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

no dolly

This post has been removed.

Natalie post 1447:

"very charitably gives Researchers the right to complain"

It is not much of a right when those emails are often ignored. It is also not going to be right when the same people are involved in deciding about themselves and their friends and refuse to check facts which prove them wrong. In some instances it is not even any more of a right than is supposed to be accorded the whole population by law - it is a responsibility and possibly a way of avoiding external independent scrutiny.

"just less time-consuming in the long run as being unfair is counter-productive."

That is what this and other such threads show. The staff and underlines have been allowed to be unfair for a very long time leading to more and more people noticing and complaining about it instead of just kowtowing (sorry kow ) and letting themselves simply be harassed off the site by the perpetrators of the unfairness while many others lack the courage and remain silent.

"as I have said before, not all of the posts reach us"

I recall one or more members of staff saying that all posts were referred and looked at to check the moderation decision was correct (although that might only merit a glance). Are you now saying that this isn't the case? Or are you saying instead that large quantities of emails mysteriously go astray when people object to the decision made against them or simply ask for clarification. I'm still waiting for a large number to be answered. Other people say they are too. If you are referring to already moderated posts then it was my understanding, *not* contradicted by Peta or Jim, that unless the post was edited the original was retained and viewable by the staff even though now hidden to normal researchers.

"one of your own posts passes or fails"

Not at all. My posts are simply the ones of which I have most knowledge and can be absolutely sure of the facts. That ought to be obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence. You also don't like it when I refer to other people by name as would be necessary to bring in any of their evidence. Finally we have the catch-all of moderation decisions not being discussed on site and even trying to claim that your emails to people are private (refuted by HVL). So we are hardly going to be given the data of other people's posts to judge. Bearing these previous edicts of yours, it is a low tactic on your part to claim that I can do otherwise than present my own evidence.

"both of whom apologised profusely for their behaviour"

There's the significant credibility gap again between what really happened and what you claim happened. Those people did not apologise for the right thing. Nor did they make any sort of amends. Nor did they give even the slightest indication that they had any intention of not doing it again. All these would be required for an apology to be sincere and even remotely acceptable. In fact, despite obviously having no evidence to back up their false allegations, they stated reasonably clearly that they were going to hold on to their incorrect views. So they are quite likely to repeat the defamation and everyone else who sees it is likely to feel free to do so too. I point out again that the staff have delayed removing or even refused to remove much of it.

===

Natalie post 1450:

"letting bygones be bygones"

Naturally those who are in debt (in terms of being the ones committing the offences) are going to want to wipe the slate clean. However, it would not be correct to do so while they (staff and researchers) have demonstrated no intention of not getting into debt again, ie repeating exactly the same offences (by commission or ignoring of them).

"strength of character"

Strength of character is precisely what is not being shown by many people here. There are lots of people who know that those staff and researchers are in the wrong. They knew long before this thread and others. Yet they failed to speak out against it - or only did so on their own behalf rather than the injustices committed against others. That's weakness of character not strength - cowardice through fear of the same retribution they see unfairly meted out to others. Some leave in disgust or stop contributing. Others simply maintain silence.

I really ought to have this one on cut and paste: the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

We few good people are doing our part by bringing the evil to your attention when we are prevented from counteracting it all ourselves. We are waiting for you to choose good over evil and do your part. That could be by helping the other few good people find the courage to do their part. Eg by making it clear you condemn the bad behaviour instead of condoning it as "only human" when it is your friends or wanting to shove it under the carpet as "bygones". Only if some convincing effort is made to stop the continuing victimisation of people like us who do speak out against evil are the less brave good people likely to come out of hiding. Just telling people to stay out of the thread (as has been suggested occurred) does nothing to improve things.

I.V. Post 1448:

Your point about smileys is a good one. They do seem to be used by the more unscrupulous to pretend they have an innocent intent.

I can immediately think of two such posts (by a staff ACE and another volunteer) where all that was posted was laughing out loud at the other person. In one case they tried unconvincingly to pretend it was something else entirely. No reasonable person would fall for that excuse at all it was so transparent. They would have had no reason to post in reply there at all when their journal would have been the correct place (and they do keep a regular journal including trivia). In the other case they dodged justifying their behaviour at all and their friends weighed in to excuse them and accuse the other person.

That all seems to be standard practice for this site. NB For all I know it may be true or even worse on other sites but, before all you excuse merchants try that one again, the possible existence of even worse behaviour on other sites certainly doesn't make the bad behaviour here any better.

We will continue to moderate this site to the best of our ability. You question our ability and even our intentions, which is fair enough. Your idea of what is 'fair' and others ideas of what is 'fair' is going to vary. We are not always going to agree on this. We will continue to endeavour to be as fair as possible and take all of your complaints very seriously. I would not be in this thread at all if I didn't care about what people think about the way the site is run.

Many things said by people at both ends of the spectrum in this debate have been removed, others haven't. I remember at least one person apologising repeatedly to you for something they said. The unwillingness to accept an apology leaves us stuck in a repetitive cycle.

Turning the repeated negativity of this thread into a noble 'triumph of good over evil' is imaginative but I'm sure I'm not the only one amused by the interpretation. People may have offended you but, by a rather similar token, you have accused them of being 'nasty' and 'foolish.' In the absence of a Nastyometer or Gauge of Foolishness, these remain value judgements. While, of course, two wrongs do not make a right, the others have not suggested that they are whiter-than-white, nor are they imagining that what they have said is part of any dignified campaign for justice.

" no dolly"

Oh no, clones! ACEs can't help deal with clones, or even point people in the right direction of help. Nor the staff it would appear for personal experience...

ie. There was no reply to my e-mail request for help. Not to enter into a debate flame war, but to remove the clone in accord with <./>House Rules</.>.

How do I make a clone* disapper andybody?



So if nobody is willing to help with a third party creating a clone, suppose expecting the ACEs that clone themselfs to be delt with is out of the question?



*Clone; a copy of a users name or nickname for the purpose of causing trouble. Not just two people with the same user name.

Jab, I only see U210501 (you) and U48908 (a previous lost account?) at the moment. Was this a previous problem or something very recent?

NB The dna sites are slightly better for detecting clones than the BBCi message boards because of the U-number. Of course digibox users can't see it unless they click on the link and lose their place in the thread (no back) and it may not even occur to other people to check the U-number of postings on a regular basis.

SEF: U210501 is me

U48908 is not a problem, though it woul be nice to be able to take control there.

Digibox users NEVER click 'Remember me' - because it don't - the opposite if anything

No, the clone is from around May this year... U227980 is not me. But is subsribed to MJ I see "Travail." lingering there.

IKN

There is a problem different than just a clone...

When a person clones themself, which has happened within this thread...

But when the people creating clones have an ACE badge, that is a real problem.

When the staff will do nothing - a bigger problem.

When nobody will get to grips with the poor rules that allow userers to abuse them...

The worse thing of all to me, is these poor rules allow those that claim to enforce them to get away with doing wrong, or nothing at all.

To put a real-life slant on it, you can't break the law to enforce the law.

IKN

This post has been removed.

Natalie

I'll give you you get-out clause now...

I don't know how long you have been in the position you have. But know this, the people involved in staffing this site have been sat on their collective arse for the last 12 months.

Re: you comment before about the UN - Simle you don't allow corrupt 'police' to do your job for you.

IKN

police..

im sorry im realy am geting tierd of the tag line police that insedently started by two people that if they behaved on the most part wouldnt have any posts yikest iv (to my knolage had one yikest)so i guess you can add
goody goody along side police

ganging up on people

it has been done on here by two people as well one insedently hasnt followed the thread from the begining
skimed through and when ever one insults an ace the other isnt far behind as well to follow up

if im correct im sure the police get payed to do a service and work for a higher person other then the met...
we dont we are volunteers and im sorry this might come as a shock but if they

"Didnt break the house rules"then the
whole moderation wouldnt be such a issue from the stand point that people abide by the rules it wouldnt
get yikest im not saying the system used is correct i cant say iv never had to deal with that issue

so if calling us police is all that you are going to say and shout us down on totally unfounded as yet accusations please just leave becouse
that realy isnt helping matters and going totally off track

Thank you all very much for your comments, which I assure you we will take be taking on board.

Jab: I have no interest in a get-out clause but thank you so much for offering. I have been here since March 2002.

I know you disagree with our decisions and actions but, just in case you ever consider a career as a diplomat, there are more tactful ways of proceeding than saying 'the people involved in staffing the site have been sat on their collective arse for the past twelve months' - especially when, as you're probably aware, the BBC has been reducing staff in new media this year - and we've worked very hard indeed to make sure that the site continues to run and enable it to retain its core. A big part of this has been in defending this principle of 'transparency,' so important to us all, at every point.

This post has been removed.

Intern re: police.

Natalie tried to give a comparison with problems in the UN.

I pointed out that the UN relies on corrupt police, so are bound to have a problem.

The police in that context would be America. The see themself as the worlds policeman, yet don't even pay their membership to the UN correctly.

If you want to take it to mean about ACEs that are corrupt, and the way the assume the are here to plice this site - entering threads and flaming users. It happens.

I can neme two ACEs that I know to do this.

One of them has not posted in this thread, the other has so it might be fair to name that one.

So we all can see at least police oops ACE butality happens.

I have seen this ACE make claime it is correct they enter threads and start posting.

The system is wrong, there should be a better way, for conversation to take place, not causing offence or emabressment to people.

Natalie, you've been here that long, you should be well rested then.

Re: my 2 yikesed posts that were in in responce to Kaz

to yikes my replys shows other researchers somebody who has defended her friend Mina BBC/Ideno for being 'attacked' and mine were removed to show what? me being a troublemaker? it would look that way to all intents and purposes if i was reading it, perhaps that was the intention? however, my posts did not say anything i consider to be offensive else why was the same thing left remaining in this thread prior? face facts she acted innapropriately and by removing my posts only aids in this cover up and misleads other people reading the posts when in fact it just shows the trouble on this site goes right across the board and does not just lie with some aces/their pals

vamp

hey it happens, i had it dun, then they quote ya the houserules when u know n they know that no content of ur post breaks the rules
another case of hidin the truth
ya get used to it lol