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

Sorry to jump over, but I felt the reminder really wasn't needed and was actually unnecessarily intrusive

I think you mis-judged, we were perfectly able to resolve this for ourselves, even if Willem feels differently, then he can say so and we'll work that out together

we don't need 'rules' or reminders or guidance to be able to do it at this point, there was just no need

Peanut

Sorry to disappoint you Peanut, but the rules apply to everyone. Of course it's far better if things are worked out amongst researchers, but what is worked out must also adhere to those rules. We can not have a situation where researchers, no matter who or how well liked, start making their own rules.

Of course the rules apply to all of us

there was just no necessity to be citing them at *this* point in *that* particular conversation

it wasn't needed to the point of unwarranted

I wasn't making my own 'rules', I was expressing how I felt about a long running conversation, what it meant to me, as 50% of that conversation

If Willem feels differently then that is something that Willem and I can resolve between ourselves, or at least be given the opportunity to do so surely

There has been no hint of rule breaking, or in fact setting of rules in that conversation, on behalf of me, or Cass, or anyone

till you mentioned them, which as I said, unnecessary

here have an olive...



and have an olive branch

I am disagreeing with you but let's not get personal eh, because the 'I am sorry to disappoint you bit' sounds kind of personal in that I read it that you don't think that I think the rules apply to me

I just don't think the house rules were necessary in this social situation

The house rules are *always* necessary, and they *always* apply.

What you mean is that you don't think they needed mentioning at that point, and if that is the case I disagree. All conversations are public and seen by everyone who chooses to view them, someone not familiar with the house rules may easily get the wrong impression from your post and see only a new entrant to the conversation being chased away. That's not the attitude or atmosphere for this site, hence the gentle reminder of the rules.

I think it is highly unlikely that someone just looking in would be put off by such a post, or consider it to be unfriendly, or discourteous in anyway and certainly not to the extent that it would put off them posting on the site or find it unwelcoming

it was an emotionally honest post about my feelings and balanced for the context in which it was posted, no credit for that?

If you had given it a little time I would have read Cass's response and put his respectful and gracious feedback into the thread and asked Willem how he felt about it.

Do I really have to post now with such a wider public in mind to that degree?

Or need you to overview that post to put into some sort context for the benefit of a 'maybe reader' who 'might have' construed the said one post in a conversation as off putting and unfriendly or setting the tone for the whole site?

Personally I don't think I needed it, we needed it and neither did h2g2 or its readers and all should have been afforded a little more creditability

Peanut

Reading Cass' response is neither here nor there. The post you made implied a rule that does not exist. Technically that could fall under impersonating a moderator, but we try and keep everything in context here which is why so much gets let slip and friendly reminders are drop into conversations

Obviously in context you weren't trying to impersonate anyone, or any authority. And obviously you're having a conversation that people will lurk, after all so many people here really like Willem. As for potential readers, there's a lot of them. Every post that's made on h2g2 shows up, however briefly, on the front page. And people do just drop by and see what's happening.
Now, given the friendly place that we've managed to make h2g2, and that we'd like to keep it, we obviously have to drop little reminders into conversations occasionally, and very rarely anyone has any objections to it. After all, we're doing it from the non-moderator accounts, keeping it between researchers and self-policing as it were I think we've mostly got away from the need for the "official" italic accounts to post little reminders here and there.

But the rules still stand, and they always stand, and apply to every single posting made on this site

In what way do you think that any post in that thread said that rule didn't exist, because I didn't imply that in anyway intentionally,

When mentioning rules my point has only been that we didn't need to be reminded of the rules, not that they didn't exist or I was wilfully or denying their existance

I said that none had come close to being infringed, or that h2g2 house rules needed be specifically applied, or commented on at that time, in that thread

it was completely unnecessary, we had enough 'social etiquette' in the tank not to have to be reminded, did not have to made some sort of example of,

and should have been left to sort it out between ourselves, finding our own ground would have brought h2g2 into any sort of disrupt

there was no harm, no point making ,no unfriendliness, or 'exclusion' just people working things through for themselves in what was quite a constructive way

disrepute

"you made implied a rule that does not exist. "

?

sorry I don't understand

You implied a rule that does not exist, rather then implying a rule didn't exist.

Although your posts here have also implied that you believe the house rules don't always apply, but I'm sure you didn't mean it like that

I have?

That is probably because I am not sure what rules that you think should apply, or what ones you think I am implying that don't

and you are asserting that I am implying that they shouldn't always apply, confusing isn't it, here have another olive

Re-reading somewhere a long the line you have said that a 'possible reader' might infer that my one post, or two at the least, in a very specific thread and I was clear on being specific, was unwelcoming and set a tone for the whole of h2g2

that they would also be confused by the fact that somehow a house rule is being infringed , or denied, or implied where it doesn't exist really I am confused which now, anyway, a house rule. possibly more, that I can't fathom and am fairly they haven't read

and further more it could be read technically as impersonating a moderator

I have consistently said I believe house rules apply but I am at total loss as to where they applied to those posts or that thread, specifically

or why you felt you had jump in at that very particular point rather than just wait a while and see how it how panned out

"I just don't think the house rules were necessary in this social situation"

Post 3.

You see, by not sticking to the rules it can get very confusing. They're not just there to stop trolling, being rude or harassment. They're actually also there to make sure that everyone has a great time here.
Now, take your post to Cass. Cass came in to that thread politely, respected the flow of conversation and asked to join in as it was pertinent to the conversation that was happening, rather than creating another thread that may have led to confusion and double posting by those concerned, a simple polite request. Your post to them came across as being rather blunt and rude. That taken out of context doesn't shine yourself in the best light, no matter how important that thread is to you.
It *is* a public site, and you don't actually have any right to stop people posting anywhere on it. The only people that do are the moderators who are able to restrict a users postings to certain areas of the site as part of the moderation process. Owners of threads, PSs and Journals can request, but even then it's a request. Obviously if someone was to go and post into someone else's personal space and keep going on at them, then it falls into harassment and again becomes a moderation offence, so the mods could get involved there if need be.

The thing is, we try to keep this site as open and as friendly to everyone as we can, rather than just for the few

Surely this debate is a bit "The sabbath was made for man Not man for the sabbath"..

I posted on that thread having checked that the previous quite detailed conversations that I had with Willem last year were on his "I'm Feeling Suicidal Again" thread, which I chose not to re-activate.

This was , I believe, a very public cry to the whole h2g2 community. But, while 'group therapy' can be beneficial, part of the successful operation of any group is that those within it come to see themselves as in some way bound together, and not part of the wider world- or in the case of h2g2 the whole Universe. Given the particular sense of isolation that seems to be part of Willem's life, I think that h2g2 should form a dual function of giving him a platform through which he can share his creative work which (as art) is produced in a social format, but also finding some possibility to have conversations where things may be discussed that go no further and do not become public..

Rules are made to be broken and it is "The Exception that proves the rule", because only when you find a situation so exceptional that the rule should not be followed, can you really understand and define the value of the rule in normal operation.

The whole culture of rules and "Laws" really goes back to Newtonian Physics and that belief during The Age of Reason that there was a benevolent Creator God who set up the Universe to run like a mechanism replicated in that popular 18th century "toy" the Orrery which clevery replicated the movements of the Solar System. Tom Paine in "The Age of Reason" explains what a help his Orrery was in developing his own understanding of the universe. And when the French Revolution started he understood it as being "public"- the dawn of a New Age of History. He went to Paris and was elected to the National Assembly, only to find himself appalled by the French/Old World madness and imprisonned because it was not 'public'. He was an 'enemy alien' and on Robespierre's death list.


Cass

Thoroughly agree about rules Cass, however as a confirmed anarchist (in the true sense) I also believe that an absence of rules is only achievable when the community is able to live without them.

Willem's creative work is without doubt amazing. At the Towers we're very aware of this, and are doing what we can to promote it. In fact it was Willem's artwork series for the Post that has pushed forward the change about what content can be entered into the Edited Guide, with his being the first illustration led entries. We're also looking at the possibility of publishing a dead tree edition of his work. He really is an amazing talent, and an amazing person. I don't know of anyone on here who doesn't think so, and I do know that pretty much all the mods who monitor the site all the time keep an especial eye out for his postings, eagerly awaiting further instalments.

Now as I read it, Cass was polite and I felt I was was considerate back but honest in how *I* felt about that thread, rather than well basically lying for the venear of politeness, it wasn't rude, I was explaining and left other avenues open, ones which I would have welcomed

If Willem feels differently then he is the other 50% of the conversation and nothing is set in stone and we can talk about that, I am not laying down any rules or laws, just saying how I felt, if Willem wants to open it up, then I am not closed to that

Cass doesn't appear to think I was rude or unwelcoming and surely that is a quite important point that can be taken aboard

I think the history of "rules" goes back further though Cass, pretty much most of the Old and New Testament, and a lot of the other religious manuscripts cite rules that the believers have to follow, perhaps the most famous is the ten commandments. So there's documented (if you believe it) rules to govern social behaviour from at least summat BC.

There's also the laws/rules set down by Aristotle and Archimedes, which were some of the first mathematical and philosophical laws applied to man.

I think though that the Newtonian ones are possibly the first "modern" ones that we can associate with, at a time in history when the churches were again gaining power and influence in how the rules and laws were set.

I am not an anarchist, I have not being finding or looking for any exceptions

I genuinely don't think I have don't done anything wrong, or rude or horrible or come close to it

There are plenty of discussion in which everyone can join, or are free to start one, it was this one I felt had taken on a flow of its own and I liked it like that

now that CAN change, I am not being dogmatic about it having to be between Willem and me, I am open to other options

I just said how I personally felt, in a heart felt way actually,in the best, most tactful way I could muster and taking into account my relationship with Cass and how I anticipated he would respond to that

what on earth was wrong with that

Nobody said you were an anarchist, I said I was

That's two posts in this thread you've misread, I didn't think I was *that* confusing

True anarchy isn't what the media and films make it out to be, it's not all about burning cars and breaking things. It's about not having rules because you don't *need* rules.

For instance, how many people in the UK actually know every single law? I'd guess at none. And yet they get through the day without breaking them, because they don't think about it. To them there is no need for a lot of laws, because they *know* what is right and what is wrong. But others, the vociferous few need rules and laws to tell them what they can and can't do.
It's no coincidence that most anarchists are also socialists. They are the ones that understand how to behave and act with others, and therefore don't need rules.

I didn't say you thought I was an anarchist, only pointing out I wasn't

except that on your definition I am

because you have made precisely my point, in this instance I didn't think we needed 'the rules', my behaviour, actions and expression wasn't out of bounds and neither did I think anyone else would be either.