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

I think U229051 may be of interest .

Amy

Donnie, you've received this advice before but the best thing to do now is to shun the person who is troubling you.

It's hard to do, and I'm sure you could find instances where I haven't followed my own advice, but it is a strategy that works if you can be disciplined enough to do it. If the person invades a thread, just start a new one.

Your case might be seriously weakened if you, yourself, break the House Rules. Please take much more care to avoid doing so.

Amy

Donnie, posting the same thing in more than one place is flooding, as Rho has pointed out, and, as such, is against the House Rules.

Do yourself a favour and stop posting in any thread where supersonic is already posting.

Amy

I’m sorry i got carried away i should of taken a deep breath and come back to my space to retrieve this message
i don’t think i have spammed my postings although i have lost my temper and broken the house rules once i think in that thread.
i hope that my attempts to oust him isn’t weakened and that all evidence i gather from now on is viewed without regard of what i have posted to discredit him as a person. i will take your advice and no longer post to him but gather evidence of his constant harassment of past accounts right up to the present time

You haven't spammed, you've flooded. You must take care not to do that or to use swear words.

You've attracted the attention of several researchers who are giving good advice, please heed that advice.

I know it's tempting to continue to make your case but you've done as much as you can. Please try to leave it alone and deal directly with the Editors via email (although they can't be expected to reply until Monday at the earliest).

What’s the difference between spamming and flooding? I will heed your advice as well as the advice of others in the other thread and fight my corner via email now.
Your right it is tempting to post in defense or to show contraction in posts but I will resist and restrict my self to dealing with it via the mods in emails. Forgive my bad language but it is like banging your head against a brick wall trying to get things sunk into his thick head

I'll post more advice here tomorrow.

Ok i may not log on though may be better that i do my research off line and view messages of line, less of a temptation to post that way lol. well thanks for all you have done i will speak again soon i hope but will view things and do things off line for a while bye for now i must go

Rather than risk writing a lot only to find that you haven't logged in and read it, I'll just say that if you need any help, please ask.

I would say, however, that I'm not on anyone's side. Perhaps it would be better to say that I'm on both sides because I'm trying to see both points of view. I also need to make it clear that I'm not here as a Guru, I'm not claiming any special powers or connections. I'll just do my best to give you the benefit of my experience if you feel you can make use of it.

On the subject of U22905, the account hasn't been used since the middle of August and the name has been reset so any suggestions that the account is a casualty of SSO can swiftly be dealt with. But people abandon accounts for all sorts of reasons so nothing more can be inferred.

One issue that needs to be dealt with quickly - because it is muddying the waters - is this business of people sending emails where perhaps they shouldn't. My understanding of how to deal with this varies slightly from that expressed elsewhere by some of the ACEs. There is no official advice - or at least I can't find any - but it is my personal expectation that the Editors would take action if one researcher (or their friends or family) had been harassing another by email. That wouldn't stop the emails, of course, so the receiver of the emails would still have to take other steps like contacting the police and changing their email address.

Talking purely hypothetically for a moment, I can imagine a situation where a young researcher felt they were being harassed and told family members about it who then took it upon themselves to send threatening emails. I can understand such action but I wouldn't condone it. I'm not suggesting in any way that this has already happened but, should someone be tempted down this route, a better course of action would be for the parent of the youngster (or some other responsible adult) to email the h2g2 staff on the usual h2g2.feedback address and then back that up by letter.

Coming back to the current situation, if unpleasant emails of some sort have been sent to supersonic (and I have to say it seems likely to me) the sooner the air is cleared the better before the matter derails your case. You might approach the ACEs who have been sent copies of the emails and ask them to send the emails to the staff as soon as they can or you could contact the staff and give them the names of the ACEs who have received the emails. Or perhaps the people sending the emails could be persuaded to come clean and apologise in order to avoid undermining your case.

Oops, I seem to have written a lot anyway. I'll stop here.

Amy

thanks Amy, as you may know by now that you didn't waste your time posting this, as i am now replying. I have continued my research regarding supersonics previous accounts and his activities within those accounts. I have recovered another two of his accounts where he has trolled and flamed and accused etc...

I am continuing to gather further evidence and am nearly ready to present this to h2g2 via email. I have discovered that he has now closed down supersonic and is now using "mrbluesky" this he has done on the advise of an ACE. This seems to indicate with the advise given by that ACE, it is he that is the victim in his unrelentless assaults on fellow researchers. Now he is hiding in a new account where he will most likely continue to do what he has done in the account of supersonic. Evidence of his previous accounts and his actitivities within his accounts support my theory of what will now happen in his new account "mrbluesbluesky". How and why this sort of behaviour is able to continue, baffles me boyond belief. I myself have witnessed other researchers being put on pre-mod for much less than he has been allowed to get away with. I will be watching with great interest his activities in his new account, to close this message i will ask if you have any further information that will aid me further regarding this matter, please feel free to post here. Thank you for your time, speak soon:

It must be hoped that at some point the researcher in question will reflect on his past mistakes and become a reformed character and this may well include a change of account - opening a new account is not in itself a suspicious act. I've had a look at mrbluesky U556449 and I see no evidence of the House Rules being broken except in one thread he has subscribed to from his past life - and the person breaking the House Rules was you not him .

How can you be sure that mrbluesky will break the rules? Personally, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't face the consequences of previous actions - just try not to muddle the two.

You should not be overly concerned that he is receiving (and, thank goodness, taking) advice from ACEs. This does not mean he is under any special protection. Nowhere in the ACEs job description will you find mention of the rôles of referee or protector or advocate. As far as I'm concerned, the ACEs involved are acting, as I am, just as concerned Researchers and nothing more. He gains no more advantage from getting advice from 'his ACE' (as it's being termed) than you do from listening to me.

If no one was prepared to step in and give information about the proper procedures to use, this matter would never end because the information isn't available in writing. Everyone who has stepped in to help is, I assure you, interested only in getting a fair resolution.

I think it's of great importance that you (and by 'you' I mean yourself and anyone else on this side of the argument) try to keep calm and logical and avoid emotional posting. It may also be wise to avoid stating your allegations explicitly on site.

One technique I use when I feel I'm becoming too involved in an issue is to imagine that I'm someone else. I choose a person from public life - perhaps an actor or a politician or a tv presenter - and I imagine that they are facing the problem that I'm trying to deal with. Newsreaders are good choices because they're calm and, importantly, neutral as far as that is possible. So I ask myself what Anna Ford would do? She's most unlikely to enter into a flame war. I think she'd quietly have things sorted out 'behind the scenes.'

You say you don't know why this situation has been allowed to continue. Well I think I do. People have had unachievable aims and have been employing the wrong strategies. For example, it is no good having the aim of driving a researcher off the site and set about this by ranting at him.

You need an achievable objective - a clear end point. I suggest that you aim to get from the staff (Natalie and Jimster) a clear decision that everyone understands. It may not be the decision you hoped for or even one you agree with but it will bring what the Americans call closure.

If you go for an objective that is too well-defined - for example, to get the researcher put on pre-mod - you may end up disappointed, the matter won't be closed and the whole issue will blow up again some weeks or months down the line.

The method you've chosen to use is to contact the staff by email and I think this is definitely the best way. Just to make this clear because people get confused, the staff are Natalie and Jimster and not the moderators (otherwise known as mods). The moderators are employees of a separate company used by the BBC to do the basic legwork of moderation.

It's important that you keep your case simple and short and logical. You have an advantage because the defence appears to be that some emails were sent and this could be considered to be somewhat less than logical. It's like arguing that you should be allowed to get away with not paying your car tax because your neighbour hasn't paid their tv licence.

The behaviour you're concerned about is one matter, the email sending is another. If people have broken rules then they'll have to face the consequences regardless of what others have done to them.

Your case should be based firmly on the House Rules. In the past, I've found it effective to use the same wording where possible.

Beware of making unfair inferences, especially about motives. I could be wrong, but the evidence you've copy and pasted three times strikes me as being less than strong due to the identity of the other reseacher involved. If that's an isolated event, it may not be relevant to your case.

I hope this helps

Amy

very helpfull thanks may i drwa your attention to this thread and give me your views? i would like to know why he felt the need to post to princess of regarding this u number. yes its his old account but he isnt using it, so does it really matter if it was on her pall list. she may of forgotton the u number was there (had no nick attached) or even who it belonged to, so he was adviced to close down his old account and open another and not message people that he has a problem with, well he has posted to people he has a problem with, witch to my mind was a pointless exercise in the first place now that he has posted to her even though he was adviced not to. well heres the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/plain/F90453?thread=368019&latest=1 speak soon

Yes, this happens from time to time. Sometimes I wish the friends list had never been invented.

I wouldn't dream of asking someone to remove my name from their friends list. In fact my reciprocal friends list contains loads of names of people I can't remember meeting at all but it doesn't bother me. I think it bothers some people because they're insecure and think they're being watched all the time. Paranoid types.

If someone asks me to remove their name from my friends list, I don't have to comply but I do think very hard about whether it will the right thing to do. There's enough ill feeling on the site and, although I don't run away from controversy, if by removing someone's name I can make life a bit quieter then I'll do it. It isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. I don't have to act as if I'm under attack all the time. The person asking for the removal is often doing so in order to provoke a fight and if I remove the name without comment, or with minimal comment, it will put them on the wrong foot and that has its own satisfaction.

Why does he feel the need to do it? Because he has a false sense of his own importance, probably. And also because he feels he's being watched.

If the Princess of Hearts has no really good reason to keep his name of her list, I'd advice her remove the name quietly and without comment. She should rise above the other researcher's pettiness and insecurities.

If the researcher has been told to stay away from Princess of Hearts he *must* do so or he'll be risking his account. All transgressions, however minor, should be reported to the staff. It will be best if the Princess of Hearts and any other interested parties can resist the temptation to post back. Even posting to say that the trangression is being reported is giving the researcher the attention they crave but don't deserve.

Have you tried out the technique of imagining you're a newsreader? I find it very helpful, myself. Have you suggested it to the Princess of Hearts?

Is this matter now resolved to your satisfaction? Have the staff made a decision that everyone understands?

Amy

Good morning Amy I did think about putting myself in the footsteps of some one else such as a newsreader or some other person in the public eye, but I just could not get in the right frame of mind, never mind I suppose it’s a technique that requires practice to achieve the state of mind required.

Princess of has taken the research number off her list now,
If I have a problem I would go to one ace and request help and advice, and wait for that to be forthcoming. I cant understand why supersonic now mrbluesky runs around the site asking different aces the same thing. I can only conclude from this sort of action that he is panicking for some reason and wants action to be taken immediately, now we all know aces/gurus are busy people and he or anyone else’s asking for assistance shouldn’t expect aces/gurus to pamper to their every need instantly.
No this matter is not resolved. Far from it, im still doing my research and came up with 6 more accounts of supersonics and taken samples where he has done the same thing to people as he was doing in supersonic,
I do have an idea of what end result I want to see and that has always been the same, I just could not understand why after so many of his posts was removed that he was not put on pre-mod. That’s by the by though, all I want now is to gather my findings of this researcher and present it to those in charge via email .I’m not doing this half cocked or half heartedly, and this research will take me a little while longer. The end result will be down to those in power I’m just making them aware of what is going on, im almost positive he isn’t the only one who abuses h2g2 in this way and im hoping that by bringing this to the attention of the bbc, that they can make the site more secure. This might be tracking isp numbers of persistent offenders or something similar.

Thanks for your comments regarding this matter you have been most helpful

I think it's understandable for people to seek sources of support. The Gurus are here to answer your questions about how the site works - and we're not at all busy because a lot of people think our job is done by the ACEs. The ACEs are here to help with navigation and general matters. They are not referees, advocates or police. The ACEs are busy but never too busy to help.

In my opinion, this site would be a better place if everyone followed the correct procedures and took direct action themselves. In the case of harassment, the correct procedure is to yikes the posts but don't comment in the thread. This does not need the intervention of an ACE.

If you look on my message space you'll see where I have dealt with harassment just by ignoring someone - it took five weeks to work but he did stop eventually. None of the posts were yikesable in themselves, although a case might have been made to remove the whole thread. However, I'm satisfied that the personal approaches have stopped so I won't take it further.

So the message is don't post, act! It's my new slogan .

On the matter of The Case, you don't have to find all the different accounts. It will be easier for the staff to do that from the information they have in the logs than it will for you to play detective. Spend your time constructing a simple, well-worded case that explains exactly what the problem(s) is/are as you see it.