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

Please don't?

1/ I couldn't even if I wanted to, I'm not a mod or ACE or forum moderator or whatever, so I don't have access to the IP adresses of forum posters.

2/ I wouldn't as I don't want to. I have no issues with no-one guvnor, I have not personally read anything objectionable or offensive so I have no motive

I was just noting a similar situation and how is was dealt with thas all.

<>

That would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1984 and would probably result in h2g2 being shut down and the BBC being taken to court.

I don't think the post should be removed and I doubt taking this action would result in the BBC pulling the plug on hootoo. However, it is plainly against the House Rules to post personal information about another researcher without their permission, so if someone did do this, it would probably be immediately yikes'd and removed anyhow.


az

OK - miread it. The suggestion was that the BBC might take the action, not a community member.

The point still stands. Some people may have some personal details already and might be tempted to misuse them.

I was referring to pffffft's previous post not being yikes'd. If I saw that someone had posted personal information about another researcher I would yikes it myself, as I have done in the past.


az

It's not being taken off anyway. Stand easy.

While the Moderators decided not to remove that posting, I do have to say one thing.

We currently do not have house rules preventing people from having different opinions - in fact we welcome it. But we do have rules about harassment, bullying and anti-social behaviour.

Please don't put your own account at risk by behaving in a manner that could put your own account at risk. If you find a posting objectionable, alert the Moderators to it through the official moderation system. By doing so, it also alerts the in-house team to problems and better informs us about what's going on. With the limited resources available to us, we cannot always be guaranteed to know about site disputes unless you alert us to them through the proper channels. It also means that if you choose not to tell us about objectionable material, it risks causing offence to others while it's left up for all to see.

Editors, can you clarify a few things then?

Do you see all moderation decisions?

Do you keep track of multiple moderations of individual researchers' posts?

I thought that most moderations were done by outsourced mods, and I had assumed you wouldn't see those decisions unless there was a specific reason to. So what I'm wanting clarity on is how you manage moderating _behaviour_ over a period of time that contravenes House Rules as opposed to a single post that does?

"I need to be clear. A boycott isn't simply about removing insults from threads. It's about not engaging with her anywhere on the site at all, on any topic. If other people then step in and get sucked into another war they can be invited to join the boycott. It's not a passive thing. It can be done very actively and intentionally".

Yes, and as I said I would not be prepared to participate with that:
1) I think its best to separate bad behaviour from good behaviour rather than come down completely upon one researcher all the time.
2) As others have mentioned, some postings demand response. If certain people stopped responding to Adelaide then I would feel I had to step up the intensity of my own responses, which so far have been blessedly yikes-free.

Moderation is done by outsourced moderators. However, if a problem is referred to us, we can find the entire heritage to a complaint - so long as the complaint goes through the complaints system.

I was not aware that moderation had been outsourced. This perhaps explains the apparent change in standards.

This post has been removed.

*speechless*

az

"and so it begins"

Anyone else 'temporarily' banned?

I'd certainly like to see a list - and I especially want to see Apple's name on it.


az

it might take some time to find out

Not sure who is next on the list of 'troublemakers'.

They have chopped the head off the intelligent dissent on the site that is trying to make this site into a non-troll zone - could be one of quite a few people.

Obviously none of the trolls as they do not actually bother the mods/editors at all they just bother us.

People who complain about trolls etc bother the mods/editors as it means *they* have to actually do something.

Ironic that Hoo/Alex and myself were considering earlier in the week to add set up a philanthropic educational area somewhere on the site for people to ask intelligent questions about science and anything else they need to know about. It would have made a change from blue sky thinking/discussion stuff. However, looks like thats down the toilet now. What a shame.

I was replying to fatkelli

You didn't need to state the obvious Az we all by now what you think.

Apple is on pre-moderation only.