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

Hi Guys I'd more or less left when the profanity filter was installed so I missed out on the dramas a couple of years ago. I've just had two posts pulled here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F38024?thread=5936808&skip=1980&show=20#p70895175 and here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F38024?thread=5867532&post=70908968#p70908968 and I have a couple of specific questions. 1) Do you no longer send emails to the posters if their post is referred to the editorial team? and 2) Is there a black list or set of rules somewhere or is the whole thing a judgement call? The words that got the posts pulled were "tw*t" (a "twit" obviously) and "tosser" (ie one who throws something lightly - as I toss off this post to you). In the early days of moderation swear-words were ok if they were starred or otherwise obscured and this is the habit I've re-applied since I came back. And I'd always thought of "tosser" as one of those mild words you can use in front of your boss or your grandma when you don't want to use the w-word. So - two questions, one about emails and one asking for a bit of clarity on "what is a bad word?" Is it about offence, in which case where is the boundary drawn - or is there a black-list - and is it based on British English (in which case "tosser" is a bad one) or both British and UK English (in which case "bitch" is also a baddie)? Ok, asking for lots of clarity, but you can see where I'm coming from. I'm not being tricksy about this. I have far better things to do with my time than getting agitated about the BBC's editorial policy for websites. I just want to know where the line is so I stop crossing it. I respect Lil far too much to introduce moderated posts into her threads, and those are the only places I'm actively posting. And I know that my timing's not great - I appreciate that gratuitous bad language is something that the BBC is particularly nervous about at the moment what with the escapades over on Radio 2. As I said - I want to tread the line, I just want to know where it is please. Thanks for your help guys Ben PS - Has the entry Jimster edited about British Swearing been removed? If so than that kinda tells me where we are with this whole thing. As I said, I left for other reasons entirely just as the profanity filter was being introduced so I missed all the storms in a teacup about it. Cheers.

Blimey - I hadn't realised how long that post was. Sorry about that. Short words are so much - er - shorter!

Hello Ben,

Thanks for this. We do send emails when content is removed and we still can't discuss moderation issues on-site.

(However, we don't click on links in emails from unauthorised sources, so if you had a spam filter that required this, then your filter might block your emails).

Kind regards,

h2g2 Feedback

It has to be a judgment call - it's not easy to be prescriptive (proscriptive?) about this. In my opinion it's 10% to do with the words and 90% the context, ie the same words are acceptable in some posts but not in others.

You have to be careful that swearing is justified rather than gratuitous. If there's an equally good non-offensive alternative, then you should use it.

Icy

Hi dear Editors

I've checked my spam trap and de nada, which is definitely odd. I've also checked my account settings, and you are sending to a valid email address.

What guidance is there on site about what is and is not appropriate? If you could point me to the appropriate guidance then I'd appreciate it.

Also - you didn't let me know if Jimster's entry on British swearing is still on site. I've searched but not found it, but I mistrust the search engine which is - um - underwear. Or was for years, anyway.

Icy - it's always a judgement call. I'm just trying to get a feel for where that judgement call will fall so that I know how to conform. That's the problem with vagueness. My objective here is to avoid having posts pulled in Lil's threads, but equally I don't want to put myself through unecessary hoops avoiding words which are - in context - entirely unobjectionable on the vague assumption that someone somewhere might find them upsetting. (I really could throttle Messrs Brand and Ross though).

Anyway - I'll re-check spamarrest when I get home this evening.

Cheers.

Ben

PS - Kerr's just told me Jimster's entry is still here, which has cheered me up considerably. I'll go home and kick my spam-filter this evening.

B

Ben, it is of interest that I had one of the exact words you used yikesed around a year ago, and in the same place. I used it about an airline owner, my view is still the same but won't post it again here of course,lol!
I can't remember if it was re-instated or not, I think not though.
It was clearly the way I used the word, it didn't help it was about a famous person either I suppose!

Thanks for all your help guys. I'm unsubbing now.

Cheers.

B