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

Currently the Eds do look at patterns and notice* if someone is yikesing maliciously (well they do to an extent in the limited amount of time they have). AFAIK malicious yikesing is not tolerated any more than other kinds of trolling or repeated postings of unacceptable content.

*so the technology and intention is there.

I don't know what happened in the case of Nick or others but I would suspect that it was a combination of work overload for the Eds, and getting to a point where it wasn't worth the trouble to sort out in another way eg if a researcher is causing alot of trouble on site, there is less incentive for the Eds to take time to find a community solution. Hence Hoo only had to threaten once to bring down the moderation system and got suspended because it was in the middle of the Della wars and the Eds were sick of how much moderation they were having to do and Hoo has a big history of being a pain in the arse.

Context is everything.

Context is everything, and moderation isn't black and white.

I honestly can't remembr the last time I thought something should be yikesed, (I accept in noohootoo it will be slightly different if we win the bid because we have to think of legal stuff like super injunctions), but aside from that no. I got quite cross with Dragonqueen when she yikesed a disgusting YouTube link about horrible things happening to gay people in hell, linked to by WG. I wanted people to see just where he was coming from..but within 10 minutes it was gone. YouTube hadn't banned it, and I don't think it was something so awful you couldn't watch a few seconds of, and then just switch off.

I have a very strong anti censorship attitude though and believe grown-ups should not be protected. I have never forgotten that link WG linked to..it means I know that about him..and unless he comes out and says he totally repudiates that..I contextualise his posts to do with his bornagain Christianity with that knowledge.

I can't comment on the things you thought were yikesable unless I saw them.

But yes of course there are boundaries...it's not clear cut. But I like to think I would always be able to explain to me peers the reasons for yikesing, if I did.

But I do see it may inhibit people as well.

I dunno

Life isn't perfect

The issue about censorship and where the boundaries are is a separate thing from having yikesers' names visible. The point of the ability to yikes is to protect the community. Yikesers shouldn't have to defend their actions in public, it's up to the mods to decide, and sometimes the Eds. In the current process anyone who's been yikesed can appeal a moderation (in practice the process completely sucks now, but it worked reasonably well in the past).

To put it another way, people who yikes posts are doing a public service and shouldn't be taken to task over that. Sometimes they get it wrong but there are fail safes built into the system to catch an abuse of the yikes button.

I had some posts pulled in a private-ish convo with Ivan once, to do with the General Election here in NZ. The posts pulled were my opinions about past NZ govts. I thought the person who yikesed them was inteferring with robust political debate and as such was a person with the top part of their body looking like a lower part of a man's body (apparently that word's not allowed anymore either), but my beef was with the Eds, because they had the actual decision (one post got pulled, the other put back I think).

*

Where the boundaries lie on what is acceptable or not is going to be one of the big interesting post-sale debates methinks (assuming we win. If we don't, I still think there will be considerable debate on this).

I disagree they are doing a public service. All I see is a lot of debates totally ruined.

That's why I'd like to know who it is and their reasons for messing up a debate between adults.

But maybe a lot of the present yikesings are from the mods themselves..but my god there are just so many...and they mess up so much stuff.

It's hopeless for a post to be re-insated after debate has moved on.

The debate as to where the boundaries lie is indeed a biggie.

I must say I also see yikesing as a public service.

And yes, the posts that are hidden all the time at the moment are certainly pulled by the mods themselves, or at least most of them.

So if there is no service to h2g2 in having a yikes button, do you think we shouldn't have them? Moderators have always monitored threads and removed posts (or someone who's not the community has). That's because the bbc has additional responsibilities beyond the ones to not get sued etc. I think it won't be nearly as bad post-sale and I wouldn't take the problems with the current system as a reason to not have one, because we can fix most of that. For instance, the post I had removed earlier in this thread... I'm pretty sure it's because I referred (not used or even asterisked) to a word for women's genitalia. Compare that to this post: http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F19585?thread=237761&post=2832761#p2824327 I'm pretty sure that post would get failed if I wrote it now (and I'm running the risk of it getting pulled just by linking to it). I wrote that post in 2003, and I didn't star the words out. The moderators put the starts in i.e. they didn't just pull the post. We should be looking at moderation from then and pre-bbc for our standard, not how it is now - how it is now is both too conservative and too dysfunctional to be of much use IMO. With medium hardcore swearing I'd like to see the use of asterisks, because it strikes a happy medium. People can use the words expressively, but it takes into account that some people find the words too much. I'm just trying to give an example of how we could manage moderation differently so it wasn't so disruptive to threads.

(Blimey that white on black is hard going, kea)

Yeah it's got so silly in the last 18 months it's hard to think anything about yikesing except something negative. I mean I have to still say 'non vegetarian curtains'.

It scares me the 'Mary Whitehouse' thing happening in the UK with tv media at present...we'll find a way...but that's by the by)..

Yep asterisks wouldn't bother me. I actually think they intensify they meaning...

Yes we should have yikes button. If I saw a newby or a youngster or some apparently vulnerable person subject to a really nasty verbal attack, I'd have no hesitation in yikesing...but that would be my call..and I'd happily justify that to anyone.

To echo someone earlier, if we can forget about how silly moderation has been recently it would help. For those of you who don't read my journal, yesterday marked the first day that all my ACE messages (40+ of them) were hidden on the grounds that they were spamming the boards. It's something I have been doing, on and off, for over nine years (I joined the ACEs in Jan 2002).

We've got to try to remember back to the days when it was rare for a post to be hidden.

Just commented on Vip's blog (am I spamming? ) that I wonder if the bbc has new software that picks up spam automatically.

I might guess that it was a newbie who has read house rules far too seriously?

I've just checked and they've all been reinstated now (so for common sense!).

I entirely doubt it was a newbie. I mean, why would they bother to look up every single other newbie that I ACEd? I wouldn't have even known how to do that when I signed up.

Far more likely it's a new automatic system. Or a bored non-newbie... say, didn't you mention you wished you had time to do that back in post 36, Nick?

I think it was just a moment when the House Rules failed to take account of the realities of what happens sometimes. At least it was fixed in the end, so I'm happy. If it happens again perhaps I need to have a chat with the Eds, but for now I'm just glad that 40 newbies' first contact with an h2g2 Researcher isn't a hidden post.

Next really best guess would have been a new moderator or moderation system. And sorry, my wife is not working this week-end so even I don't have enough time to be really and bored.

Glad to hear it - go out and have fun. I've got to keep away from my husband as he's supposed to be revising (poor guy).

Yeah, I reckon you're right.

Still, a lesson for us to learn; make sure your moderators have the right training, and the ability to make judgement calls, or make sure your automated systems can take such things into account!

As difficult of a job as it would be, if this site becomes a property of the 'community', I really do think that a strong team of volunteers is best. People that have been here a time, see personalities, know when a single post might be a "heat of the moment" thing, and take comments in context of atleast the previous 8 or 10 posts. Any hirelings don't really have that time and familiarity

Should we put together something like a list of guidelines for moderators? I think we already came up with many useful things.

It is the right place for it, so sure.

First, be familiar with the site for (pick a number) 2 to 5 years

NOT have a really serious attachment to religion or atheism ... (That could prove aa breaker for some)

must be able to be impartial (including religion)
must read context around the post (suggested ten posts before but able to use judgement)
must be able to refer if a decision is necessary

More to come when I think of them.

Helpful if there are folks from as many time-zones as possible