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

how come the smileys have shrunk?

sef i was having a joke i was wrong .did you have my post removed?

Yes, since you seemed to agree it was wrong and I thought from your reply that you meant you couldn't yikes it yourself (ie from a digibox). No secret there - though it did seem to take a long time to vanish despite the timing on the email.

The smileys get small sometimes for people on a digibox and disappear entirely for those of us on PCs when the site is acting up! Refreshing the page sometimes works.

ok sorry

A517259 VOLUNTER-LIST

i dont want to join want a peacful life was having a laugh and some just cant take it.

boxing baboon:

"how come the smileys have shrunk?"
On the digibox they appear smaller when a link is posted, they remain like that. However, when the thread turns a page they appear as normal again (until a link is posted to that page too).

mate but it doesnt always do that on most threads so why this 1?

Because links have been posted to this one.

right ok ta on with the subject matter . i'll keep shhhssh

SEF you have a vendetta aginst the staff - Mina told you, not asked you, told you.

Unfair marketing of SEF, but the beeb are not good with adverts?

Can somebody please yikes that post, see what the mods say, and then you have the oppertunity to respond to their e-mail - is says so in in the mail they send.

**** BUT WAIT ****

Anybody that does reply to the mods e-mail, don't expect an answer, or even a repair of a wrong doing by mods. You get a non-response by the staff, err, err, I mean mods.

So if the mods initial outward e-mail contains an untruth, the...

The remark about SEF can be taken as an untruth?

There are no cat's in America

Just to clarify (as one of the allegedly 'dodgy' people running this site):

We apologise if we have missed any out - please remember we are human - but at h2g2 we do endeavour to always reply to emails regarding moderation decisions, to try to explain why the decision was taken and to try to resolve any misunderstandings. However, we do not have the resources to continue debates indefinitely and decisions cannot always be made that are to everyone's satisfaction.

We cannot alter the past but the other members of staff (that's Jim and Sam) do not use other h2g2 IDs, apart from h2g2Editors and h2g2Support.

As for the following:

Earlier in this thread Natalie demonstrated that she just didn't comprehend how the staff contributed to the problem - making out that it was easier to be fair while it actually takes more effort and cross-checking. Of course she could have been feigning ignorance.

Of course, your conclusion that I am 'feigning ignorance' and that I 'don't comprehend' how the staff contribute to the 'problem' is based on your view being correct, and of us all having the same perception of what the 'problem' is. Last week I stressed that my opinion – based on what takes up the hours of the day in my own job, and how best to proceed based on this - was drawn from my own experiences of working on this site, and that yours is a result of your experiences as a user. At no point did I suggest that your views carry any less weight than mine – less still that your opinions suggested a 'lack of comprehension' or 'feigned ignorance' – and it might be courteous for you to refrain from this too.

"yours is a result of your experiences as a user"

In the subtext of that though is the concept of "just a user" which carries the implicit assumption that I couldn't have additional knowledge from elsewhere and the separate assumption that the staff, simply because they are staff, must have a full grasp of human psychology and know best about how to avoid bias. Bias is inherent to human decisions. Ignoring the existence of inherent bias and therefore failing to take it into account by doing the necessary cross-checking, is obviously easier but equally obviously going to lead to being unfair.

You partially admit to not being perfect by admitting that you may have missed out some emails. Yet you *do* expect us to believe your interpretation must be the correct one because of "working on this site" whereas mine should be dismissed as merely that of "a user". I say that the evidence is capable of speaking for itself - when not suppressed.

natalie

any comment on ur fellow bbc pal minas diabolical comments?

babboon

stop wastin the space here with pointless msgs eh? who cares if the smileys have shrunk

<>

SEF, this 'subtext' is *entirely* yours - I neither said nor suggested any such thing. For the purposes of meaningful discussion it is significantly more constructive to take on board what people actually say rather than to add 'subtexts' and 'implicit messages.'

<>

I don't recall suggesting otherwise - indeed, I think I said something along the same lines. I said that we *endeavour* to be as fair as possible, as (as I have found from my experience in working for the site) to do otherwise is invariably counter-productive, but that we are cannot always make decisions that lead to the unbridled happiness of all, especially on issues that are rarely black and white.

<>

On the contrary, I have repeatedly emphasised the fact that we are all human and cannot claim to be infallible - however, we do perform the necessary cross-checks.

<>

I did not 'partially admit to not being perfect' - I did my utmost to stress that I am not perfect! We will address problems where necessary, but we will not waste valuable resources continuing disputes indefinitely.

I am dismayed, baffled and stunned that from my *explicit* statement that:

At no point did I suggest that your views carry any less weight than mine

...you have concluded that I am 'implicitly' saying the precise opposite!

Localised Girl: If you have any complaints with a posting on this site, please use the Yikes button and we will deal with it via the appropriate channels.

What you have missed then is that I disagree with your statement that "At no point did I [Natalie] suggest that your views carry any less weight than mine" and I explained the reasons for my disagreement.

Subject: Regarding The Aces Code Of Conduct
Posted 2 Hours Ago by Natalie
This is a reply to this Posting
Post: 1393


Just to clarify (as one of the allegedly 'dodgy' people running this site):

We apologise if we have missed any out - please remember we are human - but at h2g2 we do endeavour to always reply to emails regarding moderation decisions, to try to explain why the decision was taken and to try to resolve any misunderstandings. However, we do not have the resources to continue debates indefinitely and decisions cannot always be made that are to everyone's satisfaction.

Well why even say it in the e-mail send by mods we have the right to reply, as if we do reply we get the old routine...

However, we do not have the resources to continue debates indefinitely and decisions cannot always be made that are to everyone's satisfaction.

Again, why give 'hope' of resolving things via an e-mail system then?

"Can't do anything about off site stuff" - Mina (previously)

HouseRulse - don't flame or troll - best way to avoid that is to go offiste - well at least between resercher and staff.

So we are not suppost to try and talk problem out between ourself, knowing you are 'limited' Then if that fails come to you for help.

We can't put it on-site.

So we are suppost to sit here and not interact with others?

If somebody attacs you, are you the one the be at fault for allowing it to happen?

<<<>>>
<>

Jab, the email system is there to explain grievances and to try and resolve disagreements regarding posts, not to automatically reverse decisions whenever people complain. Still, if you know of a system that makes everybody happy all of the time then we would of course be interested in it (though we'd be happy, for the sake of mankind, to form a queue behind the UN).

<>

SEF, since you seem to put great store behind empirical evidence - yet have only provided your own 'subtexts' and 'implications' to my posts that I have clearly demonstrated weren't there - it would be fantastic if you could state exactly where I suggested that your views carry any less weight than mine. From an operational point of view it I do of course have some say over certain decisions - however, I have never suggested that your point of view isn't as valuable.