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

Well that bites....

What is the point in having a procedure if it is not used?

I am not saying that Tig was anything worth anything but surely if we are to have confidence in the rules they should be applied. If there is a procedure for a life ban then it should be followed.

I wqould note that in his various guises tig/shifty has actually been around here for a while. Whilst I owuld not be sad to see him banned I think it would be a *very* bad thing for the community if the italics decided *abitrarily* whom was important enough to have the life ban procedure applied to.

It says that they may or may not *publicise* that the procedure is being used, I agree that with someone like Tig there probably aint much point in annoucing it on the community soapbox, but it should still be applied if a life ban is being considered.

Surely?!?!?!?!

<>

GB, it's only a suspicion on my part - I could be wrong - so I would not like to post the U number here. I'll send it to you in an email I think. Okay?

az

Yes in an ideal world, I'm sure that you're right. However when the banning policy was discussed and brought to fruition, the site had a lot more staff than it does today. So had more time to fritter away over procedural niceties.

I for one am not going to lose any sleep over the staff making an arbitrary decision as to who is worthy of a full "Discussions relating to" page - which remember is not publicised even when it does happen - or who doesn't get it. To get upset about that distinction is a bit like getting upset as to whether execution is by hanging or firing squad.

One thing I will say, there is no indication that the steps of pre-mod etc are being circumvented in these cases. This as far as I can see *is* still happening, so it's only really the time consuming end-game that is looking any diffeent.

Well for my if they are not going to bother using the procedure then they should scrap it and just go back to the "what we say goes" days.

Having one system of well established/well known researchers and then another for others is grossly unfair. I personally dont see how anyone could have actual confidence in such a system.

>> If the researcher in question is merely an egregious little annoyance, then they're not bothering. Certainly that's the way that I understand it.

Just when I start liking h2g2, they pull a stunt like "one rule for popular people and another for the s**ts" and I start hyperventilating all over again.

Of course it is possible - maybe even probable - that they offered him the Transgressions Procedure(TM) and he rejected it. (no, i'll just f**k off, lol)

>> I for one am not going to lose any sleep over the staff making an arbitrary decision as to who is worthy of a full "Discussions relating to" page ... To get upset about that distinction is a bit like getting upset as to whether execution is by hanging or firing squad.

No-o. It is the difference between being executed without a trial or with one.





Az, you asked me why I was asking about this in the first place, and I gave you the reasons why - that I find the sight of people isolating others and hunting them down rather unpleasant, even more so when I get swept along and join in, as I have done in the pasat.

F107909?thread=919318 is not particularly recent, and I accept that I am reading it out of context, but it reminded me of starlings mobbing a crow, or crows mobbing a buzzard. And F10027?thread=673065&skip=2160&show=20#p13407674 and two or three LEDs before and after make unpleasant reading without context.

As Kea pointed out in reply to Kelli that there is a difference between lurking a thread and participating in it, so I accept that I don't have context and am therefore in no position to judge starlings and the crows who do, after all, have good reasons for mobbing other birds. On the other hand SoRB wrote at articulate and convincing length about reputatation and personal credit, and these threads do nothing to boost the stock of those involved.

I have no idea if there is another way to deal with the likes of Lord Wolfden and tig. Well there plainly is, if tig has been the recipient of a lifetime ban. I have to say that stumbling across them in threads I have not participated in, I have found most of their posts tedious, and a few of them aposite and witty. (I particularly liked tig's "muppet" comment to Della and "dealer, don't be a hero"). Badly typed, they most certainly were, and frequently cruel, but also aposite and witty. Mind you, tig reduced me to tears once with one of his repeated and personal barbs, and that is one of the many reasons I chose the coward's path and simply did not subscribe to a lot of the current threads.

Ach, I'm rambling. Mainly because we are almost 200 posts in, and I can *still* draw no conclusions.

B

>> when I get swept along and join in, as I have done in the pasat.

If only everything in life were as reliable as a Volkswagen.

Ben,

I'm not in disagreement with you that a 'mob mentality' sometimes rears its ugly head here. I was only disagreeing that *everyone* who disagrees with any 'particular researcher' who shows themselves to be disruptive is partaking of this.

Case in point. Della and I have had so many conversations all over h2g2 by now. Some have been quite feisty debates, some have degenerated into nastiness (it was my take that the nastiness came from her, I felt I was really trying to be friends, though of course I could be wrong about that), others have been quite friendly chats.

And heck, the threads are all there for anyone to see.

The only person I have ever 'hunted down' (to use your term) was Justin the Preacher. And I have stated my reasons for doing so, and that I would do it again if he ever shows up here again, especially posting on Ask (though it seems he's been banned again - gee, wonder why?).

Yeah, I think kea's comment was justified, that it's quite different to be involved in a thread than to just occasionally lurk . . . you know how it is, we get involved. Which is not to say all our reactions within a particular thread are justified, just that they hold a bit more weight than for someone who just pops in lurking from time to time. At least, I think that is what kea was saying. She can say if I've got that right or not.

SoRB's post was very interesting but did not change my opinion of him as I also always liked him when he was being Hoo - though we didn't always agree. And sometimes we didn't agree quite seriously. But, as I say, I like SoRB as much as I liked Hoo. Disagreeing with people doesn't have to mean you don't like them, after all.

As for LW and tig. I found LW to be a total pain in the butt at times, but it seems he's come round a bit. At least I get the feeling that he's trying. And I now see others giving him a break, which I think is quite fine.

Tig/shifty was a troll on the threads he trolled on - there is just no other word for it. Yeah, he maintained friendly chat threads with various people but he did in fact troll on others. I find it hard to believe that tig ever reduced you to tears, though I know how frustrating and irritating he was. He mostly p*ssed me off and I was advised by the eds to just not reply to him anymore. I did a spate of 'don't feed the troll' on a couple of threads, but this was never heeded so I gave it up.

I've never considered Della or Redpeck to be trolls, though they occasionally exhibited troll-like behaviour on some threads at times.

The point being, heck, we all post cr@p sometimes and then feel embarrassed about it. The point being to not judge someone on a few over-emotional posts.

But I do think that tig/shifty overstepped bigtime. He simply trolled on certain threads. And seriously disrupted any serious debate that others were trying to have. Well. . .

Like you I'm pretty much 'live and let live' here on hootoo. It's an amazing community of people, a wide spectrum of different interests and ideas that we would be hard put to find within our RL existences.

So I guess it makes sense that if someone decides to be disruptive that we'd get a bit defensive and want to protect our community. Again, I don't think this is anything at all about people who hold different opinions to others, it's more a behaviour issue.

Whoops, too-long-post. Shutting up now!


az

Blimey, I wish I hadn't mentioned it now. I assumed that most people knew, and that those that didn't just hadn't caught up yet.

Oh well if I'd kept my mouth shut, then no-one would be any the wiser. Someone down the line might have had a conversation like, "Anyone seen tig recently?", "No I can't say I have", "Maybe they've just moved on then ".

>> I was only disagreeing that *everyone* who disagrees with any 'particular researcher' who shows themselves to be disruptive is partaking of this.

Have I, anywhere, used words as absolute as "everyone"?

I certainly don't think that everyone who disagrees with a particular researcher is one of a mob. What I do see is mob-like behaviour, and groups of people accreting, grouping, splitting up and reforming like - I don't know - leaves in a river or children in a school yard.


>> Disagreeing with people doesn't have to mean you don't like them, after all.

Goes without saying, surely? I have never yet met anyone I didn't disagree with about *something*, and if I ever did, it would only last a week because by then one of us would have thought something through, had a new insight, had an epiphany , read something really or otherwise changed our mind about something.

In haste....

B

<> (Ben)

Perhaps not exactly. Though you did implore "everyone" thusly:

<>

<<. . .had a new insight, had an epiphany >>

Well, you *do* seem to like that word, don't you?

In any case, you mentioned posting in haste, which probably accounts for the random quoting from my last post.

Hope you're feeling okay, Ben, I know it's been a tough day for you.


az

Just made it through the backlog. I have to go out for the day so will reply briefly now.

Tig's PS shows no sign of a ban U1779587 . I agree if it's a lifetime ban then the proceedure should be followed. It may be that it's not a lifetime ban, that it's a suspension which is why it doesn't say anything on the PS.


Ben, I think it's good that you get specific with links and examples We might get further understanding from this that we can't from generalities. There is context to both the links you posted, that I'll outline when I have more time.


everyone
kea

(who's eating breakfast *after thread reading this morning)

Sorry about the haste of posting last night. It really was just that I was in a hurry, no more slack needs to be cut for me than that.

Glad you find the links useful kea, I was very hesitant to post them.


>> Though you did implore "everyone" thusly:

Good point. But that was simply a case of casting my net as wide as possible. (Doesn't the smiley look exactly like the gladiator with the fishing net and the trident?)


>> I felt I was really trying to be friends, though of course I could be wrong about that), others have been quite friendly chats.

My feeling, as I said to you at the time, was that you were occasionally getting a little shrill, and you sometimes came across as rather self-righteous. Mind you, Della would try the patience of a saint, (and may well do so if the god-model's correct) but I do think that Blicky has the right of it.


>> I find it hard to believe that tig ever reduced you to tears,

Well, it was the moderators' persistent refusual to mod two of his posts that reduced me to tears of frustration, actually. But what I did find observable, and would like to have more time to observe, is that tig is actually very bright and very clever and often very witty and one of the sites more effective pusher of buttons. It is the persistent and targeted button-pushing which is trollish of course.


>> He simply trolled on certain threads. And seriously disrupted any serious debate that others were trying to have.

This is where the moderation system has serious flaws, isn't it? Some of tig's posts were so offensive that they really had to be acted on, so it was not practicable to simply ignore them, but on the other hand, for *everyone* to ignore a troll really is the most effective method of silencing them. I was off the Atelier while Oetzi was posting there, but I do remember that this is what we eventually decided to do. In the end Lil actually closed the Atelier down for a while.

My concerns though are with the very behaviour which can enable a group to ignore a troll. (The Atelier is a cohesive and coherent group, and althouogh we do our best to be inclusive, we do feel entitled to offer inclusivity on our terms. There are other threads for other moods and modes.) I've already explained at some length that I worry about the "do not feed the troll" labels which let us off the hook of forming our own opinions about a person, and I worry about the troll-hunting as evidenced above. Then folks start behaving like the Troll-finder General, and people who aren't trolls get labeled as such. 'Give a a bad name...'

Anyway, this has gone around in a circle, it's the weekend, and I have a flat to clean and tidy.

B

<<(it was my take that the nastiness came from her, I felt I was really trying to be friends, though of course I could be wrong about that)>>

That was actually the complete thought, with the last bit (about maybe being wrong) referring to where the nastiness came from, not about whether I was really trying to be friends. The way you cropped and quoted the sentence gives it quite a different meaning - just wanted to clear that up.


az

Thanks for that. The bad cropping was unintentional and I certainly read 'I could be wrong about that' as applying to 'most of the nastiness came from her'.

I assume that you've got enough self awareness to know whether or not you were trying to be friends!

B

>>>and I worry about the troll-hunting as evidenced above.<<

er, hang on a minute. Is that the two links to convos about LW?

While I have seen LW engage in trollish behaviour on the odd occasion, I think most people would agree that the problem is not trolling but spamming. Have we broadened the term 'troll' here to mean anyone that is collectively disliked, as opposed to someone who behaves consistently as a troll (eg posting intentionally distruptive material).


*

>>>Then folks start behaving like the Troll-finder General, and people who aren't trolls get labeled as such.<<<

Can you give examples Ben? Do you include LW in that? Who else?


Just to put the two links in perspective:

>>>
F107909?thread=919318 is not particularly recent, and I accept that I am reading it out of context, but it reminded me of starlings mobbing a crow, or crows mobbing a buzzard.
<<<

Master B started that thread on my PS after I had posted a "closed loop" link on LW's Useful Links thread (the link takes one back to the Useful Links thread).

My posting of that link was a joke, to some degree at LW's expense, but also as a way of dealing with an increasingly frustrating situation. From what I remember that was before LW had been put on premod, and was still spamming ALOT. He was well known at that point for spamming links (which I think was part of why he was eventually put on premod).

Four other people posted on that thread on my PS, and it lasted 8 posts in total. I don't really get the starlings/crows/buzzards analogy, but I think it's valid for people to go to PSs to let off steam and I don't see that thread as being about stategising LW's downfall.


>>>
And F10027?thread=673065&skip=2160&show=20#p13407674 and two or three LEDs before and after make unpleasant reading without context.
<<<

That link takes one to another link: F19585?thread=1167475&post=13402531#p13402531 which I assume is the one you are referring to Ben.

In that thread several people who are quite upfront about how much they dislike LW take him to task for what they see as his racism. Personally I think they overreacted, and probably did so because of the large amount of history that exists between them and LW.

But there is another context to this as well. In another thread (that all the above would have been aware of) LW had fairly directly implied that myself and uncharted (both 12 hours ahead of GMT) were racist because I had cursed the bloody Brits for keeping me up all night again on hootoo. We then had a fairly stupid conversation about how it was a joke, and was he serious thinking it was racist. As is usual with convos with LW, LW took some time to get with the vibe of the thread and other people jumped all over him.


>>>
I find the sight of people isolating others and hunting them down rather unpleasant, even more so when I get swept along and join in, as I have done in the pasat.
<<<

Me too. I know there have been occasional times in the LW thing that I have posted meanly. And at times I have followed the threads on his PS because people were going there to hassle him, and occasionally joined in (although not lately).

However I don't see the two links above as examples of troll-hunting (or spammerhunting). The first is a way of letting off steam (or are we not allowed to talk about people unless they are present?). The second is an overreaction, and one I felt uncomfortable about too. But those people were already in that thread. They didn't hunt LW down.

I think there *are examples where LW was pursued to his PS or other threads and harrassed there. I didn't like what was done in the end, but I also have been in most of the threads in the whole saga and so have a fine appreciation for the level of annoyance. And I don't think it's happening to the extent it was when the spamming was really bad (read lots of spam = lots of reaction).

The thing I am still unclear about in myself is when does such behaviour (rudeness, meanness, following to someone's PS or personal convos etc) become justified by the behaviour of the pariah/troll? Although I'm not sure that justified is the right word. I don't like how LW gets treated. But I also don't like how he treats h2g2.


So what to do?

Collective ignoring won't work as far as I can see (either the pariah or the pariahees), because there are enough people on h2 that feel ok about actively disliking someone and taking every opportunity to make that apparent. Unless enough other people are prepared to actively counter meanness or OTT reactions (such as GreyDesk and others have done, although part of the problem there is that (a) there is little or no acknowledgement of the validity of the feelings of annoyance, and (b) there has been alot of inaccurate generalisations (on all sides)).

I can't see how a thread or forum could be shut down for a period of time like The Atelier. Unless the Italics want to do that, but in the case of the Della wars suspending two researchers and threatening to suspend others seemed to do the trick.

People say to avoid the threads where the pariah is posting. For me at the moment that means avoiding Ask and Misc Chat totally. Which I am now doing sporadically, but I have an objection to doing absolutely. I have pulled back from engaging in the hassling of LW, although I do still post on the New What's Just Happened thread which is the main place people go to let off steam or to tell others what's happening with the LW saga.


Ben, I'm curious as to where you see the line is. Are you saying that *any activity of a collective nature in response to someone who is perceived as hurting the community is not ok? If it was ok for people to organise in the Atelier why not elsewhere? Or is it the *kind of activity?

Given that we're all going to have our own limits on what is ok, how can we as a community find ways of managing or responding that create community rather than undermine it?

Because I've been in the LW saga (well actually most sagas since I've been here) I tend to see the conflict as being an entity that needs a response rather than as being about one side or the other being right or wrong.

The only thing I'd add at this point is that of the list I gave elsewhere about focussing on the hasslers rather than the pariahs, all those situations were resolved by some people leaving the site (either voluntarily or being suspended): The Della wars; the Liam saga; the guy who wanted to create his ownn country (not really a conflict that one); the Digi wars.

Mol

I think I may have had a hand in tig's ban... he trolled, he got yikes'd, he got put on premod. He immedately started using another account to continue trolling (an account which had the same nickname ) and get around the pre-mod so I reported him to The Powers That Be.

F19585?thread=1202516 for examples of (possibly) what Ben is referring to - the consistent slandering of someone even though it's totally irrelevant to the thread (post 6) and a way of countering that (post 8).

"That link takes one to another link: F19585?thread=1167475&post=13402531#p13402531 which I assume is the one you are referring to Ben.
"

I assume that Ben is talking about the actual thread she has linked to, not another one pointed to in that link. The thread linked to, F10027?thread=673065, makes for some of the most unpleasant reading on hootoo just now, and is the thread I referred to in my post above.

I have read, and commented on, many of the Ask threads where LW posts and somehow seem to get by without needing to slate him constantly whenever he posts, he doesn't annoy me to the point where I need to start posting nasty comments as soon as he says something, whatever that something is. People have every right to get annoyed with LW but it is their choice on how they choose to express that annoyance.