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

What is it with your obsession with Mark's beard Lucinda? It's starting to feel slightly pervy! You don't have a beard fetish do you?

Starting?

-Lucinda

Tell me more about this beard...

- Jordan

Well, the King of Spain's beard got singed by Drake, didn't it. I wonder what has befallen Mark's in its history?

The beard that launched a thousand ships

... or munched a thousand hips?



B

I woke up this morning not sure which of the three main players in this sorry little drama I was more annoyed with and a strong desire to take all three of you by the shoulders and shake some sense into you. I doubt it would work, though, and reading the backlog has, as usual, been interesting.



spook first and briefly, since this has moved on from spook. Your insoucience and general attitude of 'it wasn't me guv' made me want to reach out through the internet and clip you around the ear for about a week.

The original version of this post then commented on your reluctance to accept responsibility for your actions. But on re-reading the thread post by post, (this drama played out at the same time as I had a major run-in with my boss about business ethics and I missed some of the originals), I saw Post 39: F21356?thread=218232&skip=20&show=20#p2536488

It is worth quoting in full, because it makes points which Anna should have made and did not.

"actually, hoovooloo, i have a feeling that your q was answered wrong. scouts do have a right to ask that researchers remove entries from peer review, but only on the basis that the entry is not suitable for the edited guide, and/or that there is a consensus in peer review that it should be removed. what u asked is whether a scout who says that they aren't gonna pick the entry have a right to tell the researcher to remove the entry from pr, which is they don't. they only have the right to demand the removal of an entry from pr when it is agreed the entry is unsuitable.

"i think that your q was answered incorrectly. i felt when i posted that message that i was posting on the thoughts of the majoity of people in the pr thread, which is why i posted. if i had simply posted because i didn't ike it then that is wrong and you would not have to in any way do as i said.

"like i say, i think your question was answered wrong, and that maybe i did make a mistake by asking u that."

So, spook, I apologise for misjudging you, and possibly for being overly harsh in my later posts in this thread and the USP thread.

I respect people who live and learn, and I salute you.




Hoovooloo next. What the f**k Hoovooloo? Was it worth it?

Well yes it was, if it clarified that Anna is not capable of or for some reason is reluctant to distinguish between a question about an individiual and a question about the system that that individual is a part of. A useful fact for the rest of us to know about our editrice, I suppose. But a little forensic, isn't it Hoovooloo?

The reasons I am severely p**sed off with you are:

1) I will get less pleasure out of h2g2 as a result of your decision

2) You will get less pleasure out of h2g2 as a result of your decision

3) This sort of thing is worth it if it leaves h2g2 stronger, but I don't think this has. All that I can see is a bunch of scouts who are thinking 'look at those nasty people being - gasp - sarcastic to the wondrous Anna' without pausing to ask themselves why.

4) I am now outside the tent p**sing in. Again. And although I take responsibility for where my thinking leads me, it was you that knocked on the door, and said 'wanna go for a walk?' And unfortunately I don't think that the team as it stands at present are capable of understanding that although you (and in a minute or two, I) appear to attack them, we have the good of the site at heart. I remember having some major flame-wars with Mark and with Peta about all sorts of things, but I know for a fact that if they ever took it personally it was not for long. They understood that individuals who think will not always think along the party-line, and that the party is strengthened by its thinking rebels.

What do I think you should do?

Nothing. I think you should do nothing. Annoyingly, I don't think you should back down, because Anna's response that what spook did *was* acceptable is IMHO neither good for the site, nor an accurate interpretation of the Scout code of behaviour.

Unfortunately it gives arrogant little twerps a green light to go stomping all over PR laying down the law.

And the fact that I think that you shouldn't back down is the 5th reason I am p**sed off with you.



Anna.

Anna, Anna, Anna.

What am I to say to you?

First off using smileys is not enough. Use your brain, honey.

Hoovooloo asked: F21356?thread=218232&skip=0&show=20#p2511722 "When did it become part of the Scouts' duties to *order* authors of Entries to remove them from Peer Review because they, the Scout in question, didn't like or indeed understand the Entry?"

You replied: F21356?thread=218232&skip=0&show=20#p2534950 "Now, in answer to your question, under 'Cleaning Peer Review' in Scouts-What you'll see that Scouts are at liberty to ask Researchers to move entries from Peer Review. Keeping the number of entries to a manageable number helps them to do their job."

Hoovooloo took it as a confirmation that it was part of the Scouts' duties to order entries out of PR; though it is quite clear to me that you did not in fact answer the question he asked. This is the point at which I could cheerfully clip Hoovooloo round the ear. Why the f**k didn't you question it Hoo?

But equally what did you think you were doing, Anna? Did you think that by avoiding the question you were being clever, or that it would go away? Come o-o-o-o-o-on!

In post 47: F21356?thread=218232&skip=40&show=20#p2537864 I gave you the chance to say 'oops, sorry, I didn't mean that, I posted rather quickly and didn't realise that what I said was ambiguous. You took that up in Post 51: F21356?thread=218232&skip=40&show=20#p2539640, when you said "The final decision about what goes in to the Edited Guide rests with the editorial team" which was what I hoped you would say. Unfortuntately Hoovooloo chose not to take it as a comment on scout behaviour (which in fact it was not) and you chose not to extend it to explicitly comment on scout behaviour. So a continued impasse.

Why didn't you pick up on what Martin said in Post 53: F21356?thread=218232&skip=40&show=20#p2539917 ""Scouts who consistently leave tact out of their dealings with Researchers may be asked to leave the group" - 'consistently' is a keyword here. The odd error is not a hanging offence." This in fact is the most sensible remark in the whole bloody episode, and I am pretty sure that it is what Hoovooloo was looking for. If you had said something along those lines in the first place, the only people who would have been aware of this thread would have been you, Hoovooloo, and any stalkers either of you have. If you had picked Martin up on it, and endorsed what he said, the whole thing could have blown over at that point.

(In 54 you ask me what I would do about separate issues that cropped up in the thread. If you start a thread in the appropriate place, and point me towards it, I will answer your questions as best I can.)

Jordan said something interesting in 56: F21356?thread=218232&skip=40&show=20#p2540450 "Also, perhaps a little could be said to the scouts about their social skills - [it] would make a world of difference."

We all know that there is the Scouts forum, (and what wouldn't I give to be able to read there now). But why the hell didn't you say "In answer to your question Hoovooloo, "Scouts who consistently leave tact out of their dealings with Researchers may be asked to leave the group" - 'consistently' is a keyword here, but yes, tact is an important part of the Scouts's code, and thanks for drawing that post to my attention. You will understand why I won't discuss an individual scout's behaviour on site. I use emails, and the scout's forum for that."

Anna, Anna, Anna, WHY didn't you do that? Instead you stayed silent for a couple of days, and your first post back was a smiley-fest. Not good enough honey.



Unfortunately I doubt that this post will help much. But at least I have been almost equally rude to all three of you. In fact of the three of you, I am astonished to find that spook comes out of this the best. He has clearly thought about the issue, and it looks as if he may have learned and changed. Well done, spook.

Hoovooloo just comes out of it as a stubborn smart-a**e - nothing new there. (And I LIKE Hoovooloo).

Anna comes out of it as someone who has her fingers in her ears and hopes that enough < hug > and < cake > smileys will make the problem go away.

And I suspect that I come out of it as a crotchety bitch who gets ratty about high professional standards, and who woke up too early.



Ben

There's a lot in what you say, Ben! Sums up my feeling too.

I wonder on the best way to move forward from this debacle, though?

Thanks for posting that, Zarqon, I was really quite worried that what I had written would be seen as a vitriolic attack for the sake of vitriol. It isn't. It is a product of my frustration with the parties concerned, and of my genuine concern for the good of the site and the good of the guide.

The best way to move forward from this debacle?

Hmm.

I know what I think, but amn't saying it.

B

Oh no, not again

I read over the thread quickly, and the only unsaid thing here seems to be: I missed out a great chance to use gender free pronouns! Damn it! I apologise for my chauvinistic use of the word 'he'.

Anyway, I have to go home now. I'm not going to attempt to comment on any of this, and I retract any judgemental comments I may have made in the past. Other people are doing a far better job than I am [of commenting].

- Jordan

Oh, and I found a picture of his beard. Wow... Yes, Lucinda is justified in perving over that... beard...

- Jordan

Yeah, that mirrors much of what I thought. It's always very irritating when Italics avoid answering questions by deliberately misinterpreting them. There was a similar case regarding HVL's suggested changes to the Peer Review page, with one Italic pretending to be unable to understand sarcasm. Try to imagine how helpful *that* felt.

If an Italic does not wish to answer a question, sie should either:

1) Not answer the question at all
2) Say that sie cannot answer the question, and try to give some indication as to why.
3) Give the standard "thank you for your feedback" response.

Referring briefly to official guidance at A787197 :

> "Try to communicate in a way that overcomes barriers"
> "Remember you are in a conversation, so engage with what others are saying."

Deliberately misinterpreting questions and ignoring sarcasm puts up barriers rather than removing them, and would be a mistake.

> "Avoid unnecessary use of smileys, as they can be very inflammatory. Adding a to an inflammatory Posting doesn't make it all right, and will almost certainly make things worse."

Or, in other words, a hug conga won't solve anything.

No response required.
-Xanthia

A787223 (Transparency and DNA)

> "If the Editors are asked a difficult question by a community member, then they should answer truthfully, even if the answer is 'I made a mistake'. If they give evasive or misleading answers then they won't be trusted. Building a relationship based on trust and mutual respect is essential if the Editors want the community to co-operate with their team."

-myre

Dear Ben,

I'm surprised by your change of tone, your last post to me was affable. Why the change?

My response to a posting like this could be to say something like 'thanks for your comments, Ben, you raise some interesting issues' and leave it at that. Just because I don't respond point by point it doesn't mean that I don't take on board what's being said. It might appear that I don't care or am not listening, but this is not the case. It might appear that I'm being dismissive, and if it comes across like that, I'm sorry. For me, being brief in my answers is partly to do with my posting style, and partly wanting to avoid hot-headed conversations. I prefer always to step back, listen and go slowly in dealing with contentious issues because I don't believe in entering into a discussion with someone who could potentially misinterpret everything I say. I don't feel it's the time. I'd rather catch them when they're feeling happier and discuss when everyone has calmed down (including me). I don't think that having a flame war helps us towards a better h2g2, and I know that you want to help build a better site. The team as it is now don't want to have flame wars with Researchers (Mark doesn't work for the BBC anymore and Peta is working on a different team). However, we don't have a problem with dissent and we welcome discussion. This week I was going to contact Hoovooloo and ask him if he might re-consider. I don't know if he will, but I hope so.

Here's another honest reaction. I was as surprised as you that Hoovooloo didn't question me. I felt a little deflated at his reply. Hoovooloo go quietly? What's up? I thought. The discussion stopped and the conversation moved along to Mark's beard.


In F101670?thread=217549&post=2535123#p2535028 Hoovooloo says
'I've been specifically informed by Anna F21356?thread=218232 that the behaviour of Scouts in this thread is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the Scout scheme guidelines.' What I actually said was 'Now, in answer to your question, under 'Cleaning Peer Review' in Scouts-What you'll see that Scouts are at liberty to ask Researchers to move entries from Peer Review. Keeping the number of entries to a manageable number helps them to do their job.'

Hoovooloo's post at F101670?thread=217549&post=2535123#p2535028 is open to misinterpretation. I didn't say it's perfectly acceptable to be rude to Researchers in Peer Review. If that was the case, that would be worth leaving PR for.

I've read your posting carefully and have taken on board what you have said, in particular that I should have expanded upon the necessity for tact from Scouts. In posting 54, I posted that I agreed with Lucinda's comment but that clearly wasn't enough. For the record, when Hoovooloo first posted to my space, I contacted the Scouts via the forum and asked them to remember to keep their cool. Back at the beginning of October I reminded Scouts for the need to be polite to Researchers. This is an ongoing issue that you haven't witnessed, but it is being dealt with. Remember that a lot of the activity goes on behind the scenes.

Posting smileys is an accurate reflection of my nature. I wasn't aware that genuine emotion was coming across as being trite. I'll stop using them. This is a learning curve for all of us. We haven't met up that often on site before so I'm not surprised about misinterpretation.

Anna

I absolutely agree Lucinda, and I hope that Community members will ask for clarification when it's necessary.

Hi Anna

It is good to see such a thought out and considered reply. And one which covers most of the bases. I will check it out in more detail later.

"I'm surprised by your change of tone, your last post to me was affable. Why the change?"

As I said - I woke up that morning (at about 5.00 am) just wanting to bang all three heads together.

I am - about 90% of the time - reasonably affable. But I reserve the right to say what I think, as I did in the post yesterday morning. One thing which makes me enemies is that I tell it like I see it.

The good news is that I never have a hidden agenda - what you see is what you get - the bad news is that I am not afraid to say some quite startling things about and to my friends. However, once I have said my piece I let my friends get on with it - as it says in my home space, I dislike anything which prevents people from going to hell in their own way.

All of this is a long way of saying 'don't take it personally'. If I am nasty to you it doesn't mean I dislike you, just that I have issues with what you or the way you have said things. (I will leave y'all in a delicious uncertaintly whether if I am nice to you it means that I like you! )

Ben

PS - by all means continue to use smileys if it makes you feel good - just don't use them as a SUBSTITUTE for considered replies. Smileys are not bad. It is just that smileys are not enough.

B

I didn't take it personally, but I appreciate you taking the trouble to tell me. The smileyness doesn't mean I'm delicate, I have a tough skin and, like I said, I don't mind dissent.

Ready for more discussion when you are

Anna