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

2legs said this elsewhere:

>>
Issues of moderation and past bans, are, if I remember correctly, explicity not to be discussed on site, according to the current BBC/h2g2 houserules and posting rules.
<<

I've seen someone else say that recently. Is that true? I had a quick look through the HRs and related pages and couldn't find anything. I know the *Eds* won't discuss individual moderation/transgressions issues online. But afaik there's nothing to stop the rest of us.

It is probably one of the unwritten rules. I doesn't say anywhere that *we* aren't allowed to discuss moderation emails on site, yet, when I once posted one in a journal (it was such a stupid one like geggs got last night), somebody yikesed my journal on the grounds it broke the house rules. I read every word in *all* the rules, ie h2g2 house rules AND BBC terms and conditions, and it was NOWHERE mentioned. Yet the eds said it broke the house rules and upheld the yikes.

I'm sure* there was something in there about it... hmmm.... maybe my memory is failing

your right... I certainly couldn't find anything specific in the houserules, transgretions procedure, or moderation pages... though they do seem wildly out of date, as they still mention SSO (single sign on)... The only thing close, was mention that the editors won't discuss moderation/banning on site.. My mistake

You're not the only person who's thought that, including the Eds at times!

Bel, how long ago was that?

It was on 18th December last year. Just to get my journal title back, I agreed to alter my post (and because I like the eds and didn't want to add to their work load, or else I would have started a discussion with the eds, or leave the post removed).

ahh... not just me then Maybe something changed at some point in the houserules, descretions procedure, moderation guidelines, or some other rule thinggy...

In my experience, we are very much permitted to discuss moderation matters on site. The Eds just won't ever be drawn into discussing them. They did that once, almost exactly a decade ago, and it was... complex.

But I can't see why you'd stop people talking about it.

I have this to say on the subject: A79646737

It will be interesting to see how the content of that entry changes, post 2pert. (Second Rupert, in case you're wondering).

In a telephone conversation the other evening I reflected to a fellow h2 user that being an arm of the BBC gives, I feel, one a certain licence to behave somewhat robustly. Post 2pert, I shall, I predict, be a good deal more circumspect in my postings.

It's all very well being arrogant and opinionated when the host of your opinions is a faceless corporation that you fund from your taxes. It's a bit different when the site is basically being run by your mates and only even exists because of their efforts. We shall see.

Given the absurd hiding of posts on the arse thread it gives me a feeling of numbness and unfeeling much like an arm that has been slept on...

And you know the best use for an arm numb from being slept on...

'post 2pert'

you mean 'post Cnut' surely

Peanut!!


*hides under her Matt*

In response to the original post, I don't think there are 'printed' laws about discussing moderation, etc. I think that on the whole, it is just discouraged as much as possible (including post removal) so that what-ever the matter was, it can perhaps calm in its own time. Less stirrings, the sooner the sauce calms from a simmer.

It says in the moderation emails that the content of the emails is confidential and may not be discussed on site. I assume the same is true of the other transgression-related emails, but I've never been banned.

So if peanut gets modded or shelled, then she can't talk about it. The omission from the House Rules suggests that we can.

It seems that the folks implementing them didn't realise the omission.

Ben

I'm not a big fan of gag orders.

That's easy for you to say.

Mrs Z, that is about the upshot of the present means. I can not say what I received in an e-mail about any transgression. But in pretty much any terms, others could. It seems a bit of a muffling of a self-defence notion, but I imagine the BBC legal services thought it a better idea perhaps?

In the new zone, perhaps so long as discussions can be explicit and yet not slanderously name names, it might be a direction to look at

(I should have added a "booooom----tiSH" to my previous post, btw.)

You mean a "rim shot"?

ARSE!!!