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

Yes they did, SEF. Their first email was ignored. I emailed, and was told to get Symphony to email again. They did, and were asked not to tell any other Researchers about the ban, and that it had been referred to Natalie. Then they got the final email.

No announcement, no nothing.

Right, I'm off to bed. Night all, and pleasant dreams

Hope everything gets sorted by the morning

"asked not to tell any other Researchers about the ban"

That's not a good sign in terms of how it reflects on the italics.

It seems anyone merely considered to be LeKZ is to be automatically excluded from any process which might allow more expert people (on the personalities involved) to help prove that they are not LeKZ. So the situation is one of being presumed guilty before starting any sort of "trial" and therefore skipping the "trial" altogether.

Yes, that's pretty disgusting and, having just checked, not what the <./>HouseRules</.> and <./>HouseRules-Transgressions</.> procedure (based on the modest proposal) say should happen.

Desperately trying to give the italics the benefit of the doubt here, is there any way Symphony could accidentally have an IP or email address which resembled that of LeKZ? For example, being signed up to the same ISP at any point. I hope we can rule out having borrowed or bought any of LeKZ's computer equipment second-hand - though it would be a pretty freaky thing to have happened accidentally.

I suspect a simpler explaination. In the days of LeKZ, Jim Lynn was pretty much exclusively employed at h2g2, and he had direct access to the server logs so could immediately check the IP address of any researcher. Now neither of these things is true - Jim is in the pay of the Hub (sorry - that sounded so deliciously sinister I couldn't phrase it any other way! ) and the BBCi team have taken over the servers. I'm not certain that any of the Italics have direct log access any more, even if they were experienced in reading raw log data as Jim is. So confirming an IP address is no longer a simple proposition, but probably means sending memos and requests through several levels of heirachy.

Jim, if you're reading this, and I'm talking bollocks, feel free to tell me.

"Desperately trying to give the italics the benefit of the doubt here, is there any way Symphony could accidentally have an IP or email address which resembled that of LeKZ? For example, being signed up to the same ISP at any point. I hope we can rule out having borrowed or bought any of LeKZ's computer equipment second-hand - though it would be a pretty freaky thing to have happened accidentally."

Highly unlikely, given that half a continent and an entire ocean seperate LeKZ and Symphony.

Clarification: It is highly unlikely that LeKZ and Symphony have the same ISP.

No computers have left this household,so -even if they were on the same continent- there is no possibility that Symphony somehow ended up with what used to be one of LeKZ's computers.

A request from the Italics to keep the banning secret is... disturbing, to say the least.

Once again, I have to wonder how many other researchers have been "disappeared" without comment or notice. Anyone looking at Symphony's page would think that they just hadn't posted in a long time.

"If you don't watch out, the boogie-LeKZ gonna get you!"

Here is the list of the discussions relating to a life-time ban pages:
A659540 Silent Lucidity
A666263 Arpeggio (retrospective)
A681086 Quincy
A681374 Satyagraha
A684074 Wall flower girl
A688449 Brainless Blonde Babe
A688458 "
A694082 Researcher 189343
A715367 nunoportugal
A717851 yvonne
A835445 Luke Skywalker (who wasn't banned)

I checked just in case there had been a very secret one for Symphony. Since there haven't been any recent pages like that, they've either changed the title and contents a lot or there have been no lifetime bans or no public ones since those.

NB I found a lot of HVL's pages but they don't count.

Ok... I'm leary of even mentioning this, but it might help explain (or possibly confuse) things concerning the italics' possible misrecognition. I've been "lurking" through Symphony's and Arpeggio's convos (apologies to LeKZ as while doing so I learned of their feelings to this). Symphony came to h2g2 and lurked for quite awhile (actually some shaky circumstantial evidence against them being LeKZ) before posting. One of their early posts let someone know they were on (I won't mention who, but if you did as I did, you'll see it.) This message ran along the lines of "I bet you know who I am." This may be what made the italics think they were LeKZ. Now it doesn't take very long to go through all of Symphony's posts. I'm still trying to go through LeKZ's and some other researchers' convos and anyone who is familiar with LeKZ may know that this is a daunting task (Although an enlightening one). I have so far (tho I still have a long way to go) not seen any instance of LeKZ and Symphony's friend conversing. For all I know they could be a friend through another venue or IRL. This reintroduction along with Both user spaces having musical themes along with the obvious MP connection might be enough to "suspect" that LeKZ was back, but not to unilaterally "convict" Symphony.

Of course I'm not privy to what actually led to this. These are only my opinions and hyperbole. And of course as I freely admit, I don't have all the facts, nor have I read ALL the pertinent posts. So my theories may not be worth a load of dingoes' kidneys.

Count Zero

Mistdancer:

"The last time I spoke to Symphony, they were terribly upset. I got the impression that they feel very much discriminated against for being Multiple."

That's not what's happening. I know of at least three other users of this site who have varying levels of DID who have experienced no problems at all.

Multiplicity is NOT the issue. Being LeKZ is the issue.

"I know that they've offered more than once to provide proof of their identity and location, and got nothing in response."

Why not just send it? As in - don't OFFER, DO it.

I can only speak for myself, but if the Italics wrote me an email and said "we think you're a bloke in Ohio", I'd be right back at them with a ruck of email attachments with a scan of my passport, or forward of an email from my ISP, of a photo of me in front of my house, or my phone number so they could call me and ask me my h2g2 password.

Simply emailing and saying "I can prove who I am (not)" is unnecessary. Just prove it, by whatever means occur. I'm told DID generally occurs in people of significant intelligence. There should be any number of obvious ways in which an imaginative person can show without room for reasonable doubt where they live - if they want to.

There remains the question of whether they'd want to.

"I think they're not only upset, but also angry and frustrated that they're being ignored. That in itself is incredibly retraumatising for any abuse survivor."

And would suggest to me that if this website is that dangerous, attempting to regain admission would be counterproductive. There are plenty of forums for people with special needs. This is not one of them.

"They appeared to be horrified at the lack of responsibility on the italics' part in not bothering to look into this."

I can think of someone they could blame for the Italics' attitude, but I doubt it would go down well...

"I think they're reluctant to go over the italics' heads"

I can think of no reason why they should be.

"I think they feel that had they hidden their multiplicity, they wouldn't have even been looked twice at."

I think they're absolutely wrong. 'Silent Duplicity' made absolutely no mention of being multiple, and was correctly identfied as LeKZ within less than 45 minutes of signing up. Similarly 'wallflowergirl' et al.

Once again, to be absolutely clear - MULTIPLICITY IS NOT THE ISSUE. Being LeKZ, or not, is the issue.

"I think they're wary of just opening another account, and that they'd far rather the italics accepted their offer, and rescinded the ban."

Then send some proof of ID. Don't offer it, don't ask what would be sufficient, just get on and bury them in evidence.

"I think they want an apology, because they feel very much falsly accused, and that they deserve one."

Hmm.

I tend to think they deserve two. One from the Italics for not following the established procedure for cases like this. And one from LeKZ for being responsible for them being in this position in the first place. I have my own views on how likely either of those are.

"They have read this thread, and I think it's helping them that there are still people here who believe them."

I don't necessarily believe them, I just think, as I thought with the original LeKZ ban, that this could and should have been handled much better. Like, by using the procedure the community came up with for just this sort of occurrence.

Well it seems as though one of the italics, or unfortunately one of their self-appointed flunkies, has read this thread now. If the former then they are aware that the even-smaller but more-vocal minority-which-might-become-substantial disapproves (and I don't mean just me).

Hi Count Zero.

I was going to go through Symphony's postings next. The key thing is not necessarily to whom those posts were actually addressed but which of the italics or underlines (HVL's term for it) might have been lurking.

There are quite a number of people on this site whose opinions are given undue weight despite all the evidence being against them having worthwhile ones. Some have been around for a while and know how to play the system, ie exactly who to tell and how in order to cause the most trouble. They will have done so off-site. So there won't be any visible sign. It may have been a simple mistake that Symphony was thought to be LeKZ but it is quite likely that they attracted the attention of one of these underlines who is anti-LeKZ. The rest follows as naturally and inevitably as it shouldn't!

I'm still with HVL that Symphony mustn't just offer to prove their innocence (bad enough in itself since by most fair systems of government the italics or the sneak should have had to prove guilt). Symphony must actually send in these proofs, eg photocopy of passport, utility bills etc as one would for money laundering purposes. They could also give their phone number and some times when they will be available to discuss this "in person". It would be helpful if LeKZ were available to be simultaneously contacted but that really is too much to ask. Note that there shouldn't be any problem with sending any of this stuff to the BBC in a private an confidential manner as they are obliged not to reveal it to anyone [hollow laugh aside to HVL, but I don't think they make a habit of that particular mistake].

There also shouldn't be a problem with going over the heads of the italics on something as important as this. Given the now revealed time frame, Natalie must have been around for some of the decision-making so there is probably little extra point in involving her again specifically as there would have been if she had had no opportunity to overrule the other italics before.

"the italics or the sneak should have had to prove guilt"

We did go through all this about eighteen months ago with the Quincy/Satyaselfdown/wallflower etc.

It was acknowledged at the time that the requirement to provide some evidence of ID was non-optimal and against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

However, it was equally acknowledged that

(a) technical proof of guilt is almost impossible, whereas proof of innocence is very simple to provide
(b) there is no obligation on the operators of the site to provide the service to anyone
(c) the staff have more important things to do than conducting investigations into arcane technical matters in an attempt to prove they're right, whereas presumably the user who is falsely accused has some personal interest in helping to put the staff's mind at rest
(d) the BBC reserves the right to terminate accounts at any time for any reason without discussing reasons
(e) the editors decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.

Ultimately, if you want to play the game, provide the evidence you're not who they think you are. It might even work. If you don't want to play the game, don't.

Harsh, but that's how it is.

Obviously I get (a), (b) and (c) but (d) doesn't reflect very well on the staff and (e) is almost like they are deliberately backing themselves into a corner. They should retain the right to reverse one of their decisions if it is found to be wrong rather than being stuck with it being "final". Though the intent is to say that it is _their_ decision and not anyone else's (ie researchers in any sort of democracy), I think it has been proved adequately that the immediate editors can be overruled by other parts of the BBC.

Also, there are some small grounds for saying that if LeKZ is so terrible (note the "if" there and I apologise to LeKZ since I don't know that view to be true) then wrongly accusing Symphony of being LeKZ is itself defamation of character.

Yes, the only way to go is to send in the proofs. Symphony could try Natalie Johnson (at Bush House) or we could attempt to come up with the most likely superior bod in the relevant bit of the BBC.

"wrongly accusing Symphony of being LeKZ is itself defamation of character"

If it helps anyone this may be a useful contact from which to begin address of the situation.

http://www.dcs-gb.net/

Here's the juice;

http://www.dcs-gb.net/disabilitydiscrimination.html

If Symphony have been refused access to h2g2 because their disability and the company they keep, is taken to strate being someone they aren't, then their best option ought be to call the DCS, and inform them that their disability (and the contacts they have with others with the same condition) has been used to deprive them of this service. An interview with them could be arranged, hopefully as safely as the DCS ought to know how, to prove Symphony's geography and identity.

Take care.

Nothing to add at the moment, but bookmarking...

"If Symphony have been refused access to h2g2 because their disability and the company they keep, ...their disability (and the contacts they have with others with the same condition) has been used to deprive them of this service."

For f**k's sake, how many times?

This is NOTHING to do with a disability and NOTHING to do with who Symphony may or may not be friends with.

O, Barton, Mistdancer, you yourself Krispy, and numerous others are known to be or have been in contact with LeKZ. O bloody LIVES with her. O has DID. Other people on this site have DID. They are not banned or threatened with such. (They are also, incidentally, all active on site again recently after long absences. Coincidence?)

Once again for the hard of thinking, this is unrelated to any mental condition Symphony may be subject to, and unrelated to who her friends may be. It is 100% a question of identity.

If she's LeKZ, she's banned. The service is being legitimately denied her because of her own actions in breaking the rules of the site.

If she's NOT LeKZ, she's not banned, and she's broken no rules beyond (so far) not satisfying the BBC she isn't a banned person - something she could do within a matter of minutes if she really wanted to. It's her choice, and no amount of complaining by others can influence that.

If we hear that Symphony has sent reasonable evidence that she's not LeKZ to h2g2, and there's no response, then there's something to talk about. But until that happens, I can personally only assume she doesn't WANT her account back, and there's nothing to talk about beyond the unfortunate non-application of the proper procedures by the staff.

On that latter point - the procedure is voluntary, and the Eds have no obligation to apply it. I designed it specifically to minimise the work the staff have to do when/if someone is banned. If they choose to ignore a procedure which was expressly designed to make their life easier and make them look better and more accountable, then frankly that's their problem.

In conclusion, unless by the middle of next week Symphony has made some effort to send actual evidence to the Eds, rather than queries and requests for clarification, then I would suggest that this is a dead issue as she obviously isn't interested in getting her account back and would rather be a martyr.

H.

"the procedure is voluntary, and the Eds have no obligation to apply it"

The wording on the relevant pages seems a bit stronger than that but there's bound to be wriggle room in the weasel words somewhere.


At the time of the invention of the Transgressions Procedure I believe there was only 1 dna site: h2g2 (hence the different URL format). Now there are many. Do you believe the procedure should still apply to a selective ban? This would include both week-long suspensions and indefinite or life-time bans. I hadn't spotted any site-specific differences to that aspect of the rules (though I should probably check again).

There's no way you can have a DNA account for just one site. What happens if someone posts something in the wrong place, breaking the specific house rules of one particular DNA site? Closing their account affects their access to all DNA sites, even those where they have done no wrong.

I was thinking of site-specific rules such as "no spoilers" on TV programme sites...

bookmark