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

Entry: A Geezer's Guide for Using a Hand-Held Video Recording Device - A1118738
Author: Montague Trout - U188966

Any room for this in the guide?

Seven days of yes or no, that's all I need.

Trout and friends.

We have already discussed this at length in other threats over the last few months, Montague. We do not wish to host this as part of the Edited Guide. Please remove this from Peer Review.

I'm sorry, but that has got to be one of the best freudian slips I've seen on this site...

"We have already discussed this at length in other THREATS over the last few months"

Naughty h2g2 editors

That should, of course, have read 'threads'. Our humble apologies.

Rather than just tell me to remove it, why not tell me how much I need to change it to make it EG-suitable? That's what PR's for ain't it?

Trout

Having closely followed the debate over this entry in its various guises over the last few months, but having said little so far, I'm finally sufficiently motivated to put in my

Myself, I don't have any particularly strong views about whether this entry goes into the EG or not - but if it doesn't, what I really want to know is WHY?

Profuse apologies if I'm wrong here, but as far as I know we haven't yet seen any sort of public statement from the BBC as to WHY this entry won't be accepted into the EG - which of the h2g2 House Rules this entry breaks, or if it doesn't break any of them, what the reason is for not accepting it.

I think the h2g2 community at large is entitled to expect an answer on this subject, as it does seem to stir up a fair bit of controversy here.

Going on the hypothesis that the entry doesn't break any of the House Rules but is still being rejected, this leads me to suggest three options:

a) If the answer is 'because we, the Italics, say so' then fair enough, just say it and most will probably accept it (probably including me), and some will inevitably complain. But at least you'll have been honest and upfront, you'll get a certain amount of respect for that, and the h2g2 community will know where it stands.

b) If the answer is 'because Editorial Policy told us to' then again, fair enough, we know where we stand. But I think that as licence-payers, it's far from out of order for us to ask for a contact email for the person responsible so we may take up the issue with them.

c) If, as I suspect, the answer is 'if it was up to us we would but Editorial Policy told us we couldn't and for the sake of our jobs we can't be seen to be publicly contradicting them' then I sympathise heavily with the Italics. But if that's the case, why not publicly answer with option b)?

There might also be the possibility that if people start writing to the stratosphere (way above the Towers), that instead of achieving a more relaxed guide, it may have the opposite effect of causing a bigger clamp-down, if indeed this is what is happening.

True. I hadn't thought of that.

*vanishes in a puff of logic*

But everyone in the BBC should be accountable, surely? I know that if an inaccurate graphic goes out on a News 24 Sport bulletin and someone complains about it, our Editor gets that letter / email of complaint, responds to it accordingly and usually has a quiet word with the person responsible.

If things are going to begin to be done that are outside the House Rules, then let's change the House Rules so we know where we stand.

Having seen earlier conversation threads, I think the argument was about 'sexual content'. I can see both sides, so maybe I'll bow out here!

That's why I've steered clear of the debate hitherto... I can see both sides of the debate as well, and probably occupy both of them - I'm a born fence-sitter, me.

But I think once we've been told why, we can all move on from there. Otherwise this is going to go round in circles forever.

>>But I think once we've been told why, we can all move on from there. Otherwise this is going to go round in circles forever.

There I have to disagree. Don't you see? Getting told why will only start another series of circles. Much better all round not to be told. Eventually people will either accept it, or at least stop flogging a very dead graminivorous quadruped, or leave.

Whether you are for, or against, or neutral, or any combination of the three, continuing this pointless and increasingly tiresome series of discussions isn't actually doing any good to anyone at all.

Let's all have the maturity to call this one a day, actually climb down off our soap boxes, and move on to something worthwhile. For some people that might take some doing, but I guarantee they'll be the better for it.

Bels

Mmm. I said I wouldn't add anything further, however I have to agree with Bels on this.

Well, I would have to disagree with bells.

I have got a camcorder, and can see how the content could be changed to get around a lot of different objections.

the problem is that until you know what the problem is you can choose which way it needs to change, and move it in that direction.

Also, the continuing refusal to say what is wrong makes commenting in various of the review forums much harder than it needs to be.

If it is the sexual content, it can be toned down yet again, be bounced again for diferent problems, and finally be brought into a form which is acceptable, but which fits the new invisible guidelines.

that is how we did the molotov cocktail entry, and it wasn't the only tricky one which was done that way.

The obvious question is why are they refusing to use the standard processes to work on this entry?