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

I DID read those posts, but now I can't remember what was in them! I don't recall anything that would seem to merit moderation, tho.

OK I'll make the assumption that it wasn't for breaking that "no criticising the BBC" rule (which someone else first pointed out but I re-found) and try again.

If you watch UKGold or videos you should be able to see the difference, despite not having seen things the first time round (as long as you are not put off by the lack of overpriced and unnecessary computer effects and crazy attention-distracting camerawork and editing). The main reason releasing the BBC archives might be a success is because all those old programmes were so much better and the more discerning of us would settle for watching them again in preference to the current poor output. Ideally at least some of us would like better output back (though better availability of the old stuff would be nice too).

Ferrettbadger, with that many (non-smiley) smileys you would seem to be auditioning to be 2legs's understudy.

So the gist of the hidden posts was "Old BBC stuff better than new"?

AH... Now I think I know what merited moderation. It was a reference to the frenetic editing and camera work of modern telly. Those posts were 'PC'd.

CZ

That was my current guess too - even though the reference is a fairly standard (commonly used) one. It may even have appeared on the BBC before.

The moderation messages are completely useless in not saying what they believed might be wrong while suggesting you can fix the problem and repost. Illogical.

Odd

Punishment-censorship wihout an explanation always feels heavy handed.

Looks like another case of "you are totaly with us, or against us" philosophy?

What happened to reality?

People actually prefer watching a production crew portray reality in an unreal settingwhile they passively get "really emotionally involved in someones elses orchestrated reality"

The belated email explanation arrived in response to my complaint about it being missing. That and the continued non-disappearance of my reposted version say that the particular description of the camerawork was indeed the problem. I still think the moderation email should say what was wrong in the first place though. If the moderators were capable of forming an opinion (and probably logging it) then they should be capable of passing it on.

*nods*

Crickey though the moderation was quick, must be someone closely monitoring this thread, cause I cannot see anybody here yikesing what you said.

Hmm
you're right there...

Moderation sometimes make me panicky...

But all in all I think its a good thing.

I appealed a moderation decision a couple of weeks ago; I'm still waiting for a response.

!



That's a LONG time!

Hey Peet, how are you? I've been subscribed to your journals for AGES but I've never really chatted

Why would a critique of camera work in modern tv be yikesed?Unless it was considered off topic?But when has that ever been a problem here?

Incog.

IMO, Off topic shouldnt be modded, right..?

This entire thread is offtopic!

The posts were most likely moderated because of how the camera work was described. If someone were very PC sensitive, they might have been offended. But I doubt it. To paraphrase, the camera work looks like it was done by hummingbirds on speed. In a way that would be good for Short Attention Span Theatre (the title of a comedy show in the states a few years ago that used a series brief stand up clips).

Hmm

Still strikes me as a little strange

Do you mean the camera was shaky or what I don't quite understand

The description used a clinical term that might have explained the quick cuts. Again, I didn't find it offensive. But that's what Political Correctness does. It tries to protect you from everything that could no matter how remotely be taken as offensive.


Count Zero, as offensive as he dares to be.

"I appealed a moderation decision a couple of weeks ago; I'm still waiting for a response."

That's nothing. Some queries have gone months and not been acknowledged (not unique to h2g2 of course). Other moderation emails were never sent out in the first place, either because the staff bypassed the official procedures or because they simply left the decisions pending. In the pending case the yikeser would probably get the first auto-response but not any "final" decision one and the person whose post/page was yikesed gets nothing at all. Part of the problem with the censored EG articles is that, probably because ownership had been transferred or procedures bypassed, the original authors were not even informed of subsequent removal or editing.