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

Damn it, what is going wrong?

Anyhow this is what I was trying to post:-

"Seriously though, no one has a right to not be offended ever. There are simply to many things that other people can get offended by, and offence is such a massively subjective concept that you cannot sure legislate against it even for a website.

If I was feeling a little bit mischievous (and if I have shed loads of free time) then I might consider going through ever single post that had and possibility of being construed as provocative and yikes them all just to prove how stupid this is. In reality I think this could be the beginning of the end of it being an entertaining site.
"

<> (FB)

Oh, I thought you were sulking.


az

Could this be constructed as Suppression of Free Speech?

"I think this could be the beginning of the end of it being an entertaining site."

It's important we don't blame the BBC for that, though. The fact and the tragedy is that just a few shrill voices make this kind of thing necessary.

SoRB

The fact that it talks about BBC Communities is interesting.

We all know that the mods have a limited number of buttons that they can press when making a decision - 3 it is: fail, refer and pass. So to my mind what they've done is expand the message to a catch all one.

I find the words, "provoke, attack and offend", interesting as well. I'll bet dollars to donuts that that is to catch the wind-up merchants who post on the 606 football messageboard. If you ever spend any time over there, you'll soon - like within the first 2 minutes - come across a posting that is designed to offend fans of an opposing team. That place really is like the terraces, with opposing fans making come and have a go if you think you're hard enough gestures and generally swearing and abusing one another. It can be a thoroughly unpleasant place at times. And in that context, I welcome the revision of the wording of the moderaton e-mail.

Now the interesting thing will be to see if folk here use this additional wording / sledgehammer to try to stiffle debate. If they do, then you all know exactly what to do - REPLY to the moderation e-mail. This reply then goes directly to the Italics' inbox, and anyone trying to utilise this additional clause will show up like a sore thumb in all the additional moderation decisions that they have to deal with of a morning.

The offending posts were removed because 3 researchers yikesed them.

They didn't specifically fall under any one rule (although, flaming would have done for me), and due to the nature of those posts, it was deemed, I assume, that they weren't acceptable for hootoo

Wah wah wah, asa far as I am concerned.

The one suggesting that the death penalty should exist for people who attewmpt suicide I owuld maybe agree with. But the others were fair points I felt.

Again if people dont like provakative posts then the forum aint the place to hang out.

<> (GD)

True enough, GD. I've never had anything but favourable responses from the Italics when I've replied to the first email. If they don't feel they can reinstate my post 'as is' they help me to reword it so that it can be put back - or at least they tell me which bits I need to reword. I've always appreciated that. But I don't think everyone knows that the first moderation email isn't the final definitive one.


az

>>"It would not take a bright Christian long to find enough examples of such provocation to have me yikes'd, then pre-modded and then banned."

If that's the case, maybe you're lucky that the [few?] more extreme Christians aren't terribly bright?

>> But I don't think everyone knows that the first moderation email isn't the final definitive one.

Which is why I remind everyone at every appropriate opportunity


I've taken a few moments to have a look at our house rules, and of those of the messageboards. I'm thinking more and more that this additional phrase is geared towards them - it's actually *in* their house rules - and not us. And that what we've got here is a problem with an unsophisticated moderation button, in that all failed messages on the DNA platform get the same message.

Some one I knew described himself as a dedist, I think that's the correct spelling. When I asked him what it meant, he said he would believe anything if you could prove it, he would disbelieve it if you could prove it, but first you had to prove it, and until then he would always have an open mind. Isn't that what H2G2 is about, having an open mind and discussing subjects and being open minded enough to understand that points of debate are merely that, debates.

Well, seems to me that the 'I've been offended' option has already been over-used for ages here. And these are precisely the posts that the italics have ended up backing up in the end, or offering some help with getting the post back on site with a few tweaks.

I personally prefer to see what I consider very offensive posts stand as it shows the poster up for what they are. Also, hard to rebut to a 'post removed', ya know?


az

"due to the nature of those posts, it was deemed, I assume, that they weren't acceptable for hootoo"

Rather the point of this thread is that it appears that it is due to the nature of the new rules that they weren't acceptable for a tiny proportion of hootoos more, um, "fragile" members.

SoRB

Well, again, people who are 'fragile' or might feel easily upset about certain subject matters don't have any obligation to take part in threads that might upset them.


az

Just to say (and apologies for posting in an anonymous account - this is Jimster, logged in to handle account support issues)...

The rewording of the moderation email came about because of a revision of the Moderation tools. In the past, the automated messages were hard-coded and very difficult to change without giving loads of notice. Now, we can make amendments to the moderation emails fairly easily.

I've been working on the Moderation FAQs recently. In the light of other changes, and mindful of the feedback we've had from many people who've had these emails - that they don't go into enough detail about what might be the problem - we asked if we could adopt the slightly more helpful email that Messageboard users receive.

You're right to think this is a catch-all, but wrong to assume that it represents a major shift in policy. We've always failed postings that were clearly designed to pick a fight, which is what we mean by 'provoke' here. We feel there's a reasonable room for intelligent debate, but there's no reason for that debate to become deliberately hurtful or disruptive. This is entirely different to being genuinely thought-provoking and is also entirely different to 'writing something reasonable that provokes an unreasonable response'.

I would ask though that no-one takes it upon themselves to start yikesing posts just to see what happens or to test the system; we do also have House Rules about misuse of the Complaints Button, and only so many hands to the pumps, as it were

Lucky I'm not fragile I guess.

*falls off chair laughing at the idea of McKay being fragile*



Don't ever change, McKay!

az

Jimster>

I really wasnt being serious with that post about yiksing stuff. Just overeacting a bit. Sorry.

hi Jimster,

Thanks for your post. Especially this bit:

<>



az

"and is also entirely different to 'writing something reasonable that provokes an unreasonable response'."

That's rather the problem though. I've had a situation arise where even the person/people responding admit *explicitly* that their response is unreasonable. They have their excuses for the unreasonableness of that response, but they do not dispute that their attitude is one of unreasoning emotion. Indeed, they seem perversely *proud* of that.

Unfortunately, the default attitude, regardless of context, seems to be "protect the weak". The result I have observed is that the weak are therefore emboldened to wade into any situation they like, say whatever they please, then whine about the response they get, knowing that "the system" will always side with them. This has the effect of making it MORE likely their fragile sensibilities will be affected, not less, because they never learn to avoid things that will hurt them. It also has the effect of turning grownups off from conversations, because we know that when the Usual Suspects turn up we might as well start a new thread because now, regardless of the original topic, it's all about them, their problems, their feelings, their emotions, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

As many others have said - this is a large site, with plenty of space for immature banter on subjects of no consequence. The Forum is a tiny, tiny corner where those mature enough to converse rationally on subjects they feel are important can do so. If we are to be reduced to conversing on the level of CBeebies, just because some tiny proportion of the site's user base is incapable of controlling themselves, then that's rather a shame, don't you think?

SoRB