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

I feel that I have made the points I needed to make and before this thread starts to go round in circles I shall probably bow out.

I will remain subscribed for a while but as with all these things I may find that RL and work remains in the way

Oh, about the death threat being illegal, I did a little research on the internet and found some interesting stuff about UK internet harrassment laws. From what I read I don't think it was officially illegal, though I am not a lawyer. However I do believe the BBC has some very good lawyers and I'm sure that if there were any doubt on the matter they would have been consulted and the law upheld if necessary.

to all those who wish to continue this thread, I hope you achieve that which you want to without causing too much trouble



Mel

Remember - If you participate in controversial threads the preview button is your greatest friend. It allows you to re-read the post exactly how it will look to everyone else, as well as to get rid of pesky typos and spelling/grammar mistakes so you don't make yourself look

F80756?thread=127664

Is this really any worse that actually thretening to kill someone?

Remeber LeKZ got an immediate lifetime ban; now I do not really want to comment on the specifics, I was not around at the time so I do not know any of the specifics but if this bunch of xs warrants a life ban then IMHO making a death threat against a researcher should at least have one considered.

That's a very fair question, Member. What I perhaps should say is that *our* focus is the Edited Guide. Whatever reasons other people have for coming here are their own. Obviously we'd love it if everyone joined in as we could only benefit from that, but we're not going to force people to 'contribute or get out' either. We just try our best to make it as attractive an idea as possible with a variety of activities and schemes.

The evidence we have suggests that a lot more people passively read what we offer than actively contribute towards it, which means that by focusing on the activities that create content, we're still catering for the silent majority of visitors to the site (our 'audience', if you will).

That's just my view (which I suspect is similar to that of Natalie, but as I'm working from home due to illness I can't ask her myself ). But it's a very interesting question and it'd be good to read other Researcher's reactions to it.

"a lot more people passively read what we offer than actively contribute towards it, which means that by focusing on the activities that create content, we're still catering for the silent majority of visitors"

Ooh, good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Get well soon!

Anyone else? (...got any idea what proportion of users contribute to the edited guide?)

I would say everyone that looks at.. (...got any idea what proportion of users contribute to the edited guide?)..it.

100% Then Its A Guide ,even if only 10% contribute by adding more than I(nit)ial entry,still biggest guide of its kind.

Um... how does looking at it contribute to it?

I've looked at probably two dozen edited entries. I've commented a couple of times in peer review, although nothing I've said there was of any consequence and wasn't used. My total contribution to the edited guide, in my estimation, is zero. How many others are like me? How many others have contributed LESS? Probably a fair few people don't even know anything about the edited guide and use this site like I do, as a slow-moving chatroom.

Have YOU written an edited guide entry, logicus?

Hmm well I must confess I use hootoo primarliy as Member says a slow moving chat room; but one with *mainly* pretty intelligent folks and none of that ASL cr*p.

However I do like to contribute to the guide and I am quite proud to have had three of mine in the guide; and one in peer review which I hope to get picked soon (any scouts reading it is the one about Ferret Badgers !)

However I feel that the guide is central not least becuase it sets the "tone" for the whole site. Without the guide it would be just the same as any other message board, and consequently much poorer for it... IMHO anyhow.

No and yes i use as it was intended a online blog,reference,information ,distraction, to see what i have contributed click on my page hunt it out ,But i accept no responsibilty for any damage to your cognative state before -dureing, or after reading it.and take a
F124942
or
U228352
ALSO
F127493?thread=327052
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/MA228352?type=2
Take a look.
plus i have helped a couple of family/freind by doing there pages for them, not that they use them much, once is enough though.

I have to admit I haven't contributed as much as I feel I should have, though by Member's fairly minimal qualifications I do count as a contributor. But I suspect that a great majority use hootoo mainly as a chat room, even allowing that some of that chat is quite intelligent and educational.

Noggin

I dont know nog "a few well chosen words" and all that.

SEF,

Oh yes! How forgetful of me, thanks for pointing that out, perhaps that was Jimsters intention when he decided to do nothing about it?

IV, this sarcasm isn't exactly helpful, nor is it warranted. At no time did I 'do nothing about it', as already explained. If you choose not to believe that then there's little I can do, but it won't make you any less incorrect in your assumption.

Incidentally, should you be in the area and wish to find out what we actually do here, drop us a line and we can arrange a tour or something.

So Jim since noticeing lurking on other threads your working from home if I leave now I should arrive about 3am GMT Get the kettle on,

It seems this thread has gone a bit off-topic as it was originally about the official complaint that Della made against blicky, wanting him to be banned, which was totally unfounded. And later, she issued a death threat against blicky, and nothing has yet been done about this. I'm just wondering what will be done.

az

As stated earlier, we will act as we see fit, via the moderation system. We have replied to all emails regarding this subject. We do not discuss moderation issues in this forum. And before I'm assailed by more earth-shattering wit - that is not copy-and-pasted!

Hi Natalie,

I wouldn't think of being so 'witty'. I know you are all trying to do your job as well and fairly as possible in this situation. I was only concerned that the thread seems to have gone totally off-topic dealing with other issues. I didn't post out of impatience, only to try to keep the original subject matter the matter of importance.

Thanks.

az

Jimster,

"i'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that, IV".
Dont get too excited, since all that happened i only know/trust 1 ace well enough to post freely with, as for the rest of the few ive posted to on rare occassion, they seem ok and i see in threads, researchers have said by and by the majority of them are alright, mainly just going by what ive read

"If a legal case was in progress"
I guess death threats dont come under that with the bbc lawyers? Im curious to know what does though, might havet have a lurk on both sets of rules later, to remind myself..As i recall there was an 'interesting' post from Peta i read before to Lucinda et al A banned researcher? lol Cant think who you mean but you couldnt be blaming him for hampering the progress of that thread when you havent done anything about it other than call off the unofficial police force, could you?

Meeters and greeters are what the aces are supposed to be? nothing wrong with that, very helpful to new researchers, pity some of your more educationally challenged aces didnt quite understand their role as ace though hmm?

So, if im reading you right, and forgetting the aces code of conduct for a minute, are you saying when pushed it is acceptible for an ace to act rashly or retaliate? I think i need to have a serious recap on some of the rules! (Both sets, to be clear), Does the same rule apply for researchers then?

"When Natalie and I became solely responsible for the volunteer groups, we knew that there would have to be some changes. But mindful of the reaction to the team's reduction in September we were careful not to do this all at once".

Yes i realise, mainly due to how many posts ive read from you, that both yourself and Natalie had to do so much on your todd, because of the teams reductions, but with all due respect Jimster, it was a role you chose to play and you was aware of these changes more than likely a long time before the rest of us so you cant keep referring back to that, as you said you took over in september, you must of adjusted by now

"In reviewing the code of conduct, we realised that there was nothing in there that we felt wasn't still relevant. However, we did realise that the application of the rule's needed to be revised - after all, we'd not been responsible
for applying that code before, and we needed to make sure that they were applied in a practical way that could work for the reduced in-house team".

So, although you havent changed them you have discused different tact with the aces, and this has since all been explained clearly? Well done Jimster, the aces forum has been busy lately hasnt it I think that was its biggest problem, not all the aces understood the application of the rule(s)

"We acknowledged however, that there are some researcher's that appear to delight in baiting aces"

Perhaps that is true Jimster but when that thread got going, i felt your statement was the other way round, cant speak for everyone though and the problem does appear to have gone away online

Some aces were politely removed from the scheme? For reasons your not prepared to discuss understandably,none to do with the code of conduct thread though eh?

Anyway im glad you eventually found my 3(?) emails, though at the time you never bothered to ask if i still had copies, just asked if id sent them to the right place and went, so naturally i assumed, though i still do have those copies, you werent interested, at least you found them - recently I think you'll find however, if you come across them again, they did have my resercher name on them

who's scoffing Jimster? I ask a lot of questions, i like to know as much as i can about whats going on, its when you leave people in the dark that we get our backs up, as E G Mel suggested, and sure within reason, a little cooperation on your part in letting us know something is happening rather than saying nothing at all would go a long way in making for a better atmosphere on h2 So long as we are all clear on these 'grey' areas so as there is no misunderstanding whatsoever on any part, its the (sometimes deliberate), misinterpreting that winds people up.

Ive already taken up enough of your time though on this matter, back to this thread, lets hope BlickyBadger and others dont have to wait too long for some sort of responce over this matter!

FerretBadger,

That was a very interesting link, i read the 1st 6 pages yesterday before it had tailed off, and i must admit i tried to make sence out of the X'ed out words but apart from the odd 1 i couldnt, but that said hats off to the researcher who made up a whole post based on it and as a result the researcher was banned! Im not here to make up the rules of this site but i find it hard to believe anyone could be barred for a post that made no sence whatsoever, but due to a interpretors interpretation they could be removed from h2 permanently, i wouldnt like to suggest it was in that case because it hurt Mark Moxon and Peta's feelings being staff, im sure their position was irrelevant in the decision to expel the researcher..But i would say a death threat is more serious than a post containing X'ed out words, afterall in this country if you threatened to blow somebody up you can be arrested, so surely a death threat is more serious than a post containing gibberish? IMO

Jimster,

A tour? How much are the tickets? lol
Ok point taken i do have my own way of directing questions and what have you but if ive come over a little sarcastic ill try to hold back on how i put things

That would be quite helpful to be honest. As you can imagine we have more than just a few threads to keep an eye on, so sometimes it's possible that when we read a posting we might take it at face value, or at least more than it was intended to be. It's a bit like a field of spining plates at times.

I can empathise with how the apparent silence since January might have seemed to you. But I can promise you we spent a long time reading all of the comments in that Code of Conduct thread (over 1900 posts - although some of them had, of course, been hidden, which made it easier ). Admittedly, some of them appeared to be more moaning than actual suggestions on what we can do about the problem, and a fair amount of them were taken up with unhelpful fighting on both sides before and to some extent after we stepped in. But there was also a number of very good points about how the rules were applied and how they were understood. We're arguably more specific on what we expect from our volunteers now and give more regular feedback when it's needed.

Just because we looked at how we could better apply the rules in January doesn't mean that's the end of it either. We plan on making regular examinations of all of the schemes to see if any lessons have been learned.

One final note then. Just to clarify what was said earlier as there appears to be a little confusion, we do expect volunteers to behave civilly. Occasionally I'm sure people will lose their tempers and write things they regret, in which case they'll be expected to deal with the matter responsibly. If they don't, then we step in. They are, after all, giving up their free time for the good of the site and we think that this on its own is enough to earn them a little respect. In turn, we don't want to see anyone abusing that respect by considering themselves untouchable.

Equally, we don't take kindly to people thinking they can bait volunteers and excpect to get away with it because the volunteers can't answer back. That too comes under anti-social behaviour in our book. All about balance, see?

Jimster