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

Why is this material no longer allowed in the guide? There used to be entries on a variety of subjects that would fall under this banner and nobody complained that I recall. The talk about the terms and conditions hasn't mentioned this changing...
I have no particular interest in reading or writing such entries, but I do have an interest in freedom of speech. As I understood it this was supposed to be about 'Life, The Universe and Everything', not 'Those bits of Life, The Universe and Everything that no-one could possibly be offended by'. Given that there are no laws banning discussion of these subjects, that material on them is very freely available elsewhere on the net, and that (unfortunately) these are actually the subjects that determine the bulk of modern culture, I feel allowing discussion of them is actually necessary...

It does sound like a bit of censorship, does it not? But I disagree there slightly. I don't think h2g2 expressly forbids so many things (among them "sexually oriented...", etc.). I think what is being implied here is that we should practice "moderation" (that awful word is now taking on a Kafka-esque connotation). That is, we must strike an equitable balance, or, in short, we must be mature in our out-pourings. h2g2 is showing us how to strike a balance. E.g.: no "sexually oriented...or otherwise objectionable material". And yet if you look in the h2g2 picture library you will see bare bottoms (Pictures:Human Behaviour - Crime "Mooning"), or are they wearing skin-coloured underpants. There is an insinuendo of adultery (same section "Lying"), male perversity (Pictures: Clothes "A man in a plastic bag bra", Pictures: Human Behaviour - Personal Hygiene "A man taking a shower with his pants on") and the one below it ("A man clutching his nether regions in agony; a zipper in the background") is definitely objectionable and in very bad taste. (I'm sure there must be many more in the other sections.) Of course this is a matter again of balance and taste. We could argue about these things the whole night and still get nowhere very fast.
But we have to look at the general pciture. And on the whole, I think the House Rules are okay. And I think h2g2, and the BBC, are doing a very good job of balancing between abusive chaos on the one hand and too much censorship on the other.
It is a thankless job, and I'm sure the volunteer moderators will agree. I am a newbie to h2g2, but I've been around quite a lot of message boards all over the internet in several continents and a lot of them are simply very hairy and pointless.
The new House Rules should now make h2g2 even better. And I like what is being implied with the removal of HTML and external graphics: it is not what you look like that is important, but rather what you have to say. I agree.

But many entries which were previously Oked have been deleted - many of them on sexual topics. (Before you ask, my attention was drawn to this by a friend ) . Not only do I disagree in principle, but in practice it's bound to fail.
And removal of outside graphics means more losses than gains. Illustrations would improve many entries enormously. I still say that graphics should be allowed to be uploaded to H2G2, but under the same restrictions as anything else...

Only time will tell whether it will fail. From my point of view, I hope you are mistaken.

As for graphics, perhaps you may have a point there. But there are so many boards out there that are simply ruined with too much self-advertisement. Perhaps you are right about allowing graphics, and keeping a closer watch on it. But the trade-off for that is slower service. Do we want that? Or perhaps they should allow graphics and let time tell whether this will be abused or not. After all, they could clamp down again on it if it gets too much.

I hope H2G2 doesn't fail as a site, but I *do* hope that attempts to censor people fail...
As for the graphics, there was very little problem when people posted images previously. And 90% of the time, when they did, it was on their personal page, not on the other entries, so it didn't clog the site up too much...

I never saw explicit sexual graphics or pictures on this site. There were some homepages with links to interesting things like the old 'Wicked Wanda' cartoons (from Hustler magazine 20 years ago) shown only to illustrate the antecedents of the current Xena and Gabrielle phenomenon... If there were any links to hard core sex sites I never saw them.
There was however some frank and serious discussion about relationships and some silly and humourous conversations about sex as well. All of which seemed reasonable and important to the people involved. None of this offended me. Somehow in the context of this environment I suspect 'kids' would never find it and would probably find it boring - there are easier places to find 'hot stuff' in cyberspace.
While I was not particularly interested in some of the 'private' conversations some people were having, (I think now of those two college girls in Montana who were comparing notes as sisters doing it for themselves) I would never say they could not. And I object to the sanitising that is currently underway that would prevent them from carrying on the way they used to.

I never saw explicit sexual graphics or pictures on this site. There were some homepages with links to interesting things like the old 'Wicked Wanda' cartoons (from Hustler magazine 20 years ago) shown only to illustrate the antecedents of the current Xena and Gabrielle phenomenon... If there were any links to hard core sex sites I never saw them.
There was however some frank and serious discussion about relationships and some silly and humourous conversations about sex as well. All of which seemed reasonable and important to the people involved. None of this offended me. Somehow in the context of this environment I suspect 'kids' would never find it and would probably find it boring - there are easier places to find 'hot stuff' in cyberspace.
While I was not particularly interested in some of the 'private' conversations some people were having, (I think now of those two college girls in Montana who were comparing notes as sisters doing it for themselves) I would never say they could not. And I object to the sanitising that is currently underway that would prevent them from carrying on the way they used to. I actually found some hope for humankind in this liberated conversation.

Are you sure they have been deleted for ever. Is it not just that they haven't been moderated yet?

Z

As the saying goes, there are indeed two sides to a coin. Your threshold of the "explicit sexual" is low. Mine is slightly above yours perhaps. Unfortunately, when we get into discussions about, sex..etc., and freedom and censorship, etc. the coin becomes a many-facetted coin, or in this case it would be more apt to call it a facetted diamond ball, where each one of us picks a facet and says "this is it!". And if you're really uptight, to get past your threshold you have to vault it with a pole.

Now, I understand the dilemma of h2g2 (and of course behind them the bbc). They have to span the distance between people like you or me and those pole-vaulters. If we really look closer at the house rules they are no different than say, ezBoard, Coolboard, or any other message board and discussion forum you can find in the net. The only REAL difference is that h2g2 (bbc) is now going to enforce the rules more stringently - and that's where it hurts.

They have introduced the Moderators. And this is where it hurts the most. Now these people are new and they are full of idealism I am sure. Why shouldn't they? It's a responsible position. And I'm also certain they're a bunch of nice friendly people. After all, they are one of "us". But their introduction indicates a kind of negative (with perhaps a touch of cynicism? - or is this too strong a word in this context?) evaluation of us by h2g2(bbc). This indicates a lack of confidence in our level of intellectual, moral, and ethical maturity. Why, after all, are we called researchers and not just members, as in other fora and message boards? Because we are supposed to be more responsible. Now, there is always the possiblity of abuse in any human undertaking. There are some "kids" who run around trying to "shock" people to show how trendily "liberated" they are. But that is no reason to introduce Moderators to curtail our "freedom" of expression and our personal right to moderate ourselves. After all, we are supposed to be mature. These "kids" will soon find this place "boring" and go off in search of dirtier pastures.

Now, in answer to your posting I have been destructive so far. Let me be a bit more constructive (I, in fact we, owe this to h2g2). May I suggest to h2g2(bbc) that they reconsider this concept of "Moderators". They should suspend their introduction for, say, six months to one year, and see how things work out. Or better still, just get rid of the moderators and see how things work out. If any "kids" fall out of line they can always send the moderators in white coats and cart them off anyway. The point has been made, the shot has been fired across our bows. We should know how to understand the implication. So, how about at least a suspension to "prove" our maturity, if not a total release from the Mods?

On the other hand, I am for moderating the pre-bbc material. No one should complain here because if you are not guilty of a lack of self-moderation there really is nothing to worry about, is (was) there? Having done that we can all start with a clean slate and a new 21st century era. Us with our greater awareness of self-moderation, and the new h2g2 with a "cleaner" past slate and hopeful of a greater freely self-imposed and more mature moderation.

Certainly h2g2 will have nothing to lose by declaring a moratorium on "moderation". If things don't work out, then by all means introduce Moderators and h2g2 can truly say: we told you so.

But I hope it would not come to this....

As for the business of the Montana sisters, if they know each other why don't they talk at home, or by telephone? Why do it in public, in a place of research or discussion? (One does not defecate in the reading room of the British Museum, does one?) On the other hand, I see your point. If you find friends in h2g2 and you want to discuss "delicate" matters and you cannot get together in any other way you should have this possibility of doing so here at h2g2. If it is "private" then we should have the opportunity to talk here, privately.

May I again make another suggestion to h2g2 regarding this matter raised by you: why not introduce a so-called "whisper" mode into h2g2. This way you can talk privately as much as you want and only you and your partner can read what you are telling each other. This is a mode used by one of the very large online gameplayer sites. If h2g2(bbc) will allow me to reveal the name of the site, I can do so and you can see for yourselves how this works.

If you are not familiar with Montana Redhead anmd Ilsa She-wolf of the SS perhaps I should explain that while they are classmates at a small town uni in Montana, I believe they met at h2g2. Their conversation started out 'normally' but as all friendships do, the talk became more personal and eventually became one of the most thrilling places to lurk...
Let me know if they come back!

My apologies. You of course did not say they are sisters. Sorry. But, as I said, h2g2 should allow such conversations to take place privately. In this point I agree with you. And to keep it private I suggest again to h2g2 that a "whisper" mode should be introduced into the system.