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

Oh. I thought it all hinged on the h2g2 prime directive - No Spitting!

the no spitting rule is just a joke (i think), and an entry that informs about a game which has spitting in it, and is written well deserves to be in the edited guide.

just because the game is disgusting, does not mean it does not deserve to be in the edited guide. there is nothing about this in the EG, and this entry meets the writing guidlines, and the entry covers the subject and has not left anything impotant out, therefore, by deduction, this entry is suitable for the EG. right?

please someone tell me if my deduction skills are working correctly, as they have been known to be faulty now and then, as some people will no doubt know.

anyway, when it comes round to my time for recommending entries and this ihas not beenre commended by then, then i am going to recommend it. unless i can be convinced otherwise by the tremendously brilliant people in this thread, which i hope i'm not cause i like the entry!

i'm having trouble thinking right now due to lack of brain power and tiredness. speak to u lot tomorrow when i'm sue there will be 100 replies to this posting!

spook

Spook, if you check the first page of this thread you will see that this entry *was* picked by a scout last year, and was rejected by the editors. Jimster's post number 2 seems clear enough that the editors haven't changed their minds. That's why I think the 100+ posts since then have just been wasting everyone's time.

Still, if you pick it and it gets rejected (again), that should get it out of here just as effectively as Lucinda clicking that little 'remove' link...

Azara

Quote from post 2:

"It was reasonably well written and in 'form' it fulfilled Editied Guide criteria. Its 'content' however, we deemed to be tasteless, and, well, basically useless."

this basically translates to the game was tasteless and disgusting, so although the entry was well written and suitable, it was rejected. i personally feel that if entries such as this one about disgusting things are rejected because what they are about is disgusting, then the guide will suffer and will never be complete.

sam is basically saying in his post that because the entry is giving information on a very disgusting game that is unhygienic, the entry is therefore unsuitable, which in my view is wrong, as although the game is disgusting, it is the fact that it is well written in an informative way that makes it suitable, and if i recommend this, i will be challenging the eds to think about Douglas Adams vision, to have an ultimate guide on everything written by regular people. by not allowing certain types of entry, the guide suffers.

well, that's my view anyway.

spook

How naive of me is it to think that it might serve as a useful warning?

Ok - if someone were to turn around to me at a party and say, 'how about a round of '7 card w**kstain', you can be 'W**ker' I would probably decline, despite my liking for puns which has got me into trouble before now.

Mind you - as with the use of the infinite improbability drive to move all the molecules in the hostesses dress simultaniously 7' to the right - I guess my problem may be that I don't get invited to those sorts of parties.



B

PS - for the record - I like the entry, it made me laugh, I loved the w**ker / w**kee puns, I think it should go in the guide, I won't throw my toys out of my pram if it doesn't get into the guide.

> "What is the point of leaving this here in PR?"

Since this has been asked before:
1) To get useful feedback to improve the entry.
2) To get picked and put into the Edited Guide.

As I say, the Editors have changed their minds on my entries in the past, so I don't see this as a lost cause just yet.

Now, lots of peers have commented, some pro, some con, and I'm currently trying to think of ways to change the entry so a few more of the cons become pros. I'll let y'all know what I come up with.

Oh, and no, I'm not 207414. In age or researcher number.
-Martin

Y'know, a major problem with this entry is the title. As has already been said, it just seems like a rather immature excuse to swear a lot. If you were to remove all of that, it would, I'd wager, have a significant effect upon the reading of it...

It'd still contravene the 'No Spitting' rule, of course...

I think this should be settled with a game of "Seven card w**kstain"

No! No no no no no!

Erm... language, Zagreb! We've got rid of moderation, not standards

Oh yeah Jimster? Then where's the mod that should have seen to that? I though the new programme didn't start for a while?

On the matter of the title, well, what can you change it to . "A dirty game with a dirty name"?

What?! Moderation already ceased?

"Erm... language, Zagreb! We've got rid of moderation, not standards"

Sorry

Believe it or not, I forgot to put the *'s in. I hoped that one of you good people would put them in for me

There's absolutely no reason for it to have 'a dirty name' though, really. But then, I have a suspicion the name's actually more important than the content...

And, regarding moderation, click here: <./>F77636?thread=220525</.>

It's a bit like ordering something from an online retailer; it's on its way, but it's not here quite yet

I should probably also direct people to here, where Jim Lynn's making a very, very good point:
<./>F77636?thread=220525&skip=120&show=20#p2557656</.>

However, as that *is* the name given to the game, there's not a lot that can be done about it, without making the entry inaccurate, is there?

Um...

Jimster...

The name is a pun...

A lot of card games have a banker, right?

Well this one has a w**ker...

(Are you sure you are not a snark> You know. Those creatures that 'always look grave at a pun'?)

Anyway, the pun is the main thing I like about the name of the game and of the entry. But then puns get me into trouble on a regular basis.

B

Interesting where cultural boundaries and taboos are. The Trobriand Islanders (as I recollect from Athropology classes taken 20 years a go) are inclusive about bodily fluids and excreta, regarding them as being part of the other person and therefore clean, and not exclusive as we are, since we regard them as being rejected by the other person and therefore dirty. One of their greetings takes this way beyond the limits of wisdom and hygiene.

...and I imagine they all have extremely robust immune systems, since they presumably haven't died out.

Please note that if the "no spitting" rule were anything other than a joke, then they would not have accepted an entry on Spitting A266591 into the Edited Guide.

Is it the Breakfast Club in which one of the characters spits straight into the air and catches the spit in his own mouth? It's seen as a disgusting display, but it only illustrates how people fear those "rejected" fluids. Does the spit become unclean because it's exposed to the air for a few seconds, when it was resting in the spitter's mouth just a moment before?

"Some swearing - such as quotes from poems or plays in reviews, for example - may be editorially acceptable, but in everyday communication, it is not."
-from House Rules

I would think this would mean that not only is it reasonable to use swearing in the title of 7CW, but that it would preserve the artistic integrity of the piece to spell out that title fully.

(No, I don't know what counts as artistic integrity, but if poems and plays get it, why not games? Is a guide entry not art? If you prick them, do they not bleed? [No, they give you a nasty shock, because you're sticking a paperclip in your computer trying to prick an electronic document.])