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

Well, why don't you join too Mina, you can havea sniff round and see what you think. Like I said, there's some Doctor Who free areas, you could always hang out there. Plus thre's a team of very active mods who are very much part of the community - similar to the way the old community editors like yourself and Abi were.

Why should teens be reduced to chatting with their peers, for crying out loud? What is there to learn? The Sistabarista, for one, much more enjoys talking to an age group above hers because mentally she feels a lot more at home there.

Just as a matter of interest- if there are sites that under 16's can visit- is this a rule than can also be applied to H2G2? I appreciate that this isn't a decision that the italics can make but I'm curious as to whether they can't make enquiries along those lines. Unless of course the already have.

if the eds are still watching,as i think they are, you might get an anwser to that one jim

I'm assuming they already have - it's a logical idea, and the Eds are on our side, don't forget that

oh dear, listen to us
-
its coming to the crunch when we are picking sides, nothing wrong, but we are starting to think like a youngon lol
-
if i had a pound for evrytime the h2g2 or bbc as decided to axe something, or add something, in the last 5+ years ide be a rich man now.
-
i cant ever remember winning agaist them though jim

I might have a look, the only reason I came back to h2g2 was cos I didn't have anywhere else to go!

the first time i came on h2g2, i nearly ran off again, but with digi, no ld anymore, i stuck around, and am still here lol,
-
my epitaph," he died with his trusty keyboard, typing on hootoo" lol jim

We're in a cleft stick.

Right:- As witness the current thread re one of us being sick, we are (among other things) a caring crowd, but that gets lost behind the big corporate banner which says, in upper case, 'Must Be Seen To Be Done'.

Left:- We enjoy forum discussions & arguments and that's just great. But. We also enjoy the innuendo and the mucky jokes and we use quite a bit of bad language.

Shaft:- I'm trying to say that we all know youngsters see, read and hear things at least as bad in their everyday lives, but if -if- we accept that this is meant to be a family show, then we have no complaint.

So, keep demonstrating that we are a safe place - warts & all. (& hope we're not all of us locked out).

Just been doing a bit of thread hopping and interested to see people still posting on the Raven threads - which given it is aimed at kids and seemingly popular with them means at least 1 person has reregistered and lied about their age.
Not surprising is it really?
Nice law abiding non troublesome under 16 obey the rules - kids that don;t care and aren't ignore it and continue.

I just tried to reply to the post with

"I don't know whether you'll get much of a response ....

Most of the people chatting about Raven were under 16 and under 16s age no longer allowed to be members of h2g2. "

and got the message "It's with regret that we've made the decision to close all of the discussions on this board. Any new discussions appearing on here will be closed."

indeed, it seems someone noticed

Here we have an emotive subject, discussed online with some small input from Moderators and Editors, but largely balanced and reasonable for all that.

The discussion is in the context of a community, and it's a community I would have no hesitation introducing my own children to, if they wanted to hang out online with their Dad (which I doubt).

We are faced in the external world with children whose development is damaged through a lack of risk-taking, adult support from outside the family and (succinctly) community and yet the response of the legally-concerned is to ban children from this safe place.

I sit, at risk of disproving my own treatise on the rational exploration of the subject. I'm shocked.

Surely it is in the BBC's remit to provide such places as this, communities fit for children to "live" in. How can we have any hope of our children developing into human beings in a world where the adult behaviour of the characters of soap operas is considered fit for pre-watershed viewing, but this not?

Time for one of DNA's favourite adjectives I think - mindboggling.

There's a misconception (or is it just an 'easy life' attitude?) that segregation stops problems. Clearly that's not the case, seperating people by age simply stops children from understanding about life from every possible angle, same as segregating by colour or religion or sexual preference... It all narrows the world down to nothing and there's still no guarantee that the danger isn't *inside* the picket fence!

Hey Folks It's about time that some rationality was heard in this debate. Before I start, I should declare an almost unabashed love for the BBC. When my TV broke 12/93 and was not replaced; I had no qualms about continuing to pay the licence fee, thinking it an enormous bargain for the website and radio. That was until I left UK in March 2006. How many of you know a better news service that tries as hard to be unbiased? If you doubt this, simply read the editorial guidelines here http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/ When I say better: I primarily mean, an organisation that predominantly, is able to broadcast from its own staff. Because it has people everywhere, or close enough to get there soon. Most of the other news sources that we trust to be unbiased have to sometimes take feeds from other sources because they do not. There are many other reasons, but I think that is one of the most important. By the way: I know that a lot of you also trust BBC for your news. Look at the http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=502685 to see how I know. Why can other sites allow under 16's to register? It's quite simple: the BBC IS a trusted organisation. I am childfree, but if I was a parent; I would trust a site hosted by BBC, much more than most others. The BBC has a responsibilty to maintain that trust. In other words, other sites can allow what they like because they care less. Did anyone ask the under 16's? Do you think that we should ask under 16's whether they should be allowed to buy cigarettes? There are some judgements that have to be made by adults. I am slightly disappointed in the community that we do not seem to be mature enough to see that the BBC is more than just the host for H2G2. There is a very simple solution. If we collectively think that being hosted by BBC is so bad: Pay to host the site, either by subscription or by paid adverts. I don't favour that option; merely mention it. Many of you know that this kind of service does not come cheap. That was a guess. Also consider that as part of one of the World's most visited non-commercial websites, a lot of people do find us, who would not, were we elsewhere. Please try to think about this objectively. And have yourselves a great day.

"Do you think that we should ask under 16's whether they should be allowed to buy cigarettes?"

Yes.

I doubt I'd legalize selling cigarettes even if most under-16s were for it, but there's no harm and a certain amount of courtesy in at least listening to people's views.

The BBC counts as good, therefore any mistakes it makes should be disregarded is not an objective opinion.