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

Actually, by referring to 'this road' I was referring to the now seemingly weekly appearance of a thread from one your accounts that has an excerpt from an e-mail explaining a decision that has been made and you attempting, in very clever ways, to imply that it is some sort of vendetta being carried out against you.

And as someione who deals with documents marked 'Confidential' all the time, my unserstanding of the term doesn't just cover what you choose to do with it, but dissemination of information therein, full stop.

As usual, engaging in debate with you is akin to starting a land war in South-East Asia. Pointless, time comsuming and ultimately rather boring.

Right, here's some stuff from the BBC producer guidelines, part II ... it is by no means a _justification_ for the moderation of your entry, FB, but it might shed _some_ light on what's going on:

From Section 6.6 "Taste and Decency: Online":

"The BBC should never put anything on the internet which it would not be prepared to broadcast."

From Section 6.10 "Taste and Decency: Sex":

"Drama and factual programmes have a part to play in illuminating the darker side of human nature. Sometimes themes and images are explored which may shock. The tests to apply are intention, (are we illuminating?), and judgement (does our portrayal demean or degrade?). We must draw the line well short of anything that might be labelled obscene or pornographic. For example, real, as opposed to simulated, sexual intercourse should not be shown."

Aside from the awful English, this sounds very vague, but could be an argument in favour of moderation. I think we need to hear it from the elusive Editorial Policy (they don't even have a page to themselves) though...

Blues Shark - >>ultimately rather boring<<

Oh no! Threads from the persona I have come to know and love as "Hoovooloo" are great entertainment - the best on h2g2. I'm just fascinated watching this character start out with what appears to be a plausible prima facie case then, nearly every time, gradually destroy his own credibility, wear the patience of even his supporters paper-thin, and spend what must be hours posting incredibly long posts rebutting, in great detail and point by meticulous point, everyone who disagrees with him - only to finish up, at the end of a long thread, usually little more than a millimetre or so from where he started.

Perhaps he has the feeling that some movement has taken place. You know, like being in a rocking-chair, which gives you all the sensation of motion without actually getting you anywhere.

That's pure speculation, of course. But whatever, I find the whole thing immensely fascinating and hugely entertaining. It brings a ray of sunshine into my life - long may it continue.

FB, (sorry, I called you FM earlier - not sure why), I assume that Blues' comments are referring to HOW you are handling the situation, rather than to the situation yourself.

If Editorial Policy removed an entry of mine I would be p****d off, but I would take it up by email with the Italics directly, rather than banging on about it on-site over a weekend.

I am reminded of the time my ex was in Korea: he was told to do something he regarded as unethical by his boss, he refused, holed himself up in a hotel for four days and took the next available flight home. As a result, although he and his boss had been personal friends for years, they have not been on speaking terms since.

I had a lot of sympathy for his situation, (especially when one of my bosses told me to do something unethical in a work situation), but no sympathy at all with the way that he handled it.

But then, I was born negotiating... OK, I was born playing hardball, but I was still negotiating.

So - what do you want? Resolution? An explanation? Or drama?

Ben

Ben, you are of course quite right. WHAT has happened here is potentially very serious for all of us. While i think it unlikely that any of my entries will fal foul of al this, there are number of entries in which I have, shall we say, a vested interest which may well do.

I feel that I am on the border of being marginalised by the EP team for certain of my lifestyle choices. That rankles, because h2g2 has *never* taken that stance before and that open attitude has helped me come to terms with a few things myself.

I just can't help thinking there are better ways to explore the issues.

Some thoughts:

That livejournal link was added in April, when it hit the front page, which hardly explains why it's only now been deleted. Nice link though.

BS: My disagreements with the Editors are hardly "weekly" - but given that you seem to think they are, has it never occurred to you that perhaps the high frequency is NOT just me being a complaining git? Doesn't it occur to you to think that perhaps the fact that it seem to happen TO ME, with a regularity you are coming to find monotonous, may suggest that I may be right?

Even Bels (someone who is hardly a supporter of mine) records that I usually begin with "what appears to be a plausible prima facie case". If this is happening to the same person "seemingly weekly" - doesn't that bother you at all? Obviously not. I assume this is because the person isn't you. Good for you.

OoD: I read that document. The BBC have broadcast much, much more explicit material than was contained in the deleted entry on more occasions than I care to remember. As to whether the entry was illuminating, I can only offer a biased "of course", plus the Peer Review thread and that livejournal link. Clearly people found it interesting. I certainly don't think it demeaned or degraded anyone - and nobody in the PR thread suggested that it did, and if it had I'm sure they would have.

It certainly was well short of obscene, and also certainly well short of pornographic. It didn't even break the House Rules, remember, so it was by definition appropriate for a PG-13 rating, same as the rest of the Edited Guide.

Ben: all three would be nice, but I'd rather the first two. However, the SBVM previously noted the tendency of this sort of thing to happen on a Friday, and the email was sent out after 16:00 on a Friday afternoon. I didn't choose that time - the Editors did. Why they did so is open to speculation, but one can only wonder at their inability to learn from experience...

And BS again: "WHAT has happened here is potentially very serious for all of us." Erm... isn't that what *I* said? Isn't that what I've been saying all along? Hello? Is this thing on?

FB.

The difficulty is that almost weekly, the case for the plaintiff is proven to be a crock of sh*t. You complained that you were being singled out for harassing JTP. Yep, because you WERE harassing JTP. You complained that you were singled out for harassing Tango. Yep, because you WERE harassing Tango. You've complained that others, including myself, have received favourable treatment from the italics, which is just another way of insulting their professionalism and my common sense. Like the boy who cried wolf, one day your cries will go almost entirely unheeded, which is I think what Bels was sort of getting at...

As you seem to accept that the Editors may have had no choice in the removal of the entry, what makes you think they had a choice as to the timing of the removal of the entry? Knowing they'd have to come back to this sh*tstorm after the weekend.

Or do you really have that low an opinion of their intelligence?

And, to play you at your own game, if you can point to a post, either in this thread or any other, were I minimise the seriousness of the problem, rather than your way of dealing with it, then please do so or withdraw the sarcasm of the last paragraph of the last post.

"one day your cries will go almost entirely unheeded"

Ah yes, most amusing. This presupposes that they ever HAVE been heeded.

My "harassment" of Justin consisted in confronting his ignorant bigotry wherever it manifested. In that, I was entirely reactive, never proactive.

My "harassment" of Tango amounted to requesting an apology for lying about me, and apology I never received.

I've had postings hidden, never to return, the entire text of which was a single line of innocuous text containing nothing against the House Rules.

I've had entries hidden which were very, very obvious harmless jokes.

I've had an Officious Warning for asking for an apology for something an ACE said about me.

I've been specifically told I needn't bother clicking the "Yikes" button because any complaint I make won't be upheld.

I've been ORDERED by a Scout to remove an Entry from Peer Review, and assured that this (in my experience) unprecedented behaviour was appropriate for Scouts.

I've had my private email address distributed without my permission to a dozen people I don't know by staff at the BBC in direct contravention of their privacy policy.

So, if you're suggesting that everyone on h2g2 is treated equitably and alike and the Editors' professionalism is beyond reproach, I don't think there's anything point continuing to talk to you about this, because you're exhibiting what I can only assume is wilful ignorance of the facts.



"if you can point to a post, either in this thread or any other, were I minimise the seriousness of the problem"

...

Posting 21: "Overall I'd take the whole thing a lot more seriously if it weren't for this comment;"

Suggests a single comment of mine prevents you from taking the whole thing seriously.

FB

No that's taking issue, again, with the way you've chosen to deal with it.

Thanks for the list of grievances though. Most telling that you can remember all of them. Though what it tell's us is something I'll leave to others as this isn't going anywhere, and frankly, that rocking chair must be getting close to warp speed by now.

Hang on... FB.eq.HVL? Or have both been similarly wronged?

(I do disagree with scouts giving orders though And I've had my own set of moderation run-ins, but email has sorted some of them out)

spelugx

I think that S'pe;lug has made a good point - a lot of us have had run-ins with the Italics, but not all of those have been visible, because not everyone chooses to take them straight to the site rather than handle it by email.

B

"Most telling that you can remember all of them."

This is, I assume, intended to imply I'm in some way obsessive. I'm not. I merely have a much, much better memory than you and everyone else I've ever met. The "obsessive" canard is one I'm used to from people whose brains don't store and retrieve information as efficiently as mine.

The (to me) unsurprising fact that I can remember a few incidents (and despite what you say, I didn't in fact list them all) from the last eight months or so is no more worthy of remark than the fact that I can recite entire pages of text word for word at a single reading, or that I can repeat verbatim both sides of whole conversations I've had with people years after the event. It's just something I can do. Some people can play football, some people can solve crosswords, some people can write symphonies. I remember stuff.

It's useful in my job, and it's useful in pub quizzes. Occasional p**s-taking from people who can't do it goes with the territory.

FB(=HVL, yes).

Like I said, people can read into what they like.

You also persist in making *gross* exaggerations, such as this:

"I've been specifically told I needn't bother clicking the "Yikes" button because any complaint I make won't be upheld."

When it's previously been pointed out to you, and you've *agreed*, that this statement is patently untrue. You've been specifically told that a very *specific* class of yikes! from you won't be upheld -- that is far cry and away from *any* complaint.

At this point, given that you've repeatedly this lie at least twice, I should also point out that I hardly classify this as one of your infamous "lies about myself, so it doesn't count" -- what you're lying about is the actions of the Italics.

i dont really want to get mixed up in what looks like an ongoing cyberfight with certain individuals so ill just answer what you have asked me.

you say youre making a legitimate comparison between your GE n others. well a more fair comparision would be if there was already guides on site about a gentlemans guide to home pornography. then you would be able to see why they have been chosen for edit guide entries n yours hasnt. the guides you have mentioned maybe related to sex but they arent the same as yours so thats why its unfair to make comparisions.

how would have i felt if i had a guide entry deleted for no reason i can think of? well what i would have done is go to someone who could give me the answer im looking for then i would be in a better position to argue the rights n wrongs on a thread. i would hate it if there is a legitimate reason for deleting your guide entry n youve been argueing your point all weekend before you got the facts.

why am i 'sympathising' with the authors of the guides youve mentioned? well sympathising is the wrong word. you have stated you think its wrong for the guides to be included when yours has been taken off. i am just taking a neutrals position n seen as iv read these guides n can see no reason why i would delete them (if i had the authority) then i am just stating my views on why i think they are there. n i spose i think its wrong to say things about authors in a negative fashion specially when they arent here to defend themselves i.e they may not be aware of this thread.

actually i was showing sympathy to you when i said i thought it was alarming that it says the guide has been deleted by the author when clearly it hasnt. how come you havent quoted me on that? from what i can see the only reason why you reply to people on here is if you think they disagree with what you say. now i havent got a problem with anyone disagreeing with me people have the right to their own opinions but seen as i have shown sympathy to your cause n shown an unbiased viewpoint i was just wondering why you cant quote me on that as well.

when i said its unfortunate that people on here who read this thread are not in a position to do anything about it i was just assuming you started this thread because you want to do something about it or are hoping that there might be someone who reads this that can reinstate your guide entry. if im wrong there i apologise,

you say my point on this isnt the case. well if you didnt want anyones point on this then you shouldnt have started this thread in the first place becuase people will say what they feel. whether they agree with you or not.

you think that perhaps the guide entry about alfresco sex shouldnt be included because its soon to be illegal in the U.K. well if this website was only used by British people then i would agree with you but people use this worldwide n as long as some country allows this to be legal then i see no reaosn why it shouldnt be included regardless whether its illegal or not in the U.K.

same point when you mention that catholics think of contraception is immoral (well thats my words) that doesnt really matter - as long as there is 1 country or group of people that thinks contraception is acceptable then i cannto see a reason why there shouldnt be a guide for it.

you may be correct that there might be a few guide entries that might have slipped through the net as the sayig goes. i really hope though that guides arent started to be deleted because of this thread. the whole idea of H2G2 is to share ideas n viewpoints n as long as the editors or whoever think that they follow guidelines then there should be as many guide entries on as many different subjects as possible. including yours if there isnt anything wrong with it.

i think iv wrote enough for now

Diddy!

There appears to have been some sort of unpleasant sweep from above- one of my edited entries has been deleted (and the original) failed on the grounds that

"Editorial Policy have made the decision that the entry breaks the BBC's guidelines for content and have instructed us to remove it from h2g2. While the entry doesn't break the h2g2 House Rules themselves, we have to consider the wider picture and abide by the decisions made by Editorial Policy."

Which tells me fxck all useful

The entry explains how to open car doors (*not* hot wire a car) if you lock the keys inside. It's been in the EG for over a year.

kerravon

i just knew that if someone is picking out guide entries which they think arent acceptable there will be some deleted. thats why i stated i think its wrong to pick others out as they n you have written researched your guide entries have or might have deleted entries. this is a bit like a child who has had a lollipop stolen off them n they decide everyone else should go without - very childish specially when they cant get their own way.

hopefully this will be the last time i comment any further on this matter

Diddy!

Just when you are getting used to things here, something else happens to make you feel nauseous all over again...

I am not sure if I am glad or disgusted to know that it isn't just FM/HVL's entry which has been deleted.

Well, Orwell did base the MiniTruth on the BBC, didn't he? Welcome back Winston Smith...

B