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

I'm a relatively new member and have found some of the strife here rather amusing. But after having just read the posting by Hoo, I feel like leaving this place. IT"S ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE. And I can't believe I'm the only new member that would feel like this. But I decided to dare to post.

Hoo why don't you just come out and say what you really mean! Yes let's send Apple to Guantanamo Bay?(I am being ironic here in case anyone misunderstands).

How on earth is the real world suppossed to stop going to war when this kind of vitriol can occur on a silly little BBC website.

I hope Don Rumsfeldt doesn't read this site or he'll probably be getting a h***d on!

Answers on a postcard please: can anyone think of a FIVE letter word beginning with "h" and ending in "d" that forms a well known phrase when placed before the word "on"?

No ft? No comment.

H.

Friendly Twit.

I entirely understand your concerns and what you have expressed is precisly the reason this is a major issue now. If new people are put off h2g2 as a result of this then it is a real problem.

The thing is Friendly if you are new you don't really understand the cotext of all this. This fued has been going on for years and the views are firmly entrenched. THe situation is not as simple as just reacting to isolated posts that are happening now in the thread where we are trying to get resolution.

The truth is you dont know about the "Saddam/Bush" thread or the "Alpha course" thread or the "Partial Birth" thread* or the "Death Threat" shenanigans. How can you properly judge the participants actions in isolation of the cause? I don't mean to be horrible but there is a *reason* why people are acting the way they do.



* Which for the record I fell out with Hoo on over Womens Rights. We get on allright now and are not calling for each other to be banned. Same as lots of *other* researchers we have rowed with.

I thought Hoo's post was insightful and uproariously funny. Few things are more entertaining than Hoo on a soapbox. We should p*ss him off more often.

'haard on' - it's a special Rumsfeldt thing. I thought everyone knew that!

I agree with Blathers about Hoo's post. Wonderfully designed, as are so many others, to perpetuate the Della Wars. And I reckon the reason the Beeb doesn't want to put an end to all this bickering is because it's an incredibly cheap form of entertainment. I'm all for it. As a UK citizen I have to pay the annual BBC licence fee, I have to pay it by the end of May, it's £126.50.

The way things are going on hootoo I'll stop bothering to watch BBC TV, so that'll save me a fair bit each year. Maybe eventually the Beeb will give up on broadcasting altogether and get everyone to come and watch the Della Wars........

Yup, paid mine today. Watch bugger all BBC television a coule of hours a week. Listen to lots of Radio 4 and spend far too much time on Hootoo. Last year I nearly considered not paying it as it was not worth the money. This year I have done without thinking too much really. And this is quite possibly due to having some of my spare time being spent being amused and abused on hootoo. Friendly: please stick around you will find that this is an isolated but important spat in a friendly diverse place. Have a look at the threads below to see a general view of why people still hang around here. We had some navel gazing earlier this year and discussed why people do and do not post on the site. The general feeling was through good times and bad on this site you grow and learn about others and yourself on this site.There is also a fair amount of silliness as well to offset this type of thread and normally it is the same people on both threads so do not think that those posting here are always this serious. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A3764063 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=609655

This post has been removed.

>>To punish the other participants at this stage would be like locking someone in the grain silo for days and then whipping them for sh*tting in the corn.
<<

Except, blather, no-one has locked you in. I understand the reasons for not just walking away, but please don't play some kind of victim here.


I don't see premod as a punishment (although it may be that as well I guess, and I can see how it might feel that way). I see it as a tool to take the heat out of the situation when there are very few other options.

One person change or many people change, and you'd pick many people change?

If you took away everyone who gets in heated debates with Adelaide, or if you took away everyone who insults her, it wouldn't take long for more people to take the same action in their place.

I would not go along with a general boycott of Adelaide.

Shifty, is a different matter, a genuine troll (although he is ignorant and holds some pretty offensive opinions of his own too). I think he is best dealt with by yikesing any post in the middle of a debate thread that goes along the lines of "I'm bored".

<>

Sometimes I come up with metaphors that work, and sometimes I don't. The point is that editor inaction placed us all in a situation that could have only led to one particular outcome, so there is no point punishing us for it.

<>

I don't understand how having your posts suspended until an arbitrary judge reviews them can be seen as anything other than punishment. And the argument that the time delay will somehow create a cooler environment is not one I agree with. I've had many a strenuous disagreement with Apple, and can only remember one instance where we were trading barbs in real time. In that case, pre-mod would have only slowed us down, but probably would not have stopped us.

In addition, I don't see how being placed on pre-mod could possibly be fair. I've already testified that I've yikesed posts which were upheld, meaning their standards have become looser. But someone on pre-mod is considered a routine offender, and the mods are going to be naturally predisposed to consider trolling in those posts, whether it is there or not. You've just changed the standard by which those posts are judged.

Again... punishment.

This post has been removed.

>>
One person change or many people change, and you'd pick many people change?
<< Bouncy.

If I had a magic wand, I'd pick Della to change obviously. I've said quite a few times I think she is central to the problem. I don't think she will change though, which is why I am suggesting others do. Unlike Della, I think willingness to change is a fine characteristic in a person.

>>
If you took away everyone who gets in heated debates with Adelaide, or if you took away everyone who insults her, it wouldn't take long for more people to take the same action in their place.

I would not go along with a general boycott of Adelaide.
<<

I need to be clear. A boycott isn't simply about removing insults from threads. It's about not engaging with her anywhere on the site at all, on any topic. If other people then step in and get sucked into another war they can be invited to join the boycott. It's not a passive thing. It can be done very actively and intentionally.

I also think that if the Dirty Angels and assorted others were to be boycotting Della, and others then stepped in and started warring with her it would be very obvious to everyone including the Italics that this problem is not with Hoo and co.

>>>
Sometimes I come up with metaphors that work, and sometimes I don't. The point is that editor inaction placed us all in a situation that could have only led to one particular outcome, so there is no point punishing us for it.
<<<

blather I understand better now what your metaphor was referring to. I do agree that editor inaction has contributed to this situation.


Regarding the punishment thing. What I meant is that I, personally, don't see the point of using premod in _this_ situation as being a punishment - in the sense of those naughty people have done something bad so something bad will be done to them to teach them a lesson. I see it as a way of undermining the war.

I am open to being persuaded against it (my willingness to change), and as I said earlier I consider it an option because I can't see any other options at present.

>>"This is why I think premod for a number of people is an option."

Tell you what - how about if one of those people is YOU?<<
Two responses to this: 1) No because I would walk (and have walked) away from Apple when she started, especially if a number of people had asked me to
2) If I wanted to continue my dispute with her because I thought I was completely in the right, or Apple and her views must be opposed or it's just plain entertaining, then yes I would accept pre-mod.
Perhaps the Italics should have done something when the death threat was issued, but they didn't. Get over it. Now the problem has extended beyond Della, those opposing her have become just as bitter and spiteful

Hoo,

<<
So, we seem more or less agreed, again, that the central problem is ONE person and her behaviour.
<<

Yes.

>>
You've hit the nail on the head, right there. I, for one, have TRIED yikesing her posts. And the emails come back saying "We're not upholding the complaint, the posting remains visible." Over and over and over again. And I'm not the only one. The system we are provided with DOES NOT WORK on this woman so we have given up using it. What else is there to do?
<<

Yes but my point was that there are at least two options - yikesing, and sticking to the issues (by which I mean don't get personal). If yikesing doesn't work for a particular post, you still have the choice to reply to the issues without being offensive back. It's the abusive, aggressive, personal stuff that is putting people off those threads. I really hope you understand this. It's not that people call Della on her behaviour and posts, it's how they do it.

I know that the modding system is inconsistently applied (I got modded for asking someone if they had to be such a dork). And part of the problem is that Della posts just inside the rules while still managing to break them, if you know what I mean.

One thing that we could do is start an A page, and record all the posts of Della's that people yikes that don't get removed, plus the emails from the mods where there is any reason given for not upholding. One thing I really dislike about the modding system is that people start referring to posts and decisions, but these are not visible so it's hard to put them on context of each other.


>>
"By all means call Della on her lies, and on her prejudices. But posting personal abuse is just going to perpetuate the situation. Why shouldn't the Italics take action against that as well?"

Because to do so is to have double standards. It's OK for THIS person over here to post racist abuse, death threats, homophobic rants, defamatory lies, etc., and NO limitation will be placed on her ability to continue. But THOSE people over there complaining about it must not post anything nasty or they'll get put on premoderation.
<<

This is where we disagree. It's not a double standard because I think Della should definitely be put on premod if anyone else is.

And no-one is going to be put on premod for complaining about another researcher - they might get put on premod for being nasty though because that is actually against the House Rules (at least according to my interpretation).


>>>
Tell you what - how about if one of those people is YOU? Would you still be so keen? I mean, here you are on the thread, commenting and everything, pointing out that it's mainly Apple's fault. Are you volunteering to join the purdah? And if not, why are you suggesting it for "a number of people", if that number is more than three (i.e. Apple and her whelps)?
<<<

If you see something about my behaviour that (a) actively perpetuates the D wars, and/or (b) breaks the House Rules, then point it out to me and I'll consider your questions above in the context of that.


What happened was that the Editors issued that warning in one of the Forum threads, and as far as I know it was to "a number of people", not just the Della clan. I've since said that I'd be happy for that to happen (for them to follow through). I took that position because I am thoroughly sick of the whole thing.



I am interested to know what both you (Hoo) and blather think should happen at this point regarding Della and/or the Della wars. Do you see any potential solutions?

>>I reckon the reason the Beeb doesn't want to put an end to all this bickering is because it's an incredibly cheap form of entertainment.

They're probably planning to send in a nanny to sort it all out.

I have read some of the backlog on this thread but dont really know what these 'Della Wars' are, although I would hazard that they are lower budget than the 'Star' ones, and I don't really know who is in them, but as for dealing with antagonists, I was in another forum community where someone was becoming increasingly objectionable - rascist, homophobic, issuing death threats etc and the situation was dealt with by the threat of removing their anonyminity. It's not that hard to turn a faceless 'name' on a messageboard into a real person and their real home adress. Just the threat of letting this person know by PM that they were now 'known', and proving it, and informing them that the next objectionable outburst would result in the public broadcast of their real identity - allowing any offended and inclined to do so nutter reading the forum to turn up on their doorstep and have a real discussion about their views - was enough to curb their behaviour... it's only a few steps away from Edward woodward territory I know, and I'm not suggesting it actualy be done to anyone, but it worked there.

Unethical, disgraceful and would quite properly lead to the BBC pulling the plug on the site. So please don't.

In fact...I'm sure it was well intentioned, annd I bear no malice...but I'm going to have to yikes that post. Sorry!