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

Ooohhhh ... smoothe move there! Nope, no repressiveness here whatsoever! Ahhh well ... Can't these people handle just a leetle beet of criticism? Come on, we've been calling people a few names, but no mortal wounds have been inflicted yet!!! And we are actually talking about some matters that are very necessary to talk about!

attempted summary of the thread so far.

some of the decision making at the towers in this case is still not clear.

at least one ex-ace has confirmed that aces were being pointed at certain entries, and some of the aces seem to have been unable to refrain from replying in a heated manner.

playboy has demonstrated some of the problem of trying to talk about certain subjects, and the heated, deliberately off topic style of posts that caused some of the perceived problem.

I think that this at least gives us some room for discussion of what measures need to be taken to minimise the negative effects of some of these problems.

my personal view is that the unclarity by the towers can best be handled with a more open attitude, but the closure of the moderation help desk seems to preclude this.

I think the heated, of topic posts can best be handled by actually enforcing the anti-trolling and anti-flaming rules.

I think the "pointing aces at people" problem can best be dealt with either by the people doing the pointing in the egroup refraining from pointing, or by the aces being a little less heated in their responses.

Also, heated pronouncements from aces, while having no more validity than heated pronouncements from a relative newcomer, appear to have the stamp of h2g2 approval, until you know how the ace system works. perhaps not including ace, scout, etc in your nickname would partially resolve this problem.

Any other suggestions, or parts of the summary that I have missed?

The crust of the biscuit is this: The h2g2 community and its editors are having a problem with moderation.

Decisions by the moderators are being hotly disputed. Arpeggio's ban has been the hottest issue so far, and it's inspired other decisions which the vocal minority has actively contested.

Unfortunately, some of the minority are unable to restrain themselves from making personal and hurtful comments about the moderators. Hence the closing of the moderation desk.

The closing bothers me, because I thought that the discussion of moderation and other related issues were, for the most part, being discussed coherently and reasonably. I thought we could act like adults. I'd rather that it remained open - if only we could guarantee that everyone would behave!

Why are the moderators receiving so much flak? 1) Not enough people, not enough time. With a limited staff, they have to browse through pages and pages of data every day. Their task is to find offensive material and remove it - you can guarantee that they'll err on the side of caution. 2) Kill the messenger. The less mature among us are blaming the moderators, when the real culprit is the BBC's legal restrictions.

More later...

I have to wonder about the timing.

I mean, closing the moderation help desk on the same day that every entry containing a link to FoLKZ gets hidden...

It could just be coincidental timing.

I have a couple of questions about the "moderation" of the FoLKZ group - I don't see how it contravenes the house rules.

1. It is not a URL. It does not link to a website. Therefore it cannot be an "offensive website" as the House Rules describe. It requires subscription to another service, and therefore different "house rules" apply should someone choose to take part.

2. The only concern expressed in the House Rules about email addresses regard offensive addresses and the risk of receiving excessive mail.

To the first point: "[URL removed by moderator]" is not offensive. "FoLKZ" and its expanded form "Friends of LeKZ" are not offensive. Unless you are upset by friendship...

To the second point: I am aware of the risk of large quantities of messages. Actually, quite a number of people have signed up, and there is a large volume of messages daily. *I'm GLAD!* That's the whole reason for posting it in the first place!

This decision has baffled (and indeed upset) me. No doubt the Italics will rest the decision on some catch-all clause that allows absolute discretion over what is posted.

Goodbye vibrant community, hello petty dictatorship.

Cheers,
Rob - mourning the old h2g2

I just had the URL of the topila website removed from my page - it seems that h2g2 has looked at the whole of topica, and judged it unsuitable. I'm wondering if I should let the topica webadmins know that the BBC believes they are a corrupting influence in this evil, evil world...

Ho hum.

> "Unfortunately, some of the minority are unable to restrain themselves from making personal and hurtful comments about the moderators. Hence the closing of the moderation desk."

I don't think that's the reason - it's not the one they've given on the helpdesk itself, certainly. Seems more like they're just too busy...

*lost for words at the removal of links to Topica and F****




***B

Here's what I got:


"It's BBC policy to not link to or direct users towards sites that contain content that users may find offensive, defamatory or otherwise objectionable."

And yet, the first entry in this thread contains both the X post and the "translation" of the X post. A lot of this thread seems to be dedicated to the question of which of those two is offensive, defamatory or otherwise objectionable. There seems to be general agreement that one of the two is all of those things.

Does the move to close the moderation help desk, therby refusing to publically explain any future moderation decisions, concern anyone else? The moderators work load will have to increase as a result of this move, since nobody will be able to look at other conversations and see similar situations.

Oh yeah, one more thing. The reason given for the removal of my first entry was:

"It has been removed on the grounds that it contains content that other readers may find offensive."

The reason for the removal of my second entry was:

"It's BBC policy to not link to or direct users towards sites that contain content that users may find offensive, defamatory or otherwise objectionable."

I'm not going to say that rules are changing on the fly to suit actions. Interpretations are. I'm sure that I could spend 15 minutes looking at the personal space of a few users and find at least 5 occasions where there is a link or direction towards a site that contains content that I find offensive, defamatory or otherwise objectionable.

I got pretty much the same thing as Not Banned Yet, except for the "...defamatory or otherwise objectionable" bit when my userpage was hidden. (For those of you just tuning in, I – in the interests of providing an opportunity for open and free discussion involving all parties to this 'lifetime suspension' situation – had put up a link (as had others) (for days) to .

The result was that my entire userpage (as was others) was hidden at about the same time as the Moderation Help Desk was eliminated. Coincidence? Hmmm...

I appreciate xyroth's summary of this thread so far, as I have been fiddling with the same thing in my head myself. (The rest of you in my head, go away) (Oops: a tasteless MP joke – good thing it's only fake...)



Ok. When I signed on, about a month and a half ago, I was excited to find what appeared to be an open, self-regulating writers' forum/workshop/whathaveyou in which I could fearlessly participate. I had assumed, evidently incorrectly, that such a place would be familiar with the vagaries of the artistic temperment. I find myself still hoping that is indeed the case, and I have every expectation things will work out so.

What I have found, currently, is the *apparent* designation of some researchers as being too 'high-maintenance' and the seeming (pardon the glibness) 'harassment' of those researchers. If the XXX'd-out post was interpreted as being far too offensive for the poster to remain, why have other, equally offensive postings stuck around like dog doo on my shoe? Case in point: I have personally been reviled – in this very thread – as a mindless, brainwashed sycophant, and the validity of my family member's struggles with ED and SI dismissed as hogwash. Thank goodness that my opinion of the US Democratic Party as right-wing hasn't leaked out to certain Sir Oswald
Mosley-wannabes...



So it seems to me that we have an opportunity (obligation?) here to discuss not so much the banning of researchers who ran afoul of the PTB, but rather concerns regarding the consistant application of the House Rules. (Aside: Has anyone else noticed the recent appearance of an "Updated On..." header on the rules page? To me this would imply frequent and forthcoming updates. Again: hmmmmm...) Without the open forum of the Help Desk, we obviously have to invite the PTB to discuss this with us here. To that end, I would repectfully request all participants in this thread to herewith refrain from name-calling and speculations regarding anyone's ancestry or the legitimacy of their parents' union.

(One of the biggest problems I've noticed as I learn more and more about this computer thingie is the speed with which ill-thought comments can careen through the cosmos. I have never seen so many hurtful things tossed off so blithly and responded to so bitterly in such a blazingly-fast fashion in my life: and I have chosen to live my life in a career rife with prima donnas of every stripe imaginable. Slow down, please. If someone offends you, think about it for a while before lashing out. Jeezlouise...)

(For example: the above tasteless MP "joke" was a carefully-considered comment on anyone who dismisses the existence of such conditions – not anyone 'suffering' from it. This distinction could be missed if reacted to with haste.)



Finally, a thing I have just wondered is this: whose idea was it for the BBC to absorb H2G2? Did we go to them for help, or did they come in and take over, hoping to cash in on the marketability of DNA's name? Knowing who zoomed who could make a big difference in interpreting some of the things going and not going on around here.

Also, as I understand it, this changeover only happened about three months ago, so it's perfectly understandable that the transition would be covered with speed bumps and potholes. There's no way to avoid that. Again I advise patience, tolerance and understanding. And, of course above all: consistancy in the application of the rules.



Thanks once again for your time. See some of you in the back in the barracoon.

-7rob7, who doesn't jabber often, but, boy, when ze gets going...

I am now in an invidious position. I feel in large part responsible for the events of the last 48 hours. Reasons:

1. The only two posts (297 & 298) on this extremely long thread which have been removed were written by me. Someone else yikesed them. They stayed up. I found out, yikesed them myself, and they were taken down. Was this seen as time-wasting?

2. The FoLKZ links were there in the first place because I asked for them. I complained loudly somewhere (can't remember where) that people were obviously discussing this matter somewhere else and quoting information from there. Specifically they were obviously discussing *me. I said that was unfair. The response I received was that Lucinda found and posted a link to that conversation (*very* promptly, I might add). For that I was grateful. Things said about me there when I first went weren't nice. The conversation there has since moved on from its initial "flame" stage to something more constructive. I have also received more than satisfactory apologies from all concerned - enough said. However - the link to FoLKZ was initially provided at my request, so I feel responsible for having "caused trouble".

I find the sequence of events, and the timing, disturbing. The more so because it coincides with a short personal email correspondence between myself and two italics, initiated by them - details unimportant at this time. I am a serious sceptic of conspiracy theories, but the sequence of events here has taken a turn for the sinister, almost. I think I'm probably reading far too much into it, and I should just get out into the sun.

I did say I was going to leave this thread. So sue me. I've a sense of responsibility for some of the things I've said. I wanted to draw line under this and go off and write comedy entries about made-up martial arts (see Peer Review). Now more stuff happens that could be construed as at least partly my fault. Oops. So here I am again, blathering on. If everything goes as it should I'll be able to post my final message on this thread within seven days. If not - well, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.

H

Listen Hoovooloo, don't be so hard on yourself. You're not the first person here to have been particularly badly plagued by misunderstandings, you know!

Hi Grief. Yeah, I know. Look at it from my point of view:
1. There's an interesting conversation here. I weigh in.
2. It becomes obvious I'm being talked about elsewhere.
3. I complain and ask to be fully informed.
4. My request is granted.
5. Conversation continues.
6. Request-granters start getting their personal spaces "disappeared" for allowing *me* (and others, I know, but I think I asked first) the courtesy of finding out what's being said.

There were comments at FoLKZ about me which were nasty, some justified, others not. The point here is that if I hadn't had that link I would have had no way to defend myself against those critics. I WANTED that link. I KNEW (or at least had fairly clear idea) what to expect. I was right.

I now pose an open question to anyone interested enough to answer it. I'm telling you that (hypothetically) there is a place, somewhere on the internet, where RIGHT NOW, in real time, a bunch of people, mostly H2G2 researchers, are discussing YOU and comments you've made here in unflattering terms. For five points do you:
(a) want to know where it is RIGHT NOW to find out what's being said about you so that you can formulate a rebuttal OR do you
(b) want H2G2 and Auntie Beeb to wrap you up in cotton wool and protect your delicate ego from the big, bad world?

Five bonus points to anyone with the strength of character to answer:

(c) I simply don't give a stuff, I'm off to do something more fun.

H

Two observations.
1. Hands up anyone interested who hasn't already got everything they need bookmarked.

2. Hands up anyone who complained about there BEING a link, rather than there NOT being a link.

Anyone with their hand up to "2." - I asked for that link because I could tell I was being insulted "behind my back". When I got it, I read what was said about me, I made a case for my defence where applicable, received satisfactory apologies all round, and everything's fine. I haven't changed my mind about some of the substantive issues, but everyone who had a problem with me (I think...) has apologies and now respects my right to a different opinion to theirs.

It's far too late to do anything about this now, I suspect. But I still think it's worth pointing out that explaining was for me at least a more constructive course than complaining. It's a shame that that course has now involved the moderation of some researcher's home spaces.

We Apologise For The Inconvenience.

H

Hey, HVL! (Do you mind if I call you that? I'm pretty sure I'll make another spelling error if I try to write the whole thing out!)

Just wanted to give your previous posts my "two thumbs up"

While we may not often agree about everything, I have *huge* amounts of respect for people who try to deal with problems in a rational and constructive manner.


Mikey

HVL's fine (it seems to be the accepted shorthand for me now anyhoo (anyhoovooloo? ))

Hi, Hoovooloo!
I didn't complain about there being a link, but I considered doing so. I had no problem with the original mesages on rob whatever's space, asking interested people to join an e-group. It seems a perfectly reasonable idea. Fro myself, I still feel enough of an interest to monitor this thread and linked ones, but I'm certainly not going to register for any egroup.

Lucinda's link was a different kettle of fish - it was to a webpage where anyone could read all the egroup messages. This led to a situation where a number of people (including yourself) seemed to be carrying on conversations with the FoLKZ group, posting here and reading the answers there. I think this is a bad idea, when the terms and conditions of the two places are so different. In your case, this seems to have worked out okay, but Playboy Reporter sounding off here about what he had read there certainly didn't help the overall situation. I have no idea what the italics think about this, but to me it had a rather farcical resemblance to barring somone from a pub and then letting people have long shouted conversations with them out the window.

So to answer your question, I didn't complain, but I did (mentally) object.

Azara

Azara, I'm a bit confused by your post. If your problem was with Playboy Reporter's postings here about the FoLKZ list, I would think you would object to his postings rather than the link to the list. He was given the option of joining the list and responding to comments there, as HVL did, but chose instead to post out-of-context quotes from the list here on this thread. I'm not entirely sure why this would be the fault of Lucinda's posting the link.


Mikey

Lentilla,

"...Hence the closing of the moderation desk."

I've been looking around for some "official" word on why the moderation helpdesk was closed or moved. Can you direct me to any threads or pages where h2g2 staff have discussed this?

Thanks.