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

Bloody Hell!! In the space of TWO MINUTES, the SBVM page was moderated before my eyes!!

what the heck for?

I suspect some member of the H2G2 community abused "Linda"...

I'm still not sure I've figured out 'Belgium'... Who's 'Linda'?

Has anyone heard what's going on with this moderation thing yet?

I suppose we'll have to wait until Monday to learn anything at all...

'Linda' is the name some people gave to the 'Yikes!' button.

Yeah, as in Linda from the movie Deep Throat I have been told. What's the story behind Belgium?

The most recent publications of DNA's books in the United States have been 'cleaned up'. A literary award is now presented for 'the most gratuitous use of the word "Belgium"', rather than the word f**k. I suspect that most people in the States don't know that 'Belgium' is not what DNA actually wrote.

Preposterous!!! That doesn't make any sense!!! The biggest part of the joke for me was that the word 'f**k' was used by DNA totally gratuitously in that place ... the previous books were very clean-languaged, and the word was only put in so as to be the object of an award for the most gratuitous use of it!!! That was an ass-ripper to me, it was!!!! But 'Belgium' DOES NOT WORK!!!!!

Where is it written that the decisions of editors must make sense?*

If it *is* written somewhere, you can be sure that it was inserted by an editor.*

*With the exception, of course, of any editor who happens to be reading this.

Most people have no problem with the SBVM... but there is a minority of persistant whiners who keep complaining about it...

Perhaps we should add a line like this:

If you're unhappy with how this Page is going so far, please click here. Thank You!

Hi Eds! Say, could you give us some indication of why the page was taken down?

This post has been removed.

Lucinda: We have removed your Posting 14 as it effectively repeats the offensive comment for which the SBVM page was failed. Please do not post any more versions or interpretations of the comment you made in the SBVM page; as our email said (and you replied that you understood it) it is not acceptable for anyone to throw sexist comments like this around h2g2. Please do not do it; thank you.

Tube: The SBVM page was yikesed, we upheld the complaint, and Lucinda has had an explanation emailed to him. Discussing it here will necessitate him explaining what he wrote that was offensive, and we'll only have to remove those discussions if they repeat the offensive content. It had nothing to do with the SBVM and everything to do with a comment that we agreed was sexist and offensive to women... so we failed it.

For the record...

I replied that I understood your email, and recognised that your judgement stands. I did not agree that the comment made was 'sexist and offensive to women'. Just wanted to clarify for Tube, etc: the Editor's "we" is ambiguous (though I expect it does refer to them only).

But it is irrelevant whether you agree or not; the fact is you understood our decision, and then posted the same material in this Conversation. That obviously isn't acceptable.

And the fact that you are unable to understand why your 'joke' was sexist and offensive to women says a lot more about you that we ever could, Lucinda.

Lucinda: To clarify the 'we', we meant the Editors and the complainant, not you. It's clear you don't agree that your comment was offensive.

Thanks for the detailed answer to my question, Eds!

Tube,
off to find something to nibble on, after debating whether to comment or not.

I seem to be having communication difficulties today...

1) Whether I agree or not is relevant in this way: there is an ethical difference between posting material you yourself believe to be offensive, with the aim of deliberately offending someone, and posting material you believe in good faith to be inoffensive. As this is now a public discussion, the ethics of my acts are something I naturally wish to defend. Because I am forbidden from describing the acts themselves, describing the motives are my next best alternative.

2) I didn't post the same material - I posted similar material in an attempt to answer Tube's question. It was my judgement that the material posted here was even less innocuous than that in the entry, and in a different context, and was therefore acceptable under the house rules, and would be passed by the moderators. This judgement was obviously wrong.

3) Point (2) is relevant because there is an ethical difference between deliberately breaching the house rules and accidentally breaching the house rules, and since this is a public forum I have a natural desire to defend my conduct.

4) I was not 'unable to understand'. I can understand where you are coming from in judging the comments offensive. The difference was in a judgement of the context under which the comments were made, the degree of offensiveness, the projected audience, the location, and other contextual issues.

(cont...)