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

Greydesk,

control maybe too strong a word, it was you that opted for it though

are you a guru on this site? or hold any other ranking position on here?
just wondering who im speaking to as your name doesnt give anything away

you havent really answered my question, i dont see how it could go up if the message was in private, how can anyone be offended by something they cant see?

im sure you are making a joke there but i have no idea who Greg Dyke is and i doubt a private thread would be used to discuss his 'garish' ties anyway, though i could be wrong, i wouldnt like to speculate, not onsite anyway lol

for all intents and purposes it isnt private, why not call it semi-private as thats what it is, private would imply to me, that nobody other than who you may be talking to can read the thread, a lot of researchers on this site probably as we speak are blissfully chatting 'privately' about things they believed is only being shared with who is visible in the thread, could it be made CLEAR/er in 'Ican' that private is not the case, as im sure if everybody was aware of the fact they may well wish to not disclose certain information in there

Ok yes, it was me that first used the word 'control'. Though that doesn't detract from my position that the BBC, as this site's owners, have a right to see anything that is posted here.

Me. Well if you click on the name you'll see that currently I'm a Scout and a Guru. I used to be an Ace, but resigned in the spring when the team were asked to stomp all over discussion relating to 'that place with all the oil'.

Greg Dyke - Director General of the BBC and general Head Honcho in these parts. My point in that paragraph being that if the BBC provide us with this space to play, then they do at the very least have the right to see what we are up to. I can't see how that is an unreasonable position.

Private, semi-private, private-ish - aren't we just playing with semantics here? The 'private' conversation function is one that isn't well known on h2g2. As far as I am aware it's set up and actioned through the Ican site, and hasn't been announced as a feature for the use of h2g2 folk - though they can obviously use it through the family of DNA sites.

I don't know, maybe I'm stuck with my old mindset. In all the time that I've been a researcher here, I've always known that everything that I post is viewable at any time by anyone. If I post something then I have to be prepared to take the consequences of that action - I understand that and I'm happy with it. To be frank 'private' threads are not a feature I like very much as I feel that it detracts from the public and community feel of the site.

With that I'm now off to bed - I've work to go to tomorrow (well today actually)

Greydesk, Insomniac i think it is good that even sights that are deemed as `private` do ho have a certain amount of monitoring would ld you like to think your child is talking in private to a pedophile?? or some terrorists planning to blow th the place you work to bits..i think monitoring can be a good thing as well as bad..after all if you keep things within reason there shouldn`t be any problems..should there

Oh by the way i am just happy that using the Ican i am able to have a chat without the risk of it causing offence to other researchers..something that i think some other researchers could take on board?? a lot of this thread would probably be irrelevant if that was the case..
Marc

BN.

insomniac vampire....

as a matter of fact i do know what they mean

and the fact you are telling any one that will listen to you that we are police and we dont stick to the house
rules and that the aces are corrupt as well they are (alligations).alligations which are un founded and un substatiated to any one`s stasifaction and you are not seeming to make any effort to post them so there for you are telling un truths about the people involved..

this thread has gone on for how long??

we are corrup---prove it

and if you cant in all the month the thread has been going on you are purposly spreading malisious comments
that is nothing more than heresay and wish full thinking about aces involved and the ace group

i will look the dates etc of the awol
insedent but i think that there was different days

well one conversation you said you was on my space thats how you knew that i had posted it now you had subscribed thinking i was some one els please just make your mind up which one is it???

yes it is on the aces code of conduct
and about our conduct but that dosent
mean that your actions on this thread
or on any thread shouldnt be mentioned just ours???why

im away now to do some digging

Greydesk
Re: post 1582

"i used to be an ace, but resigned
in the spring when the team were asked to stomp all over discussion relating to 'that place with all the oil'"

a guru, a scout and an ex ace? oh a rare treat to talk to someone of principles here! lol yes i had heard some things about the behaviour that went on over the whole 'place with all the oil' incident, put up, shut up, get out or walk away huh?

Greg Dyke - Director General of the bbc and 'stuff' lol thanks for explaining that to me, though i doubt this information will change my life in any way..does he wear 'garish' ties? you'd think he would just click his fingers and somebody from the wardrobe dept. would appear wouldnt you lol

look im not arguing with you Greydesk, to an extent i agree, the site does belong to the bbc and they have every right to control it however they see fit, or alternatively leave it in the hands of staff and 'hope' they are running it in the way the bbc intends, i just think for the researchers online who believe something to be as it says/would imply, they have every right to be made fully aware of the facts, it may well say somewhere, (i dont honestly know), that it isnt strictly private but for those that are aware of the 'private' msgn in Ican, it should be clear exactly what 'private' means on this site, for them as much as h2g2

what oil incident ? dont tell theres been a slick

Jimster post 1536:

"don't ask anything from us other than respect"

I didn't see much of that. It is yet another thing which was applied very differentially and out of all proportion to any jutification. I observed the correlation to be more with long-standing friendships and sycophancy.

"only recently taken over the running of the groups"

You were allegedly running the CAs before in conjunction with Mina even though there was a lack of consistency.

"Now, from our perspective, we've come into a discussion where the attacks appear heavy-handed, which in turn has resulted in people being defensive and retaliating."

That is only because you've been ignoring the problem for so long. From our perspective (eg mine, I.V.s and the few others who have spoken out), we've arrived at a site where the attacks are heavy-handed and demonstrably unfair. For some reason the offenders are constantly excused, condoned, tolerated and even praised by the staff while we are vilified for being forced to be defensive and don't even have the same powers to retaliate (digibox users not being able to yikes and staff acting partially anyway).

"think about areas of the House Rules that maybe you feel could be improved"

I have done so before and been ignored or attacked for it. Also it is not just about the actual rules (some of which are badly worded or non-sensical) but the way they are then unfairly differentially applied. You seem to want to keep ignoring that fact.

Intern....U posted,"ours".....

Do ya not think its all swept under the carpet then ??

I.V. post 1587:

I agree with GreyDesk (I had to avoid typing GD there because you'd mentioned Greg Dyke ) and the others that it is reasonable for the BBC to have access to their own site! I also agree that the gurus and ACEs are unlikely to have access to the "private" messages of others - not sure about the scouts and sub-editors though. However, as you may have observed, the site software goes wrong from time to time. When it does there is the possibility of "private" messages being visible. People should bear this in mind although it doesn't affect being able to talk uninterrupted meanwhile (if that is the attraction).

I have not seen any official announcement and explanation of the "private" message feature, though I knew about them anyway. Perhaps someone could point it out if it exists. If it doesn't exist on ican or anywhere else on dna, then perhaps it is time that it *is* publicly explained somewhere. Ideally that would be with a named entry since I foresee people wanting to link/refer to it quite a lot.

Intern post 1586:

"we are corrup---prove it"

You look like you are trying to make that an inclusive "we". It isn't. It is a very select group. We (a few people on this thread and others) have proved it in various ways - repeatedly. However, as you must already know, any names, references and links are yikesed. Emails are ignored.

Worrabedylc
Re: post 1583

"would you like to think your child is talking in private to a paedophile"

"or some terrorists planning to blow the place you work to bits"

you've made a very good point, and its aknowledged, however, id like to think that responsibility lies with the parents to monitor their children on the pc, obviously children can access the internet in other places like the library and schools, though they act responsible too by denying children access to a lot if not all chatsites, though that might not be true in all places? and to some extent its a very good thing to have monitoring on sites, it shows a responsible attitude from the SP's but lets not confuse between general monitoring and intense lurking, i mean this is a community so people have said, all im saying is if its not 'private' why call it that? if i was for example to sell you an iron, but told you it was a kettle i could be accused of being in breach of agreement, thats a bit silly but its the same principle, you cant say something is 1 thing when its clearly not..incidently, do you honestly believe a gang of insane terrorists or a religeous cult, or some other crazy bunch are going to discuss their plans on here? i mean i dont think if, according to some reports, the september 11th bombing on the twin towers according to the press at 1 point took 10years to plan and put into operation, to think they might of discussed their intentions in a public place like this would make them either incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant, i think it would be a little paranoid of the bbc to assume that they would and with the 'alleged' intelligence of groups such as MI5, the CIA or whomever, dont you think the bbc have enough to do without worrying too much about people discussing foreign affairs onsite? am i allowed to say all that? lol just occured to me i might be a security breach LF

baboon

glad to see ur posts r so worthwhile, mind a little humourous, careful, soh can be taken wrong heh heh

shush you are under surveilance by h2g2 very own BULLY BEEF .any move you make will be monitored with the upmost scrutiny beware

intern

if u have done nothing wrong to break ur code of conduct or whatever, y r u so defending urself in here? wouldnt u just think "hey ive dun nothing wrong i dont need to explain my actions?" rather than keep posting in the thread how u do a great job n all ur ace pals r right n we r wrong?
to start off with u can only say for sure that u r innocent of all accusations, u cannot speak for others.
facts have been shown n pointed out, u must be thrilled that the bbc team upstairs r on ur side n doin nothin, altho im sure it wouldnt be bad in u suggesting to them to look into this, that way u can prove who is really in the right here if u have nothin to hide

IV
re Post 1587

Yes I agree it should be pointed out in the iCan terms and conditions that a 'private' conversation isn't private under all circumstances. But the bottom line is that that's an issue for the iCan team to sort out, not one for the h2g2 staff to get involved in.

localisedgirl theres serious matters taking place was asking what oil incident still havent found out. please people be kind and let me know just message my space with what happend thankyou.

SEF
re post 1591

Could the reason that there has been no announcement about 'private' conversations be because h2g2 would prefer folk not to use it? The ethos of the site has always been one of openness, that you can't hide anywhere, and that everything you say on site you do it in public. In this situation the creation of a 'private' message function flies completely in the face of that principle.

I understand the value of having this feature in the iCan site, and I see no reason at all why h2g2 folk can't access iCan to utilise that site and its features. What I personally wouldn't like to see is these two things being explicitly linked together, and the introduction of the idea of 'privacy' on h2g2. But hey, that's just me.

GD, the problem is that the feature is not actually on iCan at all. It is on dna as a whole and the messages are on whichever dna sub-site the recipient happens to be based. For most people that is h2g2 not iCan!