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

(This got really long before I finished. Sorry.)

Grief (#979) - I don't think it's as bad as all that; though I agree the Italics might be feeling backed into a corner by their reactions. But nothing would drive people away faster than if I dug out my tap shoes and started singing and dancing. *That* would be flaming...

I think a larrrrrrrrrrge part of the problem is the unfortunate 'coincidence' of the request for tolerance *at the same time* as an intolerant posting was revived. I believe I have been fairly scrupulous in never attacking the PTB on a personal level, but have offered numerous opinions as to their political savvy. I maintain - completely without rancor - that they appear to have a lot to learn - and being forced to do that learning on the fly. Not about being approachable people; not about being dedicated to the overall splendiferousness of h2g2; and not about acting unequivically on what they think is *right* and standing by those decisions; those things I feel they've already got a pretty good handle on.

However. I *do* think they need to spend a wee bit more time thinking through the possible ramifications of their 'irreversible' actions. (This from someone who can't anticipate more than one chess move ahead...) If the request for no repercussions (worded as per Lucinda (et al) - post #973) had also included a statement to the effect that the 'modified' final PR post was going to be restored in the interests of 'closure' (?) and been posted prior to the restoration, then allegations of favoritism might have been substantially weakened. It would have been even more clear if the restored post followed such an announcement, rather than reverting to its original placement, so that the sequence resembled 'real time' more obviously.

As it happened (once again?), the intentions wound up seeming suspect and open to interpretation. The remedy is clear - the PTB must be as prescient as they are infallible. Oopsy - maybe they already are...

I most definitely must disagree with the 'mob mentality' description. While we are discussing h2g2 policy here, we must not forget that the policies we are hacking our way through are the ones that have the most effect on researchers' feelings. They've been discussed in terms of 'relationships' (host/guest; boss/worker; parent/child; etc.) as much as, if not more than, the legitimate and unimpeachable 'rules' they ought to be. Emotions can run high, and that should not only be expected but encouraged. "How this makes me feel" is vital knowledge to those who would formulate "How you are supposed to do this."



(Sorry, I got all distracted there - "Au fond du temple saint" from Bizet's "The Pearl Fishers" was just on the radio. It's one of the few things on earth that gives me hope for us persons of the Y-chromosome persuasion...) (Glorious!) (And that jerk Bizet was only 25 when he wrote it!) (hole!)



But that's not what I came here to talk about.

I thought you all might be interested in a little bit of what I take to be a refinement of the recently-adopted PTB cloaking device. The subject of the confidentiality of 'official' BBC emails has been discussed and resolved and so on and soforth. And now...



I have been enjoying - since before the 'change' - an email discussion with one of the Italics about the possibility of copyright infringement in an entry I've been working on. It has been a very helpful discussion, and the editor in question has expended a great deal of time and energy in helping me get to a point where I and the BBC Legal Dept. are both happy with things. (And we're still not done: I'm keeping the entry cloaked until I can get hold of the publisher myself.)



I noticed the other day that the disclaimer on a recent email reads:

>>The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written permission.<<

Since the BBC is not mentioned, I therefore understand that this is meant as a 'personal' email rather than an 'official' one. And I take it to be a further separation between the person and the persona. Just thought you'd find the information handy.

Sorry to have crammed so much junk into one post. Later.

-7rob7

"you are really digging into the editors here. Do you expect them to admit they made a mistake? They will not! You're putting their backs up against the wall!

No, I fear you have delusions of grandeur.
I shall give you the short version of my diagnosis:
The italics have had their backs against the wall ever since they painted themselves into the corner by over re-acting with the initial suspension after a disagreement had been resolved between the protagonists. They then had "Nowhere to go to" (or n2g2, as some would have it) and the rest followed as naturally as all out nuclear war follows parking on double yellow lines.
Mind you, that floor's a nice shade of red; the blood won't show.

(Note to self, check whether all dictionaries include "sorry" and "wrong".)

Editors,

Just a tiny suggestion.

To my mind the H2G2 Editors account should be used for official announcements and statements of policy, only. The simple fact is that that is all it really can be used for because it is not possible to hold a discussion with someone who always has the final say so (by definition) and who's 'suggestions' are grounds for censoring anyone who fails to follow them.

I think there is no harm if one of you as individuals wish to come forward and discuss issues from your personal viewpoints. There is no chance that any one of us will ever forget what position you hold in at h2g2 but we will also know that, if you are the ultimate judge of all that is permitted, you are still appearing here without your robe and scepter of office.

When you responded to HVL from your throne, in the tone you used you were encouraging contradiction and diluting the power of the account in precisely the same way it was diluted before. If there was any difference at all it was that before we weren't sure when you were being official and now we aren't sure when you are not.

Your use of terms like 'suggestion' only further confuses the issue, particularly when that is not at all what you meant to say.

We all understand that you are in charge and that you must exercise those powers of governance as you see fit. Where we disagree, or at least where I disagree, is in the apparent philosophy behind your decisions and in the attitudes toward us suggested by that philosophy.

Perhaps, you are not happy with the decisions you feel you must make for the sake of the enterprise, but that does not alter the fact that you still have made them and you cannot and should not attempt to disassociate yourselves from them.

If you feel that we need to understand the reasons behind your decisions, we trust that you will offer them in an official and structured way. If you feel that we have no need to understand then you should feel free to say as much. This is your h2g2, or so you seem to have said. If I were to finally leave, in disgust or sorrow (and I have been close to that and would have done so had not LeKZ' concerns for the promise of h2g2 meshed with my own to lead me to be back here again on a trial basis), you certainly would still be here and would still be held responsible for the success of failure of h2g2. In that sense, you are all a bit trapped by your pay checks if not by your dreams.

What I have been working my way towards here is simply to say, that if you want to see this thread ended in the direction it has been going, you can end it easily. You could simply close it by fiat. You could end all our speculation by simply stating your opinions about the schemes under consideration by us, pointing out the aspects that you will not under any circumstances consider and the maximum degree of acceptance we could anticipate.

This would either provoke us to quit if things were hopeless, or would stimulate us to find the best possible way of making use of any liberties granted.

Please don't don your official robes and come in here to say with a royal accent, 'We are not happy. You guess what will be permitted.' Your latest statements about growth and change and making things up as you go are very disconcerting, even more so since we have no idea about where you hope to be tomorrow and whether our efforts are worth participation in your vague vision.

It is clear that we here are not happy (bet that surprised you). It should also be clear that we care enough for the potential that we see that we are still here and that we care enough for our own efforts to be concerned that we not simply throw them away into the black hole that your seemingly ambiguous efforts could make of this place from our points of view.

That is why a thread that deals with the issues surrounding seemingly arbitrary or well justified 'lifetime suspension' is still going strong. These issues are *not* trivial *to us!* The length of this thread despite trolling and more reasoned opposition and cries of 'let's get back to the fun' have had no real effect on those of us you see posting here (pro or con). This is *important!*

Perhaps, instead of trying to disperse us and lead us back to the 'party' you all should ask yourself the question you don't seem to have an answer for. "Why?"

Barton

Incidently, editors, you are quite correct. Even though I had no use for the person (I was too appalled to laugh at hir) and even though shi is not leaving but only changing to a different name, I am still asking how many more will be driven away? And shi is one of those on the lists along with the others who have left or been sent away or otherwise feel that h2g2 was not what their expectations led them to believe it might have been or should have been or could have been.

Most of them have not been remarked. Some of them are still carried as strangely inactive researchers on the roles. Some of them never should have been here. But, till these questions and more are answered and till there is a real statement about who this place is for and why they should care, it's going to be hard for anyone to evaluate success of failure, isn't it?

Barton

First things first:

• Happiness: I *am* happy here. I have no problem with the way this place is being currently run, although the recent schemes that have been suggested sound great to me, and I'd love to see them implemented (oh, and BTW: don't expect to see a final word on the Telephone Sanitizers scheme until it's officially finished.)

• Why is this thread still active? I see a discontent with the lack of structure in this community. There's a fear that things will be changed for the worse. Personally, I recognize that this place *is* growing and changing, and there really isn't any other way to go about governing the place other than by making things up as they go along. There's an informality about the place that I really enjoy, but this attitude is what makes a few others uncomfortable - ambiguity and intimacy inspiring uncertainty, and an official and professional air being regarded as cold and remote.

It's reassuring to note that these guys - the ones that keep getting harassed about their decisions, yet come back to explicate their actions - have been here from the beginning, and care about h2g2 as much as anybody else here (if not more), and want to see it succeed. I regard it as a sign of respect that they're willing to come back and explain, and keep explaining, their decisions to people they've never met, and ostensibly regard as 'disposable.'

• Making mistakes: IMO, the Powers are making decisions to the best of their ability. They take into consideration: 1)as much information as possible about the problem 2)the opinions of the staff 3)the precedent of earlier problems and the decisions made to solve them. They've demonstrated amply (to me, anyway!) that all these factors are considered every time they have to make a new decision. Being that as it may, I can't truly say that the Editors have ever made a mistake, although I might not be happy with all of the decisions made. In their position, given the information that was available, I would probably have made many of the same choices. Making snide remarks about 'admitting' to making a mistake is ridiculous, I think.

• Official business: There's been quite a bit of criticism of editorial procedures recently, and I'm not sure how productive it is. We're not going to get anywhere by engaging the Editors in semantics, and frankly, I find it rather dull. I do agree with Barton in that I wish the anonymous 'h2g2 editors' username was used only for official business, but I can understand wanting to take refuge in anonymity to avoid confrontation. What we really need to do is get together in a quiet pub and have a pint or two, because these back and forth conversations get tense and angry without even meaning to. Mark needs to be able to post as Mark and explain some of his editorial decisions, without being slammed for not taking things seriously enough. We all get caught up in writing our own little diatribes, and pick up on sentences that may not have come out exactly the way they were meant, when in face-to-face conversation we can eliminate these misunderstandings.

The reason why I keep coming back here is because I want to see the questions and problems resolved that people have with this thread. It's changed from the main question - why was LeKZ banned? - to a more general question - what is editorial policy on warnings and bans? I think we're establishing that, and by the very act of making it a solid object, we've changed the policies slightly.

Here's my question:

What other questions are still extant in this thread that haven't yet been answered?

First things first:

• Happiness: I *am* happy here. I have no problem with the way this place is being currently run, although the recent schemes that have been suggested sound great to me, and I'd love to see them implemented (oh, and BTW: don't expect to see a final word on the Telephone Sanitizers until they're officially finished.)

• Why is this thread still active? I see a discontent with the lack of structure in this community. There's a fear that things will be changed for the worse. Personally, I recognize that this place *is* growing and changing, and there really isn't any other way to go about governing the place other than by making things up as they go along. There's an informality about the place that I really enjoy, but this attitude is what makes a few others uncomfortable - ambiguity and intimacy inspiring uncertainty, and an official and professional air being regarded as cold and remote.

It's reassuring to note that these guys - the ones that keep getting harassed about their decisions, yet come back to explicate their actions - have been here from the beginning, and care about h2g2 as much as anybody else here (if not more), and want to see it succeed. I regard it as a sign of respect that they're willing to come back and explain, and keep explaining, their decisions to people they've never met, and ostensibly regard as 'disposable.'

• Making mistakes: IMO, the Powers are making decisions to the best of their ability. They take into consideration: 1)as much information as possible about the problem 2)the opinions of the staff 3)the precedent of earlier problems and the decisions made to solve them. They've demonstrated amply (to me, anyway!) that all these factors are considered every time they have to make a new decision. Being that as it may, I can't truly say that the Editors have ever made a mistake, although I might not be happy with all of the decisions made. In their position, given the information that was available, I would probably have made many of the same choices. Making snide remarks about 'admitting' to making a mistake is ridiculous, I think.

• Official business: There's been quite a bit of criticism of editorial procedures recently, and I'm not sure how productive it is. We're not going to get anywhere by engaging the Editors in semantics, and frankly, I find it rather dull. I do agree with Barton in that I wish the anonymous 'h2g2 editors' username was used only for official business, but I can understand wanting to take refuge in anonymity to avoid confrontation. What we really need to do is get together in a quiet pub and have a pint or two, because these back and forth conversations get tense and angry without even meaning to. Mark needs to be able to post as Mark and explain some of his editorial decisions, without being slammed for not taking things seriously enough. We all get caught up in writing our own little diatribes, and pick up on sentences that may not have come out exactly the way they were meant, when in face-to-face conversation we can eliminate these misunderstandings.

The reason why I keep coming back here is because I want to see the questions and problems resolved that people have with this thread. It's changed from the main question - why was LeKZ banned? - to a more general question - what is editorial policy on warnings and bans? I think we're establishing that, and by the very act of establishing it, we've changed the policies slightly.

Here's my question:

What other questions are still extant in this thread that haven't yet been answered?

Sorry, the server's been giving me fits. Please excuse the double post!

why are we still here?

personally, I have seen a problem of arbitraryness of decision making, avoidance of clarification, and a general belief on behalf of the editors that more formal = more professional, despite evidence to the contrary.

While I agree that the italics are (at last) starting to listen to minor points, they do not yet seem to be ready to listen about major ones.

Thier professionalism is slowly improving, as they are just starting to learn that formal and professional are different, and we can hope that they continue to improve.

having said that, some of their posts are reminicent of cary grant's reply to the journalist with the stingy editor who sent a telegram "how old cary grant" and got back the reply "old cary grant fine, how you?".

there is a limit to how often they can try that, and still attempt to retain credibility, and we are rapidly approaching that point.

reply to 7rob7, and, indirectly, the Editors:

"I noticed the other day that the disclaimer on a recent email reads:

>>The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written permission.<<

Since the BBC is not mentioned, I therefore understand that this is meant as a 'personal' email rather than an 'official' one. And I take it to be a further separation between the person and the persona. Just thought you'd find the information handy."

As attempts at bullying people into silence go, that's pretty pathetic.

Time to consult your solicitors again, I think (do consult competent ones, won't you...). You're wasting bytes yet again on a warning which is completely meaningless. Once again, in case you didn't understand last time: Confidentiality notices on emails are to protect the recipient, NOT the sender. Blandishments about not revealing the contents are *meaningless*. If anyone who works for the BBC sends me an email, either in their capacity as an employee or personally, I am completely free to post blow up copies on every billboard in London if I can afford it. I have absolutely *no* legal obligation to keep the contents of any messages to me secret (you may argue a moral obligation, but talk of "written permission" suggests you think there is some legal force to this, which, of course, there isn't). You might like to try to retrospectively impose such a condition as part of the T&C agreement, but that would be asking the BBC to give you carte blanche to attempt to prevent the public talking about your service freely - snowball's chance in hell.

BBC employees, on the other hand, are *required* to maintain confidentiality in *and out* of work. Reveal *my* personal details to anyone, or the contents of emails I send you, and you will be sacked - count on it. It may sound unfair and put all the power in the hands of the public. Perhaps it is. Welcome to democracy.

No BBC employee should ever put in an email, or any other correspondence for that matter, something they would be uncomfortable having discussed in public. If you find yourself unable to work under that restriction, the jobs pages in most national newspapers were yesterday...

H.
I've seen "Rumpole of the Bailey" a couple of times.

Just me again...

I'd just like to sum up the last bunch of postings in this thread.

a) A lot of people are (understandably) unhappy about a posting of PR.
b) TPTB aided and abetted that posting by putting the (still offensive) re-wording up
c) TPTB further tried to cover the departing back of PR
d) A bunch of people are irritated about the fact that TPTB helped in putting up an offensive posting and then protecting its author. An act never done before.
e) TPTB catch a lot of heat for their acts because other members of this thread think these acts wrong.

I think that we, the Users, have accepted that there are no special ties between PR and TPTB.
I think we can also be sure that TPTB understood that point b) was a mistake and that the combination of points b) and c) was again a mistake. (After about 100 posts of happy Editor bashing they should have gotten that idea .)
I don't think that TPTB will ever again help putting up an offensive posting and then protect its author. That is a good thing to learn; maybe it was learned the hard way and maybe a "Look, we mis-anticipated the reactions of the community. It was a mistake. We are sorry.” would have cut this thread short some postings ago.

But, again, I do think that TPTB got the message.

Tube

PS: Did I mention that I like being here?

Hoovooloo #976: "I honestly think if you behaved, in situations like this, in the style of, say, a bank manager, you'd have a lot less complaint from people like me."

Could be, but we'd probably get lots of complaints from people who hate faceless corporations, too. Isn't one of the important things about h2g2 that the Editors are approachable, personable, human, and *different* from most of the people who run big websites?

Maybe there is something to be gained from Lentilla's suggestion that the Editors persona is used for more formal business, and community discussion should be done by Mark, Peta and so on. But the problem was that things got too personal; this thread is an example of a discussion that's not teribly nice, but at least people are having a go at the Editors, not the people themselves, and that makes it much easier for us to comment.

Re your modest proposal, cool; we'll take a look. But it won't be for a couple of weeks, as three members of the Editorial Team are out of the office for the next fortnight (two on holiday, one on business). As soon as we get back, we'll give you our feedback - and who knows, maybe the other schemes will have been finalised and presented by then too?

Don't put it into Peer Review, though. It's not suitable for the Edited Guide, and will only be sin-binned, which won't really help the cause...

Colonel #977: "If the editors *knew* that the repost was going to offend, and *knew* it was going to start a flame war, then doesn't that mean they *knew* it was a trollng post?"

One man's good point is another man's trolling post. We knew that that post would elicit some irritated responses from some of the people in this thread, but no, we didn't class PR's posting as trolling... just making a point that would no doubt be unpopular here. The first version was trolling, though, which is why we got him to tone it down.

Defining where argument stops and trolling starts is an impossible task, so it's compatible for you to think he was trolling, and for us to think he wasn't. Agree to disagree?

7rob7 #981: "The remedy is clear - the PTB must be as prescient as they are infallible. Oopsy - maybe they already are..."

Eeek! Well, we're certainly not infallible, and being prescient in h2g2 is notoriously difficult...

7rob7 #981: "Since the BBC is not mentioned, I therefore understand that this is meant as a 'personal' email rather than an 'official' one."

Everything you receive from a BBC employee in the course of their duties is official, 7rob7; we don't send out personal emails to h2g2 Researchers, because we *can't*!

Barton #983: "You could end all our speculation by simply stating your opinions about the schemes under consideration by us, pointing out the aspects that you will not under any circumstances consider and the maximum degree of acceptance we could anticipate."

As we've always said, we will do exactly that when the schemes have reached v1.0 and we're asked for our input. Until then, us stepping in would probably do more harm than good; our herd of sheep has sharp hooves.

Barton #983: "I am still asking how many more will be driven away"

Not sure if you spotted this stat when we posted it elsewhere, but of people using h2g2 currently, 82.5% of them created their accounts after h2g2 joined the BBC. There is and always has been a finite lifespan for most h2g2 Researchers; perhaps the novelty wears off for some, perhaps real life gets in the way for others, perhaps some get disappointed by the direction things take on site - who knows? This site is one of the stickiest we have ever seen, but people do leave We don't think this is unhealthy, but totally natural; if we stopped getting *new* people, then that's when things get worrying!

Lentilla #985: "What other questions are still extant in this thread that haven't yet been answered?"

That would be handy, if someone could compile them. We've seen a few accusations of us not answering questions here, but is this surprising with the volume of text people (including us!) are posting?

Note, though, that we're probably going to be away from this thread for a couple of weeks, so please don't complain when we don't get back to you straight away!

xyroth #988: "While I agree that the italics are (at last) starting to listen to minor points, they do not yet seem to be ready to listen about major ones."

Uh? But how can you tell whether we're *listening* to your points, xyroth? Above we said "As we develop and grow h2g2 we will take everybody's comments and opinions into account" - and that's what we're doing.

Or do you mean we do not yet seem ready to *answer* major points? If so, then we're going to talk about the schemes when they are ready and we're back in the office, and we've asked above for any unanswered questions to be presented.

Hoovooloo #989: "Time to consult your solicitors again"

We did; that additional disclaimer is the exact wording our lawyers suggested. We've also seen Rumpole of the Bailey, but instead we use ther BBC Legal department for our legal advice.

Tube #990: "But, again, I do think that TPTB got the message."

Sure did - the message being that breaking up fights is a messy business. Not that we didn't know that already...

Just in case you didn't spot it hidden away in the above posting, three of the Editorial Team will be out of the office for the next two weeks, so please forgive the ensuing silence - we can't avoid it! When we come back we'll take a look at Hoovooloo's scheme (and any others that are ready for our comments), and we'll try to answer any unanswered questions that are compiled into an easy-to-digest list.

Assuming we can find them in this ever-increasing marathon thread!

Re: confidentiality wording:

"We did; that additional disclaimer is the exact wording our lawyers suggested. "

I'll be contacting them myself then. You, and by implication they, still seem to be under the impression that you are empowered to tell me what I can and can't do with the contents of my own email inbox. No other organisation I have ever corresponded with has done this, and I wasn't aware the BBC was a special case. I shall seek clarification directly from BBC legal, therefore.

H.

Hi Eds!
"Tube #990: "But, again, I do think that TPTB got the message."
Sure did - the message being that breaking up fights is a messy business.”

Err... no, sorry. That was not the message I was referring to ... at least not directly.


Tube

Hoovooloo: That's a good idea; I'm sure they'll be able to help you.

Tube: We know. You were speculating about what's going on inside our heads, after all...

*off on holiday... now!*

I hope I speak for everyone reading this thread when I wish the Editors an enjoyable holiday/successful business trip.

Given how indispensible/irreplaceable you are, I just hope there's still a site here when you get back.

We'll see you here in two weeks.

H.

Now ... dear people: I am not a mob. I am not interested in blaming people. I don't want to insult or ridicule anybody either. My wish is not to drive anyone off the site. I am aware of a number of people having left already. Most of them left quietly without making a fuss. Indeed they did not even leave any last messages ... nasty or not. I myself left this site for a two-week period as a preliminary to perhaps going away permanently. I decided to stay. My own parting messages were none negative... I expressed criticism but I did not direct it against anybody in particular, and in fact made clear that I was also responsible for the situation that lead to my departure. Again I find myself here in the midst of negativity and accusations. I know that prior to my departure I was very harsh in my criticism. My behaviour towards Mark and Peta, who now no longer operate under their own names, was construed as being disrespectful, with considerable justification. For that I wish to apologise. Do you note that, editors? I apologise for having gone overboard on the criticism in the postings where I started deconstructing this thread. I do not wish to detract from the dignity of the editors. For the sake of this community it is vital that they have a good reputation.

I will try to not be so critical. My only wish is to help improve the site. What right have I to tell the editors what they should do? None. I don't try and tell them what to do. But I feel that I am still a member of this community and I care about it. I see things happening here that the editors probably can't see. They can't have eyes everywhere. They would not possibly have been able to go into such detail into the events surrounding the suspension of LeKZ as I have because there is so much more that they needed to pay attention to. I am perceptive, I have eyes, I have a fairly keen mind and also a good sense of judgement. I would like it if anybody can point examples out to me where I have erred in my judgement. If they do that they can expect a rebuttal from me, but I will try to keep it nice.

I want this site and this community to flourish. It has huge potential. The facilities you offer here are excellent ... they permit very detailed discussion of topics, a very high level of interconnectivity, a very close level of interaction, a very friendly user interface ... the smileys are super! (Even though I don't use them that much...) The idea is also great ... people writing about what they know and so creating with the passage of time a guide to Life, the Universe and Everything. You have researchers from all over the globe. (I would like to see more researchers from countries other than Britain and America by the way.) Now the more researchers you get, the more different opinions, standards of conduct and even worldviews you will get. You will certainly get many more 'troublesome' researchers. You will need a good way to deal with them. I am sorry if you take this the wrong way ... but the way you dealt with LeKZ was not good. Amidst all the confusion of this thread it has been difficult for anybody to say anything coherent about that. I think I'm going to write an entry about it, taking the whole thing from the start to the finish, and in the process perhaps providing a summary and analysis of this threat. I will not be abusive. Future generations may learn from it. I hope I get to do that ... I have lots of other things I also want to do, but I think LeKZ and also h2g2 merit the time spent on such a project.

"One man's good point is another man's trolling post. We knew that that post would elicit some irritated responses from some of the people in this thread, but no, we didn't class PR's posting as trolling... just making a point that would no doubt be unpopular here."

If you can show me just one good point that PR made in his post, then I will reconsider, unless you consider calling us idiots to be a good point. Otherwise, the conclusions regarding favoritism, inconsistency, and double-standards still apply.

If this thread has taken on a tone of mob rule, it can only be because even those who are normally in full support of editorial decisions find these latest ones difficult to defend, and because recent developments have only alarmed the vocal minority even further. My approach to this whole situation was far more moderate until I saw acts that confirmed the suspicions of others here who were much less moderate in their approach. And what can we do except complain?

Hoovooloo (#989):

I didn't mean to imply that I felt bullied. On the contrary, I just meant to point out something that I thought was indicative of consistancy on the part of the Editors - if they have adopted a faceless persona for 'official' declarations/comments/emails, then it would be consistant to adopt a different disclaimer on an email from a 'named' member of the staff. (Which is what I was referring to as 'personal' - no one was asking me for a date or nothing...) That's all I meant. I very much appreciate the time and effort that the staff member involved has invested in helping me; and, with that in mind, I also thought it a good point to raise that I - even as an 'idiot' responsible for initiating one of the plots to tear down h2g2 and beat the Editors with the severed stump - am still granted a measure of respect by at least one of the PTB. So far.

A general question: do the posts regarding the Italics' decisions re: PR now outnumber the posts in response to the 'revised' posting? Whence comest the greater ruckus?

That's it for that, then.

-7rob7

I am thinking that, in summary, the essence of the discussion here is the question of Justice.

Are we, as 'researchers' entitled to justice?

Can there be justice, if there is no chance for self-defense and there is no way to hold the judges responsible for bias?

Is there any level on which the BBC owes the researchers more for their contribution to the site than the simple access to it?

That is, is it *just* to treat researchers as simple disposable units or counters with no responsibility toward them for their efforts on behalf of h2g2.

In short, does h2g2 have any obligation to treat 'researchers' as people with rights granted to others people as part of the society in which the BBC is incorporated?

Please note: I am not asking if the editors do or do not treat researchers with such respect. I am asking, specifically, about the *obligation.*

I ask because it is my impression that there are those of us posting here on opposite sides of this issue and I do not think we can go any further than shouting "Is too!" "Is not!" over and over at each other (even without even involving the editors) till we can decide if we have any common ground amongst us, at all.

To whom it may concern and to whom it may surprise,

The concept of the 'small but vocal minority' has been invoked as a means of belittling anything that may be said here. There are those on both sides of these issues who have proclaimed themselves proud members of the SBVM.

You will not see my name on your club page, not because I don't stand with you when it comes to the right to be vocal, not because I don't think that there are things that need to be said, and not because I don't get the joke behind your having proclaimed proudly that you are exactly what the opposition wishes to minimize.

I am not cutely labeled because I know how powerful a label can be in the minds of those who do not take the time to be vocal, who do not take the effort to think, who are the reason for the word 'minority' in that heinous phrase. Accepting that phrase is accepting all the judgment that has created the label.

It suggests that we are small, as in unimportant; vocal, as in yapping like a dog; and a minority, as in someone else's problem.

Certainly, *we* can use such a label among ourselves. To us it means that, yes, we are small because the oppositon against us is large and powereful, so we are brave. To us it means that, yes, we are vocal because we will not be silenced, we have the *right* to be heard. To us it means that, yes, we are the minority because the vast numbers of people are content to be treated as sheep by the management and will remain so until they can be brought to see that after the continual shearing lies only the slaughter house.

But, we cannot afford to stand before the rest of the researchers merely as annoying clowns and buffoons, because then we become just another unpopular ride in the amusement park, something provided by management in politicsland. I say this knowing that there is no figure easier to ridicule than the crank on the soapbox proclaiming that the world is coming to an end.

Have a piece of ! Have another ! Let the party go on! Eat, drink, and be merry.

Pretend we never will die.