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

Over on the technical wishlist thread there's a lot of people coming up with weird and wonderful ways to manage transgressions (restrict them to journals, etc)

But nobody has yet considered exactly what is a transgression.

Where are we on the new House Rules?

Do we yet have a clear policy on what is acceptable behaviour, what is deemed a punishable transgression and what is deemed a gross (terminal) transgression?

The epic thread starts here.

[If you are likely to be affected by any of the issues in the following thread, then please write to Icy North, c/o h2g2]

##Do we yet have a clear policy on what is acceptable behaviour,##

shouting ARSE!!!! and blaming 2legs

For reference, the existing house rules may be found at, spookily: <./>HouseRules</.>

Having clearly understood House Rules is one of the essential tasks of the proposed move to our new home. Whatever is decided, they should be written in a way that makes their meaning absolutely clear, without any way that they could be misinterpreted.


Of course - we have to remember to include 'no spitting'

We should keep most of those, especially the 'No Spitting' rule


The Trangression procedures need overhauling, definitely

Might it be instructive to consider what got people banned on the existing site? I know that the Eds don't comment on why people were banned, and we're not even told when they are banned, but the ones that are known on the site are the following:

1. Insulting the Eds (although the insult was then published in an easily crackable code).

2. Posting irrelevant comments in lots of different conversations to the extent that everybody on the site is up in arms against you.

3. Posting in such a way that people think you are trying to persuade kiddies to meet you.

Let's not mention any names here, but I understand that all of these got people banned in the past.

As I tried to slip in, ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=8236113&skip=249&show=1 I will step back into the shadows now

I think the "No advertising" rule will have to still apply in the new h2g2, even though we move away from the BBC's blanket ban on advertising. If the site does decide to make money from advertising, the people who pay for adverts might get pissed off if other people get advertising for free. The sort of thing I'm thinking of is people signing up, posting an ad and then going away.

I've no problem with a member of the community mentioning they've just bought a new camera and find it very good, and posting a link to a commercial site that sells that camera.

And re: Post #6 ...

There have been no transgression procedures except what works for 'today', because of such limited Beeb staff. On the fly and what works ...

- Active negative participation in longrunning onsite conflict.


- large amounts of offensive posts removed, multiple accounts, spamming, impersonating a moderator, breaching HRs even when agreeing specifically to not do that. Basically breaking HRs often enough to cause the Eds lots of extra work and bother.

Is "multiple accounts" a transgression?

When you do it in that context yes (they were setting up accounts to get around the transgression procedure).

I know you don't want names named, and I think that's fair for existing or recent researchers, but I'd like to post the list of banned researchers from when the old transgressions procedure was in place (the one that invovled the community).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3621548

I don't think that a list of banned folks would be a bad idea. For each, such as myself or others, a 5 or 10 word descriptive. "Generally considered distruptive" would have been the most polite for my time. For others, "Excessively abusive to individuals" ?

No one else be named, but it raises a flag for people to be wary?

Re: post 10

Some aggressive behaviour went beyond the Transgression Procedure.

Banning a Researcher has never taken lightly and proof would have been needed for the then 3 Italics to ask the higher powers that be to made a decision.

FYI... I was asked if you should be allowed to return - I agreed.

Perhaps now you will stop your prodding and poking and innuendo's about Italics and others conspiring against you. You did it yourself.

##but I'd like to post the list of banned researchers from when the old transgressions procedure was in place##

name and shame

let them never do it again

and be a warning to others

what not to do and beware who you mix with

(can I get on that list????)

Well then, I do offer a bow and doff of the hat for your considerations of a return, lil. ...

Can we limit this thread to agreeing what constitutes a transgression?

There are all sorts of procedures we can then follow, from moderator censorship, to warnings, suspensions and bannings. That's all for another thread, really.

I've hacked these out of the House Rules as being transgressions in one way or another. Are there any missing items, or are any of these to be deemed acceptable after we move on?

***
Flaming
Trolling

Unlawful material
harassing material
defamatory material
abusive material
threatening material
harmful material
obscene material
profane material
sexually oriented material
racially offensive material
otherwise objectionable material
overuse of smiley

being impatient
spamming
flooding
advertising

posting in a foreign language
textspeak
unintelligible postings

posting personal e-mail addresses
posting personal instant messaging addresses
posting personal details

unsuitable URLs
racist material
pornographic or sexually explicit material
potentially defamatory material
anything which encourages illegal activities
material which infringes copyright
sites which purely plug or promote commercial products or services without containing material which enhances the subject matter
sites which may offend our users

overuse of complaints system (ie Yikes button)
posting for suspended researchers
spitting
harassment

election time:
posting without declaring candidacy
personal abuse over discussing issues
sloganeering
campaigning/lobbying
polling

illegal activity
condoning illegal activity
infringing copyright/plagiarism
violating other 3rd party and intellectual property rights
***