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

Della wrote:

"<>

True - and yet denied by his supporters at the time. Double standard alert!!!!"

This is what is technically termed a "lie". Nobody, to my knowledge, denied it. If anyone did, they were misinformed. For f**k's sake, *I* didn't deny it. How could I?

The sequence of events was:

1. I was suspended.
2. I noted that there was no announcement telling anyone else I was suspended, no explanation anywhere on the site which would explain why I wasn't posting, no note on my personal space to indicate why I had suddenly become inactive. A simple line at the top of my PS saying "Hoo is currently suspended for one month" would have sufficed.
3. I opened a new account entitled "Bang Tango", giving the same contact email address and making no attempt to conceal my identity.
4. I made one (1) posting from that account, clearly stating who I was, and that I had been suspended, and that that was the reason why I would not be posting henceforth.
5. I stopped posting on h2g2 for the duration of the suspension, and indeed for some time afterwards, opened no other accounts and never used the "Bang Tango" account again.

Note that if (2) had not occurred, (3)-(5) would have been unnecessary and would not have happened.

I can only assume that the reason I was not banned permanently for doing what I did is that the staff recognise that what I did was reasonable and within the spirit of the House Rules if not within the letter.

Given that I was completely open, then and now, about what I did and why, I cannot understand why anyone would suggest that it had been denied by anyone.

Della - please, please, STOP LYING about me and my "supporters" as you call them. Your consistent lies were what caused problems before. PLEASE STOP.

Thank you

SoRB

Stop repeating yourself. WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME.

Not getting involved in the meaty part of all this just a lot of DellaJa Vu generally.

I am, though, stunned that Della has said anyone denied Hoovooloo posted on another account. It was abvoius he had and bounced around the site for hours while people caught up with the situation. And, in general, people, even 'his supporters' said he HAD stepped over the mark and the suspension was just. So, no-one was exactly hiding it.

SorB's incarnation from Hoovooloo with an erudite explanation also went someway to explaining the change. Admitting things had got out of hand a little. A darn impressive and humble statement in my opinion from SorB.

It is good that some good comes out of suspensions and other such lines in the sand. A shame that some lines in the sand are scrubbed out and ignored the next time the tide changes.

<> (Ancrene/Nenrace - gaaa! these anagrams are driving me nuts! )

Absolutely not. In fact, the house rules refer to 'trolls' thusly: "Trolls say deliberately provocative things just to stir up trouble - it's not polite, so please don't do it. h2g2 is an incredibly friendly place, so please help to keep it that way."

I wonder if that house rule should be changed somewhat to explain what 'trolling behaviour' is, rather than stating that someone who does this should be known as a 'troll'?

Trolling has nothing to do with stating possibly unpleasant or unpopular opinions. Trolling is clearly disruptive behaviour, for example posting 'This is boring!' or 'yer all stupid! lol!' ad nauseum, or otherwise posting nonsensical or deliberately offensive comments (such as - 'all abortion is murder!') without backing up those comments further, even when pressed by other researchers to do so. Likewise, simply posting personal insults would also fall into the category of saying 'deliberately provocative things just to stir up trouble'.

Re: Ben's post 252. Am quite in agreement with what she had to say about listening. And I think most people here are too. In fact, many people quite enjoy a feisty debate and this can usually only take place with opposing points of view being discussed.

A couple of dictionary definitions of debate:
1. a formal discussion, as in a legislative body, to which opposing arguments are put forward
2. discussion or dispute

Of course, any person who decides to actually debate an issue on a thread must accept that not everyone is going to agree with them. If it turns out that their opinion is not generally accepted by others on a thread - and if they cannot back up their opinions or ideas - to then just say they are being 'picked on' or 'attacked' by a 'middle class mentality' makes me wonder why they bothered in the first place.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they shouldn't bother posting. But having done so, they should also take responsibility for what they have posted and at least attempt to back up their arguments as befits a debate forum.



az

I too was wondering about the denial Della claimed. I didn't see it. Perhaps somebody whispered it in their sleep.

It makes me wonder what's the best way to behave towards someone who has a pattern of lying about what other researchers have said onsite, though. Refuting the lie seems necessary, but when the liar sticks to their story the thread degenerates into a 'war'. Ben made that lovely post 252 about *listening* to people who disagree with you, but I'm not sure that's the best solution for dealing with liars. I don't remember anything in the house rules that says a post would be moderated just because it's false, so as long as it's not overtly offensive. However, I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it offensive to lie about people in order to smear their reputation.

I can't see a really effective way to deal with liars.

I, too, find it offensive. AT least on a par with calling a troll 'it'.

Anyone else find it offensive? If so, I believe we have a case for yikesing overtly false posts as the case that it 'may' offend someone is actually not even a question; it DOES offend people. And as we have seen that is reason enough to have a post hidden.

If we cannot change the system we must use it correctly and base our reasons on past moderation decisions etc.

<> (MoG)

You didn't see it because it didn't exist. What was to deny? Hoo said it was himself posting on that one post and explained why at the time.

Della also posted from another account (Flora Light) after she was put on suspension, and she was also not banned for doing so.


az

I don't think yikesing lies is a good solution either, Alfster. It's like burning the paper trail. It seems inevitable that at some point someone will come along well after a bunch of prior 'wars' have finally fizzled and feel sorry for the liar who's being harshly dealt with. Seems like the rescuer types should have access to the backlog context so they can decide whether it's *really* worth the effort defending someone who seems to be group jumped for no good reason.

"Della also posted from another account (Flora Light) after she was put on suspension, and she was also not banned for doing so."

You know what? I'd forgotten all about that!

It does make her shrill "Double standard alert!" look even funnier than it was already.

The only difference was that she *did* deny posting while suspended. And I rather suspect that when she reads this, she'll deny it again...

SoRB

Who's idea was it that moderated posts should have the text set to the same colour as the background rather than removing them altogether - was it SoRB? Good idea - any chance it will be acceptable to the beeb? Or do they require the text to be removed in its entirety to comply with whatever rules a public service broadcaster has to comply with?

I wonder if they are allowed 'objectionable' content if it cannot be viewed accidentally, or if they will have problems with hosting it at all. Just wondering if it is worth asking the italics about that.

Well if memory serves correct at the time she claimed not to know that she was on premod and that she was posting to find out what was going on.

In the immortal words of "Otis the Aardvark":-

"I scratch my beard for that is too weird"

<> (Alfster)

Well, as it was me who referred to a troll with the impersonal pronoun, I wonder what else you would call it? 'Troll' is in fact an impersonal genderless name for referring to a person posting in a trollish manner.

Meanwhile, the post in which I referred to trolls in this manner was removed (yikes'd by Della, apparently) and I accepted the verdict of the italics. Yes, later on when the person trolling continued doing so I posted a few 'Please don't feed it' posts (two or three within a few hours, trying to get other researchers to stop replying to it. It = the troll). But that was all. Nobody else started using the impersonal pronoun, so no, it was not a 'habit' of mine, nor did it become a 'fashion' to start doing so after I used it.

Here is the thread it was on. I didn't post it before because Ben had said to Della that she didn't want this thread to turn into a "he said" "she said" "well find the links then" argument. (post 233). And as this is her journal I felt it best to respect that wish and leave it. But if it's going to keep coming up it's probably best to clear the air about it.

Anyhow, my removed post was post 94. I don't know what the other removed posts were - possibly they were tig's.

F135418?Thread=1093367&post=12527073


az

<> (Alfster)

The tongue was firmly in the cheek while typing that sentence.

However, the jist of lying being on a par with what IS considered offensive: 'it', still stands.

And hiding a lie is not the best thing to do. However, if someone wished it to be hidden it should be allowed judging current levels of offensiveness.

E. L.

<>

What lie are you referring to?


az

I don't see calling a troll 'it' as offensive. As soon as they start acting like reasonable human beings, we'll start treating them as such.

Sodding bloody server quakes...

Any lie especially about other people or reseachers. Just the general idea of lies and how they can be offensive in themselves as lies to people i.e. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that can be depolyed within 45minutes against 'us' (T Bliar - The Mother of all Lies). Now when a lie like that takes us to war *that* is a lie that offends me.

One could say technically it was not a lie as Iraq had battlefield weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes but obviously they were only a threat IF you invaded and were on the battlefield. Oops, drifted there (breathes deeply).

Which is much the same ground we are on with the latest lie from h2's serial liar and doger of questions Della.

She slandered no one because she named no one and if she can dig up one reference to someone even saying "I think that Hoo would know better than to post while suspended" then she say "told you, see".

Which is one of the really annoying things about some of the debaters here but if I or anyone else cant deal with mild levels of annoyance like that then I think they should be looking at their own stress management techniques rather than looking to get people banned.

A lie naming you though should be a different manner, I'd respond in one of two ways if I took it seriously as something damaging to my reputation then Id want it wiped away.

Mostly though I really like showing up the deceitful no good scumbags who think thay can get away with trying to make others look bad by putting contrary evidence on display.



What Im liking at the momet are the anagrams though it nice for me to read so many posts and receive them without super-imposing a "voice" on them that I associate with lots of you guys through previous interactions.

one love

Well, with regard to lies being told about one . . . what is the best way to deal with it? Ignore it? Start posting 'you said' 'I said' stuff?

I find it rather difficult to see a lie posted about me and then not say anything about it. But if I do say something, I end up 'defending' myself against something that was never true, that I never said or did, etc.

I'm especially loath to 'defend myself' if it means disrupting a thread. But when someone says something snarky like - 'oh, this is what you *always* do', or 'well, of course that's what you would say because you are always like that' (and those are very 'light' examples) I find my fingers hovering over the keyboard wondering if it's worth replying at all.

As far as I know, I don't ever *always* do or say anything, so of course it irks when someone dismisses you (publicly) in such a manner.

Any thoughts on this?


az

Oops, simulpost, blicky.


az

I have found that you're always lovely.

Well, of *course* I'm not about to argue with that!



az