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

I also meant to say that the difference between being impolite and offensively rude might be if someone is rude to you, you can say 'sod off you narky old git' and that would be impolite. Saying something about them they can't change, ie their gender, is more offensive. In my opinion obviously.

"I felt that s/he had been rude to me, and felt justified in a little satire in return."

Lucinda, this worries me a bit. Peta hasn't had any direct contact with you for some time, and I can't see any excuse for posting the sort of comment you made, especially if your annoyance was caused by you disagreeing with site policy, rather than anything said by a specific person.

Can you expand on this? As most of our contact these days is via accounts like 'The h2g2 Editors', I'd be concerned if you were singling out one particular person to take out your frustrations on.

I'd also be interested to know how making a joke out of an offensive comment makes it somehow less offensive. In my eyes, it can make it even worse.

Thanks!

> "Peta hasn't had any direct contact with you for some time"

I put that comment in the entry a *long* time ago - I think I was still at uni in fact, which would be over 6 months ago. I wouldn't make the same comment now, precisely because of the more professional approach adopted by the Editorial team in recent times.

I wasn't disagreeing with site policy at all. The point of the entire paragraph was (and is) to comment on the apparent prevailing attitude that whenever there is any conflict between researcher(s) and Italics, it is invariably the fault of the researchers, while the Italics are blameless. It's become common, for example, to dismiss such incidents as being inspired by the effects of the full moon on the researchers involved. That attitude was worthy of sarcasm. It was also rude.

The named person was chosen based on several highly scientific criteria:
*) are they female?
*) are they an italic?
*) do they get personally involved in the above-mentioned conflicts?
*) do they express the above-mentioned attitude?

Recently, the last two criteria no longer apply to the named person, which is why I would not (as I've said before) make the same remark today. At the time, it was my opinion that she fulfilled all four criteria, and was unique in doing so. If it was male hormones that fluctuated on a monthly basis, the person chosen would have been different, and I'd now stand accused of chauvanism instead of feminism. So it goes.

Mina - what about age?

s/chauvanism/anti-male sexism
s/feminism/anti-female sexism

Oops.

Hi Lucinda. It would be more understandable if you had posted your comments about Peta before we'd created the more anonymous h2g2 Editors persona, but you actually created the SBVM page *after* the h2g2 Editors persona went live. We created and announced the h2g2 Editors persona on 15 August 2001. You can see this here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=135321 You posted to that Conversation on the very same day, so you therefore knew why we'd decided to anonymise ourselves - to prevent personal attacks. I remember you making a comment about the wording of the h2g2 Editors page at the time, so you obviously read that too: it says: "The team uses this persona to avoid personal attacks and character assassinations, which aren't that common, but which cut to the quick". You created the SBVM page on 16 August 2001, which you can see from the date on the entry. In August you edited it 18 times, and then you edited it twice in September; since then the only further edit has been to fix the moderation issue. The offensive section was *not* in the original version, as we would have brought it up at the time as a particularly insensitive thing to say, given the announcement we'd made on 15 August. You therefore added the offensive comments about Peta *after* the h2g2 Editors had been up and running, and after you knew all about the reasons behind the creation of that persona. So I dispute your Posting above. It's good that you say you wouldn't make the remark today, but you did make it after we'd created the h2g2 Editors persona, and I think that's a pretty nasty thing to do. We've made great strides in becoming more professional, and I'm glad that this has resulted in fewer personal insults made to my staff, but it also means we're not going to stand for unwarranted personal insults *at all*. From my perspective you've insulted a member of my team, and your excuse has some serious holes in it. The House Rules are clear that personal insults of h2g2 staff will *never* be tolerated. Apologies go a long way to fixing things... you might like to consider it as an option.

I am going to post two separate posts, because I have two differing points.

First off a bit of praise for the Italics and the Moderation system, since we all, me included, tend to take the time to write posts when we are p**sed off with the system, and not when it works.

My home page disappeared the other day. I hadn't changed it for over a month, and I was not sure why it had gone. The reason was that the link to The Short Guide to Short Words "The URLs which failed were:
[xyz] contains offensive language".

I was a tad disconcerted about this, because - as I said in my e-mail:

>That link has been on my page since April. I have changed my page on several occasions since then, sometimes shifting the entire contents of my personal space to different pages in h2g2. Presumably the text and links have been moderated on more than one occasion.

>The article it links to discussed the social, legal, linguistic and cultural uses of the words listed. It is not just saying 'pee poo willy tits bum'.

>Peta has told me that it was at one time at least under consideration as a guide entry, and it was written after the BBC rescued h2g2.

Sure enough, the page duly returned unscathed.

So this is a happy story about the system working quietly and efficiently and it has a happy ending.

agcB

"In August you edited it 18 times, and then you edited it twice in September; since then the only further edit has been to fix the moderation issue."

That means that the entry has been through Moderation a lot of times. The Mods didn't pick on that part of the entry. Maybe you should have a word with them. Their sexism-tolerance-level doesn't seem to fit the community's...

Tube

Back to the topic. We have enough here to reconstruct the fact that Lucinda made what looked like an offensive remark about Peta's menstrual cycles. Is this sexist? Is it offensive?

Since the metric for offensiveness seems to be that something is offensive if it causes offense - then yes. Peta was clearly offended, and the remark was therefore offensive. It is actually pretty irrelevent whether the rest of us were offended by it or not. And it is also irrelevent whether another woman would have found the same remark made to or about themselves offensive. (Me, probably not. But as I indicated previously, I am pretty feisty and have the licence to give as good as I get, which Peta does not in her capacity as an Italic).

Is it sexist to remark on menstrual cycles? Hell, I don't know. I make some extremely sexist remarks about men. Most of mine are grounded in physiological truths. I find the differences between the sexes bizzare, non-intuitive, illogical, disruptive, and confusing. Oh, and pysically compelling.

Actually, I think you have to be pretty lost in Political Correctness to find comments about menstruation sexist. It is a clear fact that women's emotional robustness is linked to their menstrual cycle. If someone asks me if I am reacting in a particular way because of my cycle I find it more irritating if I am not pre-menstrual than I do if I am. But I assume that they are addressing the remark to my brain not my uterous, and reply accordingly.

My doux centimes.

agcB

This post has been removed.

(not sure if I'm gonna wind up between Ben's posts like a sandwich or at the end of them like a dessert, but here I go...)

I missed, somehow, the nasty bit - or (more likely) it didn't occur to me that someone could have taken offense and so passed it by. We have all debated the 'one person fluffy bon mot is another person's reprensible insult' with little resolution, and I won't dish that up again.

However, I would like someone to further clarify something for me, which both Mark and Ben have just about done. So: the last time the SBVM page was edited yet again was over a month ago - and it 'passed' - but then it got 'yikes!' out of the blue five days ago and disappeared, requiring 'editing' before restoration. Does this mean that any of us at any time can have our work censored because somebody new happens on it and complains? If someone who hates my taste in music wanders by my user page, I'm toast? Shouldn't the fact that the Moderators 'approved' an entry have some bearing on potential future 'yikes!'s'? Or are we really all held hostage to the shifting values and mores of incoming and just-now-getting-here researchers?

Where's the trust in that? Belgium, man!



-7_I_am_known_by_the_company_I_keep_7

Hohovooloo -

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!

-7r7

Mina,

"Yet, if what you present on your page is not to be taken as offensive to those who view such practice as immoral and sinful and is largely taken to be so by the vast sea of LCD thinkers then how is it that you and others are not censored while such remarks as you might condemn are?"

I take it that your response is that you don't care what other people think and that what you think is okay because you have never been moderated on these issues.

(I have no idea how you would know if anyone has yikesed your page if the moderators have chosen not to moderate you, their standards perhaps being more in line with your sensibilities.)

I had not gone into your Dungeon area until just recently when I felt that I had to examine what was going on there based on reactions of other people. I personally regard what I saw as suggestive of practices I do not endorse but which I ultimately found to be silly, much in the same way that I find virtual pubs and virtual sex to be silly. I feel the same way about pornography, electronic or printed.

I mentioned the one child because I had seen obvious evidence that that child was at least attempting to participate in your on line fantasy structure and I found that inappropriate. You apparently feel the same way.

Therefore it alarms me that you seem indifferent to the possibility that you are playing your games with children without your knowledge. I have seen arguments here that we must be conscious at all times that we may be dealing with children. I have been given to believe that the BBC considers that a prime issue.

If there is any question that this sort of activity is not proper for children then again I have to ask why you would feel that your play is permissible on h2g2.

(I also have noted that at least one Italic has participated in the activities there. I saw nothing improper in what transpired, but this does lend more than the passive cache of not being moderated to the entire concept. Of course, the italics are perfectly entitled to play on h2g2, but should they be playing in uniform? I don't know.)

Lucinda,

I continue this *here* because the issue is moral outrage as I see it and not your questionable quip at Peta's expense. Or at least it was.

Now it appears that the problem has nothing to do with sexism as had been announced by the official H2G2 Editors persona but rather the more serious (because specifically forbidden with specific dire consequences) of having 'attacked' one of the editors.

Whether or not this last is the case, *I* am still concerned about moral outrage and the part that LCD thinking plays on how h2g2 operates.

Mark,

If the announced reason under editorial persona and authority was not the correct reason then perhaps some apology from that editorial persona or from you on behalf of the staff is also appropriate. I applauded the creation of the Editorial account as being consonant with professional presentation as well as being the best way to avoid personal attacks. I do not seek here to single out individual staff. What I am looking for is that we would be able to understand what it is that is you all as the ones in charge of h2g2 will not permit and then that we should see some consistency in the way those judgements are enforced. In the past, you have refused to limit yourselfs to specific definitions and I can understand your position. There is no doubt that becoming embroiled in semantics can be counterproductive. There is also no doubt that to set forth a list of things can imply that the list is complete and final. This is well and good. But, please! Deal with us fairly, honestly, and consistently. We, in turn, will do our best to understand and to avoid conflicts.

I would also appreciate comments about the question I raised above to Mina from the view point of you or other editors. And I reitterate that I personally would not yikes Mina's pages but am highly concerned about the participation of minors.

As has been said over and over, this place is supposed to be fun. You comments can help make it so.

Barton

Barton - "Yet, if what you present on your page is not to be taken as offensive to those who view such practice as immoral and sinful and is largely taken to be so by the vast sea of LCD thinkers then how is it that you and others are not censored while such remarks as you might condemn are?"
I take it that your response is that you don't care what other people think and that what you think is okay because you have never been moderated on these issues.

I didn't answer earlier because I was pushed for time and forgot this question was there.
I don't know what you mean when you say 'vast sea of LCD thinkers'. LCD? Explain please.
I can't live my life by other peoples morals. If other people think I am sinful and immoral then that's up to them. You are right, I don't care what other people think of my lifestyle. I don't post anything that breaks the house rules. Lucinda apparently did. He admitted he was rude in post 59. Go and read the rules. If I broke the rules, then I'd be moderated. Because I am not, then forgive me for thinking there is nothing wrong in what I post. You are right, I wouldn't know if a post was yikesed unless it was upheld. It's nothing to do with standards and to do with house rules. You want the link? http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/houserules
Find me the bit you think I am breaking.

And I don't believe you are at all concerned about the participation of minors. I believe that you are trying to find trouble where none exists. Of course, that is only my opinion. And I'd like to know where you found this child I am corrupting. It certainly wasn't in the dungeon.

LCD: Lowest Common Denominator (as far as I recall from a prior posting here)

AFAIK, Yikes!ing immediately removes the post/page. I had my Personal page removed for three days because somme chap wanted to leave a message that way. And I spent a whole weekend staring at a blank space.

I am also against the removal of material on the grounds that it is sinful. What kind of a concept is that? Sin according to which religion? What is a religion? Christianity? Just as a reminder the seven cardinal sins are pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, lust. Yeah, let's go and Yikes! everything that fits that description. And these are jnust the cardinal sins....
Immoral? Who's moral standards? According to which cultural background? Not a fit reason for Yikes!ing methinks.


Tube

Mina, I most certainly am concerned about the possibility that you are involved with children without your knowing it. But, of course, there is no way I can convince you of that short of spending hours typing at you about how upset I am that you would claim that I am lying. More than that, however, I am concerned that you choose to avoid considering the possibility that you are involving children in your fantasies and thereby avoid having to take responsibility for that sort of thing. The child in question is Niwt who on one occasion was sporting a screen name proclaiming herself as one of your slaves or somesuch. She has dropped that screen name and gone back to plain Niwt, but proof of her involvement in your fantasy can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F54398?thread=79332&skip=0&show=20 starting at message 16. What is written can be taken as plain childish play and I have seen nothing to suggest that you are actively encouraging her. But, I am very uncomfortable that she is evidently involving herself in your fantasy structure. I sure you would choose to say that you have no control over what other people think or do with your fantasies and that you have no responsibility toward a child who is given free reign on h2g2. You might even choose to blame her parents for negligence in not monitoring her play. However, you are providing what is called in law 'an attractive hazard' for which you and the BBC may be held legally responsible. This is why the BBC has been careful to restrict content in areas where it cannot control access. Or, at least, that is how I understand the legal thinking to run. I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to be one. I *am*, however, the owner of an attractive hazard in the form of a back yard spa which I am legally required to keep locked even though my yard is fenced and the spa is inside a structure and covered with a lid such that no one could fall in by accident. Children are not considered to be necessasrily of sound judgement and thus must be protected from such attractive hazards. You have created a private playground inside h2g2 with a fantasy theme that is clearly intended to be sexually titilating to any adult who reads its contents. As such, while it is clearly not pornography to my mind, it is a fantasy structure that is comprehensible to a child over a certain age and can be seen to be leading such a child into improper behavior for a child. I suspect that is why you are so quick to distance yourself from involvement with children. Yet, at the same time, you are so selfishly unwilling to acknowledge that you might bear responsibility in these matters that you choose to claim that I am lying just to cause trouble -- presumably because you don't want to give up your little tittlation games. You have said that there is no difference that between people proclaiming themselves to be homosexual on h2g2 and what you are doing, but your logic is feeble. I have no objection to you proclaiming that you are sexually stimulated by Dominance/submission and/or sado-masochistic practices or even that you enjoy playing at being sexually stimulated by simulated behavior of that type. It is when you practice that sort of virtual sex on a family oriented essentiall open-access bbs that I begin to become upset. I see no difference between what you have been doing and the simulation of hetero- or homo-sexual practices on h2g2. I would not object to those either if it were not for the real possibility in any of these cases that children might be involved -- knowingly or otherwise. Unfortunately, your game and those of others who are playing here with you cannot be dealt with without systematically hiding (read censoring) every portion of your structure. There is no way in your control on this system for you to bar children as I can with a simple lock on my spa. The only way to protect this attractive hazard from minors is to remove it and hide all conversations and threads. That, of course, requires the involvement of the editors. Of course

I sincerely hope that I myself have not fallen victim to LCD morality. I truly believe that children are in danger. I can no more ignore this situation than I could make myself publish something on the order of "A Child's Own Book of Explosive Chemistry" for which I have the knowledge.

Barton

Sorry, Barton, I failed to find any posting by Newt in the Manor's Dungeon thread. The only thing I found are the few postings of hir you linked to.
And from what I read there I don't really feel that there's danger afoot. Could you provide some more links so that I can get a clearer picture? Thanks.

Tube

PS: And, BTW Niwt is a member of the Mina Fan Club, which might explain the and stuff in posting 16 seq you linked to...
check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/FFM22865?thread=145285&skip=0&show=20#p1414412

This is all getting extremely personal. May I suggest that the debate about Mina's threads is suspended until the Italics are back on Monday?

agcB