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

but as Prime Minister he is ultimately responsible and the election is our one chance to hold him to account.

Hiya FB.

Think of it like this, if they fail us all - we're really gonna make the moderators earn their keep

The wonders of a BBC democracy we can all believe what we like and shout it from the rooftops so long as we don't get specific.
If they take out every post that mentions a name these are going to be very short debates

Well whilst this might come across as throwing my toys out of the pram but still....

I wouldn't have minded if they *had* failed all posts, it does say so in their rules (ish) but they haven't just mine.

And my post co-incidently just happned to happen moments after I had a convo with Paully (an italic) which I thought it was polite to bring to his attention.

Amazingly enough my post has now been hidden (spooky eh?) wheras the *very next post* which also mentions leaders by name is still up!

It is truly an amaing coincidence that my post was hidden and I am sure it had nothing whatsoever to do with the convo I had just had with Paully, really.

Well moderation is a difficult balenceng act - be nice not to have it at all really *waves politely at the mod who has to read that.* but it's here to stay like or loathe it.

As for why your post was failed? I couldn't say, I didn't see it.

I suspect though its not merely citing specific names alone...otherwise merely saying

TONY BLAIR

would get me failed and that's hardly sensible in a forum to debate the election and he's the PM.

so maybe there's another reason, maybe it's a collossal missunderstanding (it wouldn't be the first) and there's always the outside possibilty that your post will be cleared and will reappear.

So chin up , smile , and wait and see and *then* complain bitterly

Maybe we ought to have a mock election.

We could get all the italics to put up their manifestos, explaining their positions on the issues of the day - things like moderation.

Then we'd decide whether to re-elect any of them

The really crucial question is, do we get to behead anyone? Just to be in keeping within the traditions of forging new democracies in the UK.

>> I wouldn't have minded if they *had* failed all posts, it does say so in their rules (ish) but they haven't just mine.

And mine: Post 99. You aren't the only one.

>> And my post co-incidently just happned to happen moments after I had a convo with Paully (an italic) which I thought it was polite to bring to his attention.

Now, now. I'd yikes that myself on the basis that it slanders Paully. The Italics have put themselves out enormously to persuade the Powers Behind the Towers to let us discuss the election on hootoo at all.

Also, it's late, it's relatively quiet, and the target time for modding these posts is one hour. It is no surprise if the moderators - who work for a separate company from the BBC, or used to - are up to speed with this thread.

Don't feel paranoid - as I said - yours is not the only post that's missing.

Ben

Ah, now. Careful.
You can exercise capital sanctions as long as you don't behead individual candidates. Any executions must be expressions of how we are personally affected by the issues themselves. After all, there's greater value in generalised mayhem than in beheading a particular individual.

but I thought it says place an axe by the candidate of your choice?

While I've always felt that things were a little overmoderated here and that the posts being removed are probably not unblanced (certainly not a result of people campaigning, on the basis of the people doing the posting) there are two things you need to bear in mind

1) It could be a lot worse (look up some of the threads on the topic from back when the beeb had just taken over)

2) The mods are doing the best they can. I'd rather they start out by eliminating a few posts unecassarily than for them to fail to eliminate one they should have. I intend to discuss the next election on hootoo and hopefully things can get a little more lenient each time we prove that we can be trusted.

Going back to dodgy dossiers, I have to agree with Ben:

"... to me it is unforgivable that, presented with the information that weapons could be mobilised within 45 minutes, nobody appears to have asked "which weapons?""

I would go further and say that, seeing as Blair was a lawyer before being a politican, it is not only unforgivable for him not to ask this question, but unbelievable. Unlike Ben, I am not a professional asker of questions, but this question is so obvious that I would expect anyone to ask it, a trained lawyer and Oxford graduate doubly so.

Your questions mirror similar ones in our recent Australian election, where the general public was apathetic about the WMD question. They just bounced off our government,which went on to a resounding victory. I note that the Guy who ran the last four winning election campaigns for the victors here has now been put in charge of your oppositions campaign. The man is a master of Wedge politics, will be interesting to see if he does the same thing in your election.

I'd like to return to the question of why Robin Cook and Clare Short felt that they had to resign over Iraq while other heavyweight cabinet members didn't. In the final analysis they too must share the blame.

Who must share the blame - Robin and Clare or the rest of the cabinet??

No my point is that all the criticism is aimed at the Tony Blair when others such as Gordan Brown and Jack Straw et al were complicit. As I said in an earlier post if Gordan Brown had threatened to resign over Iraq, and he must have been privy to the same information, would Tony Blair have been able to go to war. I don't think the majority of New Labour would have voted for war if he had resigned along with Robin Cook.

Hi all, it's one of your friendly neighbourhood Italics here. Just a quick reminder about the policy on not dicsussing candidates. This has been requested to enable us to make a better job of ensuring balance across the discussions. This doesn't mean that a post containing a candidate's name will automatically be failed, but it does mean that the Moderators wil have to consider the posting more carefully and postings that contain personal attacks or unsubstantiated criticisms of an individual or individuals are more likely to be removed.

We don't want to disrupt h2g2 or your conversations, which is why we'll be here occasionally to guide conversations away from areas where we feel they may be close to crossing the line. But the presence of an h2g2 staff-member in a conversation should not be interpreted as being connected to failed posts. The Moderators examine posts in isolation according to the guidelines that we've posted here and without influence from the Editors.

We'd really appreciate it if the personal comments - to both candidates and h2g2 staff - could be kept to an absolute minimum. But aside from this cautionary note, we're grateful that so many of you have found a way to discuss the issues within the boundaries set out by the Election Guidelines. This is very much a pilot project for us, and we're very encouraged so far.

Regards,

The Eds.

Nyopinion is that the intelligence organistations oversold the information to TB. TB then oversold it to the commons the newspapers picking up on some bits (especially the 45 minute claim) oversold that to the public.
Overall they are all guilty but I don't think anyone delibratly lied. Despite this I will not be voting labour even if a lib dem vote is a waste.

Fairy nuff.

We do appreciate it guys - we are just a bunch of ungrateful tossers, a lot of the time at least.



Ben

Simulpost, obviously.

Ben