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

Two swift responses to Azara:
1. Lucinda's link was valuable to me because I had no intention of joining the group either. I have assiduously cultivated my anonymity, and joining would have involved giving an email address (I know I could set up a dummy address, I can't be bothered. Nor can I be bothered to work out how to use something called an "anonymous remailer"). I answered here because everyone can read what I've said here. It's a good job I did, because *everyone* can still read all my contributions here, in one place (except 297/298, and belive me you're missing nothing constructive). My approach of remaining absolutely anonymous could pan out to have other benefits, of which more in the next seven days.

2. "Playboy Reporter sounding off here about what he had read there certainly didn't help the overall situation". Think about that. Is that the fault of the link? The people who publicised it? The people who posted to the "other" conversation? PR's free to sound off *there* if he doesn't mind giving an email address. I of all people will understand if he doesn't. But surely the constructiveness or otherwise of his "sounding off" posts here is entirely down to him, isn't it?

The analogy of the pub is a good one, to the point that I'm going to steal it off you and try to extend it

For me, it's like being in a pub. I come in, and there's an angry dispute with the landlord going on between a bunch of friends of a person who's already been barred before I turned up. One or two of the group make dignified statements and leave. A few more make loud threats to leave. I spend 30 hours working out what's going on before feeling qualified interject. I point out that since the pub has, at the last count, about 85000 customers, a few leaving won't make a tap of difference. I also make a few other statements. I work out that that someone in the group that remains is chatting to the banned person and a few others on a mobile conference call, and talking about me. I ask for the number, so somebody writes it on the wall in chalk. I call up, hear myself called a few things, defend myself in the pub and get apologised to.

Now the landlord has scrubbed out the blackboard. He doesn't have the technology to jam the mobile phones of the people who already have the number. What he can do is stop anyone else finding out the number. Or try, at least. And potentially, at least, chuck out anyone who persists in using their mobile.

Straining an analogy until it screams for mercy....

H

To anyone,

Is there any possibility that "defamatory" messages might have been exhibited on that email group website?

Would a statement about two people who are "Nothing a few garrotings wouldn't fix" qualify as "defamatory" or just a quasi-humorous threat of violence? Maybe just offensive. [Never mind, that was a different message board anyhow.]

Hi, Mikey!
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
First, of course I had a problem with Playboy Reporter's postings, which seemed to insult a lot of people and generally just stir up trouble. So, yes, I did object to them in themselves, without reference to anything else.

As far as the links are concerned, I was thinking back to earlier, general h2g2 discussions on 'lurking' and on how private conversations on h2g2 can be. My feeling was (and still is) that h2g2 conversations, with copyright and a permanent record held by the BBC, are inevitably public. I would expect that people would say a lot of things in private email that they wouldn't say here.

The first reference I saw to the FoLKZ list was on Almighty Rob's page, and my recollection is that it was an invitation to people worried about Arpeggio's being banned, to people worried about moderation, and to people worried about a cult of the italics. I don't belong to any of those categories, so I certainly wouldn't join, and I assumed that people on that private email list might voice their opinions more freely than they would here. When I saw Lucinda's link, I thought that some at least of the group might have thought that they were having a private conversation among friends rather than the same kind of publicly and permanently accessible record that you get on h2g2.

I've spent years hanging around Usenet, and one thing I've seen there is that cross-posting between groups with different underlying assumptions leads to all kinds of flame wars and annoyance. So to me, Lucinda's link seemed to be setting up a cross-posting situation, which makes insulting posts like Playboy Reporter's much more likely.

Mind you, I didn't feel very strongly about this - not strongly enough to post! The only reaslon I brought it up now was that Hoovooloo asked whether anyone had complained about the link, and I replied that, while I hadn't complained, I had to some extent objected.

Azara

To anyone,

Yes, undoubtedly. The point is, if there's something defamatory about YOU there, wouldn't you rather *see* it? Isn't that freedom of information? Knowledge is power?

Before the link, I had no knowledge, no power to defend myself against the defamations there (since I wasn't prepared to sacrifice my anonymity - still not). One of the things that wound me up about that was that that was exactly what LeKZ was complaining about - people were discussing her here and she couldn't reply. But I got a link to the conversation. I gained power. I defended position. That situation is sorted to my (and I think others') satisfaction. Others have chosen not to take my approach. That's their choice.

But given the choice, I'll take the information, thanks. You don't HAVE to follow the link, and the disinterested observer in unlikely to find anything which upsets them. IMHO.

Enough for now.

H
Still sitting in the corner of the pub, listening to my mobile and nursing a pint.

Hi, Subcom!

If you put the word 'garrottings' into the forum search engine, you'll find an old post from LeKZ which includes the words
'nothing wrong here
(that a couple quiet garrottings wouldnt fix)'
Since it is still showing, and if it was ever yikes-ed it's now back up again, I don't think those words in themselves were considered defamatory or offensive. Interestingly enough, the same poem contains the phrase 'dysfunctional family away from home'.

Azara

NBY see your space.

PS Re: Post 424 "Others"<>"LeKZ". "Others"="PR".

Still in the pub and fully aware of the irony, in fact pointing it out to others as often as possible....

H.

Well, since my link to topica has been hidden yet again, I can only assume that this is squack behaviour that has been explicitly sanctioned from On High. I hope they have a good explanation when they return, I really do.

I posted the relevant sections of the house rules. The FoLKZ list on topica contains nothing that is racist, sexist, pornographic, commercial, blah, blah, or blah. As far as I can see, it doesn't breach the house rules. Perhaps I missed something. Indeed do many things come to pass.

People have explained to me why posting that link may have been wise - I accept that viewpoint, Azara et al, though I think I made the right decision. Yet there is nothing in the house rules which states that being stupid is worthy of your home space being hidden. Just as well, or I'd never manage to post anything...

--

If I am banned, think only this of me - there is some corner of some foreign field, that is forever moderated...

Hoovooloo -

A wonderful metaphor. Please allow me to slip you some chalk through the window.

Perhaps you have an answer or idle speculation on a question I posed earlier re: the BBC 'union' with H2G2. My wondering is as follows:

If h2g2 was in serious danger of packing it in – and I gather that was the case – and actively sought out the BBC for salvation, then it seems 'reasonable' that the editors would be thought of as bending over backwards, sideways and every which way to keep the boat from rocking. (Hmmm – visually, a self-defeating analogy if ever I came up with one...)

On the other hand, if the BBC came to h2g2 in order to gain something for itself (either tangible or intangible), then the perception that the PTB are being forced to jump through higher-up's hoops could be construed as a little less than viable.

Each scenario probably has something to contribute to reality, but understanding more about possible motivations behind the editors' decisions could lead to deciphering the apparent capriciousness in the enforcement of the Rules.

Thanks.

-7rob7

>>On the other hand, if the BBC came to h2g2 in order to gain something for itself (either tangible or intangible), then the perception that the PTB are being forced to jump through higher-up's hoops could be construed as a little less than viable.<<

Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Even if the BBC was all aquiver at the idea of taking over h2g2, I'd hazard a guess that there was nothing forcing them to maintain the staff instead of replacing it with 'safer' choices of their own once the deal was done.

I'm just speculating, but perhaps this is some sort of experiment for the BBC. Maybe they don't want to mess with a system that more-or-less works, but still want to cover their butts. And maybe the BBC trusts Mark and Peta to do their best to do that job, because they've put their hearts into this place.

Maybe the BBC doesn't want to risk turning the site over to some corporate boot lickers who might decide it's safest (read job security) to make h2g2 a nice, tame, noncontroversial haven for people who find soap operas or the local pub to be overstimulating. And maybe that's sometimes why we don't get the answers or responses we want when we want them , because once the PTB set a policy through words or action, it becomes awkward to redirect and still maintain people's respect for their authority.

Yet another opinion, courtesy of
MoG

>And maybe that's sometimes why we don't get the answers or responses >we want when we want them , because once the PTB set a policy >through words or action, it becomes awkward to redirect and still >maintain people's respect for their authority.

I just want to throw in one more opinion here. In my experience, people who admit mistakes and take corrective action gain respect rather than losing it. The PTB are people. I'm a people, too. If I've made a mistake, I 'fess up and try not to make it again. I've found that this has never hurt anybody else's opinion of me. My RL boss has my respect because he's chosen the same philosophy in his management style.

I respect that too, both at work and in my personal relationships. I don't trust people who won't admit to making mistakes.

One thing I've noticed that's a little different in a place like this though, is that once you've done something onsite, it's more complicated than IRL to let people know that you've made a mistake and want to change direction. People unsubscribe from threads, pick them up without looking at the backlog, see bits and chunks without even necessarily even knowing that there might be more to a situation than meets the eye. It's a lot harder to keep things in context.

Once opinions are formed, there's really no way of knowing for sure that other people have even seen that a change of direction has taken place. I think damage control might be more difficult. So perhaps it's not always a bad choice to exersize restraint.

Well, I have to agree that, had a little restraint been exercised, things would be a lot different here than they are now.

Are you suggesting that The PTB, even if they believed they had made a mistake, should never admit to it?

No. I'm not in a position to say what they should or shouldn't do. It's their job, not mine.

I am saying that people in general, not just the PTB specifically, will sometimes get better results through exersizing restraint than through acting rashly or under the influence of strong emotions.

Hoovooloo,

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, or paranoid corporate lawyers' advocate. On most any other online community, it would make sense to allow URLs and email groups to be mentioned by users. But when there's the faintest whiff of possibility that someone could be defamed on that email group, even if you're the one being defamed, then BBC would want to limit their perceived liability by removing the link.

I wouldn't have yikesed the link either. I'm just saying in an atmosphere where the words to Happy Birthday are seen as copyright infringement, where mentioning the full name of a real life friend of yours is seen as giving out too much personal info, then it makes sense that they would over-react to a link to possibly defamatory statements. Not saying they're right, just saying they consistently err on the side of caution when it comes to censorship decisions.

(I didn't mean anything hostile towards you when I replied and wrote "To anyone" a few posts back. I just wanted to ask that question of anyone reading this, and didn't want to start a new conversation thread for it. Sorry if it seemed weird.)

Hi Azara,

It's funny, I didn't know the phrase "nothing a few quiet garrottings couldn't fix" was used on h2g2 as well. I read it on the n2g2 yahoo forum a week or two ago. The subject of who needed garrotting seemed clearer in that n2g2 version.

The phrase doesn't seem especially offensive in and of itself. But if Zaphodistas get censored for posting a vague ASCII image of a soldier aiming a rifle [later allowed to post a version with a sunflower in the end of the rifle, see A520769], then this joking threat "a few quiet garrottings" would seem to merit similar treatment.

Hi Subcom. I actually didn't read anything hostile into the open question, I've done it myself (see above) - I just figured it was your way of saying "I'm not just talking to this guy Hoovooloo, I'd be interested in an answer from anyone who cares...".

I *begin* to see what you mean. Since they've no way of moderating what's said over there, they've no control etc. But my *opinion* (and remember, I'm not a lawyer) is this: IF I were defamed on that other website, IF nothing I could do here (or there if I chose to use it) would elicit an apology, IF what was said there was truly defamatory (i.e. fulfilled the legal definition, rather than being petty name-calling) and IF I decided to make a legal case out of it...

Surely, the BBC have nothing whatever to worry about? Nothing defamatory about me here, on the BBC site. Open information about where another conversation is going on merely allows me the courtesy of checking whether I'm being defamed somewhere else - that's practically providing a news service... If I am, surely the first place I go would be to the people defaming me (who make no secret of their RL identities), and failing that to the provider of the webspace where the defamation takes place. If I failed there, I'd feel on very shaky ground going to a court and saying "Well, yes, your honour, technically the BBC have nothing defamatory to say about me. Come to that, neither does a single person on their service. But they told me where to look!" Shoot the messenger?

Personally, I'd see that as analagous to blaming the BBC for an upsetting programme put out by Channel 4. It has absolutely nothing to do with them whatever, but the Radio Times (the BBC TV listings magazine) and BBC teletext told me what channel the programme would be on, and when. Is it the BBC's fault, then, if what I see upsets me? Or is it the producer and Channel 4's fault? Open question to anyone who feels like answering...

H.
Pectoral muscles bulging like a couple of sides of beef from all the strenuous stretching of analogies I've been doing...

7rob7

Credit for the pub thing goes to Azara, I just nicked it 'cos it sounded good and I could see more in it. And you've no need to pass chalk through the window, bud, you're obviously still in the pub. OK, you seem to have spent quite a bit of time on your mobile lately, but you're still here.

The interesting thing now is that not only has the landlord rubbed out the number, you're not even allowed to write "Vodaphone" on the chalkboard anymore, in case someone goes out and gets a Vodaphone and calls directory inquiries. I'm forced to wonder what the proprietors of Vodaphone would think of being "officially" classed as undesirable by the landlord, and by implication by the brewery. Isn't *that* tantamount to defamation against Vodaphone..?

Hoovooloo.
Sitting in my workshop designing a machine to take all the work out of stretching analogies.

(DISCLAIMER AND EXPLANATION FOR NON-UK RESIDENTS: Vodaphone is one of the four main mobile phone service providers in the UK, along with Orange, BT Cellnet and One2One. Use of the Vodaphone name is arbitrary and not intended to imply endorsement of their service - it just sounded better to me in the context of the above blather.)

*sitting in the garden of the pub, having a quick with a and some to follow...* *gets up, leans in through the window to say her piece* This question of just what the Beeb think they have got with h2g2 and what they intend to do with it is one which has been exercising me a lot recently. Waz started a thread on the subject a couple of days ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=130228&skip=0&show=20 I know some of you know about this thread, because you have posted there *waves vaguely at Diedzoeb through the window* It includes some interesting comments by Mark which I copied there from another thread about the battles the Italics had with the Powers Behind the Towers when the beeb first bought h2g2. I found his comments reassuring (about the Italics) and disturbing (about the Beeb). *hiccups gently* *waves drink vaguely at everyone in pub* *goes back to sit in the garden* *unsubcribes - again* a lurker called Ben

The same standards aren't aplied to linked URLs as the rest of the BBC - for example, you can link to sites which use the word fxxk without censorship, and you can link to sites which allow URLs in forums. You can link to sites which link to sites which link to sites which are pornographic - after all, there is an average of about six links between any two webpages anywhere, so it's just as well.

I've just been moderated (again!) for providing the subscription email to FoLKZ - that is, an email address which is NOT a website. I don't see why this should be moderated just because of the replies you might get - after all, I can give people my email as [email protected], and not everything I write by email is in accordance with BBC guidelines...

MoG, Believe it or not, I tend to agree with you there. Feel free to lurk http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F71728?thread=130763