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

OK, as this thread goes on it seems more and more clear that this is to do with the behaviour of just a few individuals (no idea who they are). I'd say that it's not a good idea to set a policy that changes what everyone can talk about because a few individuals are being abusive. That said, Alyson's point of view seems more reasonable to me now: as long as individual moderation decisions can be discussed constructively, and that this rule is applied with a light touch, I'm not so worried about it. What does everyone else think?

>> seems more and more clear that this is to do with the behaviour of just a few individuals
...
not a good idea to set a policy that changes what everyone [else] can talk about because a few individuals are being abusive
...
as long as individual moderation decisions can be discussed constructively, and that this rule is applied with a light touch, I'm not so worried about it.<<


Can't argue with that, Dogster.

From here, the problem now seems to be how to handle those few (but maybe you've got that worked out...)

If we are able to discuss mod decisions constructively even if we disagree with them I have no problem with that.

Lanza, I don't think that discussing why I didn't become a mod has any bearing on this thread. I am though going to say that you are mistaken about reasons you have stated as fact for me not doing so. Providing a real life identity to NPL was not a deal breaker for me and did not factor into my decision at all

Peanut

So the entire site has to go through this kind of uproar because *two* people emailed in asking about moderation decisions that didn't concern them??

One reply stating 'it is our policy (and always has been) to only discuss individual moderation decisions with the Researcher it applies to' then IGNORE or DELETE the rest?? Create a folder to filter then into, then when they finally die down you can delete the filter so 'normal' emails get through. Ridiculous that this can't be handled in a simple manner without one person throwing all the toys out of the pram.

As for the post made to Peanut from an Italic account, if it's not official it should be removed and then reposted under the Researcher's account. It looks as if one Researcher has been singled out for a scolding.

As for 'don't critise in a non-constructive manner' I'm afraid if someone removes a message or worse, edits it, that I don't agree with I don't see how I can possibly comment in a constructive way on site? Nothing I, or anyone else, says about a moderation decision on site will get it put back, will it? Be honest? Because the policy always is to reply to the email if you disagree so it can be looked again. Changing it because of a post on site just makes no sense, so it can't possibly be constructive!!

I am disturbed by the turns of this thread.

As this thread has progressed there have been moderators, community editors and an owner referring to email communication between them and researchers

While those posts have stopped short from naming names and hasn't disclosed the contents of those emails there is a level of finger pointing at a researcher or researchers within this thread which I think in itself is a level of disclosure that is crossing ethical lines that has no place in any thread, let alone a very public thread such as this.


I assumed, perhaps wrongly that any email sent by researchers to mods and community Eds were confidential regardless of content. However unfair that feels, especially if researchers make referance emails onsite, while I think you may be entitled to address that on a post by post basis. I don't think that that confidence should be in any way breached or undermined.

If it isn't the case it should be.


It has been asserted that these emails and the behaviour of researchers behind the scenes is threatening, abusive and harassing. This can not be refuted by researchers without disclosing that they have indeed been sending emails, the context of any emails they have sent or the contents of those emails.

Given that PC referred to one researcher at least being someone who is contributing to this thread, human nature being what it is, when reading this thread who else thought, even casually, who they are referring too?

The who shouldn’t be clarified, this has already gone too far but as a general comment I am going to say looking around the thread and seeing who is contributing ,whatever the situation is it, it can’t be as simple as ‘good guys and bad guys’ because I only see good guys on both sides of the mirror as Lanza puts it.

I think that the power balance here has to be considered. Not only do the mods and community Eds have status given their roles, they have a standing within the community ‘without hats’. They are rightly respected, well thought of, well established and in some cases well loved, their words carry weight.

Researchers are effectively being called onsite, on their behaviour offsite. This couldn’t be discussed by them without publicly disclosing confidential correspondence, by putting themselves in what they may feel is a vulnerable position given the power imbalance of the relationships, exposing themselves to the ‘judgement ‘of the community and putting themselves and other researchers in an Very Awkward Position given their personal relationships onsite. As an action it would be profoundly unhealthy for the community to go there.

I can not believe that this is right on any level and that it has, however unintentionally come to this and I hope to bob that it is unintentional

Now that it has, once the policy has been clarified I would like to notch this thread up as a policy decision, one that I don’t agree with but I can suck it up and one that has been ‘mismanaged’ lets just all move on,

I wish I could but I can’t because I see no recognition that it has even been that. I think it has gone beyond that and it has come dangerously close to ‘naming and shaming’ individuals in full view of the community that is not ‘embarrassing’ it is horrible and unfair, that, I can’t suck up. It is a precedent that should not be set, this isn’t a hootoo I recognise.

Sorry long post.

Why hasn't this thread been locked yet? It's been a bit of an embarassing balls-up, hasn't it?

I'll say one thing for it - there are lessons to be learned from it.

I don't think they have been, as the issue has not been resolved and there are lots of unanswered questions.

And we gotta remember that Aly is a newbie.
She'll learn, as we all have; or she'll just
go away as so many do.

Maybe one of the mods will point out to her that
ASK is not the proper place for Announcements,
or Trolling with Draconian policy statements.



~jwf~

------------------------------
And we gotta remember that Aly is a newbie.
She'll learn, as we all have; or she'll just
go away as so many do.

Maybe one of the mods will point out to her that
ASK is not the proper place for Announcements,
or Trolling with Draconian policy statements.
------------------------------

Thank you so much! Today has been a rather interesting day for me and you successfully managed to make me laugh

I applaud you.

*still giggling*

Aly

~jwf~

So taking the rip is worth posting, but answering any of the Researchers with points they'd like answer is out of the question.

Well now, this new and improved h2g2 is in such good hands.

> There is also the assumption that is was difficult to be IDd, this is not true either. The fact is that neither you nor kea were happy to share your true identities with NPL - and this is why you are not moderators. The rest of the team are trusting enough to be known to each other as real people and this is evidence to me of total trust and confidence.

I'm not at all happy with the implicit criticism in that second sentence. People's identity is intensely personal, and anyone may have a reason not to share it.

I'm pretty sure kea is a real person . I don't know what her reasons are for not wanting to share her identity. They're her reasons, and I don't need to know them. You don't need to know them either. And without knowing them, you are in no position to criticise them.

I'm not at all comfortable to see you saying that she "lacks trust and confidence". Maybe she feels you haven't earned her trust. Maybe whatever. Not your business. Not my business. She's an adult, and can make her own decisions.

TRiG.

Peanut,
> While those posts have stopped short from naming names and hasn't disclosed the contents of those emails there is a level of finger pointing at a researcher or researchers within this thread which I think in itself is a level of disclosure that is crossing ethical lines that has no place in any thread, let alone a very public thread such as this.

Agreed. This has all gone very strange.

The IDing is done so that a user can be identified as an individual in the case that something goes horribly wrong and authorities need to be involved. It's not likely but it's possible, and as such NPL as a business needs to be in the position to work with those authorities and protect both its volunteers and its users.

This is a very strictly maintained process and the only person involved who sees those identities is Aly. No one else. We get a very wide range of people and personalities on this site, and I for one am glad that there's a little extra control on those given access to personal details.

Several volunteers have willingly shared this information with each other, but that was their choice. Others haven't, and that is their choice.

"The IDing is done so that a user can be identified as an individual in the case that something goes horribly wrong and authorities need to be involved."

In which case there will be people who don't need to go through this process, because they can already be identified as an individual. Quite a few h2g2 Researchers who are now part of the ownership have my home address already. A lot of Researchers have been to the house. I worked for the BBC, who even police checked me. So I'm entirely able to be identified as an individual. Why do I still need to go through this id process with a 3rd party I neither chose nor have any faith in?

Ah, and now knowing it's Aly who gets to see the personal details there's no way I'd let someone demonstrating the behaviour I've seen in this thread have my personal details.

I'd much rather be 'home checked' by someone I trust and have faith in to do right with it.

Trig made a reasonable point, Pastey, and it was not that there should be no identity checks. It was that those who choose not to undergo them should not be criticised for that choice.

I know I've said it already, and I don't want anyone to eat humble pie or anything, but I'm hoping that what I've been saying might be thought about. Namely, that there might have been better ways of dealing with this situation.

At the very least we need clarification of what the policy actually is.

I think that it is important that there is some sort of acknowledgement one way or another about how this thread has been managed.

The issue of confidentality should also be addressed, are emails confidential or not?

I think that Mina has learned what the new order of business and rules are.

She posted a journal earlier, a verbatim of an e-mail from some of the current 'management' about her
involvement with some aspects of the site. That post was blasted, as were each post she subsequently
made.

And now the entire journal has become so much electronic dust

I am NOT discussing the content of her discontent. Or in any way disagreeing with the actions of the
New Powers That Be. Just commenting that it all is looking so similar to management under one
diminuituive person who ran things under the last host.