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

Very good. Where are the undersigned, though?

Right here, and you just did.

ah, good, I'm glad I have this thread, I personally believe the Arbiters should be elected directly by the h2g2 researchers, and be beyond reprisal by the editors, else, they could be corrupted or removed...

Unless I misunderstood, there's a line in your MC that states that the Arbiters will be *acceptable by the editors*
What happens if the editors don't accept them, or deny they have authority when they vote against the editors?

Just signing up to be one of the undersigned.

I disagree with the proposals.

I don't believe it is worth devoting lots of time to forming systems and procedures. Getting worked up about this is, in my opinion, unconstructive, and personally I'd rather the community concentrate on what it does best, discussing topics and creating the Guide. I think h2g2 does a good job and takes decisions for the benifit of the community and I'm happy with the way things are.

k.

Frankie, I'm not sure that we're getting 'all worked up.' I see this as a reasonable and rational response to a situation that might have gone a bit better. Do you have any further thoughts?

I just feel that it would not be worth the both setting up an 'independant arbitration panel' when the site is pretty well managed already.

Also I think you have to take into account that this site is owned by the BBC, and that free speech here is not an automatic right. It's not a 'free' platform like newsgroups, it is something set up by a company. Also compared to other BBC messageboards things are quite liberal here.

But anyway, that's just what I think.

I think it's pretty well-managed myself. I have no complaints at all with the way I've been treated on this website; I'm enjoying myself here immensely, and I want everybody else to have as good a time as I am.

As I've discussed with others in another thread, this community is a new entity, and there are problems cropping up that the Editors just haven't foreseen. One is the need for an established routine of warnings, punishments, and bans. There wasn't really a need for it before, because the only person (that I know of) who got banned was posting child porno on this site. That's not cool, and he was booted instantly. Now after six months on the BBC, there's been one lifetime suspension, and being the first of its kind, there were some people who felt it could have been handled better. Hence the Magna Carta.

An independent arbitration panel was suggested because we're perceiving that the need for moderation far exceeds the staff's current capabilities. They're busting their respective behinds, working overtime, and still had to shut down the moderation desk. The Telephone Sanitizers (Arbiters) would be a volunteer group that handles the dirty task of resolving flame wars and objectionable posts, and has the time to dedicate to fixing problems that the staff just doesn't have time for.

Free speech is not an automatic right, and I've never expected that to be granted to me. I would like the freedom to post approved URLs that aren't on non-commercial websites, but that's the BBC's provenance, and not for me to say.

Thanks for your reply! If you're interested, check out the Telephone Sanitizer's manual... I'm not sure where it is, but there should be a link on the Magna Carta page.

- Lentilla

Well, I very much agree with the fact that the system needs a change, and this looks like a good way to get some. Count me in.