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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A546536

Not sure about this entry, so I thought I'd send it here. Any feedback would be greatfully received.

Hey Dastardly!

Brilliant entery why's it in the writers workshop the correct place for it to be is peer review. It is finished isn't it?

Z.

Great! Except that it condones illegal behaviour - "Obtaining a Pecuniary Advantage by Deception" and "Blackmail" - and that is specifically against the House Rules. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings...

You could probably reword so as not to be condoning breaking the law - have a try.

*sniff*

(I think there really should be a lightbulb smiley for when peoplehave good ideas)

How about
a)a disclaimer on top ie this article is a joke..etc..etc. Would that make it OK? (I'm guessing no or you would have said it, but hey..)

b)err..I haven't got any other ideas. Looks like this article isn't finished after all

Glad you liked it though.

Well, you just need to change it so instead of telling people "how to" get money, you simply report on those mean and nasty people who lie to try and get money off loterry winners...

"how people con lottery winners", as a title, perhaps?

or even "how people get lottery winners to part with their money"?

Aaaargh! Someone took it away!

Will they put it back if I do what you suggest then?

Yes, I suspect. As long as it doesn't advocate or condone illegal behaviour, it's fine...

you should have got an email from the moderators which goes into more detail...

It now talks about what con artists do, rather than tell people to do it themselves.
However, I may have left a few 'you's in there by mistake. I converted all they ones I could in they, he, or the c.a but I may have missed a couple. If you see them, please shout.

*horror*

The vogons have stole it!

Give it back now you horrible, slimy...

*gets carried away in disgust at the over zealousness of moderators*

Z.

Hey! I changed it to a mere description of what con artists do and it still got nicked!
I wasn't promoting it, merely reporting the facts.
Do I have to get rid of the bit on blackmail alltogether? I liked it. It added panache.

Oops, I may have overreacted a little.
I just thought it was obvious that the article was a joke.

It's now been refered, as opposed to just wiped out completely. That means it has a chance. However slim.

Check your emali dastardly they "might" have given a reason or explanation, but they don't always!

in sympathy

Z.

If you don't get an email for the first failure, then it's probably because of a bug in the system - mention it at the moderation help desk.

You might want to check through it one more time to see if you missed any advocation/condoning that you didn't reword the first time - mistakes are made... and yes, a disclaimer ("THIS IS A JOKE!") never hurts.

Yeah I got an email saying it promotes illegal activity, blackmail. Which is fair enough, the moderators are only doing their jobs I shouldn't have gotten cross.
It was just that I spent a lot of time rephrasing it to make sure it didn't actually tell anyone to commit blackmail and they still got rid of it.
But it's obviousely borderline cos it's still pending not actually removed.

If you can remember what it said, and if it gets reinstated, do you think it's guide material?

I thought the first version was guide material, were it not for the legality problem. Assuming you didn't screw it up in the meantime, I'd say it was fine

I'm sure it'll be passed back from pending with at most only a few minor quibbles - but you'll have to be patient and concentrate on your other entries in the mean time, I'm afraid...

Second time it got through. It'd be better to spell out con artist though, rather than put c.a.

That was just me being lazy. I've changed it now.

I realised abreviations were big when a friend told me he was going to "STAG"...

"Stag?" I said...... "Yeah: that's short for St. Andrew the Great".