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

Azara, I can hardly say whether my exit was ddramatic or not, though I am gratified that *you* seemed to notice it.

No, it was not intended to be temporary. (And I should say, that while I have my suspicions, there is no way that I could ever really say whether Playboy Reporter's exit was intended to be temporary or not.)

I left because, as it still says on my home space, I felt that I no longer cared to write here any longer. I never said that I would never come back, though I admit that that was pretty much what I was feeling at the time. I imagine you noted, though, that when I changed the title on my home space, I left the question mark.

I am back, for a short while, and only occasionally, because I find that I still do care about h2g2 even though I am still undecided as to whether I will ever write another article for the edited guide.

It became obvious to me rather quickly that I still cared, if for no other reason than that I could not avoid coming back to read, and to comment among those who were willing to include LeKZ in their discussions.

I am soliciting comments because I want to hear how the community feels about the concepts I put forward.

Do you have an opinion?

Barton

It has just been my privelage (or not) to witness one of the most victriolic conversations on the web, ever. This lifetime suspension stuff if you can't play nicely is only to be expected. It is just like being barred from your favourite pub. Having recently suffered that ignominy for not behaving nicely, I can see why a researcher might get the hump if they were banned. At the end of the day though,for every person you treat like an a***hole you probably will suffer twice as much for it. It makes you look even more like one. Peta, you have my every sympathy, when someone calls me a bad mother, I end up getting barred from my favourite pub!
My final point? Why try to belong to a community if you cannot respect it?

I think the point people are trying to make here is that such an analogy (pub landlord - pub patrons) is inaccurate in the case of h2g2, because we researchers are doing more than simply consuming a product - we are also helping to produce it. We come here partly to 'consume' a product (stimulating conversation, interesting articles, etc) but if we weren't here to *make* the product it wouldn't exist. So, if the community is to work, the relationship cannot really be a top-down one of 'My gaffe, my rules', but rather a more 'give-and-take' idea. That's what people are getting at with the analogy of the contract.

Looks like the whole sorry business is coming to an end. I still have a splitting headache. Ah well.

Lessons...lessons... the main lesson to take away is that we must all seek to maintain impeccable standards of ETHICS at all times.

Ok, so someone pisses you off and the temptation is to start spweing vitriol... but as we'll all learned, that only makes things worse.

The end NEVER justifies the means. If there is hatred in the world, it cannot be fought with more hatred. That only adds to the cycle. Hatred can only be defeated by maintaining impeccable standards of ethics at times. Any deviation from strict ethical principles will immediately expose to you to certain dangers, and in the long run make matters much much worse.

So if some hits you, you hitting them back is not the solution to the problem...you hitting them back IS the problem. And this is ultimately the hardest lesson to learn.

How will the intolerance and bigotry of this world, then, ultimately be overcome? Heed the words of Goethe:

'The compulsion that all creatures binds,
he who overcomes himself,
His freedom finds'

So...strict ethics not only means being right, it also means being nice! Practice meekness of tounge..for foulness of mouth is a slippery slope which will inevitably lead to foulness in other areas of life.

Next point....social skills... look don't take this the wrong way, but frankly, some of the regulars here seem to have social skills as effective as dimples. (Again, pleae don't this the wrong way. If you are offended then thats a sure sign that you are one of those I'm talking about!)

A lot of the regulars here think they are 'hot stuff' because they have high IQ's. Sorry to break the bad news, but...well... you aint. Lets face it, if you really were 'hot stuff' you wouldn't be here creeping around online forums... you'd be rich, happy and famous and taking a supermodel to bed every night.

You ain't.

You regulars need to get out and about more... learn to laugh more ... don't take it all so seriously!

Come on .... lets see some laugher... every one laugh together...



I want every one here to stop what they are doing, jump up into the air and yell 'I FEEL HAPPY, I FEEL HEALTHY, I FEEL TERRIFIC' ! Off you go!

Now lets sing a little John Lennon: 'All you need is love, dah, dah, dah, all you need is love, dah, dah, dah, all you need is love, dah, dah, dah, dah, love is all you need, love is all you need'

Lousie Armstrong: 'The bright blessed day. The dark sacred night. And I think to myself, what a wondeful world....' (la dah dah)

And this: da da-da da-da-daaa da-da-da-da-daaaa 'Don't worry' da-da-da-da-daaa 'Be Happy' Don't worry, be happy. Don't worry be happy.'

Repreive:

'the compulsion that all creatures binds,
he who overcomes himself,
his freedom needs'

HVL made an interesting point in 795 which needs reiterating.

This thread began with two fundamental issues:

Issue One: The banning of a researcher who had much to contribute to the guide

Issue Two: The WAY in which that ban took place.

For the record I said only a week after LeKZ's ban that in my view it had become unavoidable given the structures and processes in place at the time. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A573905. The fall-out however *was* avoidable.

My professional life is about creating robust and effective processes. So the reason I am still in this thread and still working on the Arbiter proposal is that I have been focused throughout on HOW that ban came about and HOW it was implemented.

One of the things I welcome is that the italics have made a fundamental change to HOW they behave on site. This seems to be working.



Previously in this thread I said that 'justice must be seen to be done' and got a fairly placatory response back from Mark.

But that is a strange and subtle sentance, if you deconstruct it you find that one reading is: "If you cannot see what happened, then what happened was not justice".

This is why this thread is in its 800th post. We could not see what happened, and therefore what happened (regardless of outcome) was not justice. A lynch mob may kill a murderer - but that does not make it any less a lynch mob.

I am not going to comment here on the justice or otherwise of the outcome. But in the emotion of the events, many people equated an unjust process with an unjust outcome.



Valid processess create valid outcomes, so the outcome here is irrelevent, it is the PROCESS that matters.

(If LeKZ had accepted the validity of the process she would (in my opinion) have accepted the validity of the ban. Socrates accepted the validity of processes of Athenian justice, which is why he killed himself when told to do so by the state).



So my agenda is to put in place the processes which will prevent the NeXT one.

HVL's proposal of a process giving a time and place in which to plead the cause hits these issues firmly on the nail.

For proof of the pudding it is worth reflecting Most of the SBVM have said recently that their opinions have moved on in the last two months, and also that they are not requesting a reversal of previous decisions, but changes in the processes used to implement the ts and cs here on h2g2. In other words, debating things changes things, and time is necessary so that people can assimilate events.

Oh Italics, I urge you to consider HVLs elegant and simple suggestion. It does not take away any power from you - au contraire - it draws the sting from the scorpions tail.

*still stinging*
a scorpion called Ben

Good to see this Conversation is now back to discussing various Community-led ideas for improvement. As we said before, let us know when they're ready for our consideration.

Hoovooloo...

Two points.

You're getting what you're asking for, IMO. Since the Beeb take-over, the italics have reluctantly started to tkae on more official faces. In the beginning and all through www..h2g2..com it was always markpetaabijimetc, but since the Beeb these have turned into The H2G2 Editors, and suchlike. Answers to requests have formalised, policies are a whole lot less haphazard.
But I stress the reluctancy with which I for one think this change is being made from the italics side. They went to the Beeb not out of free choice entirely but to save the site, and more importantly, the consequent formalising of their relationship with the researchers has been a cold shower as well. I think in the beginning of the Beeb period we're having now you could see signs of the strain everywhere, with italics trying to maintain the informal stance, even in the face of the new situ. By now, the team is settling in in the new situation (for instance with the decision to move behind the formal titles more) and I expect to see coherence in this relationship to grow all the more in the coming time.

Point two, however: This abovementioned acclimatisation with the new role, however, does not mean that the itlaics will become any less human with any less characteristics of groupthink, pride, rashness etc. They will always be freewheeling indivs underneath, and there will always be mouths shot off and an unwillingness to say you were wrong at times. As long as Mark has his own u-page on site, he will be a person as well as a manager. As soon as Marks u-page disappears from site, the point will pretty much be moot.

Is it just me who's puzzled by the way the editors leave as soon as conversations become constructive? Squeeky wheels indeed...

This will be quick, I'll post more when I get home, but I couldn't let this pass...

Playboy! Hi! This whole sorry business isn't coming to an end, mate, is only now getting going and *getting somewhere*...

"I still have a splitting headache. Ah well."
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I *really* mean that, very literally - read it again. I'm not spweing vitriol.

If someone hits you, hitting them back is not the solution to the problem. Hitting them back once, REALLY, REALLY hard, far, far harder than they were expecting, often is though. I speak from personal experience. Meekness of tounge isn't one of my strong points.

Has it ever occurred that if someone has a higher IQ than you, you are simply not qualified to judge their life decisions? THEY ARE SMARTER THAN YOU - if you don't understand why their life is the way it is, has it never occurred to you that the problem could be at your end?

For myself - high IQ. Check. About three times yours, I'd estimate, based on repeated measurements of mine and my amateur assessment of yours. Rich, check. Happy, check. Famous, definite uncheck, but what ever makes anyone think *that's* desirable? If you're rich and happy, why on earth would you want strangers to recognise you? Taking a supermodel to bed... well, line them up. My fiancee is fully aware that she's ahead of every single other woman in the world (with the possible exception of Winona Ryder) and I'd rather be with her for ten seconds than Cindy Crawford all day.

As for laughter... we ARE laughing, Playboy. All sorts of people read your post and rolled around on the floor clutching their sides. Thank you for the wonderful gift of laughter.

As for Lousie Armstrong, he isn't that bad!

HVL. Entry on remand system in tonight, possibly.

I'm not as blatantly sarcastic, but a bit bemused at the notion happiness is important, no wait a second feeling cool is important, but wait, it's not as important as acquiring the right status symbols to be cool. Ah well, enough sarcastic deconstruction. I don't really feel myself to be smarter or better than anybody else here, but I suppose that puts me in a minority.

I feel this has been an extremely constructive conversation and am rather dismayed to see some people complaining about vitriol in the last few postings. Maybe I'm blind, but I haven't seen anything so harsh lately as your message (well, except for Hoovooloo's acknowledged non-meek rant in reply).

Nobody here is against fun, nobody here is against the Guide and friendship and puppies and ice cream. I think on the contrary we all love fun, but we remember a recent non-fun time and want to do something about it for the future, so we won't be doomed to repeat more non-fun events. We welcome all constructive input, but nobody here is forcing you to participate if you don't want to, and you should not feel obliged to stay out of a concern of what people will say about you behind your back (there has been a real effort here to not discuss people if they can not respond). We're not out to attack the Italics, not out to point fingers, but we are genuinely interested in working out an aspect of the Guide's administration that has been revealed as lacking. In this essence, it is no different from a conversation on improving Peer Review (like we had after that nonsense and your brief exit) or the ACEs scheme.

I apologize if I sound a bit peeved, but I am. I am a bit tired of seeing real progress being disrupted by accusations and recriminations.

correct (after that nonsense) to (after that explosion in the Intelligence thread)... thanks.

Yo Mr Cogito, right on.

But those who are making sense in this thread will do so regardless of such interjections, don't worry

Prez: Yes, in one limited sense I'm getting what I asked for - an increased appearance of professionalism from the management. If they're doing it reluctantly, well, you may think that says something about them. I choose to applaud them, LOUDLY, for doing it, reluctantly or not.

I've said it before: if formalising the relationship with the researchers is a cold shower, it's one that was going to come sooner or later anyway, Beeb or no Beeb - you simply can't maintain a personal connection to active researchers who number 2,000, say, or 200,000. If the numbers never got that high, well, the site would have failed. I choose to believe it will succeed.

All managers are of course human underneath. Good managers make that a virtue. Bad ones make it a vice. Slim evidence so far (i.e. adoption of faceless personae for a more professional appearance) makes me tend towards believing the management here is, or has an honest desire to be, good.

Mr. Cogito: Blatantly sarcastic? Me? And also - "the meek shall inherit the earth. Which will be great, because then *I'll* be able to take over the whole planet armed with a butter knife."

H.

At The Forum Which Dare Not Speak Its Name, a comment was made regarding the perception that the Editors may not be even handed in their dealings with researchers. This is the sort of perception that could be avoided with the various proposals currently being polished here, and shows that something of the kind is needed.

I bring the issue here because, just as LeKZ is not here to speak for themselves, the Editors are not there to speak for themselves. In that other forum, I have informed Mina, who IS here to speak for herself, that I was bringing it here.

This MAY have been intended as humor, but it's hard to be sure...

Upon being told that she "gets by" with things that other h2g2 researchers would not, Mina said "As for being an Editors pet, I prefer to think of it this way. They are Mina's Pets."

The fact that someone arguing AGAINST some of the changes being proposed would utter (okay, type) those words strikes me as the strongest agrument to date that those changes are desperately needed.

Discussion?

It was obviously too late last night when I accidently posted these messages to an unnamed thread.
________________________________

To all of you who offered welcome (You don't have to hear! 'They' can still whisper you.),

Thank you for your kindness.

Barton

________________________________



Incidently,

Since I never addressed this speculation directly, I meant *both* social and legal contracts.

In my particular usage, the main distinction is that a legal contract is an agreement or implied agreement between individuals, even though one or all of those individuals are only legally defined as being individuals.

A social contract is based on an agreement or implied agreement between one group and another, even though one or all of those groups are only technically defined as being groups.

That's probably too facile, but it's all that comes to me right now.

Barton
(an individual member of any number of groups one of which is h2g2.)

__________________________________

The mention of checks and balances brings to mind the question of whether we have any right to think of the administration here as a government? Or for that matter if we have 'rights.'

Certainly, if there is a contractual relationship, we have the right to receive what was offered under the conditions that it was offered.

There can be no doubt that h2g2 has the right to change the services it provides and the manner in which they are presented. As people have commented here, "It's their sandbox."

In one sense, I agree, that this place has many aspects of an amusement park. If we accept that this place is an amusement park then what we do when we log in is buy our ticket for the day. I had never considered this day by day, or login by login, aspect before.

The only thing really wrong about this idea is that it totally defeats the concept of 'community'. 'Day by day' suggests a different kind of continuity and it excludes the researchers from real contribution. H2G2 becomes an amusement park where the scrawlings or great art of the patrons is pasted indiscriminately on every wall, walkway, and awning with some of them singled out in an organized display.

There is no community. There is only a sense that a lot of people come back to the park very often and get to know each other. These patrons think of the place as theirs but they have no say in its organization. They just like the place and they like the people who like the place.

The people who run the place are justifiably proud that they have made this park work and that they have found ways to engage the patrons into working with the park instead of just sitting back and watching passively. But, when it's closing time, they know that they are the show. If it were not for them there would be no show and for all the good intentions of the self-deluded patrons they cannot make it happen by themselves.

I just finished a season working at precisely such a place, a Renaissance festival, where we presented a romanticized version of life in a sea port town in England in the year 1574.

I must admit that if a group of our patrons came to us with demands such as I have seen here (and supported) I would have been mystified as to what made them think that they had any rights to insist on changes in the design or that they should have a voice in how the business is run. After all, when they buy their ticket, there is a contract printed on the back that clearly states that we have the rights to make use of any recordings that they might appear in for the purposes of promoting our park. We go to a lot of trouble to make sure that everything is just so and we do listen to what the patrons say about likes and dislikes which, in turn, does influence how we plan the next season or even the next day.

While I love working at and visiting Renaissance fairs, I would hate to think of h2g2 as that kind of enterprise. This is because while there is a sense of community that sense is as romanticized as is the history at my fair. It is sanitized, in a sense, and it cannot stand on it's own. Most of the people coming to the park are transient, they are there for the fun and then they are gone. There is a core of people who are there every day that we are open, season ticket holders. They have their own organization within ours and they put on their own kind of show for the rest of the patrons which helps flesh out what we are doing. But, we keep an eye on them to insure that they don't contradict what we want to present and to insure that they don't start thinking that they are entitled to more than any other patron. Recently, we began giving them some formal recognition and a place for themselves, making them an officially recognized and appreciated voluntary support group (for a price. -- Join Friends of the Faire!)

I had hoped that h2g2 was not just an amusement park. I had hoped that this community was a serious part of a serious dream that was called by the name of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I had hoped that we were a part of the dream and not just the focus of a new scheme for an amusement park.

If what I have described is in essence the ideas behind the editors thinking, to any real degree at all, then we must let them know that we are not just a bunch of crazy patrons taking the show far too seriously. We must make them understand that they have built far better than they knew.

This is no semblance of a community, this is a real community to many of us (but evidently not by many others). What happens here effects how we live, the decisions that we make that affect our lives. This is far more than just a place to play and the argument that if you don't like playing according to the rules set, then you should find another place to play is more akin to saying that your life here is over, go find another life. Mark even acknowledged this aspect when he was commenting on how people could sneak back under another name but that would cost them their old online structures. (Sorry, I can't remember where to look to find the quote.)

I would really appreciate an answer from the editors on this question of amusement park-like concept. Is it your intent that this community should be simply the semblance of a community using a convenient metaphor to organize a lot of people and move them from ride to ride? Or, were you hoping to create a real community with all that such a thing entails?

In either case, this is a time when I, at least, would appreciate a statement. I hope I have made it clear that I would much rather that this community should be something real, alive, and growing rather than the illusion created by the way the traffic swirls from ride to ride.

Thank you.

Barton

Arguing against changes? Me? Where? Not that I remember.

Quick response to Lucinda, in #808: you don't actually think they've *really* unsubscribed, do you?

To all and sundry, I haven't exactly polished my proposal, but I have ground off a few of the more dangerous pointy bits and sanded down the spots that make the skin chafe...

For anyone interested, but especially members of the SBVM, and above ALL else any italics who may be reading this , the proposal for a "remand period" for life bans can now be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A623288

Please direct all comments specific to the proposal to the conversation thread(s) below it, rather than here. Lets keep this thread on topic - we're doing pretty well at that, the occasionally entertaining interjection notwithstanding (if you don't know who you are, and you probably don't, it's OK. WE DO!)

H.

Thanks for answering my questions, Barton. I felt that if all you were doing was adding an indefinite number of codicils to your 'Last Will and Testament', you were probably wasting other people's time. Since you do appear to be interested in participating again, even if only for a limited time, then I'll say 'welcome back!' too.

As for my opinions, I have to say that I find amateur speculation on the application of English contract law to be fairly pointless. Even counsel's opinion from a senior specialist barrister is only a guide, not a guarantee of what might be decided by a court. One advantage of the BBC takeover is that the h2g2 staff now have access to a legal team with plenty of experience in areas of copyright, contract, defamation and libel law. I believe that their interpretation of the terms and conditions would beat yours or mine in the unlikely event that either of us wanted to spend the time and money testing it in court.

I have to say that at this stage I've lost track of the number of analogies and competing analyses of the structure of h2g2. I see my own participation as being very similar to membership of an amateur choir or orchestra: individuals contribute a certain amount of talent and unpaid effort, but expect to enjoy their time. A background of friendly social activity is pleasant, but the real satisfaction is in jointly producing work of a high standard. Since many amateur organisations have survived on that basis for a hundred years or more, I don't see my participation in h2g2 as being something dramatically new. Obviously the organisational side is completely different, but even the present funding has a more traditional model in terms of government or commercial subsidies or sponsorship for what are considered 'worthy' amateur associations of all sorts.

Having said all that, I'll probably bow out of this thread again soon. I still find the arbiter/Magna Carta threads to be the more constructive side of this whole debate - to use an image from one of my favourite authors, too much of this thread strikes me as being like peeling an onion, looking for the seeds.

Azara

Azara: a suggestion. By all means, leave. But do come back, at intervals. We may seem to be peeling onions here, but so far we like to kid ourselves we've found some seeds. Would the Editors be using the "Editors" facade without this discussion? Possibly. I'd like to think we at least influenced that idea. Other seeds are the ones you mentioned: Arbiter scheme, Magna Carta, which if they didn't come directly from here were at least heavily influenced, I think. Most recent seed I've found is my "Modest Proposal". Have a read. There's no reason to assume that other such productive ideas won't crop up at intervals. So go if you like, but don't forget this thread... (as if you could! )

H.

Dropping back at intervals does sound like a reasonable idea, Hoovooloo. If nothing else, one or two layers of this particular onion may still provoke tears of mirth .

Azara