Moderation - The New Evil Empire?
Created | Updated Jun 22, 2003
Moderation is the chains on the opiate of the means of production. Or something1.
So everyone returned to h2g2, happy in the knowledge that they could once again meet up with their friends, chat, and drink liver-distendingly large amounts of pixelated alcohol. For a time, everyone was happy. They came back to their old, peaceable ways without a hitch, and everything was hunky-dory. Slowly though, they became aware of these strange, auntie-imposed house rules. From there, things began a downward spiral: people realised what these house rules meant for them. People lamented both the loss of their pictures and the bizarre 'no-URL-in-fora-if-you-please' rule. The biggest grumbles, however, concerned the new house moderation policies. Never mind the fact that freedom of speech was only mildly curtailed, it seemed as if the evil BBC junta had taken away the very essence of the H2G2 community - its freedom.
Initially, people tolerated this infringement of their basic human rights, but suddenly, almost overnight, a movement cheekily titled the Zaphodistas appear, swaying many of the disgruntled denizens of h2g2 with its talk of revolution. A quasi-militant group; within the first week of its inception, the movement had seduced over 100 new members. There was talk of petitions and of action, and everyone was happy now that they had something to work towards, and indeed against. People were angry - they wanted URLS in their postings and they did not want the moderation.
Just as suddenly came the loyalists, who felt that all this had gone too far, and people really should stop being so silly. Currently, there is a stalemate, with no side giving ground, and the Zaphodistas muttering dark things about ultimatums.
The Revolution will not be Tele-Tubbied - Subcom. Deidzoeb
I've thought hard about the subject: I'm not too bothered about moderation as it doesn't affect me, but lots of others were worked up, so I signed up to the Zaphodistas. I almost instantly regretted it, looking at Mark Moxon's journal entry, he was very lucid in defence of the ordinances put in by the BBC, and I was convinced. He agreed that there were some illogicalities that needed to be ironed out, but by and large things were fine. After all, its not like people tolerated swearing before the changes. More importantly, however, is the fact that the whole team at 'The Towers' are getting increasingly frustrated with the whingeing of a minority of researchers. This is patently unfair - its not as if they deserve harassment - their job isn't all about schadenfreude. Even if these are seen as legitimate queries, bear in mind that they have almost certainly heard them before, and it's beginning to get tiring.
The moderators seem to be settling down, and there are fewer and fewer mistakes. Agreed, banning foreign-speak is unfair, and although we don't like being coddled, it's a small price to pay for the diversity of the community. If we can prove ourselves trustworthy, the picture and URL levies will probably be lifted, but this requires some maturity on our part: we will continue to be treated as children if we act like children. Quotations are a problem, but the BBC is a public organisation, and must abide by laws. Surely one can allude to things in an oblique manner? Mercifully, the beeb hasn't changed the layout in any way, and we have been left to our own devises. Think how much worse that would have been. The Zaphodistas have some relevant claims, but for me, none of this is of prime importance. If you have a burning desire to show photos of yourself, put them up off-site and link from your page.
People have been threatening to leave because of the restrictions. I am quite literally flabbergasted that people would be so petty as to do this, and to lose all their friends, just over some minor rules which need not come in their way at all. This is the height of childishness, and, frankly, not worthy of anyone I have so far met.
The bottom line is that we have here a viable community, replete with societies, friends and real-life get-togethers. I don't think it is worth jeopardising what has been achieved, despite some small-mindedness on the part of the BBC. Nor do I think it worth leaving, winding up the people in the Towers, who work solely for your well-being on this site, rewarded only by their satisfaction (and of course money), or alienating groups.
