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

This seems a much more reasonable "solution" I assume that if things get "heavy" a Moderator would put in something like [moved to THE GREAT DEBATE] with the [] being a URL to the H2G2 Area of TGD.

Also can we see a description of what you would consider "Heavy" conversation?

If we can put a like code in to redirect it would be useful too. (i.e. In conv with someone else I can tell things are gonna get heavy so I say "c'mon this is getting heavy lets carry this on at " or similar).

Make things easy and interesting - the use of the Political Smiley would be a fine addition. (something like bigben as a Smiley?).

Mark,

Just a quick addition - no obvious mention that this policy isn't yet in place, maybe that should be the first thing it says? And a time/circumstances when it will come into effect? *I KNOW the time is difficult as no announcement made yet, but you could say "as soon as the election is announced" or Tomorrow or something*

Good point about saying it's not yet in place - I've added a paragraph to that effect.

As for the smiley and moderation suggestions, they're nice ideas, but we're not going to be able to do either by the deadline, as we are down to just one programmer (Jim), and he's already working flat out. I could always edit the standard message to point out the Election guidelinesm but we'll see.

Also our only artist (Sri) is gearing up for a holiday, so she's already flat out working on entry illustrations. It's a pity, as a political smiley is an interesting idea... but again, resources have us by the short and curlies, so no joy there.

Good ideas, though.

Ta Mark,

Glad to help... I'm full of ideas - most of them s**t no doubt...

BTW if you need anyone to test the H2G2 via TV, let me know, when you get a chance to do any changes of course (I'm not holding my breath).

Mark,

Can I second Argon0's suggestion that (if at all possible) instead of removing unacceptable election discussions they are simply moved to the great debate section. This would go a long way towards aleviating my concerns that I couldn't follow a conversation to its logical conculsion without running into this policy.

Don't know what the practicalities of moving H2G2 stuff to non-H2G2 areas of the bbc but I think it would be useful if you could have the answer to such a suggestion before the policy goes live.

Thanks for listening

Z

Unfortunately this is not possible. The Great Debate system is completely and totally different to h2g2 - different servers, different operating system, different language and different database.

We also can't create a mini-debate area within h2g2, as the moderation system cannot distinguish between content in one area or another, so we cannot (fopr example) ask a group of political Moderators to deal with content in a specific area of h2g2 while the normal Moderators deal with the rest - it's all or nothing.

So, in short, the answer is that we cannot do it (and I did post this answer to the forum debating the previous version of the election guidelines). The choice is that we either allow the whole of h2g2 to be political, in which case we need to retrain all the h2g2 Moderators (which simply isn't practical), or we implement the above policy. Unfortunately the above policy has to be the choice, because there is no other option.

Sorry about that. We have thought it through, I can assure you...

Mark,

Thanks for the response. Sorry I missed you previously addressing the question in the earlier discusions (I really should pay more attention).

I guess we'll just have to accept it this time round (Please insert a long winge here if you don't feel you've had enough of them )
In the future (i.e. the general election after the next one) do you anticipate H2G2 moderators being politically trained?

Let me apologise for keep asking you all these questions (I did not intend to imply that you hadn't thought this out) I'm just trying to get this stuff clear in my mind.

Z

Yeah - I would hope that next time round (in four years) we'll be able to cope with political discussion, either by training the Moderators, or by using more sophisticated methods (like trusting the Community - hey, it is four years away!).

But as you've spotted, the Election timing is unfortunate, as we have to comply, but aren't yet running at the full steam required to cope with it properly. Hey ho.

Trusting the Community?!!!

Now there's a thought

Mark, I hope you aren't aiming at a date 4 years away to get systems in place for elections. We will have European elections well before then, and possibly a Referendum too. You should be aiming to have systems in place by the end of the year, latest, to deal with these contingencies....

Gawd, give us a chance!

By the way, the BBC only comes under these sort of guidelines during a UK General Election, because of the way the BBC is funded. Although there are guidelines for all election coverage, European Elections do not present the same restrictions as a General Election.

So there isn't quite the sense of urgency you claim...

Oh....

So, sorry you've bound to have answered this elsewhere, but...

Could we talk about Local elections during the run up? And I assume that Bye-Elections aren't covered either....?

Oh....

So, sorry you've bound to have answered this elsewhere, but...

Could we talk about Local elections during the run up? And I assume that Bye-Elections aren't covered either....?

Quoting from this very entry:

"Any Conversations or Guide Entries that veer into heavy debate about the General Election (or local elections during the General Election period) may be removed by the Moderators."

In other words it's only during the General Election that these restrictions come into play, and the restrictions are on talking heavy UK politics at that time (whether local or not).

Ta, Mark

Sos, I should read more before posting..... Sometimes helps....

Hi Mark

Quick question about the policy - sorry if I'm going over old ground but I'm new to this debate.

Where does this leave discussions of political institutions rather than politics?

Would it still be ok to talk about the principles of devolution in Scotland, or what the House Of Lords does as long as long as the discussion steered clear of political statments?

In some ways these are the sorts of things that H2G2 does very well. and it would be sad to think of these sorts of threads getting lost in a BBC baracking sandbox.

It would be sad, but I've explained the reasons, and unfortunately they represent practical realities, rather than what we *want*. Anyway...

The idea is to avoid heavy political barracking while the election is on. Everything will be judged on its own merit, but we have to try to ensure that h2g2 does not publish biased political content during the election.

So...

You can talk about political institutions, as long as you don't end up being politically unbalanced and over the top.

You can talk about devolution, as long as you don't end up being politically unbalanced and over the top.

See what I mean? As explained in the policy, the aim is this:

"This doesn't mean that no UK political discussion is allowed, it simply means that as soon as anything gets too close to political barracking or heated debate, we may take steps to remove it from h2g2..."

So politics is OK, as long as it does not get too heated or close to barracking. Each topic will, though, be judged as it is discussed; no topics are out of bounds, but some approaches to topics will be.

Mark,

Could the clarification text which you discuss (i.e. saying political discussion is not totally banned) be moved very near the top of the election policy.

At least people will spot it then.

I'm sure you understand some of the concern issues like this cause (and I'm sure you'd rather we didn's need these restrictions either).

People seem to form there views on a policy within the first few sentences.

Perhaps by putting the "political discussion allowed" bit nearer what people see you will avoid some of the rants you get on these subjects. (although we haven't had any rants this time round that I've noticed)

Z

I've amended the second paragraph (ignoring the bold bit at the top). How's that?

Mark,

Much better (in my opinion anyway). Although the policy isn't changed at all it sounds far less draconian then the previous version.

Thanks for listening to suggestions (given the grief you've been getting I think I would have given up and stopped responding to people by now )

Z