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

Hi Lucinda

I see you've split the Alternative Rules up into separate pages. Would you mind adding the disclaimer to the top of the other pages as well please? I've been contacted by a couple of Researchers in the past who thought your Alternative House Rules were an official add-on to the official rules, so we think it really is necessary to point this out clearly.

Thanks...

Understood - I'm afraid you've caught me halfway through the change. I was planning to put something like the following at the top of each entry:

/For info on what the alternative house rules are, see _this_entry_/

But it's taken a little longer to move it all than I anticipated...

Understood - I'm afraid you've caught me halfway through the change. I was planning to put something like the following at the top of each entry:

/For info on what the alternative house rules are, see _this_entry_/

But it's taken a little longer to move it all than I anticipated...

try now - I've mentioned the most important point - that this entry has not been approved by you - and directed readers to the central disclaimer. I don't want the whole note on every section, as that would be rather OTT, imo.

Hi Lucinda

Sorry but we *do* we want the whole disclaimer to be put on every page.

As I said to you earlier, people have been misled by the original single Alternative House Rules page even *with* the disclaimer on it.

So please can you fix it?

Thanks

Ahh - I thought you were referring to people who'd read it *before* the disclaimer... did they actually read it? Did they specifically say that they thought it was official, or did you surmise that from something they said?

Hmm. I really *don't* want to clutter up every page with that disclaimer. I can see your point, but if anyone fails to understand "This page has *not* been approved by the h2g2 Editors", then I doubt they'd understand your disclaimer either, frankly. To cater to such people I'd have to rewrite everything using words of one syllable.

From your point of view, splitting the pages up means people are more likely to read "This page has *not* been approved by the h2g2 Editors", because they're less likely to skip over it and it's at the top of *every* page - with a horizontal rule underneath, no less. The long disclaimer that you're requesting will be less visible, not more, and I don't want my efforts to suffer Death by Legalese.

Sorry I can't be more helpful,
-X

After some further thought, it occurs to me that a way round this would be to trim the disclaimer to the essentials, and put that on each page. Perhaps incorporated into the intro. Let me think about this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F74318?thread=136669 - 'Caveat' (relevant here)

Hi Lucinda

This isn't negotiable. We agreed to host the original page with the disclaimer. The situation has not changed now that you've decided to split the alternative rules page into sections. The full disclaimer *must* be shown at the top of each alternative house rule page or we're not prepared to host them, it's as simple as that.

*sigh* That's a shame. I was hoping we could come to some mutually beneficial agreement which would give the best results for you(the Editors), myself, and the BBC. If it's not negotiable, then so be it.

I intend to write the minimum necessary to satisfy the BBC's original request that was made to me in the 'Caveat' forum. Specifically, the following text should be sufficient:

> "The BBC requires me to point out that the only rules which count in the end are the official _House_Rules_. h2g2 Researchers should ultimately refer only to the official rules, backed up with guidance from the h2g2 Editors."

I'll slap that on the top of each entry, and the BBC should be content. That's much more lightweight, but it still says everything that you originally asked for. If the BBC's requirements have expanded, let me know.
-X

This is *not* negotiable Lucinda. We agreed to host the alternative house rules with the disclaimer that we provided. We *will* remove the content if you put it up without it.

"We agreed to host the alternative house rules with this disclaimer."

Not true. You(the Editors) agreed to host the rules provided that I "include words to this effect at the top of the entry". There was never any suggestion that I had to write this particular disclaimer. Read what you wrote in the 'caveat' thread, please.

If the BBC's requirements have expanded, say so, and say why, and I'll do my best to meet their new requirements. Otherwise, the paragraph I suggested above satisfies their requirements, and there's no reason not to host the entries.

I'm really trying not to be difficult here - I suggested that you write your own disclaimer for the single entry in an effort to be helpful. And I won't use any new disclaimer or combined disclaimer/intro until I have your approval for it. I just need you to explain what the BBC want, if that's changed. If the BBC's views haven't changed, why isn't the new disclaimer acceptable?

Sorry to butt in here, but I think you just shot yourself in the foot lucinda. The link you quoted a while back goes straight to a posting saying:
"If you could edit in one of your standard "Ed: blah blah blah" disclaimer things to the top or bottom of the entry, then that would probably be best, rather than me trying to figure out exactly what needs to be said by myself. Ok?"

oops

Yeah whisky - I was happy for them to do that when there was just a single entry - now that there are six, and they're asking for the same caveat six times, I'd like a little more control over the wording of that caveat. Is that so unreasonable?

Lucinda,

"If you could edit in one of your standard "Ed: blah blah blah" disclaimer things to the top or bottom of the entry, then that would probably be best, rather than me trying to figure out exactly what needs to be said by myself. Ok?"

Exactly! The Editors added a suitable disclaimer, after we'd worked out what needed to be said. Now you've published a new version without talking to us about it first, and we would like it changed back to the previously-agreed wording.

"If the BBC's requirements have expanded, say so, and say why, and I'll do my best to meet their new requirements"

The BBC's requirements have not changed one bit; you've done all the changing! You've expanded the alternative house rules and appear to expect them to be treated differently now. We are taking exactly the same stance as we did when the alternative house rules were on one single page, and we'd like the same disclaimer put on all the pages, please (otherwise we'll simply hide them again).

We're now wasting our time quibbling with you over this. Given that there is already a disclaimer that we have all agreed is acceptable, your best bet is to put that disclaimer on all your new pages too, and maybe *then* ask us if a rewording would be possible. Or you could have come to us before making any changes and told us you were thinking of expanding the AHR into multiple pages, so could we perhaps consider a different version of the disclaimer?

Instead you created a new collection of AHR pages without *any* disclaimer, and when we politely asked you to add the agreed one back in, you added a shortened one, refused to put the full one in, and said "Sorry I can't be more helpful".

We are therefore not going to consider changing the disclaimer until you put the agreed version on all the pages in the AHR, or revert to the single page format. That's not unreasonable; it's you who's been moving the goalposts and automatically assuming that we wouldn't mind. Unfortunately we do mind, we politely pointed this out, you ignored our wishes, and the result is that without the full disclaimer, these pages will not be allowed on h2g2.

Once this is done, it's possible that we'll work with you on a rewording at some time in the future, but we do have other people to look after, and you can't expect us to drop everything because you want to change something immediately. The next step, though, is to stick to our original agreement by putting the agreed disclaimer on all the AHR pages. Put it back, and we'll consider it...

Fine, Peta, you've made your position perfectly clear. Thank you for your time.

h2g2 Editors need not read or reply to this excessively long and pointless post

I just fancied a ramble to myself and a few s, really.
You know how it goes.

The thing that always frustrates me about this kind of thing is how people sometimes appear to blame me for their life being difficult. Is it my fault if the BBC aren't comfortable hosting these pages without a silly disclaimer? Is it my fault if the lawyers (or whoever) isn't comfortable with anything but the exact wording they've previously agreed to?

I'm just a Researcher - I'm free to do whatever I like that doesn't breach the terms or the house rules. I don't have to be professional, 'cos I ain't getting paid. If something I do causes the Editors stress, they can change the rules to disallow it, accept the stress, or ask me to stop doing it. If they ask me something, they should be prepared to accept the answer "no". If they aren't, then they aren't asking, they're demanding.

Bank> "Could you pay back your loan? We'd be most grateful."

So, 'words to this effect' is now 'precisely these words'. I wish I'd known before that the precise words had needed some kind of BBC approval - I'd figured that it was just to stop people being confused. And the Editors are particularly short on time. Well that's something I could have guessed, given recent events, but it never occured to me till Peta mentioned it.

I'm still not clear on why I have to re-insert the disclaimer and re-activate the pages before they'll discuss any replacement. Why can't the pages be left hidden in the meantime, and when it's convenient for them they can discuss things. Come to that, why can't they refer the pages, leave them referred, and approve or dissapprove when they've got the time?



Oh, I suppose I should point out that the reason the new sectioned view was created "without *any* disclaimer" was the same reason it was created without any back-links, and without any introduction, and the same reason why the misc section hadn't been sorted out. In fact, the reason I already said back in post 2 - it was under construction. I'm at work at the moment - which means I have to spread my h2g2 time throughout the week in little chunks - bits at lunchbreak, bits while waiting for a compiler, bits before going home, and so on. I simply can't do a big change like that in a single sitting, whatever I might like.

Yes, I could have come to the Editors before making any changes. But the Editors are busy. And they keep complaining about how all their time is being taken up by people 'beating the moderation drum'. So I just did it, hoping to save everyone a little hassle. I chucked something in my journal - hoping that if it was an outrageously bad idea a friendly ACE would come along and explain why (it's worked before). No complaints, so I started the change. I could have waited longer, thinking about it - tricky to judge.

Just a short note, I was distracted by the journal about hot wax, so don't blame me.

Lu,

I know where you're coming from, but the worst that this repeated disclaimer will do is make your pages aesthetically displeasing. It won't block you from saying what you gotta say. Put a second disclaimer saying, "Sorry for the way these pages look with the stuttering disclaimers, but blame it on the Eds." Or "The ugly layout of this page has been brought to you by the Italics' insistence on redundant disclaimers."

I also know that this is a conflict of wills, and you won't let it go that easily because you stick to your principles. Oh well. More people will be able to read your much needed message if you sacrifice your principles.

yeah Deidzoeb - when I've got the time I'll edit the disclaimers in, to be sure. I'd already decided that, as it happens - but I got kicked out of work after posting my meanderings here. I'm not quite so stubborn as you might think - and as a Software Developer I can certainly sympathise with time&priorities as a reason for delaying a piece of work.

Aesthetically displeasing. One way of putting it...