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

How should we manage transgressions in the new h2g2? (noohootoo)

Over the last two days I've created threads on:

House Rules (the consensus was that we leave them largely as they are, with the exception of allowing controlled foreign-language use) - see F21551820?thread=8249512

Banning (more difficult, but people seem to feel that outright permanent bans should be restricted to breaches involving credible threats of violence and intentionally illegal actions) - see F21551820?thread=8249873

So, that leaves us with deciding what we should do when other house rules are breached.

One important thing that came out of the Banning discussion is that context is everything, and we would need to weigh up the seriousness of the breach, whether the researcher knew what they were doing, whether they were a repeat offender, etc.

And so I invite the community to suggest appropriate guidelines that moderators and editors should follow in each case. E.g. you might say "If someone joins up purely to post blatant advertising to their business, then moderators should remove the link, and send an e-mail. Repeat offences can be met with second e-mail, pre-moderation, suspension and then banning in that order"

As usual, please don't discuss any current or past moderation decisions, as it's against the House rules to do so. Look forward, not back

OK, off you go The house rules are here: <./>HouseRules</.> Current Transgression Process is described here: <./>HouseRules-Transgressions</.>

From the HR -transgressions, there's four levels:

Failed Content

Pre-mod

Suspension

Account termination/banning


Taff also suggested the option of a researcher being confined to their PS convos and journals. I like this idea as an alternative to or alongside premod (it strikes me as less disruptive to the community than premod).

Yes, there have been a number of creative technical solutions to implementing restriction discussed in the technical wishlist thread.

What I'm hoping to capture here is appropriate guidelines for how to manage transgressions in each case (I suggested one for advertising above). What would you do, say for trolling, or plagiarism, or swearing, or any of the house rules?

On other forums I think it's common to just ban spammers outright. By that I mean someone who opens an account and immediately posts 5 or 10 posts with nothing in them relevant to the site, but with lots of links to somewhere commercial. I don't think that there's a need to manually remove the links and email the account holder. I'd hope that there would be tools that would allow the Eds to just 'close' the account.

I'm not sure how much that happens here though.

And obviously there will be more ambiguous cases that need more care.


With low level stuff, I'd imagine content removed and an email that gives an idea of why. Would probably need to be a generic email otherwise it would be too much work for the mods, but it might be better to have more specific emails than are in use now. One of the consistent things I hear is people not understanding what is wrong with their post that's been removed.

I'd like to see swearing go back to being starred out unless it was hardcore.


Trolling... well that's a behaviour that's often only noticeable over time, so I would expect that once someone was getting lots of posts yikesed and removed, and/or other researchers were emailing the Eds about them, then that would trigger another level. Maybe warning emails? Then premod, then timed suspension. I'm not sure how specific we can be because it will depend on how often they post, how good a troll they are etc.

I do think one of the big issues for the community is whether the noohootoo CEs should be more hardline or hands-on than the bbc Eds. eg intervening earlier. I have a sense of timing with the bbc Eds, but I have no idea how many emails it takes to trigger a warning. I also think that how much work it becomes for the CEs should be a deciding factor. If a researcher is misbehaving to an extent that the CEs aren't able to do their other work, then escalating up the chain of consequences should happen faster.

Likewise if the community is getting in an uproar or people are leaving the site. I really hope we can act earlier to prevent that though.

I agree with all of Kea's suggestions.

This one is funny, though:

>>By that I mean someone who opens an account and immediately posts 5 or 10 posts with nothing in them relevant to the site, but with lots of links to somewhere commercial. I don't think that there's a need to manually remove the links and email the account holder. I'd hope that there would be tools that would allow the Eds to just 'close' the account.

I'm not sure how much that happens here though. <<

Well, I guess when you said 'commercial' you didn't have the sex industry in mind, but that's the one I've come across most often spamming h2g2.

Oh definitely them! Does it happen alot then? I suppose the ACEs pick it up, do they?

I don't think it happens a lot, and yes, the Aces pick it up. I don't think those people are banned, but then how would I know? Ban aren't published anywhere on site.

Nice opener, kea



I'm inclined to say "hold this thought and we'll cover it in a later discussion". I'd like to collect the community's feelings for what are the appropriate measures (as you did in the rest of the post).

We can then deal with how we might like to see the TPTB operate - ie the softer stuff - later. Does that sound sensible?

Can I add that I've been contacted twice today by committee members who are very interested in the ideas collected on these threads. To quote one:

"They are incredibly useful, and just what we should be doing if only we had the time"

So, please continue to post your thoughts - they are influencing the shape of the new h2g2.

Kea, I can only do a gentle bow towards your clear-mindedness. You have spelled out so much and in great care. Your entire post (number missed) is a danged good basis

OK, I'm inclined to take the lack of further contributions to mean that kea's got it pretty much spot on. Please continue to post any more thoughts on this subject, but I'll move on to the next discussion, which will be on the softer side of transgression management - link to follow

Discussion on Transgression Management and Moderation Style: F21551820?thread=8251028

i must confess that i am a little nervous to post anything on this subject
but since i would like to weigh in on it
regardless of how unpopular my views might be
and the repercussions thereafter incurring
as have in the past
i will still proceed....
because my opinion is valuable

all of the above i agree with
except
nothing so far has been said about the kind of trolling
so prevalent throughout the whole internet
and so therefore probably going on here too

that kind of trolling is called strategy trolling
the troll orchestrates a campaign of harassment aimed at a person
a person usually picked out for his or her obvious vulnerability
a person not part of the established community
and the troll carries out this campaign over days weeks even months

the effect on the victim is total annihilation
they either leave or are thrown out
because their presence alone is causing trouble
not necessarily because of what they themselves are doing
but because of others peoples actions towards them
is disrupting the site too much

they just are not 'fitting in'

anyway.... i think that that kind of troll should be banned
no grace period
because that kind of troll is obviously a sociopath

as for the group the Strategy Troll has following him or her...
they should be dealt with in that usual 4 step infraction plan you have
except for any who are active in instigating harassment against the victim
those should be immediately suspended with reasons given
and then a trial let back in period
but with the stipulation that anymore of like transgressions
will result in longer suspensions
and ultimately banning

but the Strategy Troll cant be let back in

now i realise that some have made remarks
that they think i make demands
and try to tell h2g2 how to run itself
but
i am a strong person
and when i go in the voting booth
i dont say "weeeeeell, maaaaaaaybe if we try to do this this way..."
i go in the voting booth and i say "i want it done this way"
and then i leave so that the next person can go in and say what they want





and sure... any banned person can get a new name
and come back in
but if we address all *behaviour* immediately
with no exceptions
then it doesnt matter what name is on the account
if the account is behaving badly
the account will have to go

all we have to do is look at the *behaviour*

Thanks fluffykerfuffle

I'm sure all here would agree with you that people who orchestrate campaigns against vulnerable members should be dealt with harshly.

It's not something I've seen a lot of here, thankfully, but when it does, I'd like to see the Community Editors monitoring it carefully. This is a new role which should help plug the gap we currently have between remote moderators and overloaded BBC Editorial staff.

youre welcome
and thank you, icy, for this amazing series you started and maintain
its really filling a community need

there may be folks that dont know about it tho

maybe some little thread in ask that just states when something like this starts?

Mrs Zen has published lots of threads in Ask and elsewhere which have referred to these group discussions, and judging by the response we had on the House Rules thread, there are lots of people subscribed - certainly a lot of the influential and active community members.

The more the merrier, though!

Indeed, there have been many discussions about House Rules and I think the concensus so far is that real clarity and definitions will take a lot of work. It may appear cumbersome, but the more that is spelled out, the easier for new and old folks to know what is acceptable

And while I have never been pleased with a clause of "we also reserve the right to act how-ever we choose" to be quite a catch-all ... And very open to personal whim, I can still see a need for it. To cover times when the letter is followed but the spirit seriously flaunted. Again, with a more populated higher echelons, it shouldn't be a real worry.