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

Hear, hear!

eration is a fact of life. Well, here at least.

I think the soulution is simple. Modify the policy to confineing all talk of the war to one thread on h2g2. Let all researchers know this is a compromise anf if coversation on the war cannot be cofined to one thread then h2g2 will revert to current policy. I think you would find researchers would respond favorable and self police the conversations to insure this.

So you want a trial and error policy? If it works keep it, if not stop it.

That's what Maggie did with the poll tax...

yep and used the Scots as guinea pigs

I think if it is made clear to researcher's that there will be one thread to discuss the war in to allow a condensing of moderation.
That it is on the contingency of curtailing war disscusion in other threads and ask all researchers to help implamenting the policy.

Failer of this policy will reinstate the current 'moderation' policy. I think you will find a positive response to this proposal
as it is not so heavy handed. My humble opinion.

The only thing is, the thread can't be on H2G2. It's the _only_ DNA site that's not currently set for pre-moderation... It could be on the Hub, or on 360, and it would still work as a straight link from hootoo, with the same posting tools, but it would have all the moderation tools turned on as the BBC seem to require for this topic.

With the greatest respect back Peregrine, bemoaning the state of affairs ad infinitum is *not* in any way constructive.

If you are unhappy, show how you would make the situation better by providing a confident, well-structured proposal of why you think the situation as it stands is bad and how you propose to rectify it.

I understand you are unhappy, but work within the framework provided to make it better - that's constructive.

the summary at A1003159 outlines why many researchers think that <> (and why some think its ok)

the proposal evolving at F94020?thread=258677 is <>

I propose that for this crisis it's perhaps too late to get this policy altered. Since I'm being grumpily tolerant of the policy, I'd like to propose that I work on an Entry this weekend that puts forward our points and that can then be read by the Italics, and if they're happy to play along, they can pass it on to the policy makers. It's not the Italics that have made this decision, so now it's the weekend, let's make next week a new week, eh?

Whoami?

Maggie?
Poll tax?



*screaming from thread*

I see there's quite a developed document already there, but I'll write too and then we can compare notes.

Whoami?

OK, just read the backlog and here's my observation:

I understand the BBC being worried about someone reading about their relatives getting killed before being told through official channels, but that's exactly the sort of risk the BBC have been taking since the site went to self modding anyway (like there are no researchers on H2g2 with relatives in Israel, Palestine or any of the twenty odd war zones around the world for the last six months etc).

I don't particularly want to discuss the war but I don't like being told that I can't (yes I know I can use a message board, but if you start sending people off site it doesn't really show much respect for your own site's users, does it? What are you saying, we can be trusted to self police except when it's important?).

Who decided to introduce this rule - the BBC or the government? The whole thing has a suspicious whiff about it, or am I just being a conspiracy theorist?

And just what's so 'Great' about this debate anyway? It's not like there's anyone important out there actually paying any attention to the public. If there were, the war would never have started in the first place.

And finally, should any of us be surprised at this sudden lack of free speech anyway, given that protesting in the middle of Oxford Street is now likely to get you batton charged by a riot squad?

Radox:

>>> The whole thing has a suspicious whiff about it, or am I just being a conspiracy theorist?

You are just being a conspiracy theorist. The World Service is recognised as the voice of democracy which reaches the furthest corners of the world. BBCi is the litter sister of this service. By directing you to designated areas, debate is concentrated and easily monitored for trolls, flamers and spammers.

>>> And just what's so 'Great' about this debate anyway? It's not like there's anyone important out there actually paying any attention to the public. If there were, the war would never have started in the first place.

It's just a name - if you don't like it, go to the other areas that are discussing the war:

Today
Asian Life
Five Live
One Life

>>> And finally, should any of us be surprised at this sudden lack of free speech anyway, given that protesting in the middle of Oxford Street is now likely to get you batton charged by a riot squad?

I live on the corner of Oxford Street and Marble Arch and was unwittingly there during the kerfuffle on Saturday. I saw a fruit and veg stall holder desperately trying to get the usual agents provocateurs away from his stall. They were stealing fruit and boxes to throw at the police. It's a very thin blue, and when one or two cross it, unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer.

I have seen a lot of discussion about what we italics are supposed to do, among them resigning. This is just plain insulting, while some of you may have the economic liberty to do such a noble thing, others of us don't. There are a million and one things we *should* be doing, but many we just don't have the time to do. We are doing our best to be constructive, encouraging you all to create a proposal, and use the organic nature of the Guide for change. Whether you take this up or not is your decision. Some of you already have and for that I am heartened

There is no conspiracy but there is room for *constructive* debate to be had on the policy.

Ashley

What Ashley said. Anyone up for a spot of constructive debate?

Whoami?

In the first place, I do not think anyone working for the BBC should resign, unless they personally cannot combine their work with their concience, and that goes for any job where some kind of restriction has been put in place. I do not have to make this choice, but I suppose I would stay and make the best of it.

For the constructive debate, I have not been to the messageboard, and will not go there, as I refuse to first give my name and email adres.
In my opinion a good discussionplace should have a possibility to have separate parallel discussions, so you can answer to someone, and recognise an answer to your own posts, without any random clutter, spam and flames drowning it.
The original setup of h2g2 seem perfect for it, even with the discussion restricted to threads all starting on just one A-type page.

I'll have the beginnings of a Report on this soon. Watch this space for an Axxxxxxx number.

Whoami?

Re: Messageboard

You don't have to give your real name - the messageboards do not have a record of your nickname and so ask you to fill in the name fields...the email address is because like h2g2 when posts are removed or replied to you can keep track through your email account (otherwise there is no way to know if someone has replied) - the messageboard database already has an email address (the one used to register with h2g2) it is just to give you the opportunity to use a different address to keep track of postings on the boards.

The email address will not be made available to anyone other than the mods on the boards - in fact if you try to post a message including an email address it will be removed as personal information in a posting is against the boards house rules.