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

I've had a little rewrite along the lines of the suggestions made here - and I'm going to have a little restructure to make the argument flow better. Anything I've missed?

Hey Whoami?

This is really great stuff - you've managed to cut through the passion/negative postings to produce a great proposal. Here are a few suggestions.

*** In the 'Problems with the Policy' sections, add a link to the threads in the Announcem,ents page, thereby giivg people the opportunity to look at the discussion should they so wish.

*** When discussing the problems with the messageboards, it might be worth saying that they do not allow for fluid debate. You can throw in a few key phrases like 'audience interation', 'reaching out to audiences', 'BBC and reader interaction', 'from monologue into dialogue'. By using management speak, you are speaking to people in their own language.

*** When writing up suggestions for change give two options. You mention the separate DNA site. Link to the discussion on the Hub about this and mention the pros and cons of this. (See Jim's posting).

Mention why/how this can be done on h2g2 - if you can show that the system is there and therefore there is little need to outlay loads of money, they are going to listen that little bit more.

Thank you for not resigning your volunteer posts and forging ahead with this - it shows a dedication that makes these sites a pleasure to hang around in.

You're an example to us all.

Ashley

If I'm an example to us all, we're all in trouble.
I like my badges too much to resign, and besides, Natalie bribed me with a pen, a T-shirt and a mousepad.

Whoami?

No one even attempted to bribe me. And I though the italics were freinds.

You resigned too quickly...

I had no real option. Especially as I'm now a candidate.

Excuse my ignorance DD, but how does standing at a local election preclude your on-line persona from doing *anything*?

Conflict of interests brought on by the policy.

I trust you're joking when you say that Ashley's comments are helpful ?

His suggestions appear to be designed specifically to avoid any suggestion that the censorship of discussion of the War on Iraq in this forum has met with very widespread resistance.

I haven't been here very long - four months, I think - but even I can see the politics behind it.

You stick with your first cut, young man - don't be swayed by Ashley !

No offence to Ashley, who I'm sure is a very nice guy.

Peach.

>>> His suggestions appear to be designed specifically to avoid any suggestion that the censorship of discussion of the War on Iraq in this forum has met with very widespread resistance.

No they are not. I've suggested adding links to the forums, ideas as to why messageboards aren't a healthy option for DNA users etc. You have to make this argument clearly and coherently without ranting to get your mesaage across.

BTW it's not censorship - you can talk about the war on BBCi, just not here. Try talking about the Archers on the Talk Buffy page. They'll tell you to leave in no uncertain terms, is that censorship too?

>>> You stick with your first cut, young man - don't be swayed by Ashley !

I'll leave that in the hands of WhoamI? But it would be foolhardy to ignore the advice from someone who works on the inside, has the interests of the community at heart and has worked in this industry for just over a decade.


>>> No offence to Ashley

None taken

Morning, Peachy Keen...

> "I trust you're joking when you say that Ashley's comments are helpful?"

No. The purpose of this document is to put forward the case for change coolly and calmly in a way that can be understood. Ashley is helping me to achieve that and the comments above are therefore genuinely useful.

> "His suggestions appear to be designed specifically to avoid any suggestion that the censorship of discussion of the War on Iraq in this forum has met with very widespread resistance."

The document still says that. But it needn't rub it in too much. His comment is fair...

> "I haven't been here very long - four months, I think - but even I can see the politics behind it."

I've been here almost two years, and I assure you I know the politics too. The difference is that I think I can see a way through them and am willing to work in a way that means the Proposal might even get read by the decision-makers.

> "You stick with your first cut, young man - don't be swayed by Ashley!"

I'm not being swayed by Ashley any more than I would be by any Researcher. Including you. He is offering constructive criticism.

> No offence to Ashley, who I'm sure is a very nice guy.

The Italics are nice people, in my experience. Well, mostly anyway.

Whoami?

Hi Ashley!

You don't need to remind me of the advantages of having someone helping from the other side of the screen.

Whoami?

"someone helping from the other side of the screen."

Is that like in Tron? Cool! Does that mean we get lightcycles?

Don't forget you also get big robot constructs trying to stomp on you (and possibly an annoying little bit following you around). Would you care to nominate whom in the BBC is most like the MCP?

Jim, you of all people ought to know that the BBCi budget won't stretch to that sort of thing.

Whoami?

It's been said before in this thread, but it's worth repeating: the main problem with the policy is that it's far too broad and sweeping in its definition of what may not be discussed.

It would be reasonable to have a policy preventing the revelation of the details of military strategies - though I'd have thought that anyone in possession of such information would be pretty unlikely to choose BBCi as the medium for passing it on.

But we're prevented from discussing any of the rights, wrongs and consequences of the conflict, even in the most general terms, and I just can't think of a single good reason for that. If the concern is that people might be offended by what was being posted, surely the usual House Rules would be enough to deal with any such postings?