I wrote this before the Editors declared Thursday a beautiful day, so perhaps stuff here will seem dated. Well I ain't throwing it away, so you can look at this entry as historical or someat. Indeed do many things come to pass.

Setting The Record Straight

Firstly, I'd like to clarify the order and details of events. I'm only going to deal with my own weeks suspension and the events leading up to it, so you'll have to go elsewhere to hear about the suspension of Colonel Sellers and 'Not Banned Yet', and the warning given to Hoovooloo. I'm also going to ignore events which played no part in the issue, such as the debate over Mina's dungeon. So it goes.

I might modify this from time to time, if my perception of things changes. If a large group of people read what I wrote and tell me that I'm going straight to hell, then I'll say so. If something else occurs to me I'll add it. But I've got no plans for dramatic makeovers.

I'd like, if possible, to restrict discussion on this narrow issue to this particular entry. These discussions have a tendency to spread themselves around h2g2, and that never seems to help. Hopefully this way lies closure and a way of drawing a line under it all. If you want to chat about wider issues, then by all means do it wherever you feel it is appropriate.

Timeline

12 Oct 2000: A war of words takes place between Matthew Kershaw and Mark Moxon. Insofar as there is a policy on abuse of staff, it seems to be to respond in kind.

Jan 2001: The BBC take over h2g2. The Editors maintain that the house rules are essentially unchanged, and the main difference is that they will now be enforced pre-emptively.

05 Jul: In a conversation discussing the week-long suspension of LeKZ, Mark seems to clarify that the target of any abuse has no effect on any punishment for that abuse. The one exception given is that if the target is clearly trolling, then abuse is treated slightly more leniently.

early Aug: Abi briefly takes over the moderation helpdesk. When faced with some fairly harsh criticism, she says that it is BBC policy not to respond to such postings and simply unsubscribes from the relevant conversations.

16 Aug: The h2g2 Editors make a number of statements. One of these is that From now on they will be using a joint account for official editorial communication to try and avoid 'character assasination' and personal abuse. There is nothing in this announcement that indicates a change in the house rules to ban such abuse, or to ban mild but personal criticism. Discussion ensues. I welcome the joint persona as a sign of increased professionalism, while disagreeing with the tone of the posting and some of the other statements.

17 Aug: I form the 'Small But Vocal Minority' club, otherwise known as the SBVM. I do this as a satirical reaction to certain negative claims made by various h2g2 users about a small but vocal minority that is supposedly damaging h2g2, including some made by various people in the thread mentioned above. I also try to satirise other elements of h2g2.

17 Aug to 23 Aug: To my shock, other people sign up to be members, and for each one I edit the page appropriately. I also make a few other changes and tweaks - mainly to try and make the page more visually attractive and engaging.

27 Aug: I add a paragraph to the SBVM entry, endorsing the <fullmoon> smiley as the official smiley of the club. I aim to satirise the common claim that major flamewars on h2g2 occur around the full moon, and also the common belief that such conflicts are invariably the sole responsibility of Researchers, and Italics are never at fault. The moderators pass the entry. I will try and describe this paragraph more fully later on.

27 Aug to early Sep: I edit the page a few more times - can't remember what I changed specifically. Each time the moderators pass the entry. Nobody comments specifically on the paragraph I added, either positively or negatively.

The rest of September passes without related incident.

09 Oct: the Editors add a transgressions policy. This says, amongst other things, that abuse of staff members is an instant banning offence. I express disagreement over this policy, arguing that the Editors should not get extra protection above that given to normal members of h2g2. This is the very first I have heard that the Editors are treated at all differently to other researchers. The Editors defend their policy, and say it is simply making existing policy explicit.

The rest of October passes without related incident.

06(?) Nov: Somebody yikeses the SBVM entry, based on the paragraph I added on 27 Aug. It is referred by the moderator. On seeing that it is referred, interested members of the SBVM ask why. I make an irreverent joke and settle down to wait for a decision to be made.

07(?) Nov: the editors fail the entry and say which paragraph is the problem, describing it as 'offensive' and 'personal'. I ask whether the person named is an issue in the decision and they say absolutely not. I give a partial answer to the question that was asked by the members of my club, alluding indirectly to what I wrote. This post is failed. The Editors post to the thread giving their own explanation.

07 Nov to 09 Nov: discussion ensues over what I wrote (and other things). I perceive some of the things that the Editors write in this discussion as somewhat rude. I explain my meaning, defend myself against the accusations made by the Editors, and state that I would not write the same paragraph today. The Editors suggest that I make an apology. I refuse. The Editors give me a weeks suspension.

Questions and Answers

I'll explain everything else by means of a hypothetical question and answer converations, since I like that style of writing. If you don't like that style... oh well.

So, as a starter for ten, what exactly did you say in that paragraph?

The first time I tried to answer that, I got insta-censored. The genre, at least, is similar to Mark's comment at a h2g2 meet that 'h2g2 is the most hormonal site I know'. I can't¹ reveal any more information than that here, but for more details I encourage researchers to contact me by email: [email protected]. I'd love to hear from anyone, and especially to hear other researchers' opinions on what I wrote. It's the only way I can learn, after all.

Can you at least say what point you were trying to make?

A number of things. That the frequent excuses for h2g2 conflicts as lunar-inspired were silly. That the idea that such conflicts are always purely the fault of researchers rather than editors was equally silly. I also wanted to make a point about political correctness, which can also be silly. And humour remains an end in itself.

It was most certainly not about the person I named.

Whatever. What have other researchers' opinions been?

Well I didn't get any specific feedback before the Editors failed the entry, but presumably those who joined the club or read the page subsequently had no complaint. After the entry was failed though, there was a lot more comment. In no particular order, it's been described as: 'woofff', 'would annoy me', 'wouldn't offend me', 'fine', 'sexism had nothing to do with it', 'didn't insult womankind in general', 'makes me grin', 'amusing and not at all offensive', 'lése majesté', 'clever and not at all offensive', 'not sexist or offensive', 'not clear whether it is sexist', 'maybe it actually was [name]'s time of the month?', 'nasty and downright rude', 'I would not have been insulted', 'didn't make a great impact on my butterfly mind', 'worthy of inclusion', 'put a bona-fide insult into the public domain', 'ironic and oblique', 'not sexist, yes offensive', 'not one of the funniest things he's written'.

It's also been commented on by those who've never actually seen it. I'm not quite sure how this works, but can only guess that an advanced race of alien empaths is living among us as researchers. I Think We Should Be Told².

And the Editors had a harsher view?

I don't know to what extent opinion amongst the Editors might vary, but Mark Moxon and the 'h2g2 Editors' persona have on h2g2 described my paragraph as 'throwing sexist comments around h2g2', 'offensive to women', 'personal', 'offensive', 'rude', 'sexist', 'insult', and 'abuse'. You can't fault their thesaurus.

And you?

Myself, I reckoned that it was rude, but not offensively rude or personally insulting, and certainly not sexist or abusive. I'm probably biased though - I can only suggest that you judge for yourself. Radical, I know.

So you're immune from charges of sexism because you have a female name.

Scarely. Woman can be sexist too, and I'm still a genetic male. However, I'm not sexist, the particular paragraph I wrote was not intended to be sexist, and I do not think it could reasonably be interpreted as sexist. If a flood of people read what I wrote and tell me that it definately was sexist, then I'll accept that - but that's not the impression I'm getting so far.

Ok, so you do accept that it's rude, though not other things - why didn't you just swallow your pride and apologise?

I'm not averse to apologies in general - I apologised to Playboy Reporter after the 'intelligence' incident, for example. But in this case I decided not to, for a variety of reasons:

• The Editors have gained a reputation, deserved or undeserved, for rarely apologising, and I felt it was a little contrary for them to suddenly start praising the virtues of saying sorry.
• Apologies typically imply guilt, and I felt that I had done nothing to be ashamed of.
• I felt there were elements of 'apologise or else' in the Editors tone, though I had no idea what 'else' might represent.

Any apology I gave in such circumstances would have been insincere, and an insincere apology would have been an insult to everyone concerned. That's simply not compatible with my sense of honour.

That's a pretty hard line to take.

Perhaps. I did offer to apologise in exchange for an apology from the Editors, which I hoped would build a bridge of sorts. The offer was ignored, and I was suspended. The Editors, apparently, had no choice in the matter.

Surely such sarcasm doesn't really help the cause of h2g2? Pretty childish stuff, really.

Being childish is certainly an accusation that's been levelled before, and I don't doubt that it will be levelled again. However, humour is the last refuge for criticism, after all others have fallen. If I felt that constructive criticism was genuinely welcomed, then I would give that criticism. I did not, so I retreated to satire.

On the other hand, if you can't change a policy, at least you can subvert it to raise a chuckle or wry smile. I feel it's important not to take either h2g2, or discussions of h2g2 policy, too seriously. Or indeed anything - though that's kind of drifting from the topic.

The topic being how terribly hard done by you are, presumably? Woe is Martin.

I'm not looking for sympathy - a week's absence from h2g2 is scarcely inprisonment, after all. But I do feel that being retrospectively punished for a change of policy more than two months later is unjust. And I do feel that any group that desires total protection from personal criticism would do well to avoid making personal criticism of others.

Yes, I reckon it's fair to say that I feel pretty shabbily treated overall. Just the way I've experienced events.

And if you were in charge you'd have handled it perfectly, I suppose.

20/20 hindsight is a tremendous blessing, isn't it? But yes, I would have done things differently. I'd have changed the house rules first and starting suspending people later, and that way I'd probably not have needed to suspend anyone. Consider the way that discussion on UK politics was banned, for example - it worked extremely well, and people had no problems sticking to the rule, even if they disagreed with the rule itself. It would be the same with a rule against personal criticism. Researchers have no problems doing what they're told - it's the telepathy aspects of h2g2 which are tricky.

But I'm not in charge, so it's rather irrelevant.

Aren't you being a bit of a rules-lawyer? The letter of the rules might not have banned personal criticism of Italics, but it was pretty plain that it wasn't desired. What about the spirit of the rules?

A while back, the Italics desired that people spent more time on the Edited Guide, and less on the 'fluffy' aspects of h2g2, and there were plenty of people who happilly ignored those desires. I wouldn't ever like to be some kind of slave who bows to the every whim of the Editors. If it's in the rules or an official ruling, so that I have to do it (or not do it), then I'll do it. Otherwise, I believe I'm allowed to do whatever the heck I like: it's called freedom.

If personal criticism is against the spirit of the rules, then all I can do is express amazement that the rules can imply that personal criticism of the italics is tolerated one month, and the exact same words are an offence worthy of suspension next month. It's not as if I'm exploiting some kind of loophole here. It's not as if this is a universal stance adopted by all websites, either.

At the end of the day, if the rules aren't clear, that's the responsibility of the person or people who wrote the rules (whoever they might be). Loads of other people have made personal criticisms of one form or another over the lifetime of h2g2 - is it likely that every one of them has completely misunderstood the rules? Or is it more likely that the rules are not as clear as they could be?

So if h2g2 is so terrible, why don't you just leave and be done with it?

Well, I've got a stake in the site now, so I'm not going to up sticks and move away over something as trivial as this. I'm afraid that the same 'stickiness' that the BBC are so proud of also means that those who might otherwise walk away without a second thought take a little time to disentangle themselves.

But even so, I've no desire to leave h2g2. There are lots of different things on h2g2, and even if some of them are less enjoyable today, others are just as enjoyable as they ever were, and some are even more so. Why would I leave something which continues to bring me happiness?

What was that?

A line in the entry. It's like a line in the sand, but virtual. And not in sand. So not terribly like a line in the sand at all, to be fair.

And there are three of them.

Leave the pedantry to me, if you don't mind. Anyway, I just wanted to signify the change in focus of the entry at this point - rather than dwelling on the gory details of the past, to look to the future and a new start on h2g2. I'll still be talking about the past a little, but the focus will be a little different. You'll like it.

Shouldn't there be some sort of header for that then?

Oh very well.

Topic Drift

That do you?

It'll have to. So, what about the future then?

Well first I just want to express my regret. I'm sorry that such utter trivia has caused so much hassle on h2g2. I'm sorry that the Editors felt they had no alternative but to ban me. And I'm sorry that the person I named took such offence. I won't take any blame for that, but I am sorry to see anyone feeling upset and abused, whoever they might be.

I'd also like to say thanks to a variety of people. To those who supported me in my actions. To those who were brave enough to give their honest opinions, especially critical ones. To those who helped cool passions and build bridges while I was away. To the person I named, for saying that had I made the same comment in person it would not have offended them. To the Italics, and indeed all the BBC staff who support h2g2, for making all this possible. It's easy to forget that without them there would be nothing here but fields.

Talking of clean slates, I'd like to offer my forgiveness to those people who I've bristled at in recent times. I forgive the Italics for all those things which I've felt unhappy about. In particular I want to give them my personal forgiveness for banning LeKZ. I still don't like what happened back then, but time moves on, and I won't carry that grudge any further. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it ends here. I still care for LeKZ, and I still hope that one day I will be able to speak to her here again. Some day.

I'd also like to forgive all those who've said nasty words about me, and some of my friends, because we are 'vocal'. However much I laugh off such criticism, it all makes its mark somewhere. Well, I'm sure all these people have their reasons, and I'd like to forgive them for such words. In my turn, I'd like to apologise for any accusations of sheeplike behaviour - nobody on h2g2 is a slave to the mob: this is an intelligent community, and should be recognised as such.

Suspended for six days from h2g2. Forgiven. Tomorrow, it'll be forgotten. And the world will be a better place for it, I hope. My love to everyone who actually read this far. :)

Very 'fluffy', I see.

We live in interesting times. For now, I'd like to put this ugly incident behind us, and into the history of h2g2 where it belongs. Hopefully this entry will help, not hinder, that aim. The future, I believe, is over there somewhere, waiting to be written. See you there. Unless, of course, you prefer it here...

-Martin³, Lucinda⁴, myre⁵, MyRedDice⁶, and Xanthia⁷

</unsubscribe>