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

I thought alabaster was the officially supported skin? I remember when all the new smileys were released, alabaster has them all first.

Back before Brunel, yes, it was the default skin and everything worked for it. These days it's Brunel first until the new skin gets released (hopefully as a result of this MOT test thingumy).

Oh dear, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here about the way moderation works.

Postings are hidden by the moderators because the moderator thinks it is contrary to the house rules. You will get an e-mail to explain this. If you disagree, you can reply to the e-mail and argue it out with the Editors. If your posting was in fact reasonable, it will always be re-instated - the Eds are a reasonable lot. The moderators are not always so, because they see each posting on its own, out of context.

The moderation bug hides Guide Entries occasionally when there is nothing wrong with them, but they reappear soon - usually within about a minute.

Hi, Gnomon.
I do assume one doesn't risk a ban by not trying to have a non-threatening posting that was treated as one that was restored. I do think people who make threats basically should be banned, but I assume that context will be studied before moderators/editors decide on such a step. I have been repeatedly provoked by someone, and basically laid out that it was a good thing he wasn't talking to me in person or I'd lose it (using the not-so-discreet expression 'grave error'). Since I hadn't Yikesed him on several occasions when it looks like he probably broke House Rules, and I didn't respond to the e-mail to say I disagreed; one who just looks at that post might think I'm solely at fault plus the fact that I've been warned once in the past (for something quite a bit different) and over-react, I'm worried.

Wait, Julzes, I think there's a negative too many in that first sentence, or it might be missing a verb.

"I do assume one doesn't risk a ban by not trying to have a non-threatening posting that was treated as one that was restored."

What exactly do you mean by that? That the only way you're not risking a ban is by not even trying to have *any* posting restored?

That you're afraid that if you fail to tell the Eds that you think that a removed posting was quite reasonable, it will count against you in some way?


Neither of those is true - the Mods are a bit trigger-happy, but when something is reasonable in context, the Eds are usually quite happy to restore it.

I saw Julzes' post and others including one by a person who's used the site a long time and *knows the system*. Julzes has an interest in numbers that not many here seem to share, that's no reason for name-calling or cyber-bullying IMO.

Learn from the experience Julzes and don't respond to such stuff.

This post has been removed.

Oh, did I really?

Whom exactly did I tell I threatened to kill others, and where was that?

This thread seems to have degenerated again. Time for me to be out of here, I suppose. And we were doing so well for a while there!

Yes, you did. You know you did, I know you did and the Italics know you did.

That is the end of it Julzes. Take responsibility for your actions and take the slap on the wrists the mods gave you like an adult.

This is the last time I intend to discuss this, or anything else, with you.

And how do you take the notion that IF we meet you better not set me off with your insults and extend it to the idea that I'm going to hunt you down? You know I live on disability an ocean away. The idea is absolutely absurd, and you are nuttier than a fruitcake.

If you have a genuine complaint against somebody which you think can't be aired by reporting one of their postings, then contact the editors directly by e-mail. They won't discuss moderation issues in a public forum.

OK but I think you'll agree that it's not always obvious who/what a post is addressing. Threats - even implicit - shouldn't be encouraged and I *still* dislike the name-calling.

My post 214 was in reply to HI's 207 (which has now been removed).

I don't know who yikesed it. Julzes, if it was you, I assume playing trigger-happy with the yikes button hardly enhances anybody's reputation.

Can we all just take a deep breath and calm it down please. As Gnomon says we don't discuss moderation issues on site for obvious reasons. Any grievances, please use the moderation system.

All I can say is ditto about the slap on the wrists. I got the slander removed.

Okay, that was a simulpost. I'm done.

Surely even those involved can see that public spats are ugly and undignified?

I have to say in these situations I can see where my mum was coming from when I was a kid and fighting with my little brother...

"I dont care who started it, who's right or who's wrong. Just stop. Both of you..."



I'm sure in these situations that everyone feels they have a valid reason to say 'hey, I'm being treated unfairly' or that they dont know how to deal with it. But if you cant deal with it, there are ways to stop yourself from getting involved in the first place most of the time (i.e. think before you post) and you CAN always email the eds if you feel there is a problem so you're not on your own.

Why is it that some people can be really quite controversial but never seem to have problems with eds or with being followed around (or following others around) the site, but others can be quite quiet but seem to find trouble?

Maybe I should study that as a cultural/social phenomenon across the internet?

Your mum was right !