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

I see one part of that as completely the reverse. I don't think I have been really rude on site (though undoubtedly some things have been misconstrued by people not reading the words or comprehending them in the same why as I do). On the other hand, I have seen people be much more rude and abrupt both to me and to others on and off site and not be debadged (though I wouldn't necessarily know about any reprimands). From comments posted by others on the same threads I know that this is not just my own assessment of those people's remarks.

On the PR thread, I was literally just minutes behind Jim in getting to the button. I thought he removed it more out of embarrassment.

I don't know about the "freenode network" so I can't compare. Can you expand on that point - especially if it has any relevance to the original point of this thread (which was improving the quality of the Edited Guide, I think).

This post has been removed.

I think I can actually do a fairly good comparison between freenode and hootoo, but it'll take a moment or too to do properly, so it'll appear at the end of this posting.

About the PR thread, I'm not sure that timing is an issue, not making it clear it was a test and telling people (and asking people) before hand out of politeness I think are more the issues (at least to me).

I would agree that there are some probably with the Ace scheme, such as a certain lack of direction for anything other than pouncing on every newbie that appears on <./>newusers</.>.

On my personally scale of rudeness, I'll admit that you're nowhere near a '10' (I've been far more rude, but not here), but you have certainly (imho) passed the threshold between constructive and unconstructive. I'd better qualify my opinion a bit more by admitting that I'm not a total fan of the current state of the community, and I do think we need some kind of 'back to basics' (yuk!) drive to encourage more focus on the edited guide and a better quality of discussion (like the 'old days' [the more recent old days, please go and find your own Asimov quote about 'golden ages']).

Now back to the freenode vs h2g2 comparison (please note that I've got bored of adding imho and 'my interpretation is' before/after lots of sentences, so add salt to taste, note that I've also ended up focusing more on h2g2 than I intended, essays do tend to drift from their titles).

h2g2's goal is to create an 'unconventional guide to life, the universe and everything' and you can see numerous references in 'Salmon of Doubt' to the site asking people to contribute their views. The idea is to create an environment where people will be encouraged to state their views and where they'll be organised into readable, light, informative pages.

freenode's goal is 'to provide an interactive environment for coordination and support of peer-directed projects.' They also want an environment which will pull together people from all over the world into creating collaborative works which reflect the way people who use the products think, because _they_ were involved in them. Like h2g2 (and unlike most irc networks) they have a strong idea of staff. Their most important role is to provide the place, and although they can (and do) contribute to the channels, they are explicitly instructed not to interfere with 'channel politics'. The only interference they are allowed to do is to remove non-project based channels that abuse the server resources. This idea of off-topicness is much harded to define on h2g2 since we include 'everything' in our goal.

I think h2g2 needs to draw up a page similar to http://freenode.net/catalysts.shtml, which I think is a 'must read' for any ACE, Guru, Scout or Editor (or preferable a DNA wide page, but that would have to be somewhat looser and targeted more at the staff, and can I also recommend them to Spook and Hoovooloo). I think I'll pick some points from that document and try and make them relevant.

* Relaxed -- I won't say much, but I always try and be calm when posting. This post for example has taken me more than an hour to write, so taking your time is important, h2g2 doesn't have to be a chat room with 'instant gratification'. There's no need.

* Unobtrusive -- You don't have to enter into large debates on a subject (err, like this one I suppose), a few nudges here and there to a conversation could point it in the desired direction. A three line posting may well work better than a 50 line essay.

* Courteous -- 'Even under time pressure, courtesy costs little and impresses people a lot. It's not about whether working with the person is easy or difficult; it's about setting the right tone.' This seems very relevant. On h2g2 there are _lots_ of different types of people, not just your typical slightly mad DNA fan who has a degree in mathematics (a random example). If we take the recent 'incident' with Roger which SEF and Tango as an example, the best post I saw there was the one from Natalie which was clear, polite and to the point. Instead of causing debate and questioning people's characters (and identities) she cut straight to the point.

* Detachment (I've just added this) -- Sometimes it's better to turn the monitor off, and take a walk round the park, hopefully you'll meet a nice old lady who'll give you her life story and fortune (I'm still working on it, found the old lady though). It could put things in perspective.

* Someone with an internal locus of control -- Something we all really need, we should 'concentrate on solving problems, not bestowing blame.' Who cares who's fault it is as long as we know why it happened, and what we should change?

Ok, this has taken long enough to right (sic) and I'm about to fall asleep if I don't do some geometry.

spelugx -- actually doing some decent writing (but neglecting subbing, scouting, mathing and reading)

He's a good example of myself being rude (unnecessarily of course and mainly for comic effect for what followed):

20:56 < ash007> whats the tag for making fonts bold in html? ?
20:56 < f3ew>
20:56 < tontsa>
20:56 < tag>
20:56 < integral> ash007: that is OT, go look up the spec yourself

spelugx

I must admit I was just rude about 20 seconds ago, though I **ed myself out.

In my defense, I didn't start it

Kelli wrote: "Is there an 'Insiders Back-biting and Whingefest Forum' this thread could be moved to? It doesn't make hootoo look terribly good..."

Oh cool, an advocate of censorship...

If it doesn't make h2 look good, that's an excellent reason for having it right here where it's visible. You don't solve a problem by covering it up and not talking about it. If I'd wanted a whingefest, I'd have done a Journal entry or posted to the personal space of someone I could moan at in semi-private.

I'm not interested in a whingefest, I wanted a SOLUTION, and because on this occasion I couldn't provide one myself, I wanted as many constructive and diverse opinions as possible in the hope that a solution could be found. Hence a thread somewhere obvious. If it's gone offtopic, I can't help that (but then again - has it?).

If you think this thread and the complaints on it make h2g2 look bad - address the complaints. Offer a solution. You never know, you could be personally responsible for an improvement in the way the site operates. How cool would that be?



Tango wrote: "I won't elaborate because i would be breaking the disclamer thing at the bottom of all BBC emails."

No you wouldn't. Unless you received the email in error (which in practical terms means that you are not the person who is the holder of the email account to which it was addressed), that disclaimer places no limits whatever on your actions. I went through all this with the Italics and the BBC Legal department in painful detail almost exactly 18 months ago. For details, see A655913.

The staff have tried to imply that that disclaimer is some sort of non-disclosure clause before. They were wrong.

If any BBC employee emails ANYTHING to you, and you are the holder of the account to which the email was addressed, there is nothing at all stopping you from blowing up every word six feet high and going on national television with it. You are of course also free to repeat bits here. If they emailed something to you by mistake which you shouldn't have seen - that's their problem, not yours. They have no control over what you do with emails sent to you, and don't let them try to kid you that they have.

It may not be very nice to discuss the contents of emails, and you may choose for your own reasons not to do it - but please don't think, and don't pretend, that that disclaimer is what's stopping you.

H.

I knew that the BBC disclaimer would not hold up in court if I had decided to go ahead with bringing a case on a couple of matters, but I did think the h2g2 staff would apply it in connection with the HouseRules on account termination.

Actually it is the petty namecalling, sniping, 'you-said-this', 'he-said-that-first' childishness of this thread recently that I find disappointing, it doesn't get anyone nearer to a solution. I don't believe that is advocating censorship. It is a wish that you would all grow up a bit.

"I'm not interested in a whingefest, I wanted a SOLUTION
If you think this thread and the complaints on it make h2g2 look bad - address the complaints. Offer a solution. You never know, you could be personally responsible for an improvement in the way the site operates. How cool would that be?"

A solution to what though - I can't stop you kids calling each other names and swearing at each other.

Back in the fog of the beginning of the thread I did offer some things that might help provide a solution to the specific problem you were complaining about at the start

I'm not interested in the politics and conspiracy theories now whirling around, and the unspoken nods to other things that are outside the sphere of knowledge of an ordinary researcher.

Is all this 'you were rude', 'no *you* were rude', 'the italics are out to get me' nonsense should be in a journal somewhere where you can whinge to your heart's content. You may not have wanted a whingefest but you have ended up with one.

"I did think the h2g2 staff would apply it in connection with the HouseRules on account termination."

I'd be fascinated to see them try that - banning someone from using the site for discussing the legitimate contents of their own email inbox?

Never gonna happen. They of course reserve the right to terminate anyone's account at any time, and don't *have* to give a reason, but in the real world, it would be PR suicide, and PR is important to a site like this, which is why you end up with fancy Transgressions Procedures - artificial hoops the staff make themselves jump through so they don't look bad.

I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which a BBC employee could write something confidential in an email to a customer, then hold the customer responsible for the breach of confidentiality, much less apply punitive sanctions against them. In such a case the person who *should* be facing disciplinary action is the employee, not the customer. Can't see that happening either, frankly, but then again I never thought I'd see Jeffry Archer go to prison...

Blaming and punishing a customer for the indiscretion of an employee would look very bad, and really could end up in court if the customer was a bloody-minded type with a bit of money and too much spare time... Imagine the licence-fee-payers money wasted. Imagine the press coverage.

H.

Oh - one other thing. That confidentiality thing is very much a one way street. Your emails to the BBC MUST be kept confidential by them. They cannot broadcast or discuss the content, or even so much as mention your email address to someone else, without your permission.

Ten users of this site know my personal "home" email address (i.e. not a "disposable" one) because of a breach of that confidentiality which occurred in January. Mistakes happen, as they say every time something like that goes on...

You, however, have no obligation to keep their emails to you secret, unless you want to, or unless to do so would breach the House Rules on defamation, libel, copyright or whatever and quoting them was not protected by "fair use".

H.

" You may not have wanted a whingefest but you have ended up with one."

For now.

The Transgressions Procedure grew out of a whingefest. The improved PR page grew out of a whingefest. Other improvements to the site have done likewise. Give it time and be patient and this thread may yet produce something useful. It wouldn't be the first time...

H.

"outside the sphere of knowledge of an ordinary researcher"

Actually my information was simply collated from h2g2 stuff available to every Researcher who had been paying attention (I think the Yahoo stuff was largely irrelevant other than as occasional confirmation). I suppose you want me to save you the bother of looking.

" I suppose you want me to save you the bother of looking"

People always want you to save them the bother of looking, SEF - such is the lot of the researcher. It's when they want you to save them the bother of THINKING that you need to worry.

H.

As I am not in any of the volunteer groups, don't know anything about dev servers or what 'testing' you were doing, that is all outside of my sphere of knowledge.

"I suppose you want me to save you the bother of looking." What am I expected to go and look up here? That all seemed like a specialist conversation about insider stuff to me - an ordinary researcher.

"the Yahoo stuff was largely irrelevant other than as occasional confirmation" How do I know what is relevent then?

"available to every Researcher who had been paying attention" Attention to what? I spend most of my time here in askh2g2 and over at PR. I try to contribute solutions where I see problems and can think of something useful to add, but these threads seem to get bitter, personal, and not very constructive. However, hoovooloo assures me that this sniping is the best way to get things done around here so fight on.

It'll have to be without me though, I'm sure that'll upset you...

"It's when they want you to save them the bother of THINKING that you need to worry" - I'm really hoping that this wasn't aimed at me, but I suspect it was. Thanks.

I really should know better by now not to involve myself in this sort of thread - I get sucked in because I want to help make h2g2 a great place but end up getting insulted

"save them the bother of THINKING"

Plenty of other people already seem to have that one covered.

I didn't read it as being aimed specifically at you, Kelli. I thought it was just a well-known general comment on human behaviour.

Actually kelli it wasn't aimed at anyone. Trust me, when I aim a comment at someone, they KNOW.

In fact, I almost added "Thankfully I've found that the vast majority of people on here seem to like thinking, and dislike being told what to think. This is good." My point being that asking for information in an easily digestible form is not something anyone should be criticised for - not everyone cares that much that they can be bothered trawling backlogs for the salient points, nor should they be expected to care.

It only occurred to me after I'd clicked on "Post message", and I didn't think it was important enough to come back and add. Your post changed my mind. I'm sorry if you felt insulted, but it really was not aimed at you in any way.

H.

"hoovooloo assures me that this sniping is the best way to get things done around"

I didn't say it was the best, kelli - I only said that I know from experience that it works. If something else less confrontational and irritating can be shown to be equally effective, I'm all for it.

H.