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

Peet,

Thanks for pointing that out! Although I've been arguing on message posts that external images should be brought back, I must have forgotten in or neglected it at the time I wrote the Zaphodistas page. I'm trying to figure a way to debate and discuss changes to the Zaphodistas "demands," without having a vote every few days when we think of new things to add or delete. My plan is to start another page where I'll post suggestions (like yours about the need for external images), ask for debate on the suggestion, and call for a vote within a month or so. On a specific date, announced long before, we'll have another forum for Zaphodistas to leave YAY or NAY to whatever suggested modifications to the Demands, then will re-post the changes on main Zaphodistas page.

Thank you for reminding me about external images, though. I forgot all about it.

Prof. Tonks,

At the bottom of my list of Zaphodista members, I'm keeping a list of people under the heading "Sympathizers." You and a few others who have signed the membership roster, interested in our cause but not willing to commit to joining the club.

I can understand entirely. You'll get no complaint from me. I'm glad that you're noticing and watching us, and like I said, please feel free to join in the debate over strategies, tactics, what you think is a problem from BBC and what parts seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm half-facetious about the guerrilla warfare terms I keep throwing around, but this is another one that fits: sympathizers. There are citizens in Chiapas who are unable or unwilling to engage in outright warfare, but they are willing to sometimes shelter Zapatistas who need to hide, or who need food or supplies. I'm sure this has gone on in most wars. You don't have to wear the uniform (which currently only consists of the optional GOO BERET, which I like to wear on top of my navy blue ski-mask) to help us win.

Shea,

On the absurdity of forbidden URLs -- On my main bio page, I list links to external URLs, old pages I made on another webhost. Of the four I posted, one URL was deleted by the moderator. The page has the F word in the title, though I changed that to F*** when I read the new House Rules. Where this URL lead, there is no porn, no nudity, no violence, no libel, nothing remotely illegal. But it uses swear words loosely, and it describes the many reasons why I didn't like Texas for the year I lived there. (Which one can guess by the title "F*** Texas.")

If the F Texas page were a movie, I would give it maybe an R-rating for bad language. But I suspect BBC removed the URL because they felt it would offend Texans! (It does.)

The absurd part is that links to this removed URL can still be found on those other three pages that are still linked from my bio page. The question becomes: how many steps between h2g2 and a naughty page are acceptable? If I set up a page of links on some other site, all links to porn, but there's nothing inherently offensive in the text or pictures of this special link site, then can I put the URL on my h2g2 page? They would probably see through this ruse, yet how could any website with links to external URLs hope to avoid indirect contact with porn or even illegal sites, without totally removing all links on their site? It's like putting a tupperware bowl full of anchovies in your fridge, leaving a corner of it open, and expecting your fridge not to stink like anchovies. Having any links to external URLs is the open corner of our h2g2 bowl, and the stink of offensive material will find inevitable connections from one seemingly innocent page or another. (By the way, some people DO like anchovies.)

We could probably put links to major search engines on guide entries. Most major search engines give links to porn. Should those URLs be removed by h2g2 because they are only a few steps away to naughty bits? I mean, it's futile to ever expect that any clean site with a few links to external URLs could remain more than five or ten links away from photos of Tijuana donkey shows or vampire tickle bondage or anything like that.

So if we have this workaround to lead users from h2g2 eventually to offensive content, then how effective can this restriction really be, and why should they bother?

Average Joe,

"Now where's that petition?"

There's no petition just yet. We're still talking about it. For now, signing your name to the Zaphodista page is sort of equivalent to a petition. Hopefully we'll hammer out a petition and start publicizing it within a month or so, maybe?

Affy,

>Would the BBC be hurt if we went on a posting strike for a few weeks? I doubt it, but it might be another way to peacefully resist these new rules.<

I like your way of thinking, but I don't think they'd be "hurt." After all, they're not making money on this, just spending money on it. This would also have a bummer side-effect if new users appeared during that time, looked around and found few members on any given day they checked, and turned away because they thought the community has too few members.

Maybe this could be a last-resort protest if other methods seem to have no impact?

Yes, that's what I mean, a totally last resort. H2G2 is useless without a community. However, there's probably no legal way to keep that many people off of h2g2 long enough.

We could persuade them to release a new version of Ripley - that's done it in the past...

I had a link to the entry on the "Eff word" at dictionary.com and that got zapped. The entry even had the word's history in it, like the first time it appeared in print... Sorry, I thought it was cool and moderation has me disgruntled.

First of all, I like Peet's idea about a new version of Ripley.

Second, let's not try to tackle the BBC censoring things like the F word right now. We need to focus on the more ludicrous issues, and eventually use them to lead us to things like that. As much as I hate to say it, the beeb do have a kind of logic in getting rid of things like that. However, if we use something like the post made earlier about links to links to links to links to places like that, we might be on the right path. We need to chissel away at the dam before we can place any dynamite.

Oh ...

*Shea dejectedly puts her TNT back into her knapsack*

Until the voice of reason is heard, I suppose we will have to content ourselves with being creatively annoying. For example, did you know that the smileys can be used to indulge in a bit of swearing? Its true! How about 'f you!' Or 'you are all a bunch of s turds!'

I am not, by nature, a joiner. However, you can count on me to do a little sniping from time to time, and if your back is up against the wall...

About the song: should it be heavy metal, punk or...?

You might want to glance at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A525881 - I have a strange feeling it might get moderated away, even though it doesn't technically break any of the new rules... But it was fun doing it...

Taleisin,

Genre of song for the contest:

any genre. every genre.

So Peet, how did you manage that picture? I'm surprised they don't have some kind of programming that automatically rejects any IMG from off-site.

Technically, you're right. I can't find a spot in the House Rules that says they no longer allow off-site pictures, or that says you are breaking rules if you post an off-site picture. However, I saw it explained in other places. Maybe on the h2g2 Graphics Library, or on the GuideML page that explains PICTURE tags?

Would you be so kind as to add me to your member roster? Little Mischief, U89093

Go Zaphodistas! *Picks up a goo beret*

ATTENTION:

I should have made a clearer announcement about this. Originally I had no plans to sign names at the bottom of the Zaphodista page, just let everybody post in that forum who wanted to become members.

I wasn't sure if the people who signed that other forum would want to be directly seen as signing the demands and all that. So I wanted a clearer form of permission from everyone and started the other thread titled LEAVE YOUR NAME AND U# HERE IF YOU WANT TO BE ADDED TO THE ZAPHODISTAS PAGE.

If you have signed your name on this member roster forum but would also like your name and U# posted at the bottom of the Zaphodista page, please sign that other thread (yes, you guessed it, the one titled LEAVE YOUR NAME AND U# HERE etc).

As always, this is not a requirement. You can still wear a Goo beret, or GOO boa, or GOO eyepatch or rhinestone elvis-style GOO jumpsuit, with absolutely no strings attached.

...Just don't get caught in these parts after the sun goes down, wearing an ALABASTER beret.

AAAARGH!

Correction to post #56 on this thread:

I wasn't sure if the people who signed THIS forum would want to be directly seen as signing the demands and all that. So I wanted a clearer form of permission from everyone and started the other thread titled LEAVE YOUR NAME AND U# HERE IF YOU WANT TO BE ADDED TO THE ZAPHODISTAS PAGE.

[Wish we had the ability to edit forum posts]

> [Wish we had the ability to edit forum posts]

Now, now! Can you imagine the amount of work we'd be giving to the poor moderators if we could constantly edit our posts?

>Can you imagine the amount of work we'd be giving to the poor moderators if we could constantly edit our posts?<

Can I bring myself to care how much work the moderators and/or BBC think they have to do in order to keep us sanitized?

Don't give in to the mindset that they are even slightly correct about all this, or that we should feel sad for the people who have to slave over a hot CRT all day in order to bleep out our playground language. They would not have so much work to do if the BBC did not give them so much more work than any other web censors have to bother with.

Umm ... I was joking, mein Subcomandante ... heh, heh ...

*smiles nervously and backs away slowly*