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

The talk of electing someone to look after the frount page reminded me of something that was either orgionally there or something that I got rid of last time I updated it (I forget which of course)

It went something along the lines of describing a fence used to keep undesirables such as trolls, flamers, moderators and the like. Obviously if this fence did exist it's been breached in several places.

Anyway, the point was that moderators is in the list. I'm generally of the point of view that censorship is unecassary and frustrating in this type of community, I tend to see it as a very last resort and was quite upset when someone clicked the yikes button because someone had said something offensive about me.

I think that given the terms of use (i.e. that nothing we say is the BBCs point of view) we don't need to be censored for being politically incorrect.

I think that anyone who would want to get involved in the sorts of discussion we have here is bound to have already heard enough cursative for one lifetime.

I think that closing down all debate on a topic (such as iraq or the election) to move it all into a big forum is a cheap tactic and drives certain people away (I can deal with the pace of conversation here, but I'm not reading several pages of blog everytime I log on)

Discuss.

>> I think that given the terms of use (i.e. that nothing we say is the BBC point of view) we don't need to be censored for being politically incorrect. <<

I think that is a bit of a generalisation. I don't believe I have ever seen anyone yisked for being politically incorrect. However, I have seen people yikes for saying things that could be libellous.

Under British Libel laws, the publishes is a liable as the person making the libel. Therefore to avoid libel suits, the BBC have to control what is said. I don't want the BBC using my licence fee to line the pockets of lawyers.

>> I think that closing down all debate on a topic (such as iraq or the election) to move it all into a big forum is a cheap tactic and drives certain people away (I can deal with the pace of conversation here, but I'm not reading several pages of blog everytime I log on) <<

You may think it is cheap, but there is a very good reason for it. As broadcast medium, the BBC is legally obliged to provide fair and balanced discussion during election periods which means the six weeks in the run-up to an election. If people are posting all over the place it would be impossible to control. If it is all in one place, then fairness and balance is easier to maintain.

I have been of forums where there is no moderation and it stinks. Believe me, that drives people away just as much and in larger numbers leaving only the lowest common denominator left.

People don't hang around to be abused and insulted. It doesn't happen in face to face conversations because there would be consequences. In a anonymous medium like this the same consequences don't apply, but there are others that can be applied and yiksing is just one of them.

Do those laws apply in this case? A book publisher reads what they are publishing and then decides to put it on the shelves, wheras in this case the BBC is just providing a medium to pass the information through. Surely it's the equivelent of finding something illegal in a book and prosecuting the company that makes paper?

Fair and balanced discussion? It barely manages fair broadcasts let alone discussion (the bias of which is surely determined by the people in the discussion rather than the moderator)

Theres a difference between a new community without moderation and an existing one losing it. It's needed for the set up period to establish a community, but once it's in place it's less vunerable. I seem to remember we had a certain researcher in the Forum who showed up to pick a fight, was ignored, got fed up and left.

>> Do those laws apply in this case? <<

Yes they do. In fact any Internet publisher is responsible for its content as has been proved in law.

http://www.spr-consilio.com/cyberlibel.html

In this case, Demon were considered guilty because once they had been informed of the libelous content, they refused to remove the offending item. Prior to being informed of the content, they were not liable.

>> Surely it's the equivalent of finding something illegal in a book and prosecuting the company that makes paper? <<

A false analogy. Paper that makes up a book is analogous to the hardware that computers run on. Hardware manufactures are not held responsible for the information they store and transmit.


>> Fair and balanced discussion? It barely manages fair broadcasts let alone discussion <<

Does it? Where does the BBCs bias lie then? Try and work out what Jeremy Paxton's political beliefs are. I can't and I doubt if anyone can. Everyone gets equal treatment. You will notice that most discussions hosted by the BBC include participants from both sides of the political spectrum. If you want to know what biased reporting looks like, take a look at CNN or Fox News.

The BBC has a well deserved reputation for impartiality. It is criticised equally by both Conservative and Labour for being biased.

Donald

" I seem to remember we had a certain researcher in the Forum who showed up to pick a fight, was ignored, got fed up and left."

Unfortunately the numbers of people willing to ignore a troll are minute. Most people can't resist rising to the bait, and online arguments break out. Reactive moderation is a good thing - it means that generally someone out there has to believe that something is a problem before anything is removed. Removing things *in case* there is a problem creates far more of a problem.

Most people seem to like it that there is someone out there in internet land who will take action against people who are causing trouble simply for the fun of it.

Donald and Mina covered it really.
I was yikesed not so long ago. I replied to the moderators e mail and got my post reinstated.
I don't think anyone abuses the moderation system. At least not with sucess.
I only yikes posts that are harmful. Be that potentially harmful to a researcher because they are vulnerable or young or harmful to the sense of site community we're lucky enough to have here.
It's in the interest of all of us that use the site that the Beeb does take steps to protect itself and does pay attention to the feedback it gets to try do things better next time where possible.

Thanks for the link, I'm having trouble deciding how I feel about it. I can see why you don't want entities slandering other entities over a mass-communication medium, but on the other hand I think someones got a right to put up a forum and say whatever gets posted here is none of my buisness, talk to the poster if you've got a problem.

I set up a website about 5 years ago and it had a guestbook. I haven't checked it in the last 2 years or so but hypothetically speaking there could be a slandorous comment and another few dozen comments asking me to remove it. If I understood it right the burden of proof falls on me to show that I was unaware that there was a problem, I have no idea how I could do that. Even if I was actively moderating I'm not being paid to, so I don't see why I should spend time updating the page if I don't feel like it.

I don't think it was such a bad analogy. When someone sets up a forum they don't know whats going to be posted there, just as when someone produces paper they don't know what will be written on it. The only way either would find out if something wrong was on their medium would be if someone told them. If I went to a paper production facility with a book printed on their paper and said I didn't like it I imagine I'd be told where to go. Now more people can see a forum post than are likely to see a specific peice of paper, but is there any difference other than scale?

I said "barely manages" in that it manages it, but only just. As opposed to Fox and the like who I would describe as something more like "not even pretending to have considered looking up the definition of unbiased in order to make an effort" If there is any use of language with emotive content then a report has a slight bias (Notice how a group can change between being rebels and terrorists without changing their operating methods?) Making an unbias statment in English is very difficult, moderating your own statements for a short amount of time is a massive effort and the beeb acheive it better than most. Trying to organise an independant group of people to be fair and balanced is an impossible task however you reorganise the conversations. Besides you want such discussions to be unfair and bais. Opinions are. Whats the point in getting a lot of people together to discuss an event but trying to keep opinions out of it?

Your probably right, Mina. My problem is that I have a tendancy to assume that people are better than they are. Closest I have to a faith :P

>> but on the other hand I think someones got a right to put up a forum and say whatever gets posted here is none of my buisness, talk to the poster if you've got a problem.<<

The first week I was registered on h2 I came across a post in a short thread on homosexuality where someone posted about their experience of pornography involving a dog and a child.

Personally I am relieved that h2 gets moderated. I don't want to have to interact with people who think child porn is an acceptable pasttime, and I certainly don't want to have to waste my time telling them that their behaviour is unacceptable.

Because it was my first week on h2, and because the poster was out and about on h2 and I thought it was better that what he was like remained visible, I didn't yikes the post. It stayed there for many months and then eventually someone removed it. The researcher who posted it is no longer active.


At the other end of the spectrum, I got modded recently for asking someone if they had to be such a dork. I should have asked the mods to replace the sentence with "XXX, do you have to be so intentionally obtuse?", just to see if they would put it back, but my emailer was acting up and in the end I didn't have time.

So, yeah I think that modding is open to abuse, and sometimes the yikesed person doesn't have the time to back and forwards with the mods to get a post put back in (initial messages from Mods don't have an explanation about what is offensive etc so you have to guess).

I should add that the dork post included separate replies to two other researchers which were of course also removed, which is why I found the modding annoying. I guess the moral there is if you are going to be rude to someone, give it it's own post.

Kea, just for clarity's sake, when you talk about "h2", do you mean h2g2, or the other BBC messageboards?

I ask because the name of the software used in the other boards, like 606 the football site for example, is "h2". See this URL here as an example of what I mean - http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2cluster2/h2.cgi?state=threads&board=sixosix.arsenal

I think it is the antipodean's tendency to shorten the already short shorthand.

I think there's a few different views (at least between me and the moderators) about what is moderatable and what isn't. In my six months here I have modded two posts. Both of my moderations have been overruled, and I suppose that strictly according to the rules this was an appropriate action. Neither post was explicitly in violation of the House Rules. But the things the posts said made me feel uncomfortable, even though they weren't obviously bad, and I wanted to apprise the moderators of what was going on and of the conduct of the Researcher who had made the posts. It really upset me when they didn't seem to do anything about it.

"Your probably right, Mina."

Yeah, I am. Blowing my own trumpet, this is what I do for a living.

I used the yikes button once last year, and I feel that it was a necessary step.
It was in the coversation forum for the Entry on alcohol abuse, and some idiot had written a post along the lines of "you people are so sad. Get out, get drunk and get a life!" it is because of this this kind of thing that moderation is a necessary evil.
I do agree, however, that yikesing posts because (in online terms at least) somebody looked at you funny is a bit extreme.

Grey Desk, I was referring to h2g2. Do the message board sites that have h2 in the URL refer to themselves as h2? i.e. would my post really cause confusion or are you being pedantic? Would use of 'h2' offsite (off h2g2) be confusing?


>>I think it is the antipodean's tendency to shorten the already short shorthand<< Avernus

Am I the only one using 'h2' then?

I've seen people refer to us offsite as hootoo, it's pronounced the same but then I'm glued to a computer so I wouldn't know

Most of the BBC messageboards still use the h2 platform. Some have migrated to using DNA, but that is still a small minority. You can see who has and who hasn't if you hover over the links on this page - http://www.bbc.co.uk/messageboards/atoz.shtml

Whilst talk of the merits of the two platforms, DNA and h2, is not common on the h2 driven messageboards, it does exist. I've been involved in a number of chats with folk on the 606 football boards about it. Thus when you ask is it confusing anyone, the answer is yes it is. It's mainly me that you're confusing I'm sure, but it's confusing none the less!

Are you the only one using the h2 contraction? No, but you're part of a very small band indeed.

I was thinking of another example of where a contraction of one word comes out to mean something entirely different to other readers. For example how about contracting The Arsenal (ie the football club) to The Arse

Talking of publishers being liable, rather than the author, this link might be interesting to some of us...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/24/motley_ruling/

I think the concept detailed in the Amazon v David Trimble item in the above link that libel should be allowed in the interest of free speech to be abhorrent.

It can lead to situations where only those with the loudest voice get heard. Truth and lies become intermingled till it is impossible to distinguish between the two.

Donald

I was about to post the same link Mina

And Acid, to repeat a story - someone posted a libellous comment about the chairman of my local football club, on a fanzine site. Despite it being removed as soon as the moderator was informed, and it only being there 3 hours - he sent in the lawyers.