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

Well the thing is Novo I think there is a fundamental and qualatative difference between the BBC edited broadcast output, and the content of public message boards.

I don't feel for a second that the BBC should apply identical rules and standards to the two of them it is un-workable.

Personally I am happy the the BBC election coverage, I am also ecstatic about being able to talk politics on hootoo. There are a few points on which I think things could be done different next election but trust me, to steal from Macmillan:-

"We have never had it so good!"

Having calmed down a bit, and applying my characteristic trait of wating to see what happens because I'll usually be proven right in the long run, and lo and behold what do we find. HooToo moderators protecting the moral high ground by Yiksing nicknames and Michael Howard immiediately responds by dragging the political arguement down with posters and interviews calling some people liars.

I suppose politicians will take great comfort from knowing that their reputations and moral rectitude are being so well protected by our Editors.

Morning Ferretbadger

Hope you're still improving.

I note your points and agree that sometimes ( like Wandering Albatross ) I have a bit of a short fuse, so I'll wait and see too.

I think I have acknowledged what our Ed's do, and I realise that they are constrained by 'rules'. I too relish the opportunity to express my views to anyone who is prepared to read them.

I still have a 'twinge' that the two hats are on the wrong heads! The BBC can disclaim responsibility for the views expressed on these boards by saying that they in no way reflect BBC stated policy - of course certain kinds of language and some references to social habits etc would have to be deleted. That is right and proper.

Whilst I also accept that the reigns are being loosened a little,I still have a little problem with the Beebs own output, R4 , TV et al where they appear to sanction as a broadcast what we cannot say on what is ,whilst public in access terms, a series of comments from the public on non broadcasted boards.

It is a bit like running Points Of View on R4 but never reading anything critical of the current government,or any member of it, resulting from comments on an Electoral Broadcast.

Hope that explains the dichotomy that I think exists.

Respects to all, including Ed's

Novo

Mornin All,

Ferettbadger, glad you're feeling better, I've calmed down and hopefully my spelling has recovered. With your agreement I'd like to cut and paste your Billy Bragg comment into the PR convo. I think it would be a useful contribution.

If we can just offer an example of why we have to be so over-cautious, it might help to explain the process a little:

Every now and then, we learn that one group or other has moved to h2g2. It happened a few years ago with refugees from a digibox community and recently with a university debating society. But what if a pressure group decided to camp out on h2g2 and began to link to the site externally? It's extremely likely that such activity could be reported by the press as the BBC providing hosting for that group.

Additionally, the BBC has certain legal obligations to provide balance. Now, none of the h2g2 team is a trained political journalist. We can't always be sure whether or not something that's being posted is someone stating their point of view or someone using our site to campaign. So the guidelines we have here are partly to protect us, partly to protect the site, and partly to ensure that you guys can continue your discussions during election time.

As the nickname function is perfect for slogans (and if you change your nickname it appears across the whole site straight away), we have to be additionally sensitive about nicknames, and as we're not always up on every slogan and every issue, we have to err on the side of caution.

Fortunately, it's only for another week. We've been very lucky this time around in that instead of having to remove *any* political discussion across five weeks of campaigns, we're only obliged to block election discussions from midnight on the day of the election itself until the polls close (less than a day, really).

This has also been an eye-opener for us, having attended weekly seminars on what is and isn't allowed, which in turn have helped us pass more and hopefully host a little better. It's also helped the Moderators to be able to identify more 'hotspot' areas and alert us to them.

It's certainly better than it was last time, largely down to the quality of discussions and the fact that we've been allowed to hold them in the first place

I'll be presumptious and attempt to speak for most of us who take part in these types of conversations. I appreciate the good work you do in keeping the site available, often I would imagine in the teeth of crtiscism from over cautious management and their interpretation of policy. I assumed you might have better access to in-house legal opinion, but again when I think of the costs involved would rather you spent the budget on something more tangible and frankly useful.

It must be a tight rope act to keep both sides happy especially when you don't really know who you are dealing with on our side. You can only make a subjective assesment and that could be wrong to the detriment of the site. And especially at election time when skins are thin and sensitive.

I would hope for a more robust acceptance of some of the more colourful language, but in hind sight, you are right to err on the side of caution in order to keep the remarkable h2g2 open for business. I think we are all involved in a piece of hyperspace excellence.

Well done for steering us through what is probably the most negative general election campaign ever. We never closed, yet.

I think some people are being a litle blinkered in their thinking.

Earlier Blues Shark was saying he couldn't understand how people could allow their personal opinion of one man's reaction to the crisis tha arose in Iraq to affect their voting. Now the Conservative political machine has said what many people felt, that they were lied to - suddenly this has become dragging the debate into the gutter ? Its exactly what a lot of people here were saying.

Hi again WA

Nice piece of prose!

Well expressed, and after the Ed's post, exactly my sentiments too.

So my thanks Editors, for running the board, and for your explanatory post which put forward ideas which had not occured to me : come to that I withdraw any previous unkind remarks about your decisions!

Novo

McKay, I think what sticks in the craw is the opportunistic bent the Conservative argument. It's not Dog Whistle, more HEEL Damn it. Why didn't they stick to there campaign slogans that get rolled out ad nauseum from any interviewee. The answer is because the negative, Dog Whistle tactic didn't work as evidenced in the polls.

The Lib Dem approach of driving for infomation and dates to prove that the decision to go to war was taken in 2002 might well prove more effective.

As for New Labour their major concern is to get their core voters off their backsides. Difficult when you are campaigning on track record.

Novo, thanks for the compliment

Feel free to cut and paste that Bragg stuff with impudence.

My school is running a mock election. The issues have been covered fairly sensibly but there are very strong limits on what you can do negative campaiging wise. I am starting to think this would be a good idea for the election proper as we do seem to be getting dragged into ridiculous negative campagins.

Morning all,

Ref the new thread on Attorney General.....

Is there now ANY doubt that we went to war for reasons different to those given to us all , Labour, Tory , LibDem ,.
Those who pretend that it doesn't matter would have a very different opinion had it been an invasion of the UK , with 1000,s killed.

Novo