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

Ya know Lucinda et al, there's some irony in that because with my second Guide Entry over here it was *YOU* who suggested I had committed plagiarism because it was too good! By the way I stopped writing entries for the Edited Guide after my third one (all three I submitted where approved, and rapidly) because I felt I was being disrespected over here.

Peet,

I don't "hang around" that rotten website. Only been there a few times & that was enough. But there's a certain gruesome attraction to view it again, like when you drive past a car wreck and feel the urge to look. (Mainly because the pics there sometimes ARE car wrecks.)

"If someone posted a message from a banned researcher, they should only in turn risk being banned if that message breaks the T&C's."

You mean if the content of the message broke the T&C, like copyrighted material or obscenities? But the act of passing along a message already breaks T&C's regardless of the content, because you're trying to circumvent the rule about banishment.

Creating another pseudonym to log in and post messages would constitute breaking the House Rule on staying banned. Using a friend's account would be the same. And passing along a message from some banned individual is like letting them use your account in order to circumvent the rule on banishment.

It would be nice to get extra warnings somewhere when the House Rules are amended, but this case seemed like a logical progression from the original rules.

"...the act of passing along a message already breaks T&C's ..."

Yup, but they had to change the T&C's to make it that way. And that was the point of my posting - based on this, we must view the T&C's as potentially "fluid", capable of being altered any time somebody does something the "owners of the sandbox" don't like.

If a banned researcher asked somebody to post a "Hi! I'm still alive and well, but I'm heading off on holiday for a month" message, that would in no way pose a threat to the site or its users. If they asked someone to post an abusive message, on the other hand, and they were stupid enough to do it, they would be liable to be banned on the basis of the message in their name. If the T&C's are there to protect the public viewing the site, the addition of that extra condition would have been unnecessary.

It therefore clarifies an unanswered point from another thread, showing that "banishment" is intended more to punish the perpetrator than it is to protect the other users.

Peet,

I still disagree. You're saying that if a suspended person can behave themselves and pass along messages through a friend's account, no matter the length of the message or the real involvement of the intermediary, then the banished person can stay active on h2g2 and effectively ignore the suspension? Letting that happen would weaken the rule of suspensions to the point of erasing it.

Maybe if a person believes that banishment or suspension is always an inappropriate punishment for anyone, and that all postings should to moderated without regard to past offenses, then this line of reasoning would follow. We could argue those points, but we should be clear about whether suspension is acceptable at all. To say that researchers should be allowed to pass along inoffensive messages from suspended researchers is to say that all suspensions should be effectively ignored.

So when I wrote "the act of passing along a message already breaks T&C's," I meant that the old T&C's seemed to already cover this, not just the newest addition to the T&Cs. Suspension was already a part of the T&Cs. Passing along messages helps people circumvent the whole idea of suspensions, thereby breaking the part of the T&Cs that says suspensions will be used.

For an analogy, consider the use of cell phones on the job. Where I work, more and more people have cell phones for personal use. Some of them take calls throughout the day. For some people, the calls seem more important than whatever work they're supposed to be doing. Our policies already covered people talking on the old office phone too often, if they do it to the point of neglecting their work. Do they need a new rule to cover cell phones too? New rules for email, instant messaging, voice chat, virtual pets battling each other through the walls? Maybe it would be nice to clarify things for people by adding a rule about each of these, but it seems logical that anything distracting a person from her job is a problem, no matter what new device serves as a distraction.

[Another example would be spending too much time posting messages on h2g2 when you're supposed to be working! Hope I haven't soured things between us by continuing to argue the point. Should we agree to disagree?]

Subcom., no worries; as you probably guessed, I enjoy a good argument!

I still think we're talking slightly at cross-purposes; you talk about "weakening the rule of suspension", while my posting was about clarifying the purpose of "suspension". Some people had said on other threads that suspension was to protect the other users from an offender repeating their offense, others had said it was more a punishment for the person suspended. I'm just pointing out that this seems to confirm the latter interpretation, rather than the former.

I wasn't saying that suspended people *should* be allowed to post through third parties, although in places I agree my posts could be interpreted in that light, but merely following the logic of the "no third parties" rule to its "illogical conclusion".

If the rule had been intended as protective rather than punitive, allowing people to post through a third party who would risk losing their account too if they posted anything against the T&C's would have been equivalent to having an unpaid "pre-moderator" examining the postings on a one-to-one basis before they were submitted, thus adding an extra level of protective filtering between the banned researcher and the Guide. If this means they could no longer offend, then the situation would have been resolved without removing any "voices" from the mix.

So, to cover your point, it's not about whether we should or should not have "suspension", but rather whether it is suspension from posting, or suspension from posting "freely".

It's a moot point, but as I say, it helps to establish the thinking behind the enforcement of the T&C's as being more about "punishment" than "rehabilitation".

As for your cell phone analogy, my point was that they *didn't* rely on the existing rules, but did in fact add a new one! When that has been done once, there's no reason to assume it will never be done again, so the T&C's which we all made a legal and binding agreement to are sufficiently fluid that they could be changed to say that we agreed to *anything*, such as passing our personal details on to the BBC's marketing department for the distribution of Market Research SPAM... That was (almost) a worst-case example, but you get my point, I hope.

We could agree to disagree at this point, but it wouldn't be so much fun, now, would it?

"Mankind wants retribution, but has to settle for justice"

So what do you fellas have to say about the hiding of homepages, the removal of links, and the recent changes in the House Rules? The latest change is that we may not link to external sites that 'may offend' the users of h2g2. But that 'may offend' seems to be applied very, erm, how shall put this, selectively. I think if we look at all the sites linked to there are many that 'may offend' people much worse than the one that has recently been blocked.

Let me repeat that question:

So what do you fellas have to say about the hiding of homepages, the removal of links, and the recent changes in the House Rules? The latest change is that we may not link to external sites that 'may offend' the users of h2g2. But that 'may offend' seems to be applied very, erm, how shall put this, selectively. I think if we look at all the sites linked to there are many that 'may offend' people much worse than the one that has recently been blocked.

Hmmm???

OK, I'll bite... What "recently blocked" site are you referring to? Without knowing that, we can't really comment on the question in any meaningful way...

(description, rather than URL, to evade the Thought Police, please...)

You don't know? The 'FoLKZ' discussion on the 'Topica' site. I'm wondering if they will leave this up...

If you don't see the previous posting, it's because they removed it, even though it was not a URL.

It's still there. Sorry, I wasn't aware that it was specifically banned; I thought they were just removing the automatic signup address. I assumed you could still give instructions on how to participate, just that you couldn't put a single-click link to directly sign up on H2G2. Perhaps I was wrong...?

Hi Peet.

Just so you know, I received a "Final Warning" by email, telling me that if I posted any link OR DIRECTION to FoLKZ, my account would be suspended for a week.

The entire Topica site is banned if it is mentioned in the context of FoLKZ. Despite the fact that there are *thousands* of lists there.

That sucks. Whatever you say about other BBC/moderation issues, that's *definitely* Censorship. Double-plus ungood.

ok, I'm a Zaphodista, because I hate society.
No, no, just kidding. I'm a zapho because I hate it when people decide for me, or for others WHO ARE NOT THEM what is appropriate to me and for me. I mean, perhaps I should be flattered you're forcing your beliefs on me, but thanks, I prefer to formulate my own opinions, and to do that I need to have a pretty free reign on what I'm exposed to. (note, this got me into oodles of trouble in social institutions, which is what this site is, BTW.)

Censorship...hmm. This site is censored because some things are
"not appropriate" or "insulting and degrading." Well, what the hell. Why are we being so careful to not offend anyone? I'm offended constantly. Censorship of my thoughts offends me more than anything else, I must say, except people deciding what material I should think about.

F*c*. S*i*. A****le.

Argh.

Personally, I find it strange you Zapho's are trying to excuse LeKz's posts, and citing extraordinary circumstances, when she should never have been called upon to censor herself in the first place. She is allowed, by laws and by right, to express herself in any way she desires. If it's insulting, suck it up. Quite whining. Take it like a tough man/woman instead of "showing her who's boss" and "teaching her a lesson." So she's offensive. Maybe she's not offensive to her. She'd have a hard time being offensive to ME, and even if she was, I'd not punish her for it.

I like h2g2, but I'm pretty tired of people constantly monitoring things. I mean, hell, I'd love to see a racist entry, just so i could rip up whatever sucker who wrote it. I'm tired of people trying to protect everyone. It's not your place to protect me. Oh wait! I forgot! it's a capitalist regime what owns this site! So, if it's offensive, how many products want to be associated with it? How many advertisement banners would it have? hmmm...


Ok. Done with the babble, here's the meat.

Lekz should never have been obstructed in any way when she wrote. Yes, we are here, in a private site, owned and operated by the BBC. Wait, BBC... isn't that a government funded organisation? I don't rightly know, but I know the CBC is, and I figure it's about the same. Lekz should never have been obstructed for one simple reason.
Because she's there.
Why would you censor someone? It's detrimental to yourself, maybe reading her posts would bring about some glorious epiphany, and you'll be changed forever. Probably not, but when you start to censor these extraordinary personalities and people, you're depriving yourself of that which gives life flavour. I'm not a normal guy, I think, but then, it's normal to think that one's not normal, so it's a pretty tricky thing. Lekz apparently wasn't normal, so why are you removing her from a society she could enrich with her different-ness? I'd hate to se a society where every person who thought, acted, or expressed themselves in an unorthodox manner were removed. Oh wait, has anyone read that book... I forget... about that guy who found the old paper and pen, and started to write that diary? 19-something? It's a date.

Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
I mean, oh brave new world, where people who are different or actually unique are removed for their ardour and vigour! and their other -our siffixed words! One of the most offensive posts I've ever read was in the pro-choice box by someone named Anthony. He was extremely insulting, but somehow, not only was he not banned, he was not x'd or censored at all. 'course, he was pro-life, so I guess if you're a conservative you get cut some slack.


Look, I'm sorry I've been rambling at you, but it's very, VERY late here, and I'v been ingesting too much caffeine. If this post offends anyone, Good. We could use some actual people around here.

D*ckmonkey.

Strange. The August 3rd addition to the House Rules is new, but the practice was old. When we came back from Rupert, I saw the link to my main offsite webpage accepted, but links to other pages of mine censored. I never realized that the House Rules didn't cover it.

Still a silly policy, because you're only two or three links away from offensive material. For example, my main page "Awkwardly" has links to another page called "F**k Texas." I used to have links to both of these on my h2g2 personal space, but F' Tx was deemed too offensive to link to and it was removed by moderator. People can still get to that page by finding it on Awkwardly. I mean, how could they possibly guard against offensive material being two or three clicks away? They apparently test every link posted on h2g2, but do they then test every link from those pages, and every link from those pages?

I don't know how to argue this new development, except to say it's always seemed silly, but it's always been in practice under the BBC. The practice is old but the wording is new.

[PS - I wasn't avoiding the question last week. I was on vacation, AFK for 12 days.]

Clarke/D*ckmonkey, re: "So, if it's offensive, how many products want to be associated with it? How many advertisement banners would it have?", you're right about the BBC being a government-funded organisation, and one side effect of this is that they're *not allowed* to have any form of advertising! You can have links and posts removed just for being advertising/promotional!

Apart from that, I agree with you totally. When everybody is forced to pretend to be a "normal" human specimen, how can you single out the a**holes for a good argument?

Well, that's different than Canada, The CBC can (and does) advertise all the time on their sites. mostly for American products.

Wheeeee! I got my first 'your posting has been removed' message from the italics! It seems the offending bit was a single word, involving the name of a volunteer group here on h2g2, and a word denoting a cavity.