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

Translation update: about a thousand years ago I took a copy of the message which got LeKZ banned (the one with all the XXXX's in it - see post 1 of this thread) and gave it to a friend to see if they could make any sense of it as a completely, unquestionably impartial observer (by the time I'd read enough to feel ready to comment here I felt I'd disqualified myself as impartial by virtue of having too much context).

While there is still no result, I am happy to report that he has finally got his finger out and started. I know this because I had two emails from him today. Bear in mind he has no idea where I got the message, what it's about or has any other context than what I've described elsewhere.
First message I got was as follows:
--------------------------
"I am 'decoding' the message at the moment. It is getting quite interesting.
Have just worked out that it is talking about a couple of people(Hank and Tina?) will keep at it."
--------------------------
I suppressed a chuckle at that - Hank and Tina! Then the following came through...
-------------------------
"I am getting a bit worried about this decode thing if my decoding is
correct!!!! Some weird stuff in it - either that or my mind is weird. Is the f word used in any connotations in the message - just to get the level of the thing?"
-------------------------
I want to give as few clues as possible to the content of the message. If this message is vile an appalling enough to actually ban someone for life over, then surely an intelligent person will be able to see it for that without any clues. So I responded thus...
-------------------------
"Yes, there's weird stuff in it - and yes, your mind is weird but we both knew that before anyway! . I don't want to say a lot about it. Just do the best you can to get what you can out of it. I'll tell you the whole story behind it when you're satisfied you've decoded as much as you can.
Thanks for doing this..."
-------------------------
And signed off.
More news as and when my mate can be bothered. Grrr.

H.

The 'limited freedom of reply' comment was not a joke.

They have signed confidentiality agreements with the beeb, and they have signed the standard employment agreements which say you cannot slag off or defame your employer.

So they cannot say "arbitration is a heap of steaming dog s**t which smears itself on your feet spreading its slime wherever you go; the English-language-only rule is the creation of a self-serving, entrenched and masturbatory bunch of ill-educated isolationists; and the BBC itself is self-regarding, myopic, culturally arrogant, intellectually stangnant, and politically subservient with no clear vision or mission" even if they think those things (which I do).

So yes - they do have more limited freedom of speech than we do, regardless of any technological 'advantages' they may have.

*feeling much better for getting that off my chest, but still foaming at the mouth slightly*

a ranter called Ben

That was a reply to posting 599, btw - and not entirely random and contextless.

I have never been bothered to visit FoLKZ though I am in occasional email contact with LeKZ. As with most people, I like her for the things we agree about and I respect her for the things we differ on.

***B

I'm not sure they've signed away the right to free speech to the extent you think they have. I am speaking from a point of view of almost complete ignorance, having never seen an Italic's employment contract, but I would guess the following:

1. They are NOT allowed to actually defame the BBC, which is to say they are not allowed to post scurrilous, licentious, untrue or other information which may constitute defamation of the corporation.

2. They are not allowed to post such information about anyone else, as they are BBC employees and doing so could potentially bring the corporation into disrepute and/or expose it to lawsuits. (I'm personally thinking that there are probably a number of violations of that rule, if it exists, still up on this site...)

3. They *are* allowed to express opinions, even opinions about the BBC, as long as it is made clear that it is their personal opinion. Any such expression of personal opinions would be made much clearer if there was sharper demarcation between posts made by "The Editor" in bold italics, and posts made by "Mark Moxon" in normal type. MM's just this guy, you know? He just happens to be the person in the position of "The Editor" this week. He is a person like everyone else here, entitled to express opinions, to give and receive criticism, and to engage in personal conversations. "The Editor" on the other hand, would have to toe the BBC line, be fair, consistent, and generally behave in a professional way like the editor of a broadsheet newspaper or the news editor of the BBC news. He must be seen to be a disinterested party, the very much *more* so in any conversation or dispute regarding the person known as Mark Moxon, because if "The Editor" starts making arbitrary changes to the rules of the WHOLE SITE because a person called "Mark Moxon" has been insulted, the post of Editor is devalued. This is precisely analagous to, say, a policeman being stopped for speeding. If we are to have ANY faith or respect for the system at all, then a policeman stopped for speeding must be punished every single time, because as enforcers of the law they must, more than anyone else, be seen to abide by it. The burden of abiding by it weighs more heavily upon them than it does on the man on the street, but that is as it should be because they *choose* their position of power.

I think you're right that they couldn't describe moderation as "a steaming pile of dogpoo" - but I'm pretty sure they could say something along the lines of "We personally don't like moderation, but the Beeb make us have it so there it is." without getting in any trouble.

As for the beeb being politically subservient, I'm always amused by the fact that the beeb seems to get accused of pro-Labour bias by the Tories almost exactly as much as it gets accused of pro-Tory bias by Labour. So they must be doing something right on that score, I'm just not sure what it is...

H.

If 'politically-subservient' was the only thing you disagree with in the rant-section of that post then I am proud to know you Hoovooloo. (And I will introduce you to my friend Magic Sam who I will ask to try to win you round on that one).

More seriously - I completely agree w/ what you are saying about the difference between The Editor, and just this guy Mark Moxon. A useful differentiator if the Italics choose to use it. I really hope they do.

You also say 'but I'm pretty sure they could say something along the lines of "We personally don't like moderation, but the Beeb make us have it so there it is." without getting in any trouble.'

I agree with this too, and this is the perfect example of them NOT using the freedom of speech that they do have. At least they are beginning to.

This thread is getting startlingly cozy.

***B

What concerns me is the coziness (cosiness?) is more likely to be apathy or boredom on the part of people with opposing views. It's even more likely to be that this thread is simply being ignored in the hope that it will go away - this can be a startlingly effective technique for getting out of an argument you realise you're going to lose. For some reason I get the distinct impression that many people would rather this all just went away, and are putting their metaphorical fingers in their ears and going "lalalalala" until it does. I'm interested to see whether this tactic (it's hardly a strategy) will work. Given the short attention spans of people round here, it just might. Which would be a real shame, because I think there are some serious points being made here, and some actually constructive things being suggested here and elsewhere.

If I can think of anything else to disagree with in the rant-post, btw, I'll be sure and let you know. I'll have to go back and read it again now...

H.

Well, I know that the Italics have unsubscribed from this thread. If you want to get the attention of an Italic you need to start a new thread here or in their personal space.

Have you checked out the Arbiter suggestions?

***B

"Well, I know that the Italics have unsubscribed from this thread".
- lalalalalalalalala
"you want to get the attention of an Italic you need to..."
in some ways the last thing you'd want to do...

"Have you checked out the Arbiter suggestions?"
Only briefly. These are good ideas, and could work, but what is really required is a fundamental change to the way the italics interact with the community. Another bunch of volunteers, however well-intentioned and scrupulous they may be, will in my opinion just be fiddling around the edges if the italics continue to operate in the way they have been doing in recent weeks.

Of course, the problem with holding that view is that the only thing you can do to effect change is to politely suggest to the italics that really, *this* would be a more appropriate way to run a site like this and would they mind terribly just being a bit more professional, and trust to their basic desire to be the best managers they can be. If they don't have that desire, there's really very little you can do - just repeat your suggestions and hope somebody with influence can get them to do it, or something like it. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that the retreat into anonymity is *not*, as has been suggested, a way of avoiding accountability, but is in fact a positive development which will lead to more changes which we could all welcome.

H.
Incurable optimist, frustrated apologist, mine's a vodka with a twist.

Oh and another thing...

I'd be seriously surprised if there isn't a single italic at least keeping reasonably up to date with this thread. If they've got the time to read other websites in enough detail to get so offended they ban even mentioning the name of the hosting company, I'm sure one of them must have enough time to keep an eye here, even if they choose not to engage. Ignoring this thread completely would be tantamount to negligence, I'd say, since it was initiated *by the Editor* to discuss probably one of the most controversial events in the site's history. (and yes I do think it's that important - lifetime bans can be counted on one hand, and the others had much, much more robust reasons behind them than this one. I think the italics dropped a clanger here, and the ringing sound hasn't stopped yet...)

Just a thought...
H.

Just a thought. Do you think they banned said conversation site because of the content, or because it sympathized with the writer of the letter they perceived as insulting?
Sorry I've not been posting, I've been away for a while.
Or, depending on your views;
Sorry to post this, I've come back for a while.

Oh no, there's the incriminating they again, ah well. AgcB, I'd actually like to see you eviscerate my posts, from what I've seen, everything you've written thus far has had a bit more merit than anything I've written in this thread. And I feel I must apologize for the snarkiness of my last post. Sorry 'bout that.

Anyway, I was told that e-mail correspondence was a way to get the attention of the italics, and to communicate in a proper way. However, if you would read a thread from Matt Kershaw, His first post was about how he'd tried to communicate with the now anonymous Mark, but his e-mails were repeatedly ignored, until he brought his issue into a public forum. In this public forum, Mark issued an imperious, "Release the hounds." and had his lackeys tear poor Matt to shreds. Here's the address...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683&thread=81890
(hmmm... Will that be moderated, even though it's a link to an h2g2 string?)
Ok, I need to clarify something, Mark didn't actually say, "Get 'im boys." But his refusal to communicate in private was quite strange, and unfortunately for me, I can only percieve this as a way to set up a "smokescreen" of toadies so that Mr. Moxon can avoid having to actually present arguments that contain logic and worth, instead, leaving matt to be flamed and trolled to death. Bonus for me, because now I have another intelligent person's posts to read on "The Banned Site."

DAMN! where are my toenail clippers?

Wow - reread that thread - talk about deja vu!

It's interesting how many of the points Matthew raised are still relevant today. In particular, he discusses the difference between Editors and Friends, and the problems with conflicts of interests and such. It's been moderated a fair bit, and it's tempting to try and figure out who crossed the line and where... tempting, but avoidable.

I see Mark was his usual polite and reasoned self in the face of criticism, and doesn't resort to calling people names at all! *coughs insanely* Ahh - fond memories. Back when men were men, and editors had silly beards... *drifts off into day dreams*

Don't worry about being snarky Clarke - you weren't a boojum, and we all get snarky or snarly or sarky at times.

***B

I'm wondering if it is wisdom to compare these two incidents.
I don't think so, do you? Only conlusion I can come to is that confusing the professional with the personal amounts to gunpowder, and that on this site keeping the two from getting confused is sometimes tricky as hell. But that's nothing new, HLV summed it up earlier, let's not go there?

Lemme toss this out in the road and see what gets hit by a car:

My understanding of the 'good ol' days' is that "the h2g2 editors' were one of the gang back then; buds, pals, chums, mates, etc. Since the 'Invasion of the Killer BBC', however, they have had to assume a far more corporate persona, and some might say not very successfully. Could some small but significant part of the resentment to the New Order result from the sense of having 'lost a friend'? ("Mark and Peta can't play with you anymore. Go away.") I once had a very close friend (really!) who let hirself get recuited into the quasi-religious cult favored by some movie stars, and I let my anger and bitterness at hir decision destroy any possible hope of salvaging the relationship.

I have said in several places that I have no problem with the people who make up the staff, but I do have a problem with a number of the decisions they have made. And I have also speculated that I think a certain degree of what I refer to as clumsiness on their part is a result of the BBC involvement. Not like: "The Editors have become the willing stooges of the BBC!", but rather the naturally-occuring hiccups that happen anytime a bureaucratic behemoth encounters a freewheeling gang of bohemians. J'ever see "Easy Rider"?

Anyway, it now occurs to me that The Editors Formerly Known By Names are also contending with being stuck between Who They Were and Who They Must Be Now. As a teacher, I have known the dangers of that situation far too well. Maybe as the new nomenclature settles in, a bit of the person can re-emerge from behind the bureaucrat.

Just a little rambling. Thanks.

-7rob7

I think that's hitting some nails on heads.

Good one Rob! I do think that there's a whole bunch of truth in that (and it fits in with most of the points raised recently by Hoovooloo).

Tube
Who has little resentment to the New Order, but still prefers its predecessor, Joy Division

I don't think it all changed overnight, with the BBC. There was already an element of centralized community government going on before that...


The scene: the Ace forums. A minor doctrinal disagreement is voiced between myself and Peta. She has just declared that any personal problems on the site should be directed to her. I favor non-official intervention... let people talk things out a bit, and settle things among themselves. Let Aces act as neutral third parties to help defuse such things. Let's not get into a position where we need a full-time nanny. She disagrees, and sees no merit in any of my arguments. "Fair enough," I say, "It's your job. I know I wouldn't want to have it."


Of course, many months later, she is a full-time nanny, bombarded by negativity at the now defunct Moderation Help Desk, yikesed posts, etc. Mother Theresa could not maintain her civility under such circumstances. And I would *definitely* not want her job.

I didn't mean to imply that everything going on is a result of the BBC's intervention -- I'm not one of "those" -- just wondering about yet another layer of stuff woven into it all. The more you examine a situation, the more complex it becomes; and the more likely you are to make a valid interpretation.

Put another way: You pick up a big rock, the first thing you see are the doodlebugs racing about. You have to look harder to see the ants, and harder still to notice the worms. Only then will you have achieved a fuller understanding of fishbait.

This is a reply to rob:

On further reflection, it has occurred to me that Who They Were was fine at first, but Who They Must Be Now was an inevitable side-effect of the growth of the site. The BBC is almost completely irrelevant in this equation. If H2G2 had remained existent in any form, it would have grown, attracted more and more diverse membership, and become more and more impossible for the italics to be involved in on a personal level, they way they were in the beginning.

Now, it is possible that dropping the fluffy stuff and behaving more professionally has been forced on them by the BBC before it might otherwise have forced itself. For instance, there may now be 1000 active researchers, and the italics may think that pre-BBC they could maintain a personal relationship with a manageable number without becoming unacceptable partial in disputes. But could they do that with 2000? 20,000? 200,000? Note: I'm talking about active researchers - people who post to fora with a point rather than just party fora, people who write guide entries that get recommended and then complain when the edited version contains factual or grammatical errors which weren't in the original - NOT people who register and then either do nothing at all or just read and occasionally tell a joke.

So the BBC, if they have had *any* effect at all (and that is arguable, I still think) beyond the obvious, have only accelerated a change which was inevitable. And the analogy with being a teacher is so good, I've pinched it and used it somewhere else. Thanks...

My two pen'orth.

H.

Unerring, H.!

It *is* awfully easy to paint the BBC as the Svengali behind everything that happens that we don't like. The Italics need the freedom to be their own Svengali, dammit! Wait -- that's not coming out right...

Anyway, you're absolutely right about the size thing. Been there, got crushed by that.

Here's my (how much is 2¢ American in English money?).

-7rob7