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

Just had a phone call from SoRB/Hoo/Smokehammer re: the banning question here is his basic reply in basically is own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5DIuEm8BXw&feature=related

Alternatively:

a) Yes, I am banned.
b) I have had no emails from staff describing why I am banned and length of ban hence I assume it's a lifetime ban. My log in does not work.
c) I am also touched by pleasant things people have said of me but as I've been on the site for 9years my involvement in the site has probably run it's course.


So, there you have it.

3Dots - "The calling of Hoo obnoxious, horrible etc by some people on the site is the same as some people calling atheists angry, arrogant, militant i.e. because athiests are willing to challenge religious views, point out the gaping logic holes in the religious 'argument' and make people uncomfortable about their beliefs when they start questioning themselves and have to defend themselves to stop themselves having sense and rationality filter into their heads then these athiests are called angry, arrogant, militant to make them seem 'in the wrong'."

A bogus analogy.

Hoo is called obnoxious and vicious in this thread even by those of us on hootoo that share his atheist, sceptical and rationalist outlook.
You analogy fails in that those words are applied to the disparate grouping that is the atheist movement by those ignorant of what we stand for and against, the evidence we have on our side and even how we express it.

Hoo is one person, who is judged by those that have read his own words and observed the way he conducted himself over years on this site.
I don't call him obnoxious or vicious to discredit his position. On many issues we came from the same sceptical position.
I call him obnoxious because the word applies too frequently to his conduct and even at times to his views, which were not always - as you seem to be trying to imply - based upon reason.


"Hoo called people on their views pointed out the the holes and downright illogic in peoples 'beliefs' and yes got a bit p1ssy when people refused to take on board logic and preferred to run down the black corridor of 'faith' towards the bright light of mental dimness."

Hoo did not limit his "p1ssy" attitude to dealing with those interlocutors who had faith let alone depended on it for the validity of their position. Nor even when he had logic and reason on his side.


"Tim Minchin's 'Storm' sums all this up beautifully."

I think you do Minchin a disservice.

Mu dearest, I certainly didn't mean to imply he'd upset an italic recently, I was thinking of the long distant past.

Also, no, I'm not having an off day. I've said nothing today that I haven't before, and pretty much to his face. He introduced himself to me at a meet and I refused to speak to him because I just *knew*. He had the other italics saying how he was 'all right really when you get to talk to him', only for one of them in particular to be (perhaps naively) stunned and upset when back on site he immediately shat all over them again.

If there's one thing I can't stand in a person it's being two-faced.

Also my problem with Hoo has got nothing to do with beliefs or otherwise. I dislike him because he's shown himself on h2g2 to be an unpleasant person.

Wrong Ben, not that it matters.

Was that the Hyde Park meet where you cut him dead when he arrived? Summer 2002, or thereabouts? More professional than throwing a strop, I suppose.

Ach, it's all so long ago now.

I've never liked the view that either the italics or Hoo were innocent victims, nor that either of them were heros. Some calls made by the italics were good, some were bad. I've worked in enough Great Big Companies myself to appreciate the sheer amount of behind-the-scenes chicanery that goes on at the BBC and how vulnerable and isolated h2g2 has been at times, and I have endless sympathy for them for that. However personalities and personal relationships clouded their judgment on the governance of the site, in a way that wouldn't be acceptable in any other governance role. Most of the time they did a great job, occasionally they bleeped up appallingly. But victims? Nah. Heat, kitchen and all that; jobs boards exist for a reason.

Hoo knew the rules - both explicit and implicit - and broke them. However, he is one of the least two-faced people I know, Mina, which is one of the reasons I like him. He has consistently failed to suffer any kind of fool gladly, the only idiosyncrasy is how he defines a fool, but I guess we all draw that particular line in a different place. I'm not going to comment here on that, because I've already said anything I had to say on the subject to him directly.

Ben
(The other one. The clue is in the name, it's the "Mrs" bit that gives it away. Oh and the list of my previous names in my personal space is a bit of a pointer, too).

Oh, now that's interesting. 3dots' post describing Hoo's experience of being banned had been moderated.

I've just received an email from another banned researcher describing a similar experience.

If I were to be banned, based on what bannees have told me, I would start off by being put on pre-mod and there might be some emails going backwards and forwards, but at some point my account would stop working, things could and would be posted about me that weren't true, and the italics would refuse to answer my emails. I would become an un-person, and entirely open to defamation and libel. Online communities - gotta love 'em.

Actually, I can understand the italics reasons for behaving like that, even more so now they are so short staffed. The italics are here to run the site not to get bogged down in the minutiae of dealing with nutters. However, everyone I know who's been on the receiving end of it has found it immensely disempowering, and reacted to that each after their own kind. They have effectively become an un-person. Nasty to be on the receiving end of.

Ach, I need a cup of .

I should also have said that when my account stopped working, I would not receive an email telling me so, or explaining what the reasons were for my ban. No due process, no explanation, no right of appeal. Just a deactivated account and no reply from TPTB.

As I said, from the italics point of view, it is a very practical, if ruthless, approach. I think they should at least give a reason. Unpleasant to be on the receiving end of though.

Pfrt!

I've been on sites where you get no warning at all.

I also moderate on a site where there are steps of punishment or infraction points.At certain points an offender can get to a warning with no points,a warning with points,a warning with points and temporary ban,points and a permanent ban.

Being rude,offensive,abusive,flouting the swearing rules,trolling,flaming,posting inappropriate links and info,arguing publicly with a moderator or admin can all get you into trouble in varying degrees.

Seems to me that the italics are very,very lenient here and frankly there are times when I wish there was an infraction system here too because of those who take advantage of the fact that we are treated as adults here and abuse and push the limits as much as they are able.

There is a great generosity here which you won't find elsewhere I can assure you.Treasure it but don't wish back those who abuse it.

Hey, scrolling incident confused me with the names. As you've been so arsy about it can't be arsed to comment any further.

Whose being arsey?

I actually love this place and I always like to think that I get to be an adult here.However the idea that we should allow those that have achieved a lifetime ban(which is frankly quite an achievement at hootoo considering how few actual rules there are) a second chance.

People should ask themselves how many times the italics decided to let things go BEFORE getting to a lifetime ban.

I've discovered how extraordinarily difficult it is to decide where the line that cannot be crossed should actually be drawn without it being unfair.

I suspect that if the decision making process was made a little more transparent that perhaps everyone might just see that the italics have been more than fair.

>>
Oh, now that's interesting. 3dots' post describing Hoo's experience of being banned had been moderated.
<<

It's been temporarily removed, on a weekend, which suggests that someone here yikesed it, or the outsourced moderators pulled it and have referred it to the Eds. Or the Eds are watching this thread on the weekend and pulled it so they can deal with it during work time.

I think the last is unlikely. The first two...

Well it seems that 3Dots posted something from Hoo, or his words or something. You could repost it in your own words 3Dots.

The First Rule of Hootoo Club is you don't talk about Hoo.

Does that mean Hoo is acually inside of me?

Ewww....

B

Thought for the day - there's a little bit of Hoo in all of us.

AbSoRBtion.

FYI post 61 has been reinstated

Pardon? I haven't been on the thread since I posted the post...it was hidden was it?

Pathetic! Presumably, because I posted the words of someone Hoo is banned...

Those were my words in the style of SoRB based on what he said to me on the phone.

Ye gotta love the mods on this site...but only if your married to them...

As I said earlier, it's likely that someone yikesed the post, and it was then referred to the Eds who would make a decision. That's how it's meant to work. The mods are outsourced and not in a position to understand the subtleties of this site.

Having read the explanation, and Ben's comment about another banned researcher having been banned in this way (no explanation, no email, the login just stops working) I think this thread should now be about reinstating a banning proceedure. I'm assuming the old one is too labour intensive for the Eds now (and fair enough), but maybe we need to develop a new one. At the very least people need an email stating what has happened. And the community needs to be told.

What's happening now is disrespectful all round. It also suggests that (many) more researchers have been banned than is commonly known. And it smacks of a certain period of time when the Eds seemed to think the community was just some tag-on to the EG and so treated it with a degree of contempt. I think the current Eds are doing a great job and I'd hate to see that undermined by poor (and probably unnecessary) process.

Nestor notabilis


THey should understand the 'subtleties' since they are the ones who are watching over us.

I have thought for sometime there should be two messages for yikesed posts: one to say a member of the public(lurker/researcher) yikesed the post and one to say the mods/eds hid the post (maybe say mod or ed to make it clear).

We would then start to find out what posts the mods consider to be possibly unacceptable...there are many times at weekends when posts disappear only to return on a Monday and it's pretty well agreed that the mods 'play it safe' and hide them and it's usually on a Friday evening on an important subject to do with h2g2 which then ruins a thread for 2 or 3 days.