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

From Feedback Forum -- Technical -- Privacy Options:

"Hide the 'my conversations' list to other readers would sometimes be very usefull.

I can think of a few times that things have got controversial (the worst was the original intelligence thread) and then people went along to the user page of people who disagreed with them and took the controversy into a large number of the forums where that individual was subscribed.

having noticed this start to happen it would then be usefull to be able to hide the conversations list, so that they were unable to continue with this tactic."

As an Ace, I'm involved with keeping the site 'nice' for everyone. If this represents a problem, I'll talk to the Italics (particularly Abi) about implementing a better anti-trolling policy.

To do this, I'll need some examples. Can you provide links to examples of 'controversial' happenings, researchers and other forums where they've been attacked by off-topic controversy?

Thanks in advance for your help,
Robert

there have been certain subjects that tended to leak, but the only examples I can think of right now have to do with the intelligence thread.

first, arpegio for lekz picked up on a strand of prejudicial commentary in the original article by playboy reporter.

a few of the people on playboy's side of the debate decided that they didn't like the accusation and one or two of them (I can't remember which) started in her conversations looking for anything even slightly contentious so they could jump on it and then bring the intelligence thread into it as well.

after playboys trolling departure (which indirectly lead to the warning that was part of the contention surrounding the ban) things got a lot worse.

after she was banned, playboy came back with editorial approval for his behaviour (and a new account as clay-toy), even after he said he had trolled deliberately.

multiple times he tried to engage in "revisionist history" with lekz supporters, firstly on their user pages, and later in other forums that they were involved in.

there have also been creationists posting to scientific discussions who have done this trick as well.

sorry I can't be more informative, but these situations don't crop up often, and with the number of threads that I am involved in, it can be a bit hard to narrow down to just a few that had something bad happen a while ago.

a lot of these situations have been agrivated by inconsistant editorial responses (ie playing favourites when deciding to give the benefit of the doubt).

but the editorial practice has improved a lot.

'there have been certain subjects that tended to leak, but the only examples I can think of right now have to do with the intelligence thread.'

I've heard about that. A lot. Can't find it though. Have you got a link to the 'Intelligence thread'?

'sorry I can't be more informative, but these situations don't crop up often, and with the number of threads that I am involved in, it can be a bit hard to narrow down to just a few that had something bad happen a while ago.'

That's OK. I'm just doing some informal research that might eventually make it to the Italics... if I get time...

'a lot of these situations have been agrivated by inconsistant editorial responses (ie playing favourites when deciding to give the benefit of the doubt).

but the editorial practice has improved a lot.'

I've heard about this happening in the past (mostly from reading several of your postings a while back, actually) but it seems to be improving, as you say.

Robert

your wish is my command. the intelligence thread is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F59234?thread=116555&skip=0&show=20 but I would recommend not reading it on a bad day. it gets a little strong somewhere after posting 40 or so. you might also want to look at the threads linked from the user pages for playboy reporter. clay toy (his newer identity) and lekz (linked of the intelligence project).

"I can think of a few times that things have got controversial (the worst was the original intelligence thread) and then people went along to the user page of people who disagreed with them and took the controversy into a large number of the forums where that individual was subscribed."

Sorry to interrupt... but on the subject of "privacy", I've been subjected to a similar tactic - certain people have subscribed to my personal space, in order apparently to "keep an eye on" what I'm up to - who I'm talking to and what about.

It *could* be slightly disturbing to click on the name of someone who's apparently got some sort of problem with you, and find on *their* personal space a list of all *your* conversations, even though they've never posted to them. It is a LOT like stalking, in fact - knowing that this person or persons is/are *automatically* subscribed to, but not necessarily posting to, EVERY conversation started on your personal space. It would be like finding out your neighbour has set their TV and radio to play the same channels yours does, their computer to go to the same websites. A bit spooky...

I can think of at least two people who've done this to me off the top of my head - and they're just the ones I know about. It didn't bother me particularly, and I didn't mention it to anyone, while it was going on. If anyone is obsessive enough to be interested in my every move that's their own mental illness, poor dears. If anything, I found it entertaining, because triggering idiots is something of a hobby... and it's academic in any case both the perpetrators I'm thinking of don't use this site any more.

But - I can certainly picture a situation where the same tactic could be used on someone who DOES give a f**k, in which case it could be quite nasty. Therefore - should personal spaces be able to be subscribed to by others? Why would someone want to do that?

Just my 2 cents...

Oh, and on the subject of hiding the "My Conversations" list - I think that would be counterproductive. One of the things I LIKE doing on this site is visiting the spaces of other people whom I consider interesting (xyroth, this means you, among others) and seeing what it is that's exercising them on any given day. It's also interesting and informative to be able to look at the space of someone you've not "met" before, and be able to form a picture of them by assessing which conversations they contribute to and how. In some cases that's all you have to go on - some people are very brief or evasive on their personal spaces (and some, even aces, gurus and subeditors, have their spaces hidden for breaking the rules! ). So I'd be against that one, but not strongly. I just think it would ruin a quite important element that contributes to the vibe of the site.

Well, four pence worth in the end, perhaps...

H.

hoovooloo, feel free to subscribe to my userspace forum, but do be aware that most of the 3+hours per day I spend here (I will have to see about reducing that a bit) is spent in the 75+ actively updated conversations.

If you want to trawl through that lot as well, then you can, and good luck to you, but you can probably find most of them on your own space if you subscribe to all of the main review forums.

It's not so much what you're subscribed to xyroth, as much as it is what you're actually actively posting to on any given day, which I can trawl through in a matter of under a minute. I've got an ever changing list of people with whose interests mine intersect to a greater or lesser extent, and basically if they're bothered enough about something to be talking about it, I might be interested too. I wouldn't subscribe to your userspace, though, because that would, as I say, be a bit like stalking or reading all your mail or something, and wouldn't achieve what I'm after, which is an occasional update on what various people are actually talking about. I'm almost entirely uninterested in what you're *reading*. I'm intermittently much more interested in what you're *writing*, especially when (as today) you crop up on the "longest postings" list.

H.

Oh, and Robert, you might find some interesting information and links in here: A623288

H.

Thanks Hoovooloo .

From what I've read on these issues, it seems that the problems which xythoth stated in the Privacy Options thread aren't actually problems: if people do as you said, they get banned. Therefore there's already a system in place.

"if people do as you said, they get banned"

Actually, you might be surprised to find that they don't.

*Both* the people to whom I was referring stopped using the site voluntarily, and could quite legitimately return and resume their antics any time they choose. There was never any suggestion that either of them would be banned for that behaviour as far as I'm aware.

H.

OK, so how about a Feature Suggestion to disable subscribing to Personal Spaces?