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

Grief,

I endorse Hoovooloo's suggestion to lurk, (and see how it feels).

When took myself off site for a week and lurked I found it surprisingly restful. It also gave me time for reflection, and time to let my opinions mature based on what others posted in the meantime.

This may not work for you in the same way of course, but if it does, we will welcome you back.

*wishing you well*

Ben

--- Willem ---

He had something to say and he said it.

All you had to say was don't say it.

Now that he has taken your advice,

Since the saying and not saying were more than he could bear,

You are saying,

What?

What are you saying to the man you questioned

When he said what he saw?

What are you saying to the man who cared?

What are you saying to the man who is saying that the

Not saying

And

The saying

Are

Unbearable?

Can't you hear what you are saying?

Can't you hear what he is saying?

Can't you hear?

Barton -- who still cares enough to watch
. . . but not enough, it seems, or soon enough,
. . . it seems, to have saved a friend the pain
. . . I might have been able to had I stayed to help.

This is bulls**t! I can't believe this! It was never heard of people leaving h2g2 before the new rules etc. I'd never heard of someone banned or leaving like poor Grief, either. THEY are destroying their site. What good is a site if nobody's around? I mean, what good's a site if nobody interesting is around? Goddamnit.

This is bulls**t! I can't believe this! It was never heard of people leaving h2g2 before the new rules etc. I'd never heard of someone banned or leaving like poor Grief, either. THEY are destroying their site. What good is a site if nobody's around? I mean, what good's a site if nobody interesting is around? Goddamnit. I don't know you grief, but it's a shame to lose you.

F*****g Management scaring people away.

Here here.

Interesting word, this THEY, Clarke. THEY are destroying the site?

Don't forget, there's still as many sides to this thing as there always are to everything, and there's certainly not one THEY to just point the finger at.

Seeing it from the other side of the coin, i think the people who are leaving the site are destroying it as much as the people who are perceived as forcing the leavers to leave. They too belong to the THEY.

try and keep the process of estrangement to a minimum!

Well, I'm getting rather tired of this myself. I'm tired of all the inflamed rhetoric I've seen (people have been called nazis, inquisitors, cult members, lunatics, know-it-alls, bigots, etc.), and the way any attempt to bridge the gap and work out something turns into a shouting match. I'm tired of the victim game. I'm tired of not being able to say anything without someone flipping out. I thought I could still be involved with this (less now because of real life), but I'm not sure it's a good idea. I'm taking a break from this forum myself for a while.

*Flipping out tiredly, to applaud Mr Cogito's remarks*

I look forward to seeing you in other threads Mr C

***B

That's right. THEY are destroying the site. The same they who ban people and moderate writings, who refuse to be accountable to the people they moderate. That THEY.

How many sides are that, exactly? Please elucidate, would you?

Now, you're statement that the people who are leaving are destroying the site is just ridiculous, I'm sorry to say. For every action, there is a consequent reaction. The people who have departed are reacting in the only way that they can, since it's now impossible to reach the aforementioned THEY to talk about or debate things they see wrong with the guide, as the THEY are now completely anonymous.

And as far as estrangeing people goes, well, I think I'll be the ultimate judge of whether or not I'll keep it to a minimum, thanks.

Wow!

"since it's now impossible to reach the aforementioned THEY to talk about or debate things they see wrong with the guide, as the THEY are now completely anonymous"

*pfffssssttt!* (The sound you make when something is scorching hot)

I'm not going to deconstruct this. But I AM going to comment.

I have always found that polite emails to the italics have worked really well, as have polite postings in the appropriate forums. They may not respond immediately, but they have always responded to me.

I have also found that the italics DO have the good of hootoo at heart, where there are problems are (1) that there may be a difference of opinion about what is 'good' for hootoo and (2) they are constrained by their employment contracts and cannot give personal opinions.

We want the freedom of speech to say 'moderation sucks, the beeb are a bunch of faceless and mindless burocrats, and we want to be able to post in any language, including anglo saxon'.

They may be in complete agreement with all of those opinions (and my guess is that they are) but they CANNOT say so.

Now I have well documented issues with the WAY in which a lot of the decisions taken have been implemented, but most of WHAT has been done was inevitable given that the italics are the EMPLOYEES of the BBC.

Finally, I do hope that by being able to differentiate between their personal posts and their official posts they get the chance to let their hair down a little every now and then.

Do not assume that they originated the policies they implement.

And don't worry Clarke, you can estrange me any time you like.

a girl called Ben

AgcBen:

Hiya Ben. These deconstructing posts do go on, don't they? Here's another one. Sorry...

"I have always found that polite emails to the italics have worked really well, as have polite postings in the appropriate forums. They may not respond immediately, but they have always responded to me. "

I've politely asked for postings *I've* made to be taken down due to intentionally offensive content. I've received emails telling me why they're not taken down. I've written back, politely pointing out that the reasons given are fallacious and in fact logically impossible. When I didn't receive a reply after a week, I put the full text of the email correspondence on my personal space. That got a response alright. The postings are still up though... (side note: I did that only after I (engineer, not lawyer), had had to point out that the confidentiality notice on the bottom of emails from the BBC is there to protect ME, not them. I'd seriously like to know which firm of solicitors advised H2G2 that they can tell people in an email that the contents of that email are confidential and it's illegal to divulge them. I'd hate to think that more people might ask solicitors like that anything important...)

"Now I have well documented issues with the WAY in which a lot of the decisions taken have been implemented, but most of WHAT has been done was inevitable given that the italics are the EMPLOYEES of the BBC."

What, precisely, is the relevance of the BBC connection? I'm on record in this thread and elsewhere defending Italic actions as necessary results of BBC takeover, but seriously, where does it end? The BBC bans use of foreign languages. Granted - even that is changing now. The BBC requires that no copyrighted material is posted. OK - I don't see anyone having a problem with that. The BBC requires that posts obey the law - no incitement, no libel etc. All fine. But there is now, apparently, a BBC policy on use of the word "a**hole" - and those asterisks don't stand for "ss" (clenches teeth and resists the urge to insert pun involving the SS) but rather "ce" . There are other examples, which I simply can't be bothered to go into, because one example is enough as long as it is factually accurate. (the last eleven words were a pointlessly bitchy thing to say but if you can be bothered to find out why GET A LIFE!)

The stuff being objected to lately is, in general, NOT stuff that can be attributed to BBC ownership. I hate to speak for other people, but I think the majority of those making a stink here *want* to see a site that would conform very closely to an ideal of something the BBC would like to see. Which is to say something open, inclusive, accountable, diverse, interesting, and intellectually stimulating and rigorous. The reason people seem to be getting annoyed is that over the last few weeks all of those things have been chipped away, sometimes in little shards, sometimes in socking great lumps.

"Do not assume that they originated the policies they implement."

Why not? They run the site. And here's a little bit of text I copied from somewhere very close by: "The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC."

H2G2 has some different terms and conditions to normal BBC online sites. Some of these differences are freedoms from restriction for which the italics had to negotiate, and for that we are grateful. But that difference from the main BBC site is important. H2G2 has a bunch of people in charge who came in from outside the BBC and negotiated with that organisation for terms under which they could operate as a subset of BBC online. So unless a rule is specifically described as originating with the BBC, I think it's reasonable to assume that it originates with the italics, i.e. in house to H2G2.

The fact that it is likely to be less possible to address individuals, frankly, doesn't bother me that much. My opinion is that any "official" correspondence with H2G2 (e.g. responses to "Yikes" presses) should have all the warmth and friendliness of a letter from your bank manager. This could be as easily applied to conversations on site regarding official matters - rules and their enforcement etc. Despite what has been said elsewhere, it frankly should not matter a damn whether the person in charge is Mark Moxon, or Uncle Tom Cobbley. Many, many people delude themselves that they are indispensable. Take your hand out of the bucket, people, and remember the lessons of indispensable people like Margaret Thatcher. (I'm reminded of a quotation here - "France is DeGaulle. DeGaulle is France.")

Personally I think the anonymity of "h2g2 editors" as an ID should encourage a more professional tone in postings. I would hope that individual accountability for such postings would remain possible in the event that there was, shall we say, a lapse in that professionalism.

End of random musings...

H

Sorry, HVL, I really can't let your "deconstruction” go un-commented, since I agreed with agcB.

AgcBen said that the Italics responded to her mails in a sensible manner.
You said the Italics didn't respond to your mails in a sensible manner.
-Where's the "deconstructing” bit of that? You're both just expressing your experiences. None of you must be wrong here.

Ben said: "... but most of WHAT has been done was inevitable given that the italics are the EMPLOYEES of the BBC."
You agree explicitly for a three instances and then say that there seems to be a BBC policy regarding ace****s.
-Note that Ben said *most*. So, are you agreeing with her? (NB: she didn't mention ace****s)

Ben said: "Do not assume that they originated the policies they implement."
You answered: "Why not? They run the site. And here's a little bit of text I copied from somewhere very close by: "The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC."”
-Don't you think your quote is a *little* out of context? English is not my native language, but I have this strong feeling that "theirs” might refer to h2g2's researchers, not to the Italics.
This is in fact deconstructive. But probably not what you had in mind.

"So unless a rule is specifically described as originating with the BBC, I think it's reasonable to assume that it originates with the italics, i.e. in house to H2G2.”
-This would mean to assume that the BBC has no effect on how the in house rules are made. Do you really think so?

SCNR


Tube

Damn, this is the THIRD time I have tried to make this post - Explorer keeps hanging on me.

Firstly - I did not mean to imply that I could use emails to bend the Italics to my will. (Would that I could). Just that I found it the best way to get a detailed reply. In other words, email is the method of communication that sucks the least. (HVL, as I said at the time, I was gobsmacked by the incident you refer to - and that was definitely a bad call by the Italics).

Secondly - I should have said 'Do not assume they originated ALL of the policies they implement'. (See their posting in the 'What is the BBC's interest in H2g2' thread, which is v interesting).

Thats about it. The previous two versions of this post were longer and more articulate.

***B

Just a quickie reply to Tube on one specific thing: "This would mean to assume that the BBC has no effect on how the in house rules are made. Do you really think so?".

What I think is that the BBC has certain minimum requirements - copyright, legality etc. In that sense they have an effect. Above and beyond that, however, the italics are free to make up whatever *additional* rules occur to them. They've announced that they've done this and will continue to do so - banning the use of the word "ace****" is one of those rules. So saying that "the rules" are down to BBC ownership is specious. All the rules the BBC *required* were in place on day Rupert-plus-one. Anything else is italics tweaking. I accept that in certain cases they may be tweaking with an eye over their shoulder at the boss - whoever that is - but unless they do something quite spectacular (and it's hard to imagine what would qualify), the BBC is likely to allow them to run this tiny, tiny corner of BBC online as their personal fiefdom.

I don't assume they originate ALL the policies they implement. But in the absence of any specific evidence and for the reasons stated above, I believe it reasonable to assume that they DO originate the vast majority of the policies they implement. The announcement elsewhere of just how indispensible these people seem to think they are would be an interesting bit of side reading to this. They're happy to claim credit for point after point of the stuff that makes the site work, but many people leap in when something bad happens and say "don't blame the italics, it's the nasty BBC overlords".

I've had a mental picture of two conversations just lately (this is slightly off-topic, as it refers to the above mentioned "we're indispensible and you lot aren't" posting.)

Conversation 1.
H2G2 Editors: Hello sir.
BBC Online Boss: Now then. You've got 90,000 registered users, but not a single one has logged onto the site for a month. How could that happen?
H2G2 Editors: We've no idea. This must be one of those hypothetical situations. They were a load of useless bloody loonies anyway, we don't need them. We can soon get the site going again.
BBC Online Boss: You mean you'd like me to keep paying you all to run a site with no users?
H2G2 Editors: Yes, that would be about what we're saying.
BBC Online Boss: Turn the PCs off before you leave, would you?

Conversation 2.
H2G2 Editors: Hello sir.
BBC Online Boss: Now then. You've got 90,000 registered users, and now you say you want a 100% pay rise because you say the whole thing would collapse without you?
H2G2 Editors: Yes sir. The 90,000 are expendable, but you simply can't do without us.
BBC Online Boss: Try not to bang your head on either side of the door frame on your way out, and tell my secretary to contact ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha, The Doctor Who fan club, the star trek fan club and anyone standing in any branch of forbidden planet, because there's a better than even chance that I could replace the lot of you from their membership lists at half the price. If that bunch don't work out, I can soon get another lot. That's how the job market works these days you see - nobody, and I do mean nobody, is indispensible. Oops, I've just been sacked. See you down the job centre.

H.

It may be that we mean different things by 'policies'.

I was using it to mean moderation, English only, no copyright material, no discussing politics before the election. The first three are largely BBC directives, the last was as I understand it, a policy decided by Mark Moxon.

Things like adding ace****s to the list of asteriskable words, the suspension and banning of specific researchers, the supression and non-suppression of posts I regard as 'decisions'.

I agree there is a grey area between the two.

Were we using the word differently?

***B

I think we're into semantics. But we've reached the point. Actual policies which can be laid at the door of the BBC are, as you've listed, actually very few.

The word "policy": "a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business etc.". Banning posts discussing certain email groups, banning the use of the word ace****, banning certain researchers and threatening or actually suspending others (has the latter happened?) based on their behaviour - these are things which are applied globally across the site by the party denominated "Italics" or "H2G2 Editors". They constitute principles of action. They sound like policies to me. *Not* policies of the BBC - policies specific to H2G2.

Like I said, semantics. You want to call them decisions. This is from the same root as "decisive", which may imply finality, or at least consistency. But there is a stated intention to continue making the rules up as they go along. I think I prefer "policies". As is the case with political parties, it's a word that more accurately reflects what these "decisions" are - they are what suits the leaders today. What suits them tomorrow may be quite different - this has been demonstrated several times recently - so I think I'll stick with "policies" if nobody else minds...

H.
btw, Ben - not an attack. I understand what you're getting at.

Bloody hell Hoovooloo, when you list them like that I see your point.

Be aware that I am generally reluctant to attack or criticize anyone on site. I may challenge their opinions or question their actions, but I rarely say "what you have said or done is complete s**t".

I have said in various places that I question the wisdom of some of the Italics decisions. Incidentally I still prefer 'decisionss' to 'policies' beacause to me the word 'policy' implies a coherent strategy. (But I am not going to split semantic hairs with you, as long as we each understand what the other person means.)

So much of what has emerged recently appears to be re-active rather than the result of strategic thought.

But I don't like attacking people in public anyway, and I don't like attacking people who have limited freedom to reply. That said, the Italics do not always avail themselves of the freedom they do have.

Round and round and round we go

***B

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. There is a fallacious perception that it is people that are being attacked. People are not being attacked. *Policies* are being attacked. People are caught in the backblast because of the way this site has been run to date, which is to say that the personalities of those in charge have been focussed upon.

If your building society manager wrote to you, and said "Hi Ben, big hugs and luv and all that, and by the way I'm going to charge you an extra fifty quid on your mortgage from now on", you'd probably be aggrieved with the manager, directly and personally. That manager would have only themself to blame, because *they* personalised the relationship. When I get a letter from the building society saying "Dear Hoovooloo, in line with the Bank of England's base rate, your mortgage has gone up fifty quid", do I blame the manager? Does it even occur to me to think of them? Do I blame the Bank of England monetary policy committee? No. I might (*might*) blame the government and their policies. I might blame the US government, and their policies (I mean, how on Earth did George W. Bush ever even win the election? Oh that's right, he didn't...). The point is, if I have a problem, it's with a *policy*, not a *person*. The two are too easily confused here, and I think most people's problems are actually with the policies. We'd *like* them to be at least a little bit consistent.

(interjection - I don't think "policy" implies coherent strategy. I'm reminded of the Conservative "policy" on soft drugs, or Labour "policy" on hunting. Call that coherent?)

Of course, when you have a site run by a very few people who consider themselves indispensible, it's easy to see the policies as just an extension of their personalities, and statements to the effect that they make the policies up as they go along and will continue to do so reinforce that. This is not always the case. I don't really want to get into that, because that way lies personal abuse.

But I'm glad you can see what I'm getting at, and I'm only sorry it took so many of my random musings to make it clear. I'll learn articularitaciousosity one of these days.

I don't like attacking people either (see my Guide Entry on "The Ultimate Martial Art") and I can understand why you'd be reluctant to start. After all, people have been suspended and banned for much less, and you might be NeKZt.

And as for limited freedom to reply, this is a joke, yes? This isn't the Royal Family we're talking about here! These people *run the site*. If they want to they can shut *everything* down except *your* personal space and post a reply there. If they want to they can post a reply 50 times simultaneously to *every* *single* conversation on H2G2. You and I can't do that. The people you are talking about have, in this environment, *literally* infinite freedom to reply. They are as gods in that respect - pick your mythology and start ascribing roles, folks. The fact they don't exercise it is choice, pure and simple.

H

Blatant self promotion: link to above mentioned Guide Entry, currently in PR:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A600085 - "The Ultimate Martial Art".

H