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

moving from http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F76594?thread=141607&post=1412618#p1412618 Just some comments. Note that, as usual, I'm not demanding a response from the editors, though I would quite like to hear from Mina and Witty. Mina> "you didn't read his user space, I did." Witty> "it is not as simple as someone using that acronym has gotten moderated" And you know this how, Mina? ;-) In all seriousness, I fully support the hiding of the home space and the post. Genuinely offensive posts which have been actively yikesed should be removed. But using an offensive home space to justify removing an essentially inoffensive username is backwards I'm afraid. If the Editors want to punish/warn the guy beyond the hiding, then they should follow the transgressions policy they only created a few days ago. The two issues are (or should be) totally unrelated. Editors> "You've undoubtedly seen our earlier Posting..." Actually, I did, and I thought it was a pretty good post. Calmed the situation down, reminded people that they were being observed, without pointing fingers in any way. Well done! Editors> "For the duration of the Afghan crisis we will not allow people to use references to key politican figures in their Nicknames. This is a totally reasonable reaction to current events, and includes political names from *all* sides." Can't find that in the house rules. Can't see it on the front page. Isn't on the announcements page. Given that the crisis has been going on for five weeks, isn't it reasonable to tell people when the rules change? Or is it more reasonable to give a secret list to the ACEs and not tell anyone else?

Hi Lucinda! Odd that I found this, as I saw it on the info page.

I was pretty sure when I posted that you hadn't seen it, because it was spotted and yikes and removed really quickly, and I hadn't remembered seeing you online at the time. I knew as I posted it I was probably heading for a telling off as you might have seen it somehow.

We've been told, and the editors posted it shortly after that they have decided not to allow those sorts of nicknames atm. It wasn't 100% clear what his name was meant to be, in fact, I'd completely passed it over in the online list. When I saw his page though, he drew attention to the fact that he meant that. Which means that the name was one that shouldn't be allowed. We were asked to yikes any variations of those names. Offensive is a hard term to define, that discusion has been had, it was a decision taken not lightly I guess.
There was only the bit that mentioned the name that the page got removed for as far as I can tell, the rest was the usual sort of stuff. And in fact it's back up now.

The reason that it wasn't announced onsite was probably for the reason that people would then use those sorts of names to be awkward. Which is what happened pretty much immediately after the editors mentioned it. As for a secret list to the ACEs, who else would be able to watch out for it with so many eyes? The editors go home sometimes, there's probably always an ACE online.

Hiya!

As I said, it wasn't that simple - I was stating the situation without opinions.

I agree, if this was any normal state of politics, then the acronym in question would be innocuous. However, we are in no normal state of politics, and I can see it from the Editors' point of view. I, can, in addition, also see your argument, and you do make a valid point.

In the post that you quote from, I actually do say that whether it was indeed the right or wrong thing for the Editors to remove the acronym is not for me to say now, as they have made the decision, and have said that it is final. I have neither said I support the decision, nor have said I am against it.

I am trying to see it from all sides, as although, on the face of it, the removal of the nickname might seem like a simple situation, I am saying that it did not become that way as there are many underlying factors to it. I can't help it, I'm a medic; it comes as standard

Stay ,
WD

"If the Editors want to punish/warn the guy beyond the hiding, then they should follow the transgressions policy they only created a few days ago."

The Transgressions Procedure isn't applicable in this case, since it only applies to Lifetime Bans.

Lucinda,

Unfortunately, this stuff is covered by the House Rules. As long as the editors arbitrarily decide what constitutes "harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material," then plenty of things can be shoved into those categories, even innocuous things.

[sorry, interrupted by a co-worker]

Lucinda, the point I wanted to make is that the Editors are just continuing to make h2g2 the kind of place where people can feel protected from offense or "insensitivity." BBC thinks that's a good thing.

I really don't think h2g2 will change from the Fluffy Mentality for at least several years. Until then, people who do not want these limitations should understand that h2g2 will continue this way. If we want open discussion, we won't necessarily get it here. We stay at h2g2 for other reasons that compell us, or we find other places to have open discussions. Maybe a little of both.

> "The Transgressions Procedure isn't applicable in this case, since it only applies to Lifetime Bans."

I meant the 'transgressions' section of the house rules - sorry if that wasn't clear.

Mina - I was going to link to this from that thread, but ran out of time - so it goes...

Have people been using these names to be awkward? Not something I've seen, I have to say, unless you're referring to my mention of the hapless Ira... but then I don't tend to bother with the "Who's Online" box, so I'm probably just being unobservant.

Actually, I was going to respond to the Editors charge of bad taste on that. Specifically, in that forum people have poked fun at the terrorist attacks ("Irish police were standing vigilant outside a laundrette, after hearing reports of Bed Linen inside"), and the whole of the USA and Australasia population ("better convicts than puritans") without nary a word from our esteemed guardians of taste (or any researchers, come to that). Yet try to poke a little fun at a decision of the editors, and they come along and accuse you of bad taste...

Is it likely that the Editors are secretly Catholic saints, and thus are protected by the UK blasphemy laws from any negative criticism. Is it likely that people named 'Ira' are even now being shunned on the streets of New York, and hurriedly changing their names to avoid offence. Or is it more likely that the BBC is hurriedly employing staff to widen the h2g2 doorways?

Let me make clear, I'm perfectly ok with the editors making decisions about h2g2. The censorship of names is infinitely better than the total censorship we had of all discussion of the election, for example. What I (and others?) really want is some attempt at transparency, rather than the prevailing attitude whereby we are informed what the rules are only after we break them, and sometimes not even then. This was a large part of the argument for HVL's modest proposal, for example. I had hoped it was a lesson the Editors had learnt.

I'm happy to obey the ruling, but I still think the decision is a silly one, and contrary to the Editors wishes, there's nothing in the house rules that compels me to 'respect' either their decisions. The international situation is not humourous, to be sure, but this decision certainly is...

Deidzoeb - what you say is true, but I hadn't appreciated that the EXACT SAME comments could be construed as 'otherwise objectionable' in a username, where they are entirely acceptable (and indeed encouraged) in a forum thread. I'll have to amend my alternative house rules, of course

Ah, transparency! Something which has been lighting up the medical profession very slowly of late

But seriously, I see your point - when I first joined h2g2, it was at the time of the election, and, I have to say, I was surprised at that... for instance, the Talking Points on the BBC News online service were still running...

I've read your Alt. Rules and they do follow quite closely with the whole 'case based' law aspect as I see it

As with the decision with the Editors, I still haven't made up my mind yet... after all, this is my first taste of h2g2 internal politics (not counting the time an entry I wrote was referred for moderation ... but hey, that's a different matter altogether...), and you are more experienced in the affairs of h2g2 than I am, comparative newbie that I am

I'll leave it in your (and others) capable hands to argue an opinion.

I'll sit on this here fence

So I'll unsubcribe from this, and so research Tim Henman or do revision. Whichever takes my fancy

Stay ,
WD

Lucinda,

"The censorship of names is infinitely better than the total censorship we had of all discussion of the election, for example."

Yikes. That's like a survivor of assault saying, "The assault wasn't that bad because at least I didn't get killed."

I'd like to see how far any one would get irl wandering the streets calling themselves Osama Bin Laden in front of as many people as we have researchers. Anyone fancy the idea of getting their head kicked in?

Remember, some people have no brains. They'd do it for fun, for boredom, because they think they've 'found' the real one, beard or no beard. Online life is not so different.

Or calling themselves "peace A633331 please" come to that. h2g2 names != RL names.

If someone was genuinely trying to pass themselves off as some member of the political (or entertainment, etc) scene, then it'd make a lot of sense to stop that, regardless of current events. But this wasn't the case with The Researcher formerly known as OBL.

We'll see what happens...

Hi everyone.

We totally understand how frustrating it is to suddenly have more rules appearing on site, and having read this thread, you've made an excellent point. We haven't announced the change in emphasis on site anywhere, and we really should do, so we'll get onto it right away and will announce it on the Announcements page when it's ready.

Re the OBL 'incident', the name on its own probably wasn't enough to get worked up about, but the combination of the name and the Personal Space was enough to get both parts moderated. Obviously we have to take each case as it comes, but one of the things that will be clear once we've explained the guidelines is that we *have* to err on the side of caution. The BBC has very strict guidelines for times like this, and h2g2 is one of only a few places in the entire BBC website where you are allowed to talk about the war. That means we have to take responsibility for what happens here, and moderation that errs on the side of caution is the only solution that will satisfy the guidelines.

We'll get onto writing that page now; hopefully it will help explain things further.

The Editors

Hi.

We've put together some guidelines for the Afghan Crisis here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A647859

If you have any questions or comments, please direct them to that entry's Forum, where we'll do our best to answer them.

Thanks!

Guidelines for the Afghanistan Crisis. Looks like anyone who wants to talk politics will have to "take it outside."

PS - Love that euphemism "Afghanistan Crisis." Reminds me of what my parents and grandparents debated as "The Negro Problem."

Thank you

'Love that euphemism "Afghanistan Crisis."'

It's not a euphemism, it's a generic term that covers all the aspects - the war, the famine, the politics and so on.

In mathematical terms, 'War c Crisis' (war is a subset of crisis).

I suppose that's fair.