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

>> one person in particular started a habit of referring to him as 'it'. (Della, 205)

I agree with you, Della, that to refer to a person as 'it' is offensive. When done maliciously, is also the sort of calculated action intended to depersonalise and isolate which I was talking about when I started this thread. At one time I abbreviated 'the Italics' to 'the Its', without malicious intention. Blues rightly called me on it, so I stopped.


>> But I don't think it's a simple as they're mean people and they should stop. (Kea, 209)

Agreed.


>> vhe page Ben linked to wasn't anything to do with LW. (Kea, 209)

Didn't it? My bad. I had a lot of tabs open at the time and must have copied and pasted from the wrong one.


>> He's still getting enough posts failed by the premods to not take him off (posts where he gets angry and abusive I think rather than spamming). (Kea, 209)

Which shows that when the Italics do step in, it tends to work, or at least it tends to change things, which is something I find encouraging.

Perhaps, when this happens, it behooves us to back off a bit, to see whether or not it brings about a change in the researchers' behaviours, as Hoovooloo intended with his reincarnation as SoRB, and as Della does seem to have changed as a result of her ban. Complaining about the number of pre-mod posts strikes me as being a continuation of the intollerance which may not be helpful.


>> What I'd like to know is how people think this could be done differently? (Kea, 209)

I dunno. Wish I did. Some suggestions above, which may or may not be aposite.

I do think that individual being conscious of what is going on rather than just letting themselves be swept along by the tide is the start of any personal or group change, though. Hence, in part, this thread.


>> I haven't seen a discussion like this on h2 for a long time. (Kea, 209)

Which is sad. This sort of conversation is one of the things which I value in h2g2. It's a shame if they are not happening regularly. Which begs the question why that might be.


Re Az's post 219 on Stalkers.

Stalking is not ok, but it is different from trolling and spamming. I am tempted to wonder to what extent regularly following someone to their personal space and haranging them there is stalking. My feeling is that it isn't actually stalking, but that it is certainly a rather creepy form of bullying, and may be on the same continuum as stalking. Though I have had my disagreements in the past with Della, I do feel that this happened to her rather a lot. I would regard her as a provocative victim of that, rather than an innocent victim though.

I felt very strongly that the community were betrayed by the Italics during l'affaire d'Oetzi, and that their reaction which seemed to boil down to 'if we ignore the problem it will go away' was ... not appropriate given their role in the governance and hosting of this community.

As a result, the Collective felt rather overwhelmed by the Hootizens' descent en masse into the to-ban-or-not-to-ban threads which Rowan set up there.

What does encourage me is the extent to which we are talking around the problem, thinking it out and working it through.

B

<> (Ben)

I think I clearly stated (apologies if I wasn't clear) that I was stalked not only on my PS - repeated new threads started on my PS as well as the stalker showing up on all my PS conversations - but also on the photo gallery and by email. Which I think could be considered stalking and not just "a rather creepy form of bullying" on h2g2. But of course, this is just my opinion.


az

<> (SoRB)

Della is referring to a post I made talking about not 'feeding the troll'. I then went on to explain how it (the troll) only wanted to disrupt threads and that not replying to it seemed the best solution.

I used the impersonal pronoun to make a statement about trolls in general. So it wouldn't be, in fact, a personal attack on any 'troll' in particular. Even though we were dealing with a specific person at the time who was exhibiting trollish behaviour. I wanted the post to come across as a way to deal with trolls in general. Obviously this was taken the wrong way.


az

<>

All my posts? In fact, it was just the one. Well, just one that had to to with trolling. Perhaps Della yikesed other ones, but in fact they did remove the post in which I referred to trolls with the impersonal pronoun. I received an email from h2g2 that said it was because some people found it offensive. Fairy nuff.


az

>> <> (Ben)

>> I think I clearly stated (apologies if I wasn't clear) that I was stalked not only on my PS (Az)

You did make yourself clear, and it is possible that I didn't make myself clear. As I said, stalking is not ok. What I did not go on to say explicitly was that Oetzi's behaviour, based on your description of it, certainly counts as cyber-stalking. As I said. Stalking is not ok.

What I segued into, clearly without sufficient explanation, was a speculation to what extent the behaviour of other people in following other users to their personal spaces, (but not otherwhere), in order to harangue them would count as stalking. Ie, not you, Az, and not Oetzi. It is still something I'm not clear on.

My apologies for not making myself clear, and thank you for your calmness in calling me on it.

B

PS - I read Della's post >> one person in particular started a habit of referring to him as 'it'. (Della, 205) as implying that the person, (presumably you), started a meme, or a fashion, among other people of referring to tig as 'it'.

Certainly 'habit' implies repetitive behaviour by one person, so I may have mis-read her post.

B

Yes, I would agree that 'habit' implies repetitive behaviour.

I don't think you mis-read Della's post. I think she was mistaken.


az

Ok, here's a thing, I was tempted to say "typical Della revisionism, then", but decided not to on the basis that this is an equally typical example of the sort of labelling that I am talking about.

Then I decided that the dilemma was sufficiently aposite to this conversation to post it.

Then I realised that I was about to disappear up my own backside!

Bedtime for Bens. It's been a long weekend.

B

<< I don't see that as an insult, more an acknowlegement that they're not fully developed in the way most adult human beings are.

I'm still unconvinced that there are 'powerful' people onsite, other than the italics. Some people embody themselves in text which manifests reason, compassion or common sense. That naturally garners allies. I never saw tig behave that way.>>

So, you feel you have the right to decide he's not a fully developed adult human being? Don't you think that's the teensiest bit arrogant?

Allies. Is that what this place is about, a war zone? You and others call him 'it' because he disagrees with you on one or two issues. That stinks! I am simply backing him, because you've all made him your victom, the under dog, to use a cliche. What wunch of self-satisfied self-absorbed people *some of you* are!

(And some of you claim to be 'oppressed' by society - you know who you are!)

He was a racist? I have to say that having been called one myself, when I manifestly obviously am not, I am unimpressed by your assertion. Please provide a link to any *proof* of his racism. (I admit I may not have seen it, because I don't follow the kind of 'joky' threads he favoured.)

<>

, *several of them*, and you referred to tig as it, not his posts... or I would not have 'yikesed' them - plural, not one. Do be honest, please!

Della, you and I are in agreement that tig was "annoying and pointless". I didn't see the same posts you did, where he made godd but unpopular points. I did see a bunch of nasty posts about homosexuals.

Yes, I do feel I have the right to make certain judgements about people, based on their behavior. I also feel I have the right to react accordingly. Perhaps that is somewhat arrogant. I can live with it. Frankly, I'm not as nice as I sometimes wish I was. On the other hand, sometimes I exercise remarkable restraint.

Getting all bent about the word 'allies' seems foolish to me. People either agree with what you have to say, or they disagree, or they're neutral to the point. The ones who agree with an idea could be called allies. That doesn't equate to a war zone and it doesn't mean people in agreement are 'making' someone else a victim or underdog.

Della, I'm curious.

I'd rather not let this degenerate into a "he said" "she said" "well find the links then" "I can't, the search functions broken" spat.

However, I am interested to know how you think this community should deal with people who insist on diagonally parking in this parallel universe of ours. I am also interested on how you'd compare what happens here with what happens on the other message boards and discussion forums you frequent.

B

<>

Somehow the 'racist' managed to slip in under my radar, probably because in my personal experience virulent homophobes tend to be racists as well... I notice that you don't ask for proof of the homophobic comments.

<<(I admit I may not have seen it, because I don't follow the kind of 'joky' threads he favoured.)>>

Tig's homophobic comments weren't just restricted to 'joky' threads, in fact the worst ones were in the Gay Priests thread in The Forum.


RE: Moderation. Maybe the slight overzealousness in moderation lately is over-compensation for previous failings.

RE: Lord Wolfden. Just to make it clear his moderations were a result of the Italics getting annoyed with him, telling him off, him apologising and saying he won't do it again, and then behaving as if nothing had happened.

But Tig, LW and others aside, my worst experiences on h2g2 have probably come from newbies. There have been a few times where I've tried offering helpful advice (like "don't type in all caps" or "This isn't suitable for Peer Review") only to have abuse hurled back at me (generally along the lines of "who the hell do you think you are" and sometimes followed by threats of physical violence)

Eeeeh, I remember when it was all electrons round 'ere...

>> my worst experiences on h2g2 have probably come from newbies

When I were a lass, and the Internet was the new radical and democratising force which was going to change the world just as soon as it got out of the universties and defence establishments and out among the people, the concept of being a 'newbie' meant something. You'd sign up to a discussion group and lurk until you got the hang of it. Then you'd post incredibly obsequious and humble posts until one of the established members, (ie someone who'd signed up the month before you did) deigned to acknowledge your worm-like presence.

So, has the novelty worn off the internet? Do newbies, generically, have less of a sense of arriving in a particular place with its own nettiquette than they / we used to?

Kids of today, eh?

B

"Please provide a link to any *proof* of his racism"

The problem with getting into that "provide proof" thing is that if the moderation system is being used, and is working, the proof you seek is hidden. Which is why I fundamentally disagree with hiding "offensive" posts which are simply someone saying something (e.g. I agree with hiding offensive links). I'd much rather that any such "offensive" post was, for instance, set so that the letters were the same colour as the background, so that if you WANT to read it, you can highlight it, but if you don't highlight it, you don't see it.

That way, newbies and the easily offended just see a blank space, but people trying to follow the conversation or trying to form an opinion about someone based on their past behaviour can go back and read what they posted, simply by highlighting it in their browser.

Hmm... not a bad idea, I think. Someone should have suggested it to the Towers back in the days when things could get changed...

SoRB

Oh, and one other thing - the system I just described would stop people who HAVE been modded indignantly screeching, a day or two later or six months later "I never said that!" when someone reminds them of the kind of person they are. One could simply provide a link to the proof, rather than having to say "Well, you did say that, and it was there before it was hidden."

That is one situation in which the current moderation system acts to the trolls' advantage, in that it hides the evidence of their pattern of behaviour.

SoRB

re: group mentality, mob rules etc.

Thing is, when one person individually offends or aggravates a number of other people, those other people are going, to a greater or lesser extent, group together since they have a common problem.

Question is, is the grouping together acceptable in this case, and is it really something that can be laid at the feet of those offended rather than at the feet of the person doing the offending, to whom it is surely the just fruits of their efforts?

I personally say this in regard to LW who on several occasions returned my well meant comments with insults and put downs. It was after a few of these (and few of those infamous 'I wont do it agains') that I posted to Vibensteins journal thread as a release. Better to have a whinge/laugh there than go all out and have an argument with Wolfie.

On the tig side, I'm not sure quite where he was coming from, but remembering him in the early days of his joining, he seemed to have a real chip on his shoulder about many things. Mainly about anyone who had been to university (although this was not applied by finding out, just generally an insult to anyone who was half literate) - he seemed to think only the middle class went to uni and that going to uni made you middle class. I think the comments he posted were as much designed to be as offensive as possible as he really did seem to have a problem with (his view of) certain types of people.

He was warned, by a lot of people, that this would happen. And by that I mean by people who were friendly with him. But he just couldn't seem to resist winding up those he had a problem with. And thus was his downfall.

How many cakes do I have to make to be called a baker?

I haven’t taken drugs (well apart from ones from the chemist) for some time, am I still a drug abuser?

I have been baptised, was a practising believing Christian till I was ten years old or so, joined Christian groups still volunteer on church led projects and own a bible. Some people think Im Christian simply because of my ethnic heritage, where I live and because I take part in Christian festivals. (Im such a festival trollope, if there’s Im coming)

Am I a Christian? Some people despite my self-avowed atheism insist that I am

Some people insist that Im not one months pay away from falling into serious debt but infact I am member of the well heeled middle class masses (whoever they are) and merely try to act like a discriminated against ethnic minority citizen.



So what makes someone a troll? I could go of and spam a thread right now with comments designed to get people’s backs up or naively post inflammatory or unwelcome comments and not take some friendly advice when people tell me that’s not the done thing. Is this being a troll?

(Would people who sense this has happened so much it can only be deliberate be wrong to “Not feed the troll”. Even to go so far as to appeal to people to join in and warn newbies about someones recent or present behaviour?)

I think that any number of people doing so does not constitue a mob. I followed Della to someone elses PS where she was posing revisionist lies and felt ashamed of myself for not putting other peoples wish not to be in anyway involved ahead of my own personal agenda to see the truth be told.

If I continued either of those behaviours I believe justifiably or maliciously or even whimisically inspired would I be a troll or be trolling. Well with murder it makes no difference to the victims family that you don’t make a habit of it does it?

Sure we are not dealing with anything even in the same ball park. Damn I think some people should sort themselves out and get over using words like bullying, stalking and harassment as the link to the real life meanings of those words is so tenuous as to be demeaning to those who suffer the real world equivalents.

I think the community did give each of the banned individuals here a chance. Each method should have been a heads up to make SOME adjustments for the sake of other people around them. Lets remember that the people who have been banned and pre-moded werent sanctioned against because they were being pains. They had done enough in breaking clearly posted rules, which were reiterated to them.

Della is a case in point. Was she pre-moded because she got up people’s noses or for consistently breaking rules? Well lets see still pretending that things thatwe know have happened, haven’t to the point where the mods step in to correct her revisions, when they previously said its not policy to comment on site about such things.

(Even though one very clever researcher suggested doing so at the time of the pre-mod as a warning and clarification for others and because *it* knew as sure as eggs is eggs that this would become necessary at some point, maybe I should become some sort of psychologist next )

one love

Just to momentarily return to the process by which tig appears to be permanently banned - if he was suspended and created a new account to bypass his suspension then that is an automatic no-discussion-needed banning offense isn't it? That would have nothing to do with only following proceedures for a favoured few.

Although having said that, Hoo posted from a different account during his suspension (if only to say he was suspended) and hasn't been given a permanent ban.