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

So *that's* what Hootoo is all about, a debating society overseen by a debate master. Not a community based on a work of humour and intelligent wonder. I didn't know.

*We're gradually beginning to get some tiny, tiny inkling of how powerful a networked community sharing information really could become.*

*And when you write in something as simple as 'The coffee here is lousy!' the Guide will know exactly what to do with that information and where to put it. And if you see, a few seconds later, a note which says 'Yes, but the cheesecake is good' it might be worth looking round the other tables to see who you've just made contact with.*

A550955

>> So *that's* what Hootoo is all about, a debating society overseen by a debate master. Not a community based on a work of humour and intelligent wonder. I didn't know.

What fly bit your a**e zoomer?

Having spent two weeks or so last month actually *asking* people what they thought h2g2 is all about, what they like about it, what they don't, and what direction they think we could and should go in, and then having then spent another two days collating and writing up the results, I do feel entitled to comment. On this subject I do know what I am talking about. You are right, though, you don't.

If you are open-minded enough to want to find out more of what your fellow Hootizens think h2g2 is about then please check out A3764063A3795131A3822086 and A3845469. I stand by what I said in my previous post, "many of us stay here for the quality of the debate on the site".

Don't extrapolate opinions I do not hold from remarks that I make, though. That is just rude.

Ben

What happened to the spaces?

A3764063 A3795131A3822086 and A3845469.

B

*Rude*?

I make a comment that the originator of this site might have had a different opinion from a great many of the current users and I'm *rude*?

I find it odd that a reference to the subject of this thread is taken as an insult by you personally.

Seriously, why is an attempt to branch off from the previous post but staying within the context of the thread such a horrible breach of manners? I've run into this a few times now and quite frankly I'd rather have a clear definition of why this is such a severe insult even though it is only based on perception not intent than have someone who would moderate this particular *evil*.

Fairy nuff. Mind you, I personally think that Adams' vision for the site - interesting and inspiring though it is - is now no more than an historical artifact. We are now owned by the BBC, lock, stock, platform and servers.

And where in this conversation does ANYONE say that they think that the Forum is all that h2g2 could, should or ever would be?

Z, who started this converstation, has written 15 edited entries, and subbed more.

Mina's credentials for fulfilling the vision are impeccable, I hope you'd agree.

Anhaga is credited with 45 edited entries.

Clive has 12, going back to 2000 or so.

Gosho/Oojakapiv has contributed to 72 edited entries.

Bouncy has one, and is an active debater.

Happy Dude has contributed to 22, one of them in The Book of the Future.

Witty Moniker, is credited with 5 edited entries and is another long term and active contributer to conversations.

Kelli has contributed to 28.

Kea's contribution (to my surprise) doesn't inlcude edited entries, but she is a thoughtful and active member of the community.

Ferrettbadger has a pending entry, and one on the collective, and is another active hootizen.

Grey Desk has contributed to 17 edited entries.

McKay to 23.

Acid Overdrive created this space, and grateful thanks to him for that.

Mort's contribution is 90 edited entries.

24 of my entries have been edited.

This is hardly a conversation held among people who are ignoring and slighting the original vision, is it, zoomer?

Ben

Simulpost.

Your question "why is an attempt to branch off from the previous post but staying within the context of the thread such a horrible breach of manners?" is interesting.

The site is quite tetchy at the moment, and people are cutting less slack than they used to, (in my opinion). There are a number of reasons for this, and I know you have been made aware of at least one of them. I don't think that keeping people honest is a bad thing, and I do think that challenging sloppy posting is a good thing. Again, just my opinions. I also think that a lot of us think faster than we type, and tend to assume that tone of thought comes across better than in fact it does.

What annoyed me, specifically, about your post was that it assumed that the people here who want reasoned debate are in some way ignoring what the site is about. Reasoned debate is *one* of the strengths of h2g2, as I discovered when I asked what put people off the place. A case of "not only, but also" which you appeared to ignore. And no-one in this thread said "let's ditch the Guide", which is waht you appeared to have read here.

Ben

12 a bit embarresing. but I quickly discovered my knack was not for writing guide entries but in taking part *in* and as part of the community.

And did I really join in 2000? Wow. Has it been that long?
I reckon I missed snagging a 5 digit U-number by only a few weeks!

I think something like Wikipedia has rather stolen our thunder as an interactive encyclopedia, where we score is on the community we have, and the heritage from Douglas as 'The Hitchikers Guide', however Beebified we have by necessity become.

>>I think the Forum has proved itself to be necessary, valuable and an important part of h2g2, especially given how many of us stay here for the quality of the debate on the site. My feeling is that - for the good of the site and the community if for no other reasons - it should be easier to find the best page for debate.<<

You've convinced me, Ben

I'd still like to know at what point Jimster said it wasn't a good idea to link the Forum like Ask etc is. Will wait for Mort's reply.


~~~

I'd forgotten about the Open Debating Society. I was never an active member - I seem to remember finding the members' list quite daunting especially with the requirement to list one's political, spiritual, philosophical positions. However I think the intro on that page is very good (the Do's and Do Nots A1052146 ), and wondered recently if some of it could be incorporated into The Forum's intro page.

Given that there are a few proposals happening here (changing the editing rights, more formal linking of The Forum), do we want to revamp anything about The Forum itself?

I'm particularly thinking about the possible influx of new researchers when the HHGG film comes out at the end of the month, and whether The Forum intro page could be clearer*. I think the ODS page is more succinct and there are points made there that are not on the Forum page. I imagine this will be important if there are alot of new people not used to the debating style here.

*This goes doubly if The Forum gets prominent linking.

Replying to Z's original question. No, I don't think the Forum needs a 'guardian'. I think that Acid's original write-up states very clearly what the Forum is about. Though other Forum members can take it upon themselves (if they see a breach of conduct) to simply post the A-number to the entry so that 'offending researchers' can see for themselves that this isn't the same sort of place as Ask.

I quite appreciate that Acid started this Forum as an alternative to Ask - and I think it has been very successful.

I also think that, as a community, we can look after our own and each other. And I have seen people step in when an occastional inappropriate thread has been started here. So I'm quite happy to leave things as they stand - with Acid being in charge of the site. Although he is sometimes absent for awhile, I don't believe we need another person to maintain the quality of the Forum as most of us are quite 'big mouths' anyhow and *will* speak up on individual threads if someone is not using the Forum in the way it was intended.

My


az

good point.

Kea makes a good point, better linking coupled with the film *could* lead to an influx of researchers (or more likely could not) There are not so many of us that a large intake couldn't produce enough threads to change the tone of the page. Maybe it'd be worth doing a bit of an update to the frount page. I'll cook something up and post it in here for people to see if they think they like it.

Oh and if we're going for publicity I don't think a better link makes too much difference, since once a persons posted once somewhere they tend to be able to get back through their conversations. Getting put into the commends made when someone gets ACEd would probably be much better (but if I remember right it varies from ACE to ACE)

Just a question, not meaning to offend or annoy anyone and not having read the hectares of backlog in regard to the Forum and most certainly not switching a toggle at the seat behind the co-pilot. If most people want strict(er) rules and regulations concerning posting and posters in the Forum, why not just call the digging implement adapted for being pushed into the ground with the foot a spade and make it an area for debate with all the attendant (already written) rules? Surely (and I know you don't mind me calling you Shirley) no one wants the classic form of debate but something with most of the less formal rules?

Just wondering.

Well, you know what I think?

You don't?

Well, never mind. It doesn't really matter anyway.

Woah! I don't think we were talking about rules. Just that certain things have become informal rules and it probably isn't right to expect every person to dig through hectares of backlog to notice them.

I certainly wasn't suggesting we make set in stone rules, but at the same time I'd be a little put out to find 10 'whats the weather like where you are' threads after coming back from a h2g2 break.

It won't matter unless we see drastically increased intake anyway, the odds of which are miniscule, but it's best to preempt a potential problem than to ignore it.

To be frank I think that I would rather The Forum not be marked that clearly. Although we may lose a few sucessful potential members, I am worried that being seen on an equal (or close to) footing with Ask will encourage people to use The Forum as an alternative, and with enough 'badger' conversations our haven will be gone.

If we have enough of a core set of members to keep the original spirit of the forum, I doubt we'll need a guardian of whatever description. Besides, if people (or even one person) was determined to spoil it, there would be nothing the guardian could do at any rate.

V- a decided lurker.

Well explained, thank you.

My concern was with those of us who may not be aware of the more subtle nuances of an informal, unwritten code of conduct.

I've been following the conversation with interest, just wondering out of curiousity where it will end up. My primary reason was that the Open Debating Society was an experiment in the sort of thing you're trying to establish here, and we did go with some active policing... and it didn't work out so well.

The ODS was actually set up on a blueprint that had, quite accidentally, shown good results in the Freedom From Faith Foundation. The discourse in there had generally been that of an ideal debating area, but it was limited in scope to religious topics. So I tried to figure out what elements of the FFFF lent themselves to that atmosphere, and incorporated them into the ODS. One of the elements that I felt was important was that list that kea mentioned. The names on the page give the place a sense of belonging and community, giving the participants an emotional investment and thus encouraging them to maintain the place. Group enforcement was the idea... not individual enforcement.

The collaborative effort to maintain the peace never showed up, and I found myself basically going it alone, which is similar to what you are proposing here with this "Guardian" idea. And I found the effort to be fruitless, and ultimately not worth my time. There were too many of them, and not enough of me. That's when I basically let the ODS die the death of obscurity. I created the ODS specifically because the level of discourse at AskH2G2 for debate threads was appalling, but it didn't get very much better at the ODS.

Interestingly enough, over the past several months the FFFF has lost its former atmosphere, so apparently it's a model that, even when successfully deployed, can't be maintained indefinitely. And although I can point to a pair of specific events that were involved in the change, I'm beginning to wonder whether this was an isolated situation, or symptomatic of a larger cultural change throughout hootoo.

Anyway, my advice to anyone assuming the position of Guardian of the Forum is: don't.

Regarding the ODS page, if someone wants to take the Do's/Don'ts and modify/expand on them, and put them on this page, I have no issue with that.

If I can be Frank for a minute I thought people liked badger conversations, now you can be Frank again Vip

I dont think more rules will help, speaking as someone who enjoys breaking some rules in RL I have to say the best form of discipline is selfdiscipline

People KNOW the rules pretty much but either dont like them or are just belligerent @rs€hol€s. You cant really do much about peoples attitude short of banning or ostriscsing people till they either get the message or bugger off out of boredom. Id like it if people got the message, but it can take a long time....

as az has pointed out that means we keep ourselves in check, no only by reminding people of their indescretions, but more impoortantly showing and helping newbies and MOST IMPORTANTLY listeningwhen people tell us about our own.

one love