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

Following suggestions from the Community, the 'Please don't post for suspended Researchers' section of the <./>HouseRules</.> has been extended to include the following:

"If the BBC suspects for any reason that an account has been opened and/or is being primarily operated by or on behalf of a banned Researcher, the holder of the suspect account may be asked to prove their identity to the BBC's satisfaction."

For more information check out the discussion in the Community Soapbox at F55683?thread=162178

OK. Seems sensible.

Fair enough.

*nods*... although the phrases "suspect" and "to satisfaction" leave this very much in the BBC's palm. It's a bit ambiguous for my liking, but other than that, good. I agree. ...(It'd be hard to iron those out anyway)

Noted.

Has there been any discussion as to what might actually constitute satisfactory "proof"? Would it be a polite thing to include somewhere in the sign-up materials/Terms some examples of acceptable I.D. that might - note "might"; not trying to suggest a rigid definition - be asked for?

I don't recall that any solution was reached in the "How do I Prove Who I Am?" thread, but I don't see and hear everything that goes on here.

It just sometimes seems like I do.

*nods*

I mean, I couldn't actually prove that I (James William Eaton-Lee) am the owner of this h2g2 account (Njan, U47349). It's extremely likely, since I own Njan.co.uk etc, but I couldn't actually prove it. Therefore, the chances that, if accused, I could prove I wasn't, for example, aiding and abetting another (banned) researcher to post, are slim.

Seems reasonable. Most of us could identify ourselves if required or could produce a reference. It should be part of the signup info that it *might* be required in case of problems. I suspect that the italics are busy enough anyway not to be using the setup very often!

7rob7, you might like to check out F55683?thread=161006 which contains a discussion of how to prove who you are. The conclusions helped to influence this addition to the rules.

okey- dokey

I tried quickly to read all the backlog.
At the moment the only link between our virtual self and the real self is the e-mail adress whe have to provide as we register, and that is not very solid by using hotmail or equivalent.

Is it possible to ask also for a real name and adress to be provided at register time?
Postbox not allowed.
Kept secret by the BBC for privacy and so on...

In case of doubt both ways can be used to require an answer with proof of actual reception. A non-existing name and/or adress can be an extra reason to decide about closing an account.

We have to provide our real adress so often on the web that one more can be no problem.

That wouldn't be entirely practical, because it might not be entirely legal. The BBC are trying to attract all ages to these DNA sites, and they wouldn't be allowed to ask, say, a 13 year old to provide their real name and address.

I am not a lawyer, so I do not know exactly what is allowed and what not in case of minors. Let the legal department think about that.
Lots of sites ask for name and adress and have rules for children.

But I do think we need a more tangible link with the real people behind us.

{post 1}

I wouldn't let my son give out his name and address to anyone on the net. Not even a big company. I'm sure a lot of parents feel this way too.

I said: "I don't recall that any solution was reached in the "How do I Prove Who I Am?" thread..."

And the Editors said: "...you might like to check out F55683?thread=161006 which contains a discussion of how to prove who you are."

Wow, man; deja vu. That's the exact same thread I was refering to - as I read it - as inconclusive. What am I missing? Is this like at the grocer when I ask, "Where's the apples?" and they say, "Over with the apples."?

All I'm curious about is what form this I.D. check might take, if it ever comes up (again). You must have *something* in mind, else it wouldn't be in the rules yet.

Exactly 7rob7! The point we were trying to make was that the discussion ended up concluding that there *isn't* a specific way to prove your identity. Given this, it would be pointless to include any specific identity methods in the rules, so we didn't.

However, to flesh out what might be required, we'll obviously take each case as it comes, as the kind of identification depends on what the problem is. If someone is saying on site that they're a medical doctor, for example, then proof of their qualifications (eg by getting the relevant medical board to contact us) would probably suffice. If someone has a job, then an email from a company address from someone else who works there would probably do. Details such as name and address, which we could check against an electoral roll, might also do.

But until we come up against it, we can't specify required methods in the rules. It's a bit like trying to list all the misdemeanours and what the 'punishment' might be - it's impossible and pointless, because it can never be complete. We simply need to be persuaded that the person who's running the account isn't abusing the system, and the onus is on them to prove this, because by the time we get there, they've obviously come to our attention for some reason or other, and they need to persuade us that everything's OK and above board before they can continue. Anyone can provide enough information to put our minds at rest if they want to, but specifying what is required *before* looking at the individual requirements is not possible.

See the section on apples for more information.

Ahhhhh: the old 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' routine. Gotcha. My life credo, as well. Thanks.

( Will it go 'round in circles? Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky? )

of course this is still subject to the problem that if someone comes along and states "peta is lekz" then it is up to peta to prove that she isn't.

Even if the totality of peta's posts don't resemble lekz, she is still guilty of the sin of being accused of being lekz.

now peta's case would be simple to clear up, as she works here (assuming you take for granted that the italics work ) but it does illustrate the problem with the editors last comment.

The only crime she would have committed would be to have been found guilty of being accused of being a banned researcher.

is this a case of enshrining "guilty until proven innocent" into the house rules, and if so, how does that tally with the policies of the bbc?