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

I'm thinking of putting together a tourist's guide to the many toasty warm 'discussions' there have been around h2g2. Partly as a service for the arbitration scheme and those discussing it's merits or demerits. Partly to see what other people besides myself, find themselves inexorably drawn to such places, and how they behave. Partly out of idle curiosity.

Decisions, decisions...
-Xanthia

Hmmmmmm..... interesting idea, I guess. Though I somehow didn't picture you as aspiring to be the Jerry Springer of h2g2.
People ARE full of surprises, aren't they?

I think that if you collect enough dry little twigs together in one place, you'll have the makings of a very nice bonfire!

Some possible consequences:
Severe mortification for a large number of former participants who find their more fatuous statements have come back to haunt them; this may make them touchy enough for rancour to spill over into other threads.

An outbreak of 'What they should have said was...' and 'here's another thing' comments from people who weren't involved last time. Add in 'what I really meant was...' justifications from original participants, and any one of those old threads could burst back into flames.

The existence of a handy guide to whose buttons can be pressed may facilitate people who go in for borderline trolling. I'm thinking of the kind of posting that can pass moderation but is recognisably intended to wind people up. A flame war reference list would make this easy for even the most recent arrival to manage: X is incredibly sensitive to anything implying she's not truthful; Y goes ballistic at any implication of being stupid; Z gets vicious if you suggest he's rather childish, etc. Slip the implication in past the moderators, and hey presto! another thread may burst into flames.

There's also the problem of multi-thread flame wars: if the vitriol level gradually increased in a circular round of 3 or 4 threads, the jumps in viciousness in any particular thread may be startling, and reflect unfairly on the posters concerned. Since older posts are only stamped with the date, not the time, it could be very hard to reconstruct the actual sequence of posts in this kind of multi-thread outbreak.

Anyway, if you produce a guide to flame wars, I'll certainly read it. But I think it might stir up enough dregs of rancour and resentment that it might make the guide a less pleasant place.

Azara

Azara's said it all, and I'm only posting here to add my voice. I can't see any positive reason for spending time on this.

When there's been an accident on the other side of the carriageway all the cars slow down to look instead of getting on with with their journey.

Wise words, all.

Though "Severe mortification for a large number of former participants who find their more fatuous statements have come back to haunt them" - I was under the impression that this was the entire point of the editors' new "think before you post" policy...

I think the point of the 'think before you post' policy is to prevent mortification rather than to cause it.

I have to say that I've been rethinking my ideas on the permanency of forum posts. I think it should be possible for someone to retract a post and replace it with a message like:

'Azara deeply regrets having made this post, since it contained statements the author now believes to have been offensive, hurtful or wrong. This post has now been hidden at the author's request.

Think before you post!'

I'm not sure exactly how the moderators work, but I think that all this would need would be for the moderators to have a second message they can insert if someone yikes a post. In this case, the person yikes-ing the post would have to be the author. The editors would not have to do anything, except have some kind of record of who uses the feature.

It would be important to keep the poster's name up in this case, because it would then be easy to spot someone who was overusing the feature - a quick skim through a thread would soon identify any problems, and the editors could warn overusers and revoke the privilege if necessary.

I haven't actually posted anything here that I'm not prepared to stand over, but I think I am very guarded in what I say compared to most people on h2g2. On the other hand, a google search of usenet archives can still locate some very silly things I said a couple of years ago, permanently recorded under my real name, which still makes me squirm sometimes. I think it would help the community atmosphere here if that kind of mortification could be avoided.

Azara

In some ways I agree with you, Azara. But I think that something like that would destroy the continuity in some threads, while still leaving the reactions to the post standing. I think an important aspect of h2g2 is that it's an 'eternal' record of sorts, and that it captures the thought process as it happens. Can you imagine what the lifetime suspension thread might read like today, if that feature were implemented? I have a feeling it would not make much sense at all, and would be nothing like what it is, for better or for worse.

I think it would be better if each of us were given a very limited number of annual insertions which we could use in the way you suggested. That way the change in thinking would be noted if someone came along later and read the conversation, but the resulting reactions from the other participants would not lose their validity. I think the number of insertions allowed should be minimal so people wouldn't be able to make it a habit to rant without thinking, and then later use the insertions to rationalize rash behavior or poor judgement.