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

We will indeed be seeking legal clarification on this, but the point still stands that there is a difference between addressing racist views and branding someone a racist.

At the very least, calling someone a racist is pretty much guaranteed to provoke other users and for that reason at least we once again warn you not to do that. There are many other ways that you can express your opinion wihtout having to resort to namecalling.

Please note that the House Rules state:

"Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable."

If someone posts racially-offensive material, use the complaints button. Do not engage in a fight with them or your account may also be at risk.

Additionally:

"Repeatedly posting personal or offensive comments about individual members of the public or people who work for the BBC may be considered harassment. We reserve the right to remove such messages and take action against those responsible."

We've warned that repeatedly calling someone a racist may be deemed harassment. Posts written specifically with the intention of winding up or provoking other users may be removed without further notice.

If you're not happy with how the House Rules are applied, you have the choice of not posting.

Looks like Moron Williams is at it again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6161165.stm

Apparently, Student Unions which object to Christian societies who make people sign up to a statement of beliefs before joining are 'afraid of open argument', and a mere reluctance to fund Christian activities is 'suppression'.

Honestly, people like Williams jumping on every pathetic passing bandwagon do nothing to generate respect for Christianity - they just make it seem like a religion for petty whiners looking for the next molehill.

http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2034435

>>"Dr Williams, who used to be a university chaplain, writes that student unions should not have an agenda that is in competition with the associations under it."

Isn't that rather a**e-about-face?
Is it really the responsibility of SUs to write a constitution that allows their religious societies to behave however they want?

>>
We've warned that repeatedly calling someone a racist may be deemed harassment. Posts written specifically with the intention of winding up or provoking other users may be removed without further notice.
<<

It's an interesting development Jimster. I hadn't realised that h2g2 had such a strong stance on the term 'racist'. As several of us have said here, calling someone a racist isn't actually the worst thing in the world for those that believe that racism is pretty much endemic in society. I also tend to agree with Edward that eventually naming someone as racist is a reasonable tactic where the person repeatedly posts racist arguments to the extent that those argument become the central theme of a thread (or many threads). I do think there is a limit to how the term should be used (eg I would feel really uncomfortable if it got used across the site to describe someone outside of the context of a specific thread, or were it's used to attack someone).

However I accept that h2g2 has specific limits that don't exist in other places in society, so would like to clarify where the boundaries actually are:

1. Is it ok to state clearly that someone's argument is racist (with an explanation of why)? Would that be seen as different from calling the person themselves racist?

2. Is it ok to describe a researcher as a bigot, on the basis of many posts? (I'm trying to see how much of this is about the word 'racist' and how much it is about applying a label to people)


I'd also like some acknowledgement that describing someone as racist isn't always or inevitably a windup. It can be an attempt to speak a truth about a situation. Which doesn't mean the post shouldn't be removed under the current House Rules, but it's concerns me that the Eds or Mods might see it automatically as intended to flame.


It'd also be good to get some clarification that posts maybe removed without further notice. Does that mean there will be no email from the mods?


And in terms of this thread, is your previous post about locking threads a formal warning to this one? Personally I don't think this thread has been particularly over the top in terms of conflict, but I accept that if the Eds end up having to spend too much time on moderation issues that they are more likely to intervene. Has this thread specifically reached this point?




>>>
"Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable."

If someone posts racially-offensive material, use the complaints button. Do not engage in a fight with them or your account may also be at risk.
<<<

There's a difference between posting something that is racially offensive eg a racist term aimed at a researcher, or a grossly racist term used broadly, and posting something milder that is based in a racist outlook eg the idea that people born in England but with non-English parents aren't really English. The first I'd yikes, the second I wouldn't (not least because it's better to take the time to demonstrate the inherent racism).

If we'd been yikesing everything we thought was racist this would be a much shorter thread, and I'm sure there'd be a huge conflict around suppression of views and perceived abuse of the yikes button.


*

It's also interesting that in this thread there is a long history of a particular researcher being called racist in various ways, and personally I think that how everyone in this thread handled that was an example of how well debate on h2g2 can work. Yes things got a bit heated, but there was a wide range of views expressed, not just two sides, and to the credit of the person who was being called racist he has stood his ground and kept focussed on the issues and has contributed to the debate here as well as anyone. As have most of us. And if I recall correctly there wasn't alot of yikesing/modding going on (someone can correct me if I am wrong with that).

Which probably says something about the recent spate of yikesings/moddings.

Or of course, as has already been suggested, we could be responsible adults and simply say:

"I have complained about post x because, in my opinion, this is (state reason)."

Well, well, well. Who would have thought Blair would ever make such a speech.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6219626.stm

"People entering the UK must be prepared to be tolerant or not become part of society, Tony Blair has said."

"The threat came not from "generalised extremism" but "a new and virulent form of ideology"

Umm, haven't I been banging on about ideologies?

What he says is only part of the message though. His delivery, tone and weighting are quite revealing.

Its not how I'd put it. I'd stick with 'you should accept these values because they're decent' rather than 'you should accept these values because they're British'. And rather than discussing it in terms of integration I'd go for opening discussion about core ideals and not closing ourselves off.

Suggests to me it was being spun to your lot rather than to my lot then.

This post has been removed.

>>Posts written specifically with the intention of winding up or provoking other users may be removed without further notice.

For the record... my hidden posts were not written with the intention of winding anyone up. My sole intention was to challenge naked racism. But, hey, thank you so much for patronising me. Again.

Oh...and while we're at it...could challenging someone's nationality *perhaps* be considered a wind-up?

I'm quite enjoying the irony here.

A few months ago I started a thread about unreasonable modding. I was basically slapped down and told to stick by House Rules. In the main, it was left-wing, PC types that were doing the slapping down.

When I pointed out the obviously political nature of some modding on some BBC Boards, the same people were derisory.

In the last few months, the political language of the Government has moved away from appeasement. By a strange coincidence, far fewer right wing posts are modded.

As one of, I think, 3 card carrying members of the Conservative party on this site, can I just say that the only post I've had modded was about Israel, where I accused them of playing The Holocaust card whenever faced with a human rights isue.

Saying you're a member of the Conservative party doesn't mean much nowadays. They're just New Labour with blue ties.

>>
A few months ago I started a thread about unreasonable modding.
<<


Got a link, SWL?

Maybe McKay's an Old Etonian with a penchant for claret and bicycles?

Oh heck Kea, I've been through about 6 pages of old convos and I can't see it. I'm sure someone here will remember my bitching and whining

Do you remember where it was? The Forum? Ask? Your PS?

Probably Ask, though it might have been the Forum.

I may have unsubbed, basically 'cos I couldn't really argue with the "You know the rules before you post" argument. Where I think the House Rules fall down is that they class such a wide range as offensive and all it takes is for someone to complain forcibly that they are offended for a post to be removed.

And what was in the title?

"Moderation", I would expect.

Have you got a method of sniffing out threads? I always thought Coelecanth was the guy for that.

I found this where in post 2 you stick for mods, SWL. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=3401345