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

I can understand people not getting what I meant by the use of 'someone important' on H2, as I wasn't quite sure if the terminology was clear in the first place.

The reference to pack animals is a pretty good analogy - not that I'm for one minute suggesting that everyone here behaves that way either consciously or deliberately - but it is an intrinsic part of human nature, like it or not. You only have to look at the way schoolkids treat each other to see this, and while we may (or at least most of us may) have learned to control this part of our nature as we mature, it is still there nonetheless. And isn't it natural, if we see someone has upset one of our friends or loved ones, that we become defensive - and not always rational, no matter how hard we try to retain our objectivity?

There was no reference to any specific individual meant, either; the 'someone important' could be any person on site that is held in a measure of respect by the community, irrespective of whether they are an italic, a long-standing member or even a relative newbie.

The other thing, of course, is that I was posting from a personal, subjective viewpoint, recognising that this is a problem with my own behaviour - my own lack of confidence / shyness that I have to battle to overcome (hence why it has taken some time for me to put on my metaphorical slippers here on H2). Or perhaps I'm not very good at recognising scents...

I can also understand the Eurocentric point, not that I mean non-European researchers are of less value or have less of interest to say, but simply that there are such a lot people here that live in Europe and the time differences mean that there are obviously going to be delays in conversations that can cause distance in relationships; other European researchers are more likely to be able to respond and create a "group-mind" approach to a subject or issue before a non-European can step in and say "hang on a minute, what about ?" I may, of course, be waffling and have completely missed the point...

Finally, I realise that I must cease to refer to the site as HooToo; I only noticed when reading one of Della's posts that it holds some significance to a certain researcher and implies prominence, which was not what I meant at all! From now on, there will only be references to H2 in my posts (it's shorter to type, too )

"What annoyed me about the people telling off others about their treatment of LW was that they weren't active in the the threads that the rest of us were complaining about. There *is a difference between reading a thread, and being an active participant in a thread where someone is spamming/trolling/being an @rse. In the case of LW it's non-serious threads on Ask and Misc Chat. Some of those threads are totally disrupted by LW and the subsequent reaction to him. "

How much does someone have to participate in threads (which threads, how many of them, how many times must they have posted) before you consider their opinion to be fair?

There are threads I haven't participated in because by the time I read them the "reaction to him" made the thread a deeply unpleasant place even if he had posted nothing controversial/spamming etc. Just his presence was enough.

Anyone has a right to an opinion. And I have no problem with someone reading only expressing an opinion about their own experience or what they see happening. What I object to is people not participating in the threads telling me that my feelings of annoyance are not warranted.

If you have been put off by the reactions (and I totally understand how that could and does happen) then I have no problem with you saying that. I'm not going to be so keen if you tell me that *my own experiences are not valid.

As I said in the premod thread - that night I had more than 50 to 60 % of the threads I was opening go to posts that were awaiting moderation. Those were all on 'public' spaces like Ask or Misc Chat. If someone comes along and says that's not annoying, I'd like to see some evidence that they've had a similar experience.

The fact that you find the reactions offputting in no way denies that LW's posts are also annoying. And vice versa

So much backlog...

I have, of course, been one of the people who has labelled others. I have also been thus labelled (and for certain people who have not been paying attention, apparently continue to be so labelled).

Looked at in the cold light of hindsight, I see it this way - this kind of behaviour (the labelling, not the behaviour which begets the label) is actually pretty rare on h2. For whatever reason, it is very unusual for someone to be simultaneously so obtuse and yet so persistent that they even have the power to disrupt any but a few conversations. I'm thinking "idiot savant", with the emphasis in some cases on one of those words, and in some cases on the other.

And when such a person does crop up, their behaviour is tiresome, at least on some levels. And one of the reasons it's tiresome is that, to the uninitiated observer, it appears, at first, that they are perfectly reasonable, and even that they have a point. Said observer may then weigh in on their side. Said observer then usually gets a rude awakening when they find that their comrade in arms is not, in fact, an innocent victim of a witch-hunt, but in fact a serial, unapologetic offender against civilised, rational discourse. Said observer may then feel (rightly) annoyed that they have wasted time on this person. They may feel themselves the deserving recipient of a "told you so".

And, in an effort to avoid too many people being thus annoyed, certain people take it upon themselves to warn others off. I say again, it is *very* rare that this happens. I myself can think of less than ten people to whom this has happened, and to be honest I think every single one of them deserved it. (Me included, since you ask.)

In my experience, what does NOT happen is a systematic pursuit of these people through every conversation they're in, warning everyone they talk to that they're a cretin to whom it's not worth talking. What DOES happen is that whenever they venture an opinion they've already signally failed to defend in any rational, adult way, one of the people who has previously rubbed up against them in one of these conversations will pop up and say something analogous to "don't mind her..." while doing the equivalent of rotating an outstretched index finger next to the temple and crossing the eyes.

To extend the party analogy - imagine you're at a party. You're conducting a fascinating conversation about the politics of multiculturalism with two or three people, when suddenly a fourth appears and baldly says "ooh, I don't like darkies". You might be tempted to challenge this statement, to try to get that person to engage in real debate.

I submit that, in that situation, you would be actively grateful if another person came up and said "Don't mind her..." and did the "she's a bit mental" thing, quietly letting you know that any attempt to engage would be a waste of effort. You could get on with your interesting conversation, and the bigot could go and talk to the aspidistra.

The key here is this: said bigot may be perfectly capable of holding a reasonable conversation about music, or gardening, or football, and nobody would suggest it would be right to interrupt that. Indeed, *some* people might even be able to mount a rational defence of racist views - a defence it might be worth debating, at least. Thing is though, some people can't. They just say "well, that's what I believe.", and if you challenge them further they scream that they're being victimised, or they start to call you stupid, or gay, or whatever. And if you've got someone like that in your conversation, and on the topic of that conversation they can't be trusted to talk sensibly, it really is best to just ignore them, and it really helps if someone whose judgement you trust tells you so.

Which then comes down to - who do you trust? Certain people on this site have better reputations than others. Certain people with, shall we say, rather poorer reputations bemoan this fact, as though a reputation was something that was bought rather than earned through one's own actions.

Ultimately, if person A recommends you ignore person B, you have a choice. Do you trust person A? What do you think of person B? And do you limit the ignorage to this thread?

This site operates almost entirely on reputation. Indeed, in the course of an interview with dancingbuddha for his report on h2g2, I coined the phrase "account of reputation" to describe this very feature - although some, possibly many of us have, or have had, more than one active account here, most of us limit ourselves to a single one, the one by which we are known, the one perhaps under which we've written entries or articles, the name by which people know us. The real benefits of the site are only really accrued if you operate that way. Without continuity of identity, you're nobody here.

Unfortunately, WITH continuity of identity, you are somebody. Somebody whose behaviour patterns become known, and talked about.

I got labelled earlier this year, deservedly, I think. Under my previous name my behaviour here had become one-dimensional and tedious, to the point it was irritating even people who agreed with me. I changed my name (hint to those not paying attention - there is no Hoo any more...), but deliberately did NOT start a new account. This is still me, and the idea was that the change in my behaviour would be noticeable. I think almost everyone has noticed, and the ones who haven't were the ones I would have predicted wouldn't notice anyway, so no harm done.

The point I'm making is that, over a long period on this site, I built a reputation as someone to be trusted. I was a contributor (see my badges). I'm intelligent. I'm articulate. Yadda yadda. But as a result of the way I behaved here, that trust was frittered away, and it became a case of "yeah, that's just the way Hoo is, take no notice".

My point is - I *deserved* that. It was monumentally frustrating at the time, and in retrospect. But the fact of the matter was, my recommendations to ignore people were no longer reliable. Put simply, I was not to be trusted.

Now... if YOU find YOURSELF in a position where people are saying "take no notice of them" in this community - something that happens to very, very few people, remember - my advice is: you deserve it. Not because of what you believe, not because of where you're from, or your gender, race, or preferred breakfast cereal. Because of WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

You have two options: carry on complaining about it, or change. You probably won't get banned, so you can carry on hanging about here, but equally, unless you change, chances are you'll keep getting treated that way. If you complain about it, chances are it'll happen even more, because complaining suggests you don't realise what you're doing wrong.

I haven't been involved in any of the most recent stuff involving tig or LW, and wasn't involved except very, very peripherally in the digibox/Sat/aka thing. Nor do I intend to get involved in anything similar in the future. I'd like to think it's possible to rebuild a reputation here after you've p**sed it up the wall. We'll see...

SoRB

Ben, maybe you're right about the isolation. I know that certain people on h2 are more important *to me* than others, but that's because they often say things that I find interesting and they make me expand the way I thnk about things. I'd be curious to meet LW and tig in person, see what they're really like. Ya never know, they might actually have something to say. I've known other people who are not very good at expressing themselves through text, but are wonderful in conversation. On the other hand, given a limited amount of time in a group, I'd be much more likely to want to spend it with the people I already know have more than sparrow-fart going on between their ears.

Regarding the influence of Hoo on TPTB, my feeling about it is that when the italics saw an email from him they probably either cringed and felt the urge to run to the toilet or decided to have a , buckled on their seatbelts, and settled in for the ride. I think his influence came from being able to make a case and being relentless in pursuing what he thought was right. The Hoo persona has an incredible ability to stumble upon a molehill and not only have the vision to build a mountain out of it, but to decorate it with chateaus, ski gondolas, random hikers, herds of rampaging Big Foots, and fill it with mineable ore. *I* get a kick out of that. Not everyone does, though.

>> if person A recommends you ignore person B,

I hope you meant that hypothetically, SoRB?


>> my recommendations to ignore people were no longer reliable. Put simply, I was not to be trusted.


Ah. *Breathes sigh of relief*

<>

To be honest I only refer to you as Hoo because that's still your best known moniker in much the same way that people still called Della 'Della' when she was calling herself 'Apple'.

I now have an image in my head of that kid in the Matrix saying "There is no Hoo."

Well, I did come across a thread that appeared to be a bunch of researchers pointing to threads where a certain other researcher had posted for the enjoyment of the others and discussing ways to wind the certain other researcher up. I admit I haven't read all 2000+ posts in that thread but that was the flavour I got from the bits I did read.

Now, it is also a thread where people are expressing their frustration, which is fair enough, but to me it looked like organised ganging-up a bit.

Just a random thought:
I like to think that I have a good reputation on this site, despite my habit of chucking a wobbly when people badmouth religion without anything to back it up with... but at the same time my usual fear that people are only pretending to be nice to me and don't really like me at all crops up from time to time.

How could I not like someone who had the nerve and frivolity to come to Stonehenge with me dressed in fancy dress?

Oh, and the eclat to carry it off!

B

Aww shucks...

Oh pah - and here I was thinking of posting 'But we don't!' in reply to Mr D's posting no. 109!

Can you tell I'm bored stiff at work?

to a researcher who displayed some impressive honesty in his last posting.

Was that me or SoRB?

The latter.

I already knew that you fly off the handle when someone badmouths religion

But, hey, I do try to back it up

Thought so, but I wanted to make sure.

I must say I think it is possible to reform. There is at least one poster who I know of and have interacted with who was, to my mind, very anti social in their posting. A troll if you will. I didn't encounter them for a long while, then suddenly, there they were again. And whilst I may not agree with them, nor necessarily their way of doing things, they most certainly are not trolling any more.

I think the thing that makes the difference is integrity. Someone who has actually put some effort into their thoughts and arguments.

I think also there are differences of understanding on what exactly a debate or argument actually is. I must say, for example, that I am perplexed and confronted by the views on religion of both Mr. Dreadful and Kea (hope you don't mind me naming you both!) BUT they both have, in my opinion, a high degree of integrity.

I may think they are woefully misled but I have enough respect for their thinking and reasoning behind what they think that I can still talk to them on other subjects (and sometimes on that subject!) with no ill will or hard feeling, and accept that that is their worldview.

It's one of the things that I find so depressing about many people, they don't realise that you can hold wildly differing views on things yet still get along and be friendly, even friends. Indeed, when people such as that have a real exchange of views, that's when interesting things happen and people start to learn and expand their understanding.

I think also there is a difference of understanding of what constitutes an acceptable rationale for holding a particular viewpoint. What works for one is simply not acceptable for another, so no real debate can ever happen between them. And then you end up with a slanging match.

There also seems to be something compelling about the indelible word on the screen, something that compells one to respond. Where in RL you'd slam the phone down, or walk off in a huff (cue joke), and thus away from the situation to calm down, on here that comment is there, every time you look at it, just waiting for you to hit the reply button.

One of the hardest things to do is to realise when the discussion has reached its end, and to then not post.

And finally, just remember, in 100yrs plus time there will be sociology students reading all this, following *your* posts, to study what human society was like at the start of the 21st Century.
(and if any of them are from a time when there are time machines, can I have a lift please?)


(and yes, I do know I don't always, or indeed very often, match up to my own ideals. I can only say that I am attempting to all the time.)

I have been in two minds as to whether I should contribute having stumbled upon this thread via Della's space (I like to keep an eye on what she's up to). But hey, what the hell, it's good to talk. As I have read here I was a short while ago considered a troll by certain sections of hootoo, though not on the silly threads where I have always managed to fit in. Probably because it is possible to be extremely creative and humerous with one's posts there. In fact the more crazy and ridiculous you are the better you get on. I found that a great comfort.

During that trollish period when at times I acted like a provocative idiot, in real life I was having to come to terms with splitting up with the love of my life; I hardly cared whether I lived or died, let alone upsetting people on hootoo. In fact annoying people here and in real life was about the only thing that made me feel alive. (BTW I hope you don't think I'm looking for sympathy because I would hate that. It's just a fact). For various reasons in the last few months I have started to get over it and so my posts have probably changed. Also if they hadn't I would have left hootoo or the serious threads at least because what I can't stand is being stuck in the same boring role in perpetuity. That's why I have completely lost patience with tig and Della. It's obvious they, well Della at least, Tig may have left altogether, wish to remain in the same role ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

From time to time I still fly off the handle and behave badly and post biting sarcasm which is a bit near the knuckle, such is my nature. But I hope it wouldn't be in the same old redpeckham manner for weeks on end. Because once you get a certain reputation here it's hard to shake off, and even well meant humerous posts get misinterpreted which I feel some of mine were.

I just thought you might find it interesting to hear from a serious thread 'troll'.

Hi Redpeckham, I'd wondered why you'd behaved so uncharacteristically in the Atelier. Your posts about your trip to Australia were - um - full of vigorlouosly upheld opinions (shall we say) but very different in tone from your Atelier postings. Love's a beach and then you cry. I don't know if we know each other well enough to do the thing, but I do know what heart-break feels like, and how strangely one behaves when it happens.



When I started this thread I was thinking about group-think, and about packs and mobs and so on. The posts here had me almost convinced that I have a fevered imagination and that there there is no mob of people seeking out trolls to - um - troll them back, but additional lurking has left me reasonably sure that my imagination was bang on the button, and that this is in fact happening here, in effect if not in intention.





I recognise how this bullying can happen unintentionally, because I have done it myself.

When I was 17 I worked in a boys' school. It was a fee-paying school for 8 - 13 year old boys, and there were a lot of very small, very unhappy people there, though I was too recently out of school myself to realise it.

There was one boy who was always a little bit later, a little bit dirtier, a little bit more of a nuisance than the others. He was a pain, to be honest, so I always kept my eye on him to nip any bother-making in the bud.

I finally realised that I was effectively picking on him, and stopped. Sure, I'd only tell him off when he'd done something wrong - but I sanctimoniously on top of it every single time, and other boys got away with it because I wasn't watching them so closely.

Looking back on it I now also realise that my persecution could well have caused him to behave worse than he might otherwise have done.

I've just spent an hour or so googling for him and looking on friends reunited, but he has left no visible cyber-tracks. He'd be in his late 30s by now.

Sentiment aside: 'seek and ye shall find'. I was looking for mis-behaviour and I found it, and by looking for it I may well have provoked it.





The other thing I've been mulling over is Z's story of -think on another website. As a reminder - there were people there who appeared to need 'permission' to express opinions, but once one person had said 'this fantasy is not ok' a bunch of them followed suit, and it was a while before our hero stepped in and said 'well maybe it is ok, its only a fantasy' and another bunch of folks stood up to be counted.





None of us, bright, intelligent, individualistic individuals that we are, (fabulous us), likes to think that we are succumbing to group-think, or that we are members of a mob, or that we need permission to speak, but we are human, (with the exception of Edward, who's a bonobo, and Kea, who's a bird... ) and like it or not even the most isolationist of us is the product of our genes.

In my original journal entry I said that I had participated in this behaviour in the past and felt grubbier for it. A couple of other people have mentioned doing the same and feeling the same.

Really I am calling on everyone, as an individual, to consider to what extent they have let the heady feeling of shared experience with like-minded people do the thinking for them.

Ben

Hey thanks for the friendly reply B, I did feel a bit nervous about posting!