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

I think we'd collectively be a lot happier not discussing moderation on site if we had more confidence in the process.

True, but if the moderators send out emails by accident, or accidentally remove posts without sending emails...

Yes, that's what I mean about problems with the process.

Indeed, everyone would be much happier if there was a known process. At the moment though, no one seems to know. Some obvious key words are met immediately by the 'filther', and understandably so. Apparently there is a much broader secondary list that will catch posts within a reasonable number of minutes, words that are very grey in the interpretation and if taken out of context. That part is hard to discern the problems with, but reasonable folks can work it out in time.

It's the loss of posts 6, 15 and 60 or more hours later that seem inexplicable. To the author as well as those who saw them before the vanishings. For long and long, there has been the fantasy of the 'Phantom Yikeser', despite the Eds declaring time and again that there is no such thing. Or you could be sure they would be upon such person(s).

So I begin to wonder, is there yet another level of staff that the Beeb may have in place, that randomly tracks currently active threads across the boards? Looking for a single post (always out of context) that might not pass muster? With changes, h2g2 is probably seen by adminstrative folks as just another 'board', albeit of a novel sort.

I agree, Icy. Maybe they have a new set of moderators who have yet to learn the ropes? Or maybe there are new rules in place and nobody knows them yet?

Good grief, no. Do you think they're made of money?

If anything it will be proprietary psychological profiling software.

I have just place a post to ASK, to perhaps deal with this continuing concern. So that we can let this thread continue with its beginning purpose. Questions, queries, posers about surprising moderations or losses, please visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=7992662

>>It's the loss of posts 6, 15 and 60 or more hours later that seem inexplicable

Not really. Anyone with an account can yikes any post on h2g2 dating back to 1999. The mods will remove it or not (and that decision seems to get made pretty quickly, within minutes in my experience), or send it to the Eds for a decision (that can take longer depending on the time of day or week and how busy they are).


>>
Well, I had a post hidden and an email the other day. I was very upset and wrote a journal, which was then yikesed because I quoted the moderation email. I never knew it wasn't allowed.
<< Bel

That's because it is allowed*. There's no copyright on those emails. Didn't someone (Mina?) test this some years ago? Unless there is something in the email that breaks the House Rules there's no reason to not post it onsite.

Discussions with the Eds about a moderation might be a different story.

*what did the email after the journal removal actually say? That you're not allowed to post copies of moderation emails? Did it give a reason?

OK. I understand that sharing personal e-mails from the moderators or editors is a no no. I don't necessarily agree that it should be, but I do know that is a rule.

I'm going to pick on Rev Nick for a minute because I know him better than I do any other researcher who has been banned from the site. I will not address why he was banned. That's water under the bridge,as lil suggests, plus I don't know enough about the particulars to speak to that issue. But surely Nick (or any other researcher who has been moderated or banned) isn't forbidden from discussing the subject in general terms. Will any post Bel makes about being moderated be automatically moderated as well? Is this the actual policy, that we can't criticize or even suggest criticism of the process as it now stands?

I've spent literally decades of my life fighting censorship as part of my profession. It's a shame that we have to fight it here, as well.

Every post on this LED was missing from my screen when I posted. My apologies for going backward, so to speak.

I think that perhaps I can copy and paste this part that ends every e-mail I have received from staff and moderation, without it vanishing? Each e-mail reads as:

This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the information in any way, and notify us immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC, unless specifically stated.

The first line does say it all ...

Yes, it gave the reason that I was not allowed to quote moderation emails on site. They didn't say I wasn't allowed to discuss them, but I am forbidden to quote them. I then studied the house rules, the terms of condition - everything I could find. It does nowhere say that I am not allowed to quote those emails. But the eds said it was correct, and that they'll have to make it more prominent. And since the eds are always so helpful if you really have a problem, I didn't insist and changed my post (in order to get my journal title back).

>>Is this the actual policy, that we can't criticize or even suggest criticism of the process as it now stands?

If it is, it's a new policy. I and others have discussed moderation issues and decisions onsite in the past and it's not been a problem. I think it's more likely what someone said before - that there's a new set of moderators who aren't familiar with the ropes yet. Also, I think moderation on h2g2 gets handled a bit differently than elsewhere on the bbc, so that might explain some discrepancies.

As I said before, I'm not aware of any rule that says you can't post a copy of a moderation email onsite.

Of course, the email being posted can't include the copy of the post that was removed, or at least the part of the post that broke the House Rules.

, kea. I wasn't aware of that rule, either. I couldn't find it to confirm it. I'm sure nothing would have happened if somebody who was aware of this unwritten rule hadn't yikesed my journal. Oh well.

Ok, here's a copy of the last moderation email I've had. I've removed the offending post, and the URL link.

I again refer to post #387 ...

>>>
Dear BBC Visitor,

Thank you for contributing to a BBC community site. Unfortunately we've had to remove your
Posting below because it contravenes the House Rules.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#house

Postings to BBC Communities will be removed if they:

* Are considered likely to provoke, attack or offend others
* Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable
* Contain swear words (including abbreviations or alternative spellings) or other language likely to offend

Discussions considered likely to have been started with the intention of provoking others or disrupting the Community will be removed.


If you would like to re-write your contribution to remove the problem, then
we'd be very happy for you to post it again.

If you have read the House Rules carefully and are still unsure why your message was removed, you can find out how to appeal against a moderation decision here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#canappeal

Best wishes,

The BBC Moderation Team

URL of content (now removed):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/...
>>>

Multiple

>>>
Yes, it gave the reason that I was not allowed to quote moderation emails on site. They didn't say I wasn't allowed to discuss them, but I am forbidden to quote them. I then studied the house rules, the terms of condition - everything I could find. It does nowhere say that I am not allowed to quote those emails. But the eds said it was correct, and that they'll have to make it more prominent. And since the eds are always so helpful if you really have a problem, I didn't insist and changed my post (in order to get my journal title back).
<<< Bel

Ooops for my last post then.

>>>
>>This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the information in any way, and notify us immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC, unless specifically stated.

The first line does say it all ...
<<< Rev Nick

No it doesn't. What it says is that if you received the email and you're not the intended recipient then they're *asking* that you don't use or disclose the information. If you *are* the intended recipient then it's yours to do with what you will. There's no copyright on it, and there's no privacy laws covering it either. If the Eds have an inhouse policy that they don't want those emails posted onsite that's a different matter (given they can removed any post they like, but I'd be interested to see the rationale), but the BBC afaik can't stop them being posted offsite. Tiggy got some legal advice about emails in general, and I did the same here in NZ. I'll find Tiggy's thread about it when I get the chance.

Mine was similar (they gave the reason that my message was off topic. It was an article for the Post about the last year on h2g2. You may imagine just how upset I was).
Anyway, the eds confirmed that we're not allowed to quote those emails.