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

Blimey.

Points of possible interest.

A previous entry of mine - one "Litany against Fear" was rejected by a sub-ed in the old-style submission, picked by a Scout and subsequently rejected by the Italics, and then resubmitted some months later and picked by another scout and accepted by the Italics. A similar story happened to my entry "Circular Reasoning". So there are precedents for guidelines and attitudes changing.



I know it's very bad form to quote one's own reviews, but since the Italics are working the copy and paste buttons, I thought I might join in the general nostalgia...

Bright Blue Shorts - "I have to say this game sounds bloody awful and I couldn't make it past the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. Despite that the entry seems very good."
Orcus - "Got to go in for the sheer vulgarity."
Zarniroop - "Excellent entry i look forward to playing it!"
GreyDesk - "It should definitely go in to the guide."
Ugi - "What a very very nasty game. [...] Great entry however. "

And of course, some Scout picked it. I forget who. Wasn't all good news, though: NexusSeven wasn't a fan - it was too disgusting for hir. And Sam, as the Italics point out here, had just eaten when he read it. Or something like that. And it spent about ten months languishing in Peer Review because it didn't garner much attention that time round. Wonder what's changed?

-Martin (vile and disgusting)

I didn't see the first you refer to, but if it's anything like like this one you'd have got the same response from me. *Pace* the Towers and how they like Scouts to treat people in PR, I took my 'fluffiness' pill this morning but somehow I can't seem to bring myself to say very much that is positive.
Remove the bad language and you have a well-written entry about revolting juvenile behaviour. Throw the remainder away and you have the basis of a good Guide Entry. Nuff said.

On H2G2, YOU decide what goes into the Guide.

Yes, but if you believe that banner, then fish also ride biycycles.

B

Well, like the sisterhood said, 'a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle'....



B

"On H2G2, YOU decide what goes into the Guide".

I know, you made this point before. But this Unique Selling Point for the Guide is really a potted description of the PR process (which is pretty recent in its inception, remember) and not an injunction for indiscriminate acceptance of articles.
The 'decision' takes place at at least three points in PR: when the author decides to submit it to PR, when the Scout recommends it, and when TPTB decide that they like it enough to make it an edited entry. An entry can fall at any one of these three hurdles.

There is also an implicit fourth hurdle which, in fact, precedes all three of these and that is whether the author decides that the article is worth writing in the first place. This article should have fallen at *that* hurdle, and then the likes of me could have avoided wasting precious Scouting minutes of my life on this garbage.

*ahem*

*Raises hand on behalf of Sub-editors*

I do believe we have the power to over-rule Scouts' choices and say 'this is a pile of c**p' as well. That makes 4.

B

Hmmm

This isn't going to brighten up anybody's day as they turn to the front page of hootoo eagerly to see the new articles.

I guess you learn something from it in terms of further proof of how low humans can go, but we can get that on the news can't we?

Doesn't get my vote.

Sprout

I thought it was funny *and* informative, and I think it definately comes under the heading of "...and everything".

You are all referred to this A219061

And not all edited entries go on the front page. This one didn't for instance: A753527

B

... which you know full-well was an exception, Ben.

> "I didn't see the first you refer to, but if it's anything like like this one you'd have got the same response from me."

The first PR thread is here:
F53661?thread=77584

starring: Unfortunately, the game *is* called 7CW. I didn't name it (nor have I ever played it, for the record - I had the misfortune to observe one protracted game, and I spent some time talking to the inventor about it). I could change the name and game terms, but that would make the entry non-factual. While I appreciate that some people are somewhat offended even by starred out swear words, I don't see that there's any way to avoid this. It seems to me that they are necessary.

endorsing: Clearly the BBC doesn't endorse the subject of every entry. We have an entry on building nukes, and the BBC doesn't advocate nuclear proliferation. This entry *clearly* doesn't endorse 7CW as a game worth playing, just as the entry on molotov cocktails doesn't endorse home made incendiary devices.

funny: Eye of the beholder. It made at least one person laugh, which is all one can hope for.

useful: Well it's not conventionally useful, in that nobody would go from reading about the game to wanting to play it. (in much the same way that nobody would build a nuke based on the nuke-building entry). But I flatter myself that it is useful in other (implicit) ways. Clearly by reading the entry, researchers will be aware not to engage in this game if it is mentioned to them. Fore-warned is fore-armed.

'Slaps' is much the same - though it results in *severely* bruised hands rather than filthy hands and faces. Most forfeit-based games can be equally unpleasant, depending on participants. I heard tell of a nasty card game in Germany and saw the results of that on a couple of participants - knuckles that were literally scraped raw of skin. It was called 'knuckles', IIRC, for obvious reasons. And there's the world-famous biscuit game, of course. Again, forewarned is an advantage, and by comparison to this most extreme example of a sadistic, peer-pressure, humiliation game, people may be more resistant to attempts to engage them in more common examples. That's a good thing.

Felonious mentioned one thing he got from the entry: the different ways people cope with boredom, and indeed the extremes that boredom can result in - a kind of lord of the flies situation. That's something a psychologist or anthropologist may well be interested in. Certainly things could be read into the game, and comparisons made with its siblings. I could make all this explicit in the entry itself, but I prefer to leave people to think for themselves, if possible.

It would be nice if everything in the world was nice and fluffy and wonderful. This is not the case. If we are pretending to be making a guide to life, the universe, and everything, that must include less savoury elements too. That includes testicle cuffs, 7CW, and a host of other things.

Felonious: I'm somewhat disturbed that you are so eager to recommend this thread be removed from Peer Review. My understanding of the Scouts scheme was that Scouts should generally wait until there is some semblance of a consensus before making such a recommendation. That said, please do continue to comment, because what you're saying is very valuable feedback, in its own way.

Cheers,
-Martin

Hi all,

my 2 cents (Euro, selbstverstaendlich!)

I'm a bit surprised to see this entry described as 'offensive'.

That some would call it 'garbage' i can understand (everybody has their own views on these things) but what about it could possibly be construed as 'offensive'? Who would be offended? Just because of the arbitrary 'gros mot' in the title? I would say this is a kind of parody/allusion of/to (??) that other famous card game with the totally gratuitous name of 's**t-head' - is that in the guide?

I'm not saying 'How could any self-respecting guide to L, tU & E be complete without details of every bizarre drinking game invented for drunken amusement on holiday?'

I just don't see this as being 'disgusting' to read - I think everyone is agreed that it would be an unpleasant way to spend the evening, .

As for condemning anyone who enjoys playing cards with their friends as suffering from 'pathological boredom and an impoverished imagination' - *now* we're talking offensive!

If anyone reads this Entry having read the title and still expects it not to be less-than-savoury then they deserve to be offended for being so stupid.

Jimster - I was trying to be constructive. *sigh*

I know exactly why the Origins and Usage of British Swear Words did not appear on the front page. The italics told me the reason at the time. I happened to agree with them, but that is irrelevent.

I trust you don't think I am stupid? Arrogant and hubristic yes. But neither smug nor stupid.

Hey ho.



I was merely pointing out that there *has* been a precedent for entries being edited but not flaunted.

I hestitate to suggest that this is used again, because not all authors of entries will have the good of h2g2 at heart in the way that Lucinda does, Hoovooloo does and I do. We are not working in concert, but I find it interesting that the members of the SBVM who do regularly contribute are the ones whose entries cause this kind of debate.

I cannot speak for the guys, but I push the boundaries out of concern for the strength of the site, and the quality of the policies that run it. Good policies will help ensure a good site.



Getting it into the guide was only one of my objectives with the Origins and Usage of British Swear Words, as I said throughout the long history of that entry.

The other far more important and interesting objective was to encourage the BBC to think through the issues relating to moderation and acceptable content. It did this. Peta walked it though several BBC policy committees, and used it as a baseline for debate. I hope they enjoyed reading it as much as the researchers who wrote it found it to write.



It is *always* better to write policies and business processses based on real examples rather than vacuum and theory.

This is why I welcome the debate about 7CWS and about USP. We are looking at real examples not theory.

It is much tougher - but the resulting policies are more robust.

"That which does not kill you makes you strong" - these debates are not going to kill h2g2 but other things can, and one of those things is dullness. Like most users here, I am here because it is interesting.

B

Well, there is a difference. HVL tends to take 'normal' topics and approach them in a 'hip' way. I tend to take weird topics and approach them in a more normal way. Or something like that, anyway.

-Martin

And what do I do? D*mned if I know!

B

YOU decide what goes into the Guide.