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

>> >> "Your opinion, to which you're entitled. Duly noted. One point: I was not *told* to f**k off. I was forced to, not offered a choice. That's all."

>>"I was using the phrasing from Potholers post."

With all due respect, no, you weren't.

I referred in post 52 to people wanting someone else to *&^% off somewhere else, and reiterated the idea in post 70, though more mildly - "... wanted JtP to go away."

*You* were the one who came up with the "told to *&^% off" phrase.

Personally, all other things being equal, I'd far rather people just realise they are unwelcome, and find somewhere else to hang out than be banned - it saves the messiness of people coming back under various aliases, as has happened in notable past cases.

Yes. This is true. I have a feeling if I go back and read what I've said in here I'm gonna have just as much difficulty as everyone else has understanding what point I've been trying to make. *raised-eyebrow*
I do think I was trying to make a not invalid point... and maybe I'll try to make it again at another time.

[Not that I think admitting you've made cock-up is a mitigation.]

Fine - I just happen to get particularly touchy when people start telling me what I've written (or how I'm thinking).

Ah so much to reply to, I'll be as brief as I can:

"I'll just pretend to be your therapist for moment...
And you don't talk about your problems here do you Hoo?"

Well, not right this minute. I have in the past, a bit.

"Because that woulde be weak of you, wouldn't it? And you're afraid of being weak?"

How about "that would be boring and since this site is intended primarily for entertainment I'm more afraid of being dull and tedious"?

"And you want control... You want to control others people behaviour but you get frustrated if someone like those appointed try to control yours."

No, I don't. I am actually (relatively) compliant when my behaviour here is "controlled".

"You need to grow-up Hoo"

You need to learn to read and spell my name...

"This a community and as far as the BBC let's it this place what the people here make it. You don't want less control from the PTB you just want your own brand of control."

Hmm... not really. What I'd *like* is for this site to be able to accomodate everyone, rather than sinking to a lowest common denominator level. Too much to ask?

"stop whining about it when people create places on the site to talk about life experiences"

Who's whining about that? Not me. I'm aware those places exist on h2, and good luck to them. I don't go there, because it's dull and tedious. THEY came HERE. How about THEY stop whining when people create place on the site to have adult conversations in rational terms?

"You are suffering from a failure to understand that life isn't clean and free of errors of judgement or feelings"

No, I'm suffering from a failure to be entertained in a place of entertainment by people who have rudely climbed up on the stage and started making the show entirely about them and therefore dull in the extreme. There's a place for the kind of conversation they want, and this isn't it. Again, this is not hard to understand and I hope not too much to ask for.

"The site was about letting people develope their own styles of writing by learning through discussion with their 'peers'. Stop mewling about it when people don't suddenly see the light and adopt the manner you have fixated upon as the only way."

I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that many people who use this site are not my peers. I am perfectly comfortable with them having their own areas to talk in, areas I choose not to frequent for fear of dying of boredom. However, people I *do* regard as my peers come here for a different quality of conversation. The site is big enough to accomodate both, which is great. The only issue here is what happens when the children interrupt the adults.

"The way you treat other people to me is a sign of your own childish selfcenteredness. Who defines off-topic?"

Um... the subject line is usually a clue to people who can understand basic English. The people who are already involved in the conversation decide for themselves. Topic drift is one of the great features of h2, I mostly love it, but a conversation develops and mutates naturally. It is usually obvious to most contributors to a conversation when a rude and inconsiderate individual barges into a conversation with some mindless irrelevance unrelated or only tenuously related to the subject in the subject line. And I am not the only one who defined the interruptions we're discussing as offtopic.

"I've been subscribed to The Forum since pretty much since Acid Overide created the page... I don't remember the last time anyone barged in talking about personal problems."

Then you're either not paying attention or you are wilfully disregarding the evidence for other reasons. With respect, you may not be an objective observer.

"This thread wasn't about the forum it was about a DNA community issue, now your trying to paint yourself as someone who only wants one little part of h2g2 to conform to your agenda. If thatr was the case then there was nothing to stop you writing a journal about issues you only want to discuss with the friends you approve of."

Oh dear, you really aren't paying attention, are you?

The Forum exists. I like it. It stands as a different kind of place than Ask or Misc Chat. It's somewhere I can be challenged intellectually by people I respect, people who don't necessarily meet with my "approval", whatever that means. The Forum already, in most respects, meets my (and other people's) requirements.

But the DNA Community issues, specifically the wording of the moderation email, could be seen to threaten the qualities that make the Forum worth subscribing and contributing to.

"Your 'f**k them' attitude and manner doesn't just affect you and the people your directly applying it to."

And this is supposed to bother me because...?

"Your a usual suspect."

Perhaps you mean "you're". And no, I'm not.

"You derail threads by getting hostile with people."

I do not. If there's one thing I can and do do for the most part, it's remain on topic, at least in the Forum.

"Your making the site unpleasent for people"

Perhaps you mean "you're".

I have neither the time nor the inclination to make "the site" 'unpleasent' (sic) for anyone. On this site at any given time the number of active conversations numbers easily into the thousands. I post on no more than a dozen or so at a time. Your hyperbole makes your argument ridiculous. Anyone wishing to avoid me is perfectly able to do so, indeed probably most of the people who use this site have never heard of me and never read anything I've written. So to suggest I can have any effect on someone's experience of "the site" is just nonsense.

But I'm used to that.

SoRB

More pettiness from the top people!

I know this site is run by one of the biggest monolithic companies in the UK but there are SO many rules & regulations. Anyone have time to read all the does & don'ts?

Honestly a Vogon would be proud of what h2g2 has become.

Is it true that Jimster has a marketing background?
Wonder if he'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes (yeah, right!)

Lookin forward to receiving an email, ya honour!

To sum up - hasn't the original spirit of h2g2 disappeared with the bath water?

Eeeh when I twas a lad we used t'live in carboard box in't middle of t'road. Communities evolve, everything changes.

You only have to read some of the convos on some contentious issues, before a global audience, hosted by the national broadcaster of a country that currently has a government with centrist, controlling leanings to realise what a liberal society h2g2 is.

Long may it continue evolving.

I don't see any evidence of the top people being 'petty' - changing the wording on an email might cause some people to worry, but what actually happens is still more important than what people fear might happen.

Unless there's some special cause, discussing members of staff can be a little unfair if they aren't quite as free to answer back as forthrightly as a regular user might be.
Personally, I don't really see what the background of one or other staff member has to do with anything - it's their actions here that are important. In any case, what course *should* someone have been on in order to be best fitted for a role running h2g2?

However many rules and regulations there may be, I'd look to the relatively low rate of posts being moderated as evidence that either
a) most people can be bothered to read the rules, and keep within them most of the time.
b) most people can't be bothered to read the rules, yet keep within them most of the time because the rules are sufficiently obvious, or because they get an occasional prod from a moderator.
c) the rules are habitually not implemented as far as they could be.

None of those scenarios seems exactly like Big Brother to me.

Eeee, by gum - a point of view's a wonderful thing isn't it!

Thanks for your comments WA but you've missed the point.

The evolution argument doesn't wash!

I think it's down to leadership. Either freedom to lead or backbone to fight off controlling influences at the Beeb. I'm hoping it's "just" the former!

~ getting side-tracked for a minute ~
A (centrist) controlling government? You mean there are other sorts?
In RL I mean?

~ back on track ~

I don't think I missed the point. Some things you have to accept as part of modern day living and the luxury of using such a high quality resource as h2g2, to all intents for free, is imho worth being subject to rules and regs that have to exist in order for h2g2 to exist.

Take the masses of laws that go to make up English jurisprudence yet they don't prevent the vast majority of people leading interesting and enjoyable lives.

Another analogy would be the road system. You trust the oncoming drivers to abide by the rules hence we usually get from A to B safely. Similarly we trust the mods and the PTB to drive with a light touch hence we all enjoy ourselves.

I also consider it a tad unfair questioning individuals when they have the balls and enthusiasm to contribute under their own names.

novo

Sometimes we all behave irrationally, we do something that later we realise was wrong or foolish.

We have to face the facts of that mistake and move on, if we are going to carry it around with us everywhere, then we will constantly feel weakened by every reference to it - even when we are not being personally referred to.

Sometimes though, something pops in our face and we can't cope with it. Our reaction to these occurances says much about the type of people we have become.

>>>"Your 'f**k them' attitude and manner doesn't just affect you and the people your directly applying it to."

And this is supposed to bother me because...?<<<

You're old enough and ugly enough to know why.

"The Forum exists. I like it. It stands as a different kind of place than Ask or Misc Chat. It's somewhere I can be challenged intellectually by people I respect, people who don't necessarily meet with my "approval", whatever that means. The Forum already, in most respects, meets my (and other people's) requirements."

We like the forum for much the same reasons.

"But the DNA Community issues, specifically the wording of the moderation email, could be seen to threaten the qualities that make the Forum worth subscribing and contributing to."

I recognise that it 'could' have. But the reason I said it was a DNA community issue is because I felt the case had already been made that it was about preserving standards on boards outside of h2g2 were people aren't trying to foster robost debate but to pick a fight.
I see it more as a threat only to the antisocial use of provocation and not to the considered putting forward of opposing of a position.
Of course some people are convinced of the rightness of provocation tactic and don't want to learn to moderate their behaviour so not to be moderated, it's not gonna be effective.
If I thought the right to reply were under threat and there were no recourse to have one's posting re-instated, perhaps with better choice wording I would be deeply worried for the standards of discussion - those who cannot handle criticism would never have to face the cosequence of putting forward any statement.

"Um... the subject line is usually a clue to people who can understand basic English. The people who are already involved in the conversation decide for themselves. Topic drift is one of the great features of h2, I mostly love it, but a conversation develops and mutates naturally. It is usually obvious to most contributors to a conversation when a rude and inconsiderate individual barges into a conversation with some mindless irrelevance unrelated or only tenuously related to the subject in the subject line. And I am not the only one who defined the interruptions we're discussing as offtopic."

If we stuck just to the subject line things would often get dull sharpish.
'You've it yourself really: The people who are already involved in the conversation decide for themselves. Topic drift is one of the great features of h2, I mostly love it, but a conversation develops and mutates naturally.'
I'll have to keep a critical eye out for these people barging about the place with their irrelevances - it sounds like something that would bother me, if there was alot of willful inconsideration.
I suspect some people view and established conversation as an appropriate place to chime in with their tupence worth on issue tangle-up with central issue. If the people involved feel it's abit leftfield they suggest starting a new thread rather acting insulted.
I don't see any need on a general basis to try and make people unwelcome to The Forum in it's entirity. That's the Jazz Police.
As long as things descend to and talk I'm fairly laidback about folk open up a new possible tangent. I'm not obliged to follow it.




I've not seem anything in the discussions that I have followed and remained subscribed to that strikes me as someone trying to turn The Forum into a therapy session - which seems to something you've said is happening. Which I why I took you to mean h2g2 as whole and not the forum.
You also seem to be troubled by people who talk emotively about controversial topics. If this goes beyond a certain point then it's really will stiffle a contructive debate, but at another level it can sometimes be useful.
People who offer items from their own personal experience are informing the debate of what it is that's shaping their thoughts. I don't have a problem with this as long as no-one expects us to take their experience as authoritive or reflective of the issue in absolute terms.
I really don't see alot of 'shrieking children'.

"I see it more as a threat only to the antisocial use of provocation and not to the considered putting forward of opposing of a position."

And it would be that if the only people who ever yikesed posts were rational, intelligent adults. However, there's no IQ test when you click the yikes button. Any yahoo who doesn't like something you've said or the way you've said it can flag it up - and the standard for hiding posts has changed, it seems.

The problem is not so much the standard as the use to which the system is, indeed HAS BEEN, put by a certain type of person. This is not a hypothetical situation, it's something that's happened. If that doesn't bother you, great.

"Of course some people are convinced of the rightness of provocation tactic"

In exactly the same way, some people are convinced of their right never to be offended, provoke or in any way upset by anything they choose to read and respond to.

"If I thought the right to reply were under threat [...] I would be deeply worried for the standards of discussion - those who cannot handle criticism would never have to face the cosequence of putting forward any statement."

I repeat - I am not talking about a hypothetical situation. I've had a one line post saying "That was my point" yikesed and hidden for being "provocative". Which, ironically, proves my point...

"I've not seem anything in the discussions that I have followed and remained subscribed to that strikes me as someone trying to turn The Forum into a therapy session - which seems to something you've said is happening."

Not exactly what I said. What I said was people turn up and try to derail a discussion on one subject in order to turn it round to something they already talk a lot about elsewhere which is only peripherally connected with the subject at hand. If you tried doing that in a face-to-face conversation it would be a quick route to a punch in the face, but unfortunately some people, despite being long time users of the site, have yet to develop etiquette.

"You also seem to be troubled by people who talk emotively about controversial topics."

Troubled? Not at all. Alternately depressed and amused, sometimes, by their strident insistence that because their view is based on emotion it's better or more valid than one based on reason. But not troubled. After all, it's quite literally their problem, not mine. For that I am, I don't mind saying, thankful and more than a little smug.

"I really don't see alot of 'shrieking children'."

Go to a "family" pub. You won't see a lot of shrieking children. The problem is that if you see ONE, it ruins the place for everyone else.

SoRB

Absolutely, baby! I take it you have read the Hitch Hiker series - the opportunity offered by Jimster's background was just too good to miss. I'm sure he's had the p*ss taken often enough. Let's hope he has a better sense of humour than some others on h2g2.


Dunno - perhaps there isn't one!


No-one even mentioned BB. Do you know something?

The need for rules & regulations isn't the issue. What you say is true BUT do they have to be so huge & all encompassing (give it time & they will be!)


Unless of course you are an innocent serving time. As for the guilty walking free.....
Hey - that's ok cos the "majority" are leading "interesting & normal lives"!


The key word there is "usually"!


Irrelevant surely?