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

>>Understandable, but a punishable mistake.<<

In that case, would you support EtB being punished without the thread being closed? And blicky too? And everyone else on h2g2 who's been rude?

(and bearing in mind the thread wasn't closed because he crossed the line in terms of being insultiing, it was closed because the Eds had to remove a number of posts where EtB asked for clarification on the policy of naming racism and used some examples of well known Brits)

I suppose part of it for me is that I remember the Della wars, and other debates that were waaay more ott than this one. I think the Editors' tolerance for conflict where it impinges on their work time is much lower than it used to be. This is understandable. What isn't understandable is the confusion that's been left around what happened.

On the basis of what Jimster has said, it seems no-one could call a member of the KKK racist. Jimster is unfortunately declining to clarify much at this point.

This is a ridiculous situation to be in.


I remember when Hoo got suspended with virtually no warning once. It was somewhat shocking but not particularly surprising. But the rationale was entirely visible. In this situation it's muddy and unclear where we all now stand. Normally I can accept the actions of the Eds even when I disagree with them. This one however is just plain weird.


A newbie promptly opened a VC part 2 thread (in the Forum), and the conversation continues pretty much as before.

emr, my take on it is that it's been happening for a long time, mostly because of the problems the bbc has had with the message boards (they could have learnt some things from us probably), but it's in the last year that it's become more obvious. It seems to me that h2g2 has lost quite a bit of autonomy compared to even a few years ago.

The small number of Italics is a big part of it too.

I was away when the filter got brought in, but from what I can tell it was as much how it was done that caused anger. It seems that there is much less time taken to accomodate or care for the community now than there used to be. That may be understandable because of the limits on staff, but it still makes it a less pleasant place to be. I think it's a less functional place too

I hate to be a doomsayer, especially having only been here for two years, but I think I'd have to agree with you, kea.

Yup, I think kea has it bang on the nail there.

Was that Hoovooloo you were mentioning? I was around for the end of his travails, when he finally left. I also had a go at young Tango, he questioned the logic of my article on gambling A1084673 , and I have to say I relished the dust-up.

Therein lies the problem. One can trail one's coat tails ever so slightly and then hotly protest one's innocence. I got the same feeling reading of the incident over parking places, where a problem neighbour said "We have to speak about the parking issue" and our hero said mildly something like "There is no issue." Now it would actually have been more pacific to say "What do you want to talk about?" than (in effect) "There's nothing to talk about."

In cyberspace small things escalate much more steeply than they tend to in RL. So it is right, if a bloody nuisance, to be more than polite at all times.

>>despite enormous provocation, stepping over the line is just not a good move.

Just for the record...I sincerely don't believe I *did* cross the line. I assure you I'd be contrite if I had. However...the Mods seem to have drawn a new line in a very strange place. I don't think I can give the full story without repeating the offence, though.

(and I hope it's now clear that I wasn't trying to be deliberately rude to Pilgrim4 and would welcome his continued contribution elsewhere).

>> I got the same feeling reading of the incident over parking places, where a problem neighbour said "We have to speak about the parking issue" and our hero said mildly something like "There is no issue." Now it would actually have been more pacific to say "What do you want to talk about?" than (in effect) "There's nothing to talk about."

Now that was a little cheeky. One can't be responsible for a violent reaction simply because one doesn't always have the right words immediately to hand while strapping a child into a car seat.

<>

Really? An official warning? I once got a veiled (is that word still allowed here?) threat from Jimster in an email that my account might be restricted/removed if I continued being a nuisance. I guess I never got an official warning because I hadn't actually broken any house rules.

These days I only visit here occasionally and no longer get involved in *serious* discussions ... kind of a shame as I used to care about this place so much.

az

Yup! "Consider this an official warning." . Obviously I'm thought to merit the personal touch.

Seen this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F77636?thread=3742683&show=20&skip=0#pi1 az

>> I once got a veiled (is that word still allowed here?) threat from Jimster in an email that my account might be restricted/removed if I continued being a nuisance.<<

You lot could form a club. Which I couldn't join




>>Just for the record...I sincerely don't believe I *did* cross the line.<<

Does that include what you posted in response to the Cat Stevens issue? I had assumed you had been overly rude at that point, but obviously most of missed the posts.

In the first post I think was arguably rude - but I was holding a previous posting up for ridicule. The only insulting word I used was a mild and ridiculous one. However, I also used a word to describe a way of thinking or a political viewpoint. Apparently this was regarded as both offensive and potentially libellous (although, as someone else has pointed out, there is no case law to support this view). I should point out that I only deduced this later. I was not sent Yikes e-mails. Jimster had indicated that he was unwilling to discuss the matter with others by e-mail. The penny only dropped after a later posting in which Jimster refered to a public figure.

Thereafter, it became a discussion between Jimster and I. He said he was seeking legal guidance...but as far as I'm aware nobody has got back to us on this. Without repeating the (alleged) libel against another poster, I tried querying whether the same word could be used in relation to certain professional politicians. This was regarded as repeated attempts by me to break the law. (Again, I only found this out afterwards).

I will put my hands up and freely admit that, along the way, I bristled at Jimster's patronising tone and was sarcastic in response. There's a little history here - during The Filther Wars he misattributed someone's swearing to me and patronised me instead of apologising. So, yes, we were probably already prejudiced against one another and bound to wind each other up. But I promise you I did my best not to overstep the mark.

Jaysus! This must be as boring for others as it is for me.

Actually that was quite helpful. It filled in a few gaps for me at least

One more thing to add...I do realise that I have shot myself in the foot here. (or someone's shot me.) It is now the accepted wisdom that I or anyone who opposes certain views is a nasty troll. In particular, I'm part of a group who determinedly quashes any discussion of religion by hurling insults. Futher challenges from me to objectionable thinking, no matter how carefully expressed or intelligently argued, can simply be written off.

Sympathies

Keep pressing the arguments -- don't give up!

I think the person you were being rude to at the time gets very individualised treatment from TPTB because of things about that researcher that become evident from reading that persons posts.

The researcher gets my goat on a regular basis but I judge people round here as having a similar intellectual capacity and in some cases that's a big mistake. Now I try to ignore as much as possible and put on the kidd gloves when needs be because on so many levels the guy and his opinions are not up to much. So much so that its hard to tell what is bigotry and ignorance casued by intellectual short comings.

one love

Interesting. Yes, I agree that that particulat Researcher doesn't seem up to much. S/He is possibly of a different quality to another Researcher who's probably up to a little more - but not as much as he thinks he is - and who fills his posts with half-baked argument and 'evidence'.

Now that *is* a tricky one. How much sympathy do we have for people who parade their ignorance without having the intellectual capacity to realise how ignorant they are? Do we criticise pigs for wallowing in filth? No. Do we blame the mentally ill for crimes? No. But we don't tolerate the crimes either.

Hi Eddie

"In particular, I'm part of a group who determinedly quashes any discussion of religion by hurling insults. Futher challenges from me to objectionable thinking, no matter how carefully expressed or intelligently argued, can simply be written off."

Not by this religious nutter they won't.

Let me state for the record, and the powers that be:

I REFUSE TO ALLOW THE ITALICS/MODS TO 'PROTECT ME' FROM ATHEISTS, HUMANISTS AND RATIONALISTS! UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE YOU TO STEP IN AND TRY AND DEFEND ME BY STIFLING OPEN DEBATE, NO MATTER HOW 'OFFENSIVE' YOU THINK THE RESEARCHER HAS BECOME!

IF YOU DO I SHALL DECLARE THAT YOU HAVE CAUSED ME, AND THE PAGAN COMMUNITY ON H2G2, "ALARM & DISTRESS" AND SUE YOU UNDER THE SERIOUS AND ORGANISED CRIME ACT AND THE PROTECTION FROM HARRASSMENT ACT - IS THAT CLEAR?

The only way I should be allowed to defend myself must be through my own words. If someone gets unnecessarily rude then it is their argument that loses face in the eyes of the onlookers, and I gain thereby.

I am a grown up. Accept it and deal with me as one.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Easy, Math. I in no way mean you. You're all cuddly and fluffy. I mean the sort of people who use a discussion of one particular religion as a cloak for...other motives.

Eddie, that was not aimed at you but the powers that be