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

>> "I like being an ACE. I like being a GURU. But I'm risking being booted off both schemes here, I think."

> "I think perhaps not, yet."

You are wise to add the "yet". I got summarily chucked out of all schemes by one or more italics using the pretence that I had done things which I hadn't, which were against rules which didn't actually exist as stated and for things which everyone else did more of - including the italics! The real reason was that I had already caught them out being hypocritical and dishonest on many occasions and they decided to respond by being even more despicably hypocritical and dishonest. At the moment they don't seem to be capable of learning from experience to become better people.

If Symphony really isn't LeKX and genuinely hasn't done anything wrong to warrant a ban on other grounds (ie the alleged crime of being LeKZ definitely is the stated reason for the ban), then I agree with H that they actually have grounds for a court case against the BBC/h2g2 staff for defamation. They do need to attempt the email/phone/post proofs though, just in case the staff miraculously decide to be less despicable for once.

Hi SEF

I know my Volunteer status is on the line here. I just can't put that ahead of what I see as a major injustice. If I'm booted, then I'm booted. That's the italics' choice, and I'm sure they'll make a fair and just decision based on all the available facts.

Symphony have offered to provide proof. They've emailed the italics more than once, asking what they'd need to do. It's made no difference at all.

Look at their Space. U211780 The posts that are there are all that there ever were. There aren't that many of them. And not one of them breaks a single House Rule.

Krispy - Long time no talk. Hope things pick up for you soon.

H - I'm not ignoring you. I just need more coffee, concentration and working braincells before I even attempt to answer your post! The last stroke left my language skills a little dented, shall we say, and I'm not making the mistake of being even remotely ambiguous with you again!

Nick

Mikey. "they would probably see someone pretending to be LeKZ just as bad as having LeKZ back on the site"

Not true. LeKZ was banned over one specific incident, having posted an abusive and threatening note to an Italic in the form of a rather cleverly put-together word game. Even LeKZ hirself couldn't come up with an alternate translation of the "XXX"-file that made coherent English sense, and the perconality who posted it was renown for hir pedantry. LeKZ was thus banned over a single event, not because of hir opinions or writing style; someone pretending to be hir would not be "just as bad" in that context.

It wouldn't even be breaking the House Rules, as the relevant rule talks about impersonating another researcher, and LeKZ is no longer a researcher.

I'm sorry LeKZ went; I enjoyed trading pedantry with hir, but the "XXX" incident was bad, and hir unrepentant attitude meant there was no alternative.

I never met Symphony, as far as I know, but it sure sounds like they got a raw deal.

Ok H, this is what I've got so far, so this is what you get! Comprehensive it's not, but hey, we can't all be word wizards. I'm working on it, though

I don't blame people for being suspicious. I do blame people for not wanting to find out the truth. If someone offers to prove their location and you refuse to listen, then you're at fault, not them. (generalised "you")

The prejudice I was referring to (and I did say I wasn't quite awake, so maybe I wasn't quite as clear as I could have been. I'll rant more specifically in future ) is that *some* people here seem to think that an unknown Multiple appearing on H2G2 must be LeKZ. Enough to complain to the italics about it, even though there are no other similarities. The writing style is completely different, the choice of places to post, the length of the posts, the amount of posts made, etc etc. If the only reason that they were banned (and for the life of me, I can't find any other one) is because "they're Multiple, so they might be LeKZ", then that's prejudicial. My opinion only, of course.

As for Jeffrey Archer...thanks a lot! Now I'll be humming the theme to Bod all day

["I mean, nobody has ever disagreed with any decisions made, or questioned anyone's judgement, have they?"

I AM questioning the judgement. I don't think Symphony should have been banned. I just have slightly different reasons for thinking that than you, is all."]

Thanks H. I must have got the wrong end of the stick. I apologise.

["So be it. I'm not doing this for the good of my health. I'm doing it because what's happened is wrong, and I'm not keeping quiet about it. I really don't expect anything to come of it for Symphony."

We'll see. If the offence is "failing to prove she isn't LeKZ", then that can be very simply sorted, I'd say. Unless she chooses not to. It's part of the terms and conditions of the site since the Q/S farce that a user can be required, at any time, to prove their identity/location to the Italics' satisfaction. You should know that. Symphony should know that. Providing that proof is the responsibility of the account holder, and they can choose not to bother. No problem there that I can see..."]

Unless nobody wants them to. They've offered.

["If I really wanted to, I could have put this on the Soapbox, where much more attention would have come it's way. I didn't see the point."

Fine. So what ARE you trying to achieve by even posting at all? I only found this thread because I was directed here - the same would have been the case if you'd posted in the soapbox, in my case. What's your POINT?"]

It's my journal. I post in it when something's on my mind. This is. It's as simple as that. If other people find it interesting, then that's great. If not... well, it wouldn't be the first of my journals to gather dustbunnies.

The "can't win" comment of mine came from the depths of utter frustration that I'm feeling. I can't speak for Symphony, but brick walls and banging heads come to mind.

If the ban stands, then they're banned. If it's rescinded, then they're back, but considering how this place works sometimes, I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to come back. Mud, even the virtual kind, sticks. I'd dearly love to say that they'd be accepted for who they are, and not who they were accused of being. Sadly, I suspect that that simply isn't true. The fact that they stand accused of being LeKZ, after all this time has passed, only reinforces that for me.

I'll be back later.

"Unless nobody wants them to. They've offered."

That's very much the same as I've experienced. Not only was I something of an expert on the matter, I offered to connect the italics with a number of others. They ignored this. They seem to prefer to remain ignorant as if that were some sort of defence for perpetuating ill-informed and unjustifiable remarks and decisions.

I've been working through the backlog (not done yet) and find that the staff have apparently learned nothing about their bad attitudes in the past two and half years. I still don't know the full situation with the person/people I now find we are not supposed to mention. However, it is pretty obvious from the comments there that the anti-intellectualism I've seen was just as rampant back then. The same people I had judged as only semi-intelligent were acting the same way in repeatedly missing the point and "sucking up" back then. The people I had regarded as being noticeably more insightful and intelligent than others recently, were the same ones expressing similar distaste back then. From this remarkable consistency, I think I know which "side" I would mostly have been on for much of the time - but then I didn't experience this unmentionable multiplicity for myself and that particular banning may well have been unavoidable in the end.

However, this banning seems typically misdirected and basically unlawful. The HouseRules which partly say the italics can do whatever they want, simply do not justify victimising and libelling a completely unconnected consortium account while denying them even the chance to prove their innocence by refusing to engage in communication. The BBC staff seem to very much rely on avoiding justifying the unjustifiable by simply ignoring posts and emails etc.

So, what we have is this:

Symphony was summarily banned for the "crime" of "being LeKZ."

Symphony, who is in the UK, offered to prove hir identity.

That offer was made by email, which can presumably be traced to the UK.

That offer was ignored.

The h2g2 logs will presumably show that every time Symphony logged on shi did so from the UK.

Now, there are two telephone lines into the house that LeKZ and I share. One of those lines uses a seperate long distance service. So, I have a further offer of my own. Assuming that the Editors ever get around to telling Symphony what is or isn't acceptable proof that shi isn't LeKZ, if they also give me any date in the past twelve months, I'll send them a copy of all three of our telephone bills that include that date. From there, they are welcome to verify that the numbers we have called belong to humans, not computers.

Mistdancer - Just for clarification - I *did* understand you to say that the Editors completely failed to respond to an email from Symphony asking what documentation would be acceptable proof of who shi is not, right?

0

Not quite, David.

Symphony got an email, out of the blue, stating that there had been complaints that their account was being operated by LeKZ, and since LeKZ are banned, the Symphony account was being closed immediately.

The italics completely failed to respond to Symphony's initial email, in which they asked what would be acceptable proof.

Then I emailed the italics myself and asked the same question, and was told that they could not discuss it with me, which is fair enough. They requested that I ask Symphony to email again, which I did.

Again, Symphony asked what proof the italics wanted.

The response to that email stated that the case had been passed to Natalie, and that it was, supposedly, being investigated. Abi asked Symphony not to tell anyone except me about it until a decision had been reached. They also promised a full, public apology should they be proved wrong. Again, no response on the proof question.

The next email was from the generic h2g2feedback address, just stating that the ban had been upheld.

Not once did they say what would be acceptable proof, let alone ask for it. Seems to me that they just aren't interested, and don't want to be proved wrong. No surprises there, then. I doubt very much if they'd have responded to Symphony at all, if I hadn't got involved.

Thanks for the offer, David. It'll be interesting to see if it's taken up.

Hmmm.... It may well be that one of the five italics currently logged in is wondering what they, collectively, have stepped in.

Advice, to whom it may concern.

Symphony is, presumably, easily provably NOT LeKZ, in much the same way I am.

They've broken no rules if they are.

There is therefore nothing to stop them simply opening another account if they want to. Just open another account, copy the GuideML from the original user space, resubscribe to all the same conversations, and carry on as if nothing has happened.

If the staff continue making their life difficult by repeatedly closing their account, and persist in refusing to explain why or take communication about how it may be cleared up, a quick hardcopy postal complaint to Ashley Highfield, Director of New Media with a home name and address on it should get results. Victimisation of a (presumably) innocent licence-fee paying user by uncommunicative staff is hardly good publicity. In fact, I'd say it was close to actionable discrimination - something which a lot of people have windbagged about in the past, but which in this case actually looks like the case.

Symphony, if you're reading this, just open another account. You have NO reason not to - do you?

[just bouncing this up my thread list]

I'm still working through the backlog. A666263 shows that very little has changed in mentality or procedure (despite the SBVM and the Modest Proposal).

I also find myself sympathising a lot with LeKZ - though the XXX post was clearly a bad idea. Everything else, even the supposed examples of LeKZ's bad behaviour, actually seems to me to show many other people's behaviour as far worse. Sadly, I'm quite sure that many of them still wouldn't be able to see that.

Hi SEF

No worries. Bounce away

Looks like we agree on a couple things, then. And as for working through the backlog You have my every sympathy. Took me long enough, and there was way less of it back then! It's well worth it though. I got some fascinating insights into just how deeply ingrained the "mob mentality" is here.

And H, since Symphony are technically still a banned researcher, they can't open another account, now, can they? There are reasons why, but I'll have to come back to it.

I'll be back on later, but right now I can't keep my eyes open.

" since Symphony are technically still a banned researcher, they can't open another account, now, can they? "

This response is predicated on the assumption that Symphony and LeKZ are two separate physical bodies and the facts of the matter are as stated in this thread. I neither know nor care whether this is the case, personally, but that's the basis of what follows.

Let's be clear. Symphony - the person - is NOT banned.

LeKZ is banned.

The "Symphony" *account* has been closed on the grounds that it is being operated by LeKZ, a banned person.

If the operator of that account is NOT LeKZ - which is to say a distinct physical body, before anyone starts to remind us of the specious sophistry pulled out in the past - then they have been mildly inconvenienced by ignorant behaviour on the part of the staff. They have not, however, been banned - unless they've done something ELSE.

Have they done something else?

If not, I can see no reason why Symphony, the person, should consider themselves banned from this site. They have been subject to an annoying foible of the management which is not their fault, and they can easily get round it.

If the foible is repeated, they may have an actionable claim for discrimination and/or harassment and defamation against the BBC and its staff personally - accountability and all that.

They would have at the very least cause to complain to the very highest level in the BBC about the discriminatory and uncommunicative behaviour of the staff and should expect an immediate apology and reinstatement of their account - assuming they're able to prove their identity as required in the House Rules. I can't see that being a major difficulty, assuming the staff want to know. If they don't want to know, I can see no earthly reason why Symphony shouldn't simply start another account, call it "Symphony" again, copy the guideML from her personal space and resubscribe to all her conversations. There is not, currently, a House Rule which says you can't sound a bit like someone else. Not yet at least...

H.

Hmm. I thought you of all people would know something about not challenging TPTB to make up rules on the fly. It seems to be one of their favourite hobbies to avoid any accidental consistency which might otherwise creep in.

In theory the italics could pretend new Symphony was impersonating old Symphony and convert the "rude and unacceptable" into a bannable offence - which it is (or is supposed to be) on the message boards (see rant elsewhere or don't bother).

Otherwise the italics could say new Symphony is posting for banned old Symphony and is therefore banned. This farce could be maintained as being quite separate from the resolution of the original accusation of posting for LeKZ.

More notably the <./>HouseRules</.> currently say:
"Please don't post for suspended Researchers. Anyone who posts communications from Researchers whose accounts have been suspended may also have their own account suspended. 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."

The "*may* be asked to prove" seems to leave a loophole for deliberately perverse staff to not bother asking but still act to ban (instead of the presumably intended implication that they might choose not to ask or ban).

To "the BBC's satisfaction" could be taken as a perverse "nothing will satisfy us" or the more interesting idea of getting some higher or independent power in the BBC involved and bypassing the possibly biased italics.

PS I note from the backlog that you objected to some people using capital letters within your former nickname. Does this mean the TLA other people and I have been using for you is equally offensive to you? If it is, I apologise for the (unintended) insult and wonder whether just H (as used to sign off some posts) or R.114627 is more acceptable.

"In theory the italics could pretend new Symphony was impersonating old Symphony"

But neither old nor new Symphony is a banned person.

The account has been closed for being run by LeKZ. LeKZ is banned. But the whole premise of a ban falls apart if the person running the account is someone else who is otherwise blameless (i.e. hasn't broken the Rules).

"and convert the "rude and unacceptable" into a bannable offence"

But as far as I'm aware, nothing posted under the "Symphony" account broke the rules. I'd be happy to be corrected...

"Otherwise the italics could say new Symphony is posting for banned old Symphony and is therefore banned."

Except old Symphony has not been banned. An account has been closed on the grounds it was being operated by LeKZ. If it's NOT, then the person operating it has done nothing wrong, and wouldn't be doing anything wrong by opening another account.

"This farce could be maintained as being quite separate from the resolution of the original accusation of posting for LeKZ."

No, it couldn't, because "being LeKZ" is, as I understand it, the whole of the case. Again, more facts would be nice. But so far the ONLY justification I've heard for closing the account is that the holder is a banned person. If the holder is provably not, and has broken no other rules, the whole thing falls to pieces.

Analogy: if my brother is drunk at the wheel, he gets barred from driving. I later buy his car and start driving around, responsibly and within the law. A policeman stops ME, and threatens me with jail for driving while banned. I offer to prove I'm not banned, but he ignores me.

Is there ANY reason why I should not continue to drive that car? (I'm assuming here that we're in the UK, and not in imminent danger of being threatened with a firearm by a policeman, which could be a reason...).

Obviously, I should continue to drive, and if the policeman continues to harrass me I should report him to his superiors and get him sacked.

I trust I don't need to take this analogy further.

"The "*may* be asked to prove" seems to leave a loophole for deliberately perverse staff to not bother asking but still act to ban (instead of the presumably intended implication that they might choose not to ask or ban)."

Indeed. But as I've already said, if they persist in perversely attempting to deny access to a BBC service to a licence-fee paying UK resident who has done nothing wrong, they should be held to account, and possibly even sued.

And to repeat - if Symphony is a separate person than LeKZ, then they are NOT a banned person, and if they've not posted on behalf of LeKZ, they've done nothing wrong.

I could personally name at least two people actively using h2g2 as of this week who have posted on behalf of LeKZ since she was banned, and they continue to operate unmolested. Of course, they're men, so there's slim statistical evidence of sexism, as well as LeKZism.

"To "the BBC's satisfaction" could be taken as a perverse "nothing will satisfy us" or the more interesting idea of getting some higher or independent power in the BBC involved and bypassing the possibly biased italics."

It's already obvious that as BBC powers go, the Italics are pretty much as low as it gets.

"PS I note from the backlog that you objected to some people using capital letters within your former nickname."

I don't object, it's just inaccurate. There's someone else called HooVooLoo, and someone else again called Hooloovoo. I sign myself H., and am frequently referred to as HVL, Hoov, and several other things I shalln't repeat, none of which I find offensive. In the context of this conversation, pretty much anything with an H at the beginning will probably work

H.

The "rude and unaccaeptable" quote was the HouseRules description of impersonation and not meant to imply Symphony had actually posted any text which might of itself qualify as that. I was just following the logical absurdity that if old Symphony is LeKZ (in the italics' minds) then new Symphony is either old Symphony and also LeKZ (ie bannable) or new Symphony is impersonating old Symphony (which might be made a bannable offence).

Technically, if Symphony's account was closed, rightly or wrongly, they are still banned. Therefore, fairly or not, the rules concerning banned accounts still apply. Symphony will have to keep hounding the PTB through email and snail mail and other venues to get reinstated. If, as was said early in this thread, they are not even in the same country as LeKZ, I can't see why it should take very long to do this. If the PTB are indeed being completely unresponsive, then it's up to Symphony to elevate this issue. And if Symphony truely is innocent (which I have no reason not to believe), I hope they fight the good fight and win.

Count Zero

Another reason why Symphony can't, and really don't want to, open a new account :

Regardless of the completely fabricated reasons for it, technically they are banned. As such, if they do open a new account, it can be closed instantly.

If they keep opening new accounts, and the italics keep closing them, they will only be cementing their "LeKZness" in the eyes of TPTB, and the community in general. Someone is guaranteed to bring up Silent Lucidity and wallflowergirl, not to mention the Q/S farce, and say "oh look, they must be LeKZ. They're acting just like her (sic)."

"No, it couldn't, because "being LeKZ" is, as I understand it, the whole of the case. Again, more facts would be nice. But so far the ONLY justification I've heard for closing the account is that the holder is a banned person."

That's because that's the only reason that there is. There are no more facts. The italics decided they were LeKZ, and that was that. Case closed, communications closed, minds closed.

"And to repeat - if Symphony is a separate person than LeKZ, then they are NOT a banned person, and if they've not posted on behalf of LeKZ, they've done nothing wrong."

Symphony are completely separate. Different body, different country. And no, they've not posted on behalf of anyone except themselves. Unfortunately, since they are the operator of a closed account, then technically they are a banned researcher. Yes, I know, it's all technicalities. But then, it's my opinion that the italics are quite capable of using a minor technicality to get their way.

"the italics are quite capable of using a minor technicality to get their way"

Absolutely. Never knowingly let little things like truth or justice get in the way of being petty and vindictive.

Odd how a couple of these things have happened while the boss (Natalie) is away. Symphony didn't happen also to get banned on a Friday did she?

I could have put but it's actually a semi-serious

Hi All

Does anyone have the conversation where LeKZ posted the thing to get her banned?

I'm more curious than anything