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

Merely suggesting that there will always be some folks about that will vent their dislike of folks and posts when the adults are away for the week-end. So that their displeasure (or YIKES) will stand at-least that long. It is a simple pleasure for some who are not otherwise big and brave.

It's already been mentioned that malicious yikesing is a kind of trolling. Perhaps there should be the equivalent of pre-mod for serial yikeses - sort of like a "cry wolf" option where they weren't in fact able to yikes posts, or weren't able to yikes the posts of a particular researcher. Mind you, they could create a sock-puppet to do that I suppose.

Question - should you have to be logged in to yikes a post?

B

To that question, I answer YES. One should be actively on-line to have an opinion and position to strike a conversation post.

I agree.

If someone without a user account detects something bad they could write an email to the moderators or leave a message in some other way. If it's really worth it they would do that.

You should be logged in to yikes

Inappropriate yikes should be discussed but if someone has set themselves up as the noohootoo Mary Whitehouse or is maliciously yikesing and doesn't stop when asked, ban them. Then ban their sock puppets

(Sorry to de-rail a bit with my personal thing, but just to let you know, email sent, that it was indeed to do with my 3 way meaning of describing Big society as very g*ai. I'm being extra careful spelling it like that. As that was my favourite bit of my ps..I won't be re-writing.

You know I can put up with a lot in noohootoo if we win, as it'll be new and we'll be learning, but I just hope a sense of humour gets a bit of leeway...)

Remebering that humour and tolerance are always very relative ... To the majority of observers, usually.

My only concern with not being able to yikes if you're not logged in is what about if someone has posted something out-of-the-way and is offensive, and the only person to stumble across it is a non-member? Or if it were libellous content?

Perhaps it is referred and not hidden if they are a non-member.

>if someone has posted something out-of-the-way and is offensive, and the only person to stumble across it is a non-member? Or if it were libellous content? <

I can hardly believe what I'm reading..Are we really going to have an 'offensiveness' category? Well good luck with defining that. Legal stuff is something else..but that's to be sorted out after consulting a lawyer.

I'm starting to think it's not going to be much different to now if we're having an 'offensiveness' category.

And no non members shouldn't be able to yikes IMO.

>> I'm starting to think it's not going to be much different to now if we're having an 'offensiveness' category.

This is just a discussion Effers, we need people to air their opinions. No-one's said that there will be an offensiveness category. It's all pretty much up in the air.



I think common sense is key. We don't need to be as prissy as Auntie was, so I think we'll have far fewer sustained es than at present. The problem with having a system based on common sense is that standards will differ, but the alternative is a jobs-worth rules-based pettiness which I think is worse in the long run.

I also think we should take the existing House Rules as our starting point. In my opinion, we should change "sexually oriented" to "erotic". I'm not sure if "erotic" is the best term but I think it is less bad than "sexually oriented". I want to keep the good humoured bawdiness and the grown-up discussions about sex, but we're not here to host porn.

I had other thoughts. They've gone.

B

PS - I agree, I don't think there should be an "offensiveness" category.

I do think that hate-speech should not be allowed though, so no racism, homophobia or sexism. Not sure where a "no racism" rule leaves the "What's wrong with... " threads. (Joke. That's a joke. Or an ironic comment, at least.)

I also think it helps to leave posts visible - for the trolls to be seen for what they are. But again, this is just my personal

>This is just a discussion Effers, we need people to air their opinions. <

You're right. I made a similar point myself on another thread

I say again, please search for and read Delete Expletives. It sums up categories of offensiveness very well and is well worth reading. I do think that there should be some levels of offensive that we use when employing *common sense* On their own it's just box ticking, but use together with common sense and they give you a good idea of what to look at and how to take things said in forums.

I'm going to try and post a link to Delete Expletives in my next post, but because it contains rude words I suspect it will get yikesed. We might need to have this conversation on the googlegroup.

Here's another doc that popped up in google. A 2009 report on PUBLIC ATTITUDES, TASTES AND STANDARDS A Review of the Available Empirical Research


http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/pdf/taste_standards_lit_review.pdf

Ok try this, it's a direct link that will open as a PDF

http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/~/media/Files/ASA/Reports/ASA_Delete_Expletives_Dec_2000.ashx

And if that gets pulled, go to this wiki entry and search for the phrase 'delete expletives" and you'll get the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity

I don't have a problem so much with the offensiveness category thing, but we should probably find another word for it

It does raise the issue of what's the standard of behaviour we want on noohootoo. I think this deserves its own thread, and people who might not me interested in this thread (or know of its existence) might have valuable input so I will start a thread in Ask.

excellent idea

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=823887 Subject: Noohootoo: standards of behaviour

I think that the name of the person who wrote a hidden post should be visible, but that the name of the person that yikesed it should *not* (though moderators/CEs should know). If a person shows a pattern of malicious yikesing, then some sort of sanction should be given (don't know what, but something).

I made a post to the Google group a couple months ago: http://tinyurl.com/42aostt (I'll put the content of that post, including the link in it, in my next post--I'm not sure that the link in that post will survive, but surely having to follow 2 separate links from *here* should be OK...)