Ask The Audience. Or Phone a Friendly Lawyer...

-MRD

While we are on the subject, does anyone know in which jurisdictions 'hate-speach' is illegal? Or for that matter making physical threats?

I am *not* being sarcastic. I truly don't know if it is illegal anywhere to threaten to do things which it would be illegal to carry out.

Off for 5 days now. Don't do anything dramatic on Friday now, anyone.

***B

Comes under harassment. Possibly advocation. Causing emotional distress. Stalking, sometimes. Hate speech (ie inciting racism) is specifically outlawed in some countries, though I can't recall which off the top of my head. Incitement is also a crime - anything which encourages other people to do nasty stuff. Oh, and defamation/libel/slander, of course.

-Martin (so NOT a lawyer)

Since I am one of the parties mentioned in the re-written posting of P*****y R******r (whose name now seems to have been 'elevated' to the same status as s**t and f**k) and since the H2G2 Editors (who seem to have forgotten, that persona cannot make 'requests'-- it can only give orders), I am evidently not permitted to explain how disgusted I am to see that my name has again been typed by that person of dubious parentage who will evidently not be here to respond in any case. (Similar to hir previous departure, it seems.)

I suspect that the editors made their pronouncement because they feared that the 'Intelligence' fiasco might be repeated again with that wretch's departure. Having said that, I, too, have to wonder what kind of influence this person has that would cause the editors to post the 'toned down' version, at all when their avowed intention is to avoid conflict. (I am avoiding comments about editorial comments that were made in the past here. I suggest that we all do the same.)

I *will* say that I have no idea what my 'co' may think in this matter, but I will once again ask for anyone to cite any time when I have touted my intelligence as a standard or even stated what IQ I have, anywhere on h2g2 or anywhere else. In fact, I have no idea what my IQ is and I don't really care.

The significant thing is that P*****y R******r seems to be afraid of such a plot and shi evidently represents some segment of the h2g2 population. Unfortunately, shi is gone and cannot respond (though shi has never demonstrated rational argumentation in the past.)

During the 'Intelligence' thread discussions/flame wars there was some concern and discussion as to what hir nature might have been and what might have been done wrong such that shi had chosen to leave, there doesn't seem to be any such need now. We have all formed our opinions about hir. Be happy or sad as you choose but do not expect any other to share your views.

From my point of view, we should be happy that shi has promised not to come back until "the idiots are deal with." Since it seems that h2g2 is not currently (and, hopefully, never will be ) dedicated to discrimination according to intelligence, as P*****y R******r's words seem to indicate shi is, it will be some time till we need to deal with hir 'proper' views of the universe again.

Lord, save us from those who *know* what is right and cannot hear the voices of others.

Barton

It's a pity some people cannot tell sarcasm from serious threats. The 'threat' Playboy Reporter mentioned specifically above was firstly, a suggestion that he be challenged to a duel, followed by a suggestion that it would not work because he wouldn't be able to find a friend to be his second, followed by a suggestion that shooting's too good for him, followed by a suggestion that instead he be tied to a chair and forced to listen to the life philosophy of some other figure LeKZ are not very impressed with ... with the mention that at least that is not as bad as Vogon Poetry. Does that sound like a serious threat to anyone here, or even like hate speech? Like, something to worry about, to change identities over, to call the police about or to sue people for, etc.???

Mr. Cogito: yes, I am going to try and at least from my side get this thing back on track, with a few new positive suggestions and so on. I'm just trying to provide context for the things that have been said here, first. Otherwise people are just speculating.

"It's a pity some people cannot tell sarcasm from serious threats."

That would depend, of course, on the value one placed on hir interpretation. If it is more useful to believe threats in - even where none are intended - then "here be threats!" no matter. Witness the agenda of any politcal faction throughout history - "Vote for me and I won't let those child-killers eat your babies!" Tired, but effective.

I would like to add that I think the recent discourse in this thread remains on-topic insofar as it has been dealing with perceived offensiveness and the results - chosen or imposed - of that 'offense'. Would P*****y R******r have been the 'next LekZ' had s/he continued to troll? Would any of us s/he repeatedly attacked have been sacked for repeatedly responding in kind? What will happen if, in hir 'new identity', s/he returns to the activities of the past? Would the (our?) reaction be cumulative? Or unique and distinct to the 'new' researcher?

I believe all these questions are germane to a quest of this thread - to identify 'official' policies that are open to being too easily mis-understood, mis-interpretated and mis-applied. And to offer possible solutions to those ambiguities.

My 7¢ worth, which - when adjusted for inflation - is still only worth 2¢.

-7rob7, who is beginning to wonder who will be the lucky researcher to make the 1000th post in this thread, when they will make it, and what they will win...

Sorry for the typos. Grrrrrrrr...

Well, I skipped over Playboy's post the first time. "I've got better things to do than waste my time trying to reason with morons!" Exactly... You guys are giving the post way more attention than I thought it was worth, so I figured I'd actually read the thing through. Still haven't found anything I'd want to respond to, except for this:

> It looks to me that far from making h2g2 a better place, the schemes Colonel Sellers and Rob are proposing are simply a way for some members of the community to start pushing other people around. The goal of Barton and co is in my opinion to turn h2g2 into an elite 'high IQ' society where anyone who 'doesn't measure up' is treated like trash. How is that in keeping with Douglas Adams dream?

I really don't like it when people bring up Douglas Adams and complain that 'he wouldn't have liked this' or 'we're losing sight of his dream,' etc. They have no idea what Adams would have thought. My opinion is that he would have loved to see a working, functional, online community that had such healthy discussions about the nature and number of the beast. But I don't know this, and you don't either. So stop using Adams as a religious icon, and approach the problem on its own terms.

I don't understand how arbitration and the Magna Carta are manifestations of the 'high IQ society.' Nowhere in the proposals does it say that intelligence is a pre-requisite to become an arbiter. Neither does it say that there will be those who are judged not worthy, and treated 'like trash.' I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from, but I fear that you've become a little paranoid. (or should that be schiznoid?)

Well, Playboy, best of luck to you in your new persona.

Okay, enough of that. I am a little concerned about C. Sellers' post being removed because it contained the word 'cretin.' This is a good word, and I've been tempted to apply it to certain persons in this conversation. In the interest of fairness, I think the Colonel should be offered the chance to rewrite his comments slightly so that it's less objectionable, and repost. Maybe that's just me.

(please excuse if I'm a bit snippy today... Feeling woozy from cold medication )

- Lentilla