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

>>>As we happen to have jim posing to (and thus reading) this thread, perhaps he might point out to the other italics just how unhelpfull a lot of us are finding the persistant silence and refusal to comment when it comes to giving reliable feedback in various review forums.

We are reading this thread. If you asking us to explain the decision, we will certainly do so again.

If you are asking why we do not appear in review forums like Peer Review very much, we all regularly check out Peer Review and try to remove entries we don't feel to be suitable for the Edited Guide before they go too far down the Editorial process. We might not comment directly in the thread if the entry breaks the House Rules because that is a moderation decision and it is our policy not to comment on individual moderation decisions on site (though there are exceptions).


"Is the idea of ANY entry which deals with people filming THEMSELVES during the procreative act totally prohibited on h2g2? Just in case that isn't clear what I am asking is Is it possible for FB's article to be written in such a way that it is acceptable?"

Hi Ferretbadger

That is a tricky one and we are not sure we can give you a definitive answer. You could submit an entry on this subject to Peer Review, but as we have said in our previous postings, it is highly unlikely it will be accepted into the Edited guide. Any entry which is on a subject that might breach the BBCi Producer Guidelines, will be looked in light of those guidelines and a decision will be made in each case.

Thanks for answering, so basically the long and the short of it is that FB touched on what is a taboo subject. Just a puty I suppose that he wasn't just told that in the first place eh !

It would seem that it *Became* a taboo subject After the fact. The way I understand events (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) is that after the articles in question had gone through peer review and editing and posting, the people at Editorial Policy told our editors that the producers guidelines (and thusly our T&C and House Rules) should be considered stricter than they previously were. I think the articles in question were then pointed out as being beyond the new threshold. (Or to be more truthful I think the events happened in the other order: The articles were first removed and THEN our eds were told to be more conservative with their perceptions of the HR.)

Either way, I think any articles dealing with subjects similiar to those in question will have to be Very Carefully written to not run afoul of the new perception of the guidelines.

In other words I would personally put any articles I would think of writing through what I might call the "Aunt Edna" test. Would I show it to my dowdy Aunt Edna?

Count Zero

It is just a pity that we have to be censored on the basis of the most easily offended people.

My worry though is where does this end, an article advocating Gay Clergy would offend some people, would that be off limits. Where exactly is the line drawn, Mary Whitehouse tolerance?

"Where exactly is the line drawn?"

How the line should be drawn is in exactly the same way it has been previously. The editors have a reasonable idea as to which bits of the content are likely to be tricky, and say "that bit will be a problem".

Who should draw the line is more tricky. In the end, it has to be the editors, but fundamentally, we need to be able to refer possible problems up the hierarchy. Currently if something seems a bit tricky, then a call goes out for a response from someone more experienced, usually a long time user or a scout. if the scouts are not sure, they refer the question to the italics, who then come back with "this bit mioght be tricky".

Where the line is drawn is ultimately down to the bbc, but at every step there should be resistance to unnecessary neutering of content.

If it gets to the editors, and they are not sure, they should refer it to edpol, but fight for the most liberal use of the rules, or a more relaxed interpretation of them.

In the end though, we need an end to the uncertainty, and the gentleman's guide entry is a good example of the problem. at a fundamental level, we need to know if it can ever be redeemed and get back into the guide (as happened with the molotov cocktail entry) or if they are finding that the site has to be suitable for underage tots who can't really do much more than reach the mouse to click on a link.

In the meantime, I am tempted to suggest (only half in jest) that we refer every entry to the scouts for verification that there are no taboo parts in the entry, and that they refer everything to the sub-eds and that they refer everything to the italics.

in this way, we very quickly get a large list of things where we know it is ok to talk about NNNNN in an entry, and over time it will get back to the position where the etalics are sure where the new guidelines fit, they have passed it down to the sub-eds who have then passed it down to the scouts who will then pass it down to those of us who comment in the various review forums.

because it will happen on a case by case basis, it should resolve the problem fairly easily, and moderately quickly.

So what the bottom line is that this is not a homemade porn site?
sheese...




pedboy

That's somewhat back to my rules by examples idea. We need some examples from the italics of articles which just squeak in (and why) to compare with those which are now disallowed (and why). So we can all make our own internal models of what the levels of application of the rules are.

Ah - you were hoping that it was and that you could combine the advice from the articles to break into your own car and film yourself having sex using some testicle cuffs.

...and you have a problem with that...




pedboy

Oh no, it would be entirely your own problem. However, you wouldn't want to forget the other deleted article telling you how to make it look like you know what you are doing.

Ho ho ho!