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

Tube, I presume you are talkinfg about an inadvertant breaking of the rule under situation 3 as outlined by Natalie?
Interesting question, actually.

Aye. A canny few. *s Mina*

Just for you, a translation of post 111: ()

Righto then Ducks, I'd be'er wotch meself then innit?
That's gonna be 'ard like. Dahn't like it one li'ul bi', know wha' I mean?

'ere - don' worry like, yer poor ol' modera'ors, I'm not breakin' the noo rools - there's nuffink in 'ere bu' English (even if it is all a loada tosh)

I've been following this thread with much interest for a few days, without feeling the need to jump in. I can understand both sides of this argument, and I'll say again what I've said in other similar threads - why don't you (the researchers in the UK) lobby your MP's to have the licence fee doubled so that the BBC can afford all these things you want from it. And why not make it a subscription site for all of us who live around the globe.

But I've seriously considered yikesing several posts over the preceding couple of leds in this conversation. There's been a very unpleasant turn in the argument toward the idea that this whole problem is the result of London insularity.

I don't know where the mods are from, or if they're all located within the London area, but to suggest that posts get pulled because no-one outside of the capital knows anything but broad cockney, RP, or estuary, is utterly ridiculous.

In terms of the people who live there, London has one of the most diverse populations in the world. People move to London from all over the UK and all over the world. And they don't all watch nothing but the local news programmes and eastenders once they get there. I imagine that the mods must represent that population if they are indeed all in London.

And for people outside of London to suggest that Londoners are insular in the way that some researchers have said, is to infer that everyone outside of London is not. Not so. I lived in a town in *******shire for a couple of years and got to know the people there pretty well. When the company I worked for told us all that they were relocating to B*******, a town not more than a 10 minute drive or 20 minute bus ride away, my co-workers couldn't deal with it. It was like telling them that they would be moving to Betelgeuse and working with people who had two heads, three arms, and drank Pan Galactic Gargleblasters, which is pretty much the way they saw anyone who didn't live in their own town. We're not talking about the middle-ages here, this was about twenty years ago.

So come down off your imagined high horse and stop whining. If you want multi-lingual mods, and mods who can understand every single dialect in the UK (or from every country where h2g2 has researchers), cough up the necessary wedge.

(That's London slang for money, btw)

From deep into the backlog.
I had my cursor pointing on the yikes-button for post 343, but I will not go by this silly rules.
Shame on you, Mark, posting in Dutch!

Yea. I asked that question before (#158 if I remember correctly), back then I saw the possibility of posting in a foreign language to a forum where I know that the others read fairly instanteneously (i.e. before the Mods get to that posting).
With situation #3 being possible (i.e. going back to what it was before) the inadvertant breaking of rules becomes an issue, as you pointed out correctly.

As they stand now, they indicate that doing anything like that will get me "an official warning from the h2g2 Editors for the first offence".

[Subject to "If you fail to abide by these House Rules and/or the Terms and Conditions, then the following procedure will be followed **in most cases**. Please note that the BBC reserves the right to terminate accounts immediately at its discretion (in the event of such things as criminal behaviour or personal abuse of h2g2 staff, for example), or to vary the following process as it sees fit (typically by being more lenient). "]

If situation #3 is implemented maybe the no-English-Posting rule should be re-worded or taken out of the catalouge of punishable offences altogether.

copy from F615?thread=191616&post=2140638#p2140638

"Nope. You've raised the possibility, Mark has rejected that possibility. It is now for you to prove that he is wrong, on the balance of probabilities, that he is wrong in his interpretation of the law."


I am not the who is risking civil or criminal action - as a researcher here I felt responsible to point out that h2g2 & BBCi may be in breech of European Directives designed to protect minority languages, the various Welsh languages Acts and the various bits of Human Rights legislation the UK has.

It is up to the editors to make decision on whether or not to act the warning given. If as seems the case they decide not to seek legal clarification well that is there choice but they cannot say they have not been warned or that they were not aware of the possibility if civil or criminal cases arise out of this policy.



Now just to restate my position

Unlike Radio or Television where people generally talk to a presenter or in a group chaired by a presenter for the benefit of an audience Message boards (which is what h2g2 threads essentially are) allow users to conduct what are basically private conversations in a public place, the conversations are not carried out for the benefit of an audience.

Banning researchers from talking to each other in Welsh here strikes me as being the same as going up to two Welsh speakers in a pub and saying to them that they cannot speak Welsh in the pub because the landlord only speaks English. Banning a Welsh person from speaking to a Welsh person in Welsh is what I would of expected in Victorian times but not in 21st century Britain.

glad I did not keep my breath in the backlog, just four hours away.

For whatever it is worth, go with #3 leading to #4.

Anyone for a new game: who get's the most postings removed AND reinstalled in a week?

Hey, Marjin, better wait until we know whether that could get you banned for life...

Hi Tube,

The House Rules say:

"If you fail to abide by these House Rules and/or the Terms and Conditions, then the following procedure will be followed **in most cases**. Please note that the BBC reserves the right to terminate accounts immediately at its discretion (in the event of such things as criminal behaviour or personal abuse of h2g2 staff, for example), or to vary the following process as it sees fit (typically by being more lenient). "

The posting of foreign languages are covered by the "in most cases" part of the statement, as well as by the phrase "or to vary the following process as it sees fit (typically by being more lenient)."

'Yvonne' recently posted a large number of pages in a wide range of assorted languages, (amongst other things) for no other reason other than to be contrary it would seem, and this behaviour contributed to her ban, so the inclusion of the foreign language ruling in the House Rules is appropriate. It is possible to break this rule, but we would always take the Researcher's nationality and motivation into account before making a decision.

I don't think that splitting up the House Rules into sub-section pages would not be helpful the majority of Researchers; newcomers might find this particularly confusing.

"It is up to the editors to make decision on whether or not to act the warning given. If as seems the case they decide not to seek legal clarification well that is there choice but they cannot say they have not been warned or that they were not aware of the possibility if civil or criminal cases arise out of this policy."

Thanks for pointing it out then HappyDude. In the meantime I'm happy to stick with the advice set out in the BBC Producer Guidelines, as I mentioned earlier.

If we ever have a significant number of Welsh speaking Researchers who are keen to speak Welsh I'm happy to review the situation.

Hi Peta!

Working from home at 10 pm?!

Yeah, I gathered that it would fall under that.

Yvonne? Blast. Did I miss a ban? Stupid RL taking up too much time!

The splitting/rewording was only a suggestion. New researchers might find it confusing that they can perfectly well break some rules and suddenly find that they get a warning (probably a stern talking to, rather) if they break another.
Luckily I don't have to make these decisions...


Maybe just add something like:

Rules that are handled rather leniently
-Postings or entries containing languages other than English may be removed.
-No spitting.


Rules that are handled strictly
-Please, no flaming or trolling.
-Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable.
-No spamming.
-No advertising.
-Only include suitable URLs in your contributions.
-Please don't abuse the complaints system.


Rules that are handled very strictly
-Please don't impersonate others.
-Please don't post for suspended Researchers.




Like the criminal laws state that both murder and shoplifting is forbidden, but they also indicate the consequences.

Just suggestions which might improve an otherwise good system.
Tube

Thanks Tube!

The difficulty lies in the fact that we'd take many breaches of the House Rules leniently if they were carried out innocently. Take your strict group for instance:

"Rules that are handled strictly

-Please, no flaming or trolling.
-Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable.
-No spamming.
-No advertising.
-Only include suitable URLs in your contributions.
-Please don't abuse the complaints system."

For instance, and only a for instance...

Flaming is really subjective. We wouldn't send someone an offical warning if they flamed someone if they were in disagreement and wording it badly, we might well send them an email if they habitually and provactively flamed people for the sport of it.

Advertising. People advertise their hotel, software, etc. etc. on a fairly regular basis, seeing h2g2 as a possible source of free advertising. We don't throw the rule book at them, we just politely advise them that that isn't the role of h2g2.

It's normally pretty obvious if it's an accidental breach of the rules, or a deliberately provacative action.

We don't give people official warnings on a regular ad hoc basis. Every offical warning is discussed amongst the team before it's made, our aim is to be as fair and as reasonable as is possible.

Even things like murder can have extenuating circumstances, in the real world!

*arrives breathlessly at the end of the backlog*

I honestly think this thread generates more backlog than the 3N thread

I see what you mean and I've seen the system in action.

"If you fail to abide by these House Rules and/or the Terms and Conditions, then the following procedure will be followed **in most cases**. Please note that the BBC reserves the right to terminate accounts immediately at its discretion (in the event of such things as criminal behaviour or personal abuse of h2g2 staff, for example), or to vary the following process as it sees fit (typically by being more lenient)."

Would that not take any binding character off the categorisation ('strictly')? I think it would and thus the system would remain as is, but at the same time give some indication of the likelyhood of consequences for a breach.

I think the warning etc. system is handled very well by the Eds. Just suggestions to make it clearer to the researchers.


Tube


PS: second thoughts: Maybe add the word 'willful' to the rules?

If we promise to stop hassling the italics, can we have a towel smiley?

So Happy Together!

"Thanks for pointing it out then HappyDude. In the meantime I'm happy to stick with the advice set out in the BBC Producer Guidelines, as I mentioned earlier."

I'm still going to argue my corner though - I just don't like people telling me I should do your job

We've done our job to our best ability I feel, and we've taken the advice available to us.

We *have* looked into the implications and we are reacting accordingly. If you still feel that we should be reacting differently we can only suggest that you contact the BBC directly, what else can we offer?

Peta, that was not the point I was making in my last post – when I said your job I should of indicated I wuz referring to the BBC as whole. It was suggested that I should do the job of the BBC lawyers and comb through the various applicable acts of parliament & European law to find specific instances where BBCi and h2g2 may be in breech of the law, as I see it that is not my responsibility. I have done more than my duty by alerting you to the possibility and suggesting you seek legal clarification, how you act is as I stated up to you and if anyone suggest I should do more then is up to me to ignore them


I may continue to argue my point if decisions are made I disagree with or new information is posted.

Is it safe to topic drift yet...?

(Ahem) ..so, tonsil, what would a towel smiley look like?

Towels are basically rectangular and flat. Wouldn't that be kinda hard to represent?

Or is that your point, you fiendishly clever and deeply insightful fellow!

bon appetite
~jwf~