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

The first rule of is

YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT

The second rule of is

YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT

Ok, in this thread I can only find one post of yours that's been removed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=7896846&skip=200&show=200#p103884675 You followed that up with an explanation: >> The hidden post was mine, and I am not sure why ... I replied to Tiggy and others about my banning and the converations that ensued. << Later you posted several times saying that you'd previously been banned and were at some point invited to return. Sorry, but that hardly suggests that you are not allowed to talk about moderation and banning. Or has this been happening on other threads too? I'd still like to know what was in the email for the removed post in this thread, if it was one of the generic ones, and if you had a conversation with the Eds about it. Unless the Eds have told you, it's often hard to know why a post was removed because the emails don't usually say. Sorry to go on about this, but we often get all this innuendo on h2g2 about moderation policy and unless people actually say what they've done and what's happened, it's just very unclear.

In the missing post, I replied in too much detail as to what was said to me by previous staff. And the moderation e-mail basically said what Taff just said.

In the end, moderations and (house) rules and suspensions are what the administration of a given day say they are. In that particular point, House Rules are fairly clear. They reserve the right to exercise their judgement and discretion.

And yet I and others talk about moderation decisions regularly and don't get our posts removed, so it's not that you can't talk about them, it's that there are limits. I'm just trying to figure out what the limit is in this case.

Just to clarify, did the email say you are not allowed to talk about any moderation decisions onsite, or was it referring to that specific post? Who was it from?

I can imagine there are some things about the actions of previous staff that they don't want discussed onsite (given that those staff aren't here any more). And I agree that the Eds can and do use their discretion. But I don't agree with you and Taff that no-one is allowed to discuss moderation decisions onsite.

mine was a satire based on fight club

I can confirm the following:

1. The first post was from me.

2. It contained an entirely innocuous question about how many people use the site. Nothing anyone could even slightly construe as against any House Rule that has ever been publicised.

3. I have received NO email explaining why it has vanished.

I mean come on. Srsly? Rly?

Are the people who run this site not even bothering to pretend they're not a bunch of cowboys any more?

Also, re: post 341:

The first rule of Mime Club is...

And to really go on about it posts like Taff's distort how the culture of h2g2 operates. We have this idea that we're not allowed to talk about moderation*, and yet some of us do. I'd suggest that there is something specific about your post Rev that was not ok, rather than it being a general ban on discussions about moderation.

*Other distortions are when people don't realise there is a difference between the moderators and the Eds, and how the Eds involvement can resolve or clarify moderations. People often react to being modded and blame it on a certain thing, or on the world gone mad, but don't take the time to look at what really happened. Other times the moderations are just plain daft. I've been modded a fair few times (not in the same league as Taff or Tiggy mind you), and most of the time I've found the Eds helpful in either reinstating the post or explaining why it was removed. Usually even if I disagree the explanation makes sense. Occasionally it doesn't or my query isn't resolved but that's just life or the Eds being busy.

The first rule of Mime Club is...locked in a glass box


The second rule of Mime Club is...wlking into a strong wind


The third rule of Mime Club is...if its your first night, you have to mime

There is also one other consideration ... Some people are so interesting, or loved, or that they have their own followers that hang on every word and post. And more often than not, they are not seeking wisdom.

Hence my original suggestion of someone with a lot of free time keeping a log of lost posts. So the management could look for a pattern of abusive employment of the moderation system. It has been known to happen before.

A literary note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2PM0om2El8

>>mine was a satire based on fight club

Ah. Clear as mud then.


>>
3. I have received NO email explaining why it has vanished.

I mean come on. Srsly? Rly?
<<

And are you going to do anything about it or just bitch and moan about how hard done by you are? Shit happens, you're not the first person to not get a moderation email, maybe you could follow up and email the Eds and ask for some clarification. I would suggest not calling them a bunch of cowboys in the email though.

Maybe the issue isn't that we can't talk about things, it's all in how it's done.

<>

try a bit more bad language, tasteless comments or getting closer to the bone and you'll come right

(And an unwritten rule of thumb, ... If you are going to post anything even remotely questionable, look first to see open-eyes)

Speaking of fight clubs...

>>Are the people who run this site not even bothering to pretend they're not a bunch of cowboys any more?

See this is another distortion of the culture of the place. What people are you talking about Tiggy? The Eds? The moderators? The bbc in general? The mice? There's obviously occasions when people don't get moderation emails. People get all upset about it in the threads, but how many people bother to email the Eds and ask about it?

Maybe it's nothing to do with the Eds, in which case who are the cowboys? How does the moderation system work from the mods' end? Do they have a choice about an email going out, or is it a glitch in the technology?

Does anyone care enough to actually do something, or do we just want to sit around and complain and pretend we are powerless?

>>try a bit more bad language, tasteless comments or getting closer to the bone and you'll come right

Add to that being overly mean, threatening to take down the site, and harassing people

>>(And an unwritten rule of thumb, ... If you are going to post anything even remotely questionable, look first to see open-eyes)

What does that mean Rev?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/online?orderby=name&thissite=1

I wish you would stop being so obscure. Do you mean that you look to see if the Eds are online before you post anything contentious? Does that really matter when it's the moderators (not the Eds) that will remove your post and they work 24 hours a day?

In post 350, I made it fairly clear that some people are so popular that they have their own fan clubs, or groupies. It's sometimes wise to know just how many are watching at a given time.