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

Howdy,

I think we still have some questions to sort out if we hope to keep this boat on an even keel.

1. Members of AGG/GAG. Can anyone join the group of AGG/GAG scouts or sub-editors? Or should we remain an elite force, like the A-Team? Letting anyone join would be democratic, which is usually a good thing. But it could also mean that people will join for the purpose of recommending their own entries. Plus people will join who might not have great taste (like we do!). Keeping an elite, limited number of AGG/GAG duders would hopefully allow us to limit the questionable entries. It seems a little unfair, but I think we could justify it by the laws of FIRST COME-FIRST SERVED, since we were the first people to express interest in the idea. [We could always admit more members later. Maybe by vote?]

2. Conflict of Interest. We have a good group of writers here, and it would be sad to rule out our own guide entries for the big treatment by AGG/GAG. But I think we need to make a rule against nominating our own entries to maintain credibility, forge that powerful brand identity that jwf talks about when he says that people should recognize AGG/GAG as a mark of excellence. If people see that we keep recommending our own entries, it may turn them off. Also makes me wonder if people will join AGG/GAG just for the purpose of nominating their own entries.

3. Exactly how do we arrive at the final selections? Do we vote on nominations once a week to decide which three get deluxe treatment? Or should we let the AGG/GAG column in the Post be written by a different AGG/GAG member each week? That would allow for different interests or topics to be highlighted. Would also lower standards to those of the squirreliest AGG/GAG member [quite possibly me?].

4. Any other by-laws or ways that we need to organize things better?

If Shazz picks up our homepage for the Post, we will have a flurry of input. I don't mean blizzard, I mean flurry .
I don't think we will have a stampede for membership. As you are aware there is a bit of work involved and most folks come to h2g2 to be entertained not to work. If they are the work-type, they probably already contribute to the Guide, the Post or some other established group.
I think we should keep open to any possibilty. But then, that's just my philosophy for life in general, and someone may have some other ideas.
Meanwhile, I will let Shazz know we have a finished page and maybe one of us will start writing issue #2.
jwf

WE MUST SUBMIT
Actually, the whole exercise becomes one of fertility if we don't submit because then it becomes the old bugaboo about critics being unable to write.
Besides, it is difficult to be an arbiter of taste if you cannot demonstrate what taste is.
I have said before that I believe that this little free-for-all needs a referee, a voice of last resort.
And 'j' I believe you have predicted blizzards before in other similar fora and your abilities as a weatherman leave a little to be desired.
I believe a ratio of one GAG submission to three of outsiders would be sufficient. It should be clearly marked as such, though.
RESISTANCE IS USELESS, but I will mention it to my aunt.

*stepping gingerly over obtuse stalagmites of colour*

Yes, I'm happy to report Shazz has snagged our homepage as our first entry. If anyone wishes to make further changes please contact her promptly. She has engaged an artist to calligraphy our acronym AGG/GAG as a logo and failing any further input we'll be stuck with that.
Your suggestion that we need to meet a popularity quotient of 3 external submissions to every one of ours is perhaps a bit idealistic but I wouldn't wish to carry on without at least a 1 to 1 response factor. There seem to be about six of us. So we need to get six suggestions from Post readers. And if not, the project will go into hiatus until someone like yourself stumbles through here and revives the issue again. OK?
I ask again, who wants to write #2 and, besides Lucinda's 'laughter' what will we offer.
~j~

Answered on original thread. Intro already written in first drift.

No, no, Gandalf, wake up your Babel fish!
I was talking about a ratio of 3 previously written or outside entries to one written specifically for this project by one of us.
If no one else is initially interested, this thing can go forward with what we can dig up or what we erect.
I came to write and I will stay to write.

Sorry, I missed this thread when I came by yesterday. There seem to be several questions on the floor (the table?) and I don't have all the answers.

Tonsil's declaration of coming here to write is inspiring and I'm sorry I went off on another tack and declared we would abandon the project if we didn't get enough feedback and support from Post Readers.

You're right. We can and should carry on as arbiters of taste for the disgruntled community. Any who do give us feedback will be welcome to join us in our search. And yes, Issue #3 should include a couple from us. Not me, you guys. Helloooo...?

Issue #2 (ruff draft) is on my homepage. Hopefully =X can cut and paste it and add the links and formatting and a third review.

If there's anybody else out there, please join in. We need otherwise undiscovered gems of Entries and your review or reasons why it deserves attention.

peace
jwf

*whu kluff fuough luff luff whuff*

(sound of another tonsil post flying over my head and bouncing off the wall)

actually, it is a reference to the last sentence in jwf's post above and an old Warner Bros travelogue cartoon gag.
It is known in the business as free association.

... I'm not a man who likes to pay for his associations!

Er, you guys seem to have set this whole thing up in fine style without any great help from me. I spose I feel more like a supportive spectator than an active contributor but I *am* still here, trying to keep up. I will be keeping my eyes open for stuff to rec and may even (well, you never know) get something together myself to submit to your good graces.

Anyway, we (I feel involved enought to hasard a 1st person pronoun!) now have a rolling ball and for what it's worth I will try my best to help you keep it moving.

I also loved that Fashion/society piece from Hobbes. I only had time to comment directly on the piece and I was chuffed to see that it ended up being recced here by Bleauzoeb.

Right, onwards and upwards,

Spiff *looking forward to seeing what happens when the first issue goes out*

Thanks Spiff, don't wander off too far now. We need three a week and have to have #2 finished this week.
Well, Mister =X how do you feel about adding the Hobbes bit to #2 then?
~j~

Sure, add Hobbes' entry if nobody objects. Check out the latest version of AGG/GAG #2 suggested by shazz.

Yeah, and when you get a chance, go check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A663734
which is a bit of silliness I cranked out a few days ago.
It wouldn't hurt for me to suggest something of my own, would it, for the near future?

tonsil's 'Trebors Meeting' seems like a winner.
Who is Trebor? Why not George or Mike? Other than that disturbingly unresolved issue, I like the piece and would say we have our first entry for week 3.
~j~

It's 'Robert' backwards. 'Robert's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure'?
Or is that one of those unicultural things, if you can call anything American cultural.

Ah so! Well let me suggest how few will actually get that one.

Taking a shot at RRoO however is certainly well worth the effort of rethinking for a title that brings those internationally observed rules to mind. It occurs to me now that anyone made aware before reading your piece might recognise the style and your rude variations on the theme.
I'm sure that calling it 'Roberts 21st Century Rules of ..' or something similar would allow many others to share the joke and it would also neatly violate the Guidelines regarding copywritten materials and genuinely qualify your piece for 'refugee status' under the mandate of AGG/GAG.


~jwf~

Actually, the backwards thing is a tradition in literature. 'Erewhon', et al, etc. (sic).
If you think it's a really good idea, I'll make it 'Robert's' but I think Trebor sounds more galactic.
It might lead to a series of idiotic rules, all part of a Trebor series.
'Trebor's Rules for Calling In Sick Without Actually Leaving the Office.'
'Trebor's Rules for Negotiating a Raise Without Giving Anything Away On Your Part'
and so on.

Ok OK! But only because I feel guilty for not reading James Joyce thoroughly enough to form an educated opinion on just how clever sdrawkcab gnilleps saw.
Contemptible obfuscation I say. Pain in the arse! What good is it! Or maybe I'm just mentally lazy or not that clever to begin with.

How about maybe ..perhaps, listing those other 'proposed titles in the series' in the intro or some other sort of heading that us slow folks can figure out before we dive in and miss half the point. I found it twice as funny once I knew who Trebor was.


jwf (long since having quit trying to make sense of people's nicknames around here and possibly therefore numbly indifferent to obtuse nomenclatural cleverness)

Speaking as a real-life Robert, I can testify that all Roberts will recognize their own name spelt backwards from childhood wordplay. This should account for a third or a quarter of the UK or US audience. The rest can lump it.