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

Based on a lot of anger, over-heated threads, and long-time Researchers abandoning the place, ... I wonder if it might be a time to add a new house rule?

As I posted to Reefgirl's journal, ... "Perhaps there ought to be a new "House Rule" added, ... that anyone proving to be a serious thorn in a large number of Researcher's butts, may be subject to moderation or other treatments. Such abuses to be reported through the "Contact the Editors" channels. So that TPTB will be directly aware, ... with links, chapter and verse."

Of course, suitable mechanisms, wordings, what-ever would need to be worked out by your esteemed selves and resources.

It's just a thought. Hopefully a bit better than simply moaning and whingeing all over.

How about trying to use the current system. You know, the one that works fine if people actully bother to use it, instead of wandering around whinging.

As many people have found, the simple use of the "Yikes" doesn't do it. As no actual rules are being broken, as they stand. There is no rule about being obtuse, in-your-face rude, hypocritical and simply a pain in the @rse. To the point that many others simply unsubscribe from other-wise enjoyable discussions.

Traveller in Time normal procedures ?
"And the next step is replying to the rejection email that perhaps no rules are broken in the yikesed thread _but_ it is about the general behaviour of respective Researcher.

Though what behaviour is unappropriate could use somewhat more discription. "

GD people have already pointed out to you that the current system doesn't allow for this current situation. Some people haved tired of repeatly using the current system only to have no effect. That makes it hard to stay araound it is grinding people down. That means H2G2 becomes not a pleasent experience for some.

Re: Post #4, ... there's the rub. As with so many other R/L situations, what is inappropriate is often a personal judgement. That's why I was thinking that for each case, a single thread directed to TPTB could host as many complaints as there are offended people. If it's only one or two, then it would seem to not be much of a problem. But if there are a dozen, or 3 dozen, irate researchers, ... Sometimes volumes speak better.

"Perhaps there ought to be a new "House Rule" added, ... that anyone proving to be a serious thorn in a large number of Researcher's butts, may be subject to moderation or other treatments."

In other words... Mob rule? How many people did Lucinda hack off?
How many people did Hoo hack off? Both of those people I've disagreed with in the past - but I'd argue with anyone who said the site would have been better off without them.

Ok, so instead of a friends list we end up with an enemies list - and once you've got 12 enemies you're out?...(Bit like a driving licence, 12 points and you get a pushbike)

Should having a researcher with a 6 figure U number as an enemy cost you 2 points and a 5 figure U number cost you 3 points?
(Hacking off ex-members of staff with two and three figure U-numbers would be an extremely bad move in that case)

-----

As has already been said, the moderation system, when used _properly_ does work... It's just amazing how many people don't seem to know just what the full moderation process is, or how to use it to its full.

"As has already been said, the moderation system, when used _properly_ does work... It's just amazing how many people don't seem to know just what the full moderation process is, or how to use it to its full."

I too am amazed by this.

I have seen many researchers say they didn't yikes as they didn't want to be accused of abusing the button. I have also seen people admit they never referred the mod emails back to the staff.

So to accuse the system of failure is incorrect.

We already have 'anti-social' House Rules that cover this kind of issue, just as we have House Rules that cover harassment, which could be said to include equally anti-social 'Mobbing'.

I don't know of a "Lucinda" circumstance. As to Hoo, it seems that he was contacted and moderated himself to a degree. Displaying his own intelligence in realizing that some of the problem was perhaps himself.

Everyone has a position, obviously. Some feeling the system as it is works well, others that it doesn't. And most of the discussions are going on in journals, ... not necessarily in the open where a broader input from h2g2 public may have an input.

So my idea is just one. Which may or may not have any merit. ANYone with anything better to offer, PLEASE do step forward. Including a means of ensuring that everyone knows the full moderation process, and that if they anything, be prepared to spend some dedicated time backing up the complaint.

Sorry, my last post took some time to submit, ... past the errors. So I missed a couple of other points.

whoops sorry for bothering you then Jimster

I've just reviewed the House Rules again, and the only mention of "antisocial" is with specific reguard to spamming and flooding. Is there any category that would cover exhibiting generally anti-social behaviour?

I think the problem here is that it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between someone who is deliberately posting provocatively and someone who thinks that their posts are fine. If someone is posting with intent, then there are certain steps we can take, according to the offence. If someone doesn't realise they have broken the rules, that's where the patience comes in.

But you're right, a specific reference to anti-social behaviour is missing from both the House Rules and the Terms of Use that are both linked to at the bottom of every h2g2 page. While I think the rules do cover a lot of ground, it might be worth flagging this particular wording to the Central Communities Team. Thanks for raising this!

Jimster (on behalf of the h2g2 team)

Fair enough, Jimster. But there remains the issue of trolling, which is very difficult to identify using the present system. In general, I'm quite in agreement with the complaints system as it stands.

Thing is, trolling is a very hard thing to identify post by post. It seems to be rather a persistent low-grade, anti-social behaviour that cannot be seen clearly by moderators who are only responding to one yikes'd post that maybe only says something rather innocuous like 'oh, ha ha ha, yer all stupid! lol'.

According to the house rules, there is nothing wrong with that post. But when there are ten or more similar posts going on within one thread in rapid succession, this *is* a problem. Simply because, human nature being what it is, you can maybe ignore one or two of these things, but after awhile *someone* is going to reply to (feed) the troll. Which is exactly what they want to happen. And then perfectly fine threads end up getting de-railed.

The last time I emailed the Eds with a list of trolling behaviour posts (with links to them) I was told that my email would be considered but nobody wanted to start a 'witch hunt'.

I mean, hey, I was just trying to help. And to show that the trolling behaviour was consistent, not simply one post here and there.


az

My last post was in reply to your post 9, Jimster.

az

I agree,the trolling is making it very difficult for me to trust any new researchers on here.

Meanwhile, in the current specific circumstance that has so many upset... Like many others, I have quietly approached the individual. Suggesting ways and means to be himself, have all the fun he wants, without aggravating so many. And like so many others, I was told basically to mind my own business, stop being mean, stop being rude, and to grow up.

As I imagine TPTB are quite aware of the whole situation, might someone of "authority" contact him with a friendly suggestion or 7?

Moderation is never going to be an exact science. Some feel it's too strict, others feel it's too loose (and a few people's opinions of it predictably change depending on whether they're complaining or being complained about).

In the incident Azahar mentions, as in other instances that might well relate to recent issues, we felt that it would be better to treat the problem at source rather than following the individual around the site removing postings that were offensive when reviewed collectively but which were in some instances only marginally offensive in isolation.

There are also occasions when we are unable to be as specific about what we've done than perhaps some would like. Sometimes we might apply pre-moderation to an account or other restrictions, or issue a warning, none of which will be visible to the wider community unless the individual concerned decides to make it public. This is why it rankles when people say that we're 'doing nothing about it' when we most certainly are. But as has been evident recently, there is a certain level of mob mentality that comes from being fiercely protective of a site like h2g2 (one Researcher started a journal entry about this very issue, which has generated a lot of enlightening comments from both sides).

As I said, the Moderation system is never going to be perfect. But it works best when people actually use it properly. If you complain about something and the Moderators don't uphold the complaint, you always have the option of replying and asking politely for further clarification. We review all complaints anyway, so if a reply comes through we can investigate the issue further.

The main thing to remember though is that the Moderators - like the in-house staff and the community members - are human. This means we all have different interpretations, limitations and opinions on how the House Rules should be applied. It means we should all have room to make mistakes and be given opportunities to make amends. And it often means being a little more patient with people whose literacy or comprehension skills don't match your own.

Or at least, that's the excuse I use for my appalling typing