From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 22:18:28 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer)
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 22:18:28 -0000
Subject: SYM? Pretty OT, I think.
Message-ID: <bgrurk+he2v@eGroups.com>

Woo-HOO! I dig our new d?cor!

But I basically just came here to ask a question that makes me feel like a =
moron: What 
is this "SYM" abbreviation I'm seeing in front of some posts? I don't even =
know what it 
*means.* Is there just something I totally missed?




Derannimer, who kinda has "d?cor" on her mind, actually. And who is going t=
o make 
a prediction: Her cute little accented "e's" are going to show up looking l=
ike 
something in Greek once she posts this.




From eloiseherisson at aol.com  Thu Aug  7 16:25:25 2003
From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloise_herisson)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:25:25 -0000
Subject: SYM? Pretty OT, I think.
In-Reply-To: <bgrurk+he2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bgtuhl+10m4i@eGroups.com>

Derannimer:
> But I basically just came here to ask a question that makes me feel 
like a =
> moron: What 
> is this "SYM" abbreviation I'm seeing in front of some posts? I 
don't even =
> know what it 
> *means.* Is there just something I totally missed?

<Eloise sticks her head up above the parapet to prove that she is 
still here>

You're not a moron and you've missed nothing, other that omitting to 
read one particular post on the main list last month. SYM is a prefix 
unilaterally introduced by a list member to denote posts touching on 
the symbolism of HP. It has no official standing and is not a 
requirement. But other posters have followed suit.

~Eloise





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Thu Aug  7 20:13:27 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:13:27 -0000
Subject: SYM? Pretty OT, I think.
In-Reply-To: <bgtuhl+10m4i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bgubt7+9gaa@eGroups.com>

Eloise responding to what the SYM prefix means:

<< You're not a moron and you've missed nothing, other that omitting 
to read one particular post on the main list last month. SYM is a 
prefix  unilaterally introduced by a list member to denote posts 
touching on the symbolism of HP. It has no official standing and is 
not a  requirement. But other posters have followed suit.>>

Ali:

I wrote to Ivan after he posted that message and asked him not to 
use the SYM prefix anymore. He was very apologetic about it and 
hasn't used it since. I don't think he quite understood that 
symbolism has been discussed frequently on the list and felt that 
his posts would get a higher response if he prefixed what they were 
about.

Ali

Back from holiday and behind on everything - lists, washing, 
cleaning etc etc.





From porphyria at mindspring.com  Thu Aug 14 15:30:29 2003
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:30:29 -0400
Subject: more free technical help
Message-ID: <3C4D3515-CE6C-11D7-9E65-000393465128@mindspring.com>

Dear FPers,

I've been in touch with a Juan Rodriguez who is a member of HPfGU. He 
really wants to be of any service he can to the FP site (and the main 
Portkey page http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/) and he has lots of technical web 
page skills (similar to mine). I told him I'd refer him to you. I 
haven't been following the main list, so unless someone knows him to be 
impossible to work with, I'd ask for him to be offered an invitation to 
join FAQ. Whaddya think?

~Porphyria

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Juan Rodriguez <jofr18 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thu Aug 14, 2003  9:40:08 AM US/Eastern
> To: Porphyria <porphyria at mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: Can I help?
>
> <excerpt>
> ?
> Like I said in my previous message, I really would like to help in any 
> way that I can.? I do HTML, Photoshop, CSS Stylesheets, and I 'm 
> currently learning JavaScript. So it would be great if you?can get 
> me?in touch with the Fantastic Posts group and I would also love to be 
> "on-call" as you put it.
> ?
>> Obviously we're a group of volunteers and that's all we can "afford," 
>> so you'd have to be there for the sheer love of doing it.
> ?
> I agree 100% with that and believe me when I tell you that I do love 
> it and that I would also love to be one of those volunteers.
> ?
> Thanks again.
>
> Juan Rodriguez
> Homepage: http://j_of_r.tripod.com
> Email: juan_rodriguez at email.com
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 15 17:17:05 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 17:17:05 -0000
Subject: Finally Back & Harry FP: A Rethinking & An OT Question
Message-ID: <bhj4ih+97v9@eGroups.com>

<With great difficulty, Abigail extricates herself from under a 
huge pile of dusty posts.>

Well, that was an interesting three weeks.

Technically, I've caught up to the main group.  Realistically, I 
think I might have read one post in ten.  In fact, ten might be 
optimistic.  I've added my selections to the Fantastic Posts table, 
in case anyone is interested - there weren't that many, which is 
probably as much a function of my sporadic reading as of the 
quality of posting over the last seven weeks.

Wow, has it really only been seven weeks?

It has, and at the same time it is *already* seven weeks since 
OOP was published.  I've been thinking a lot about the Harry 
FP (in case anyone's forgotten, that's Hufflepuff's job).  I seem 
to be of two minds on the matter.  Back in June, when I first 
joined, I offered the following outline:

 1. Harry's character, development and relationships
    1.1 Harry as an abused child, including the theory that the 
          entire series is his protective halucination, or that the 
          series will end up being a dream.
    1.2 The differing views on Harry's personality - is he a 
          take-charge hero or an arrogant kid? How justified is 
          Harry's incessant rule-breaking?
    1.3 Harry's inability/unwillingness to ask for help
    1.4 Harry's relationships with adults 
    1.5 Harry's relationships with his contemporaries. The Rift 
          in GoF, and maybe Harry's treatment of Neville.
    1.6 Harry's reactions to fame.
    1.7 Harry failing 

 2. Harry's purpose, abilities and destiny
    2.1 Why did Harry survive? Straight up love protection, 
          Love as a Spell Component and Ancient Magic.
    2.2 Is Harry special, and how? Stoned!Harry, Trelawney's 
          First Prediction and Heir of Gryffindor.
    2.3 Harry's abilities - is Harry simply a talented wizard, 
          or a preternaturally powerful one?
    2.4 Was the Philosopher's Stone ordeal rigged?
    2.5 Will Harry die? Will defeating Voldemort cost him his 
          magical powers? Will he be forced to leave the 
          wizarding world?

Looking at this outline from a post-OOP standpoint, there 
are some obvious necessary changes.  Almost all of section 
1 needs to address the changes in Harry's personality in OOP 
and how those changes affect his future.  In particular, section 
1.2, Harry's personality, needs to include discussions on Harry's 
development, and on what his behavior in OOP tells us about 
him.  Is he a normal boy going through adolescence?  Are his 
outbursts normal for the amount of pressure he's under?  Is he 
suffering from mental problems such as depression or PTSD (this 
one might belong in section 1.1)?

Section 1.3 remains mostly unchanged, although I think a 
discussion of Harry's reactions to Umbridge might belong here 
- why doesn't he speak out against her punishment and what 
does that tell us about him?  For that matter, an important 
theme in OOP is self-control, and Harry's lack thereof - that 
might also belong here or in 1.2.

Section 1.4 will have to expanded.  I'm thinking that 
sub-sections will be necessary at least for Snape, Dumbledore 
and Sirius, and possibly Hagrid.  I really think that the theory 
that these men and others are Harry's father-figures belongs 
here, and there has to be some discussion about how Harry is 
consistently failed by adults in OOP.  I also think that 
generational parallels - with James, Sirius and Snape - should be 
discussed in this section.

In section 1.5, there should obviously be some discussion 
of how Harry treats his friends and contemporaries in OOP.  I 
said in my original message that Shipping was already 
well-covered by other FPs and shouldn't be discussed here, 
but I think Harry's relationship with Cho tells us a lot about 
him and about his growth, and should probably be addressed 
here.  I also think that in view of the prophecy it's important to 
include a discussion of Harry and Neville as mirror images of 
each other.

I suggested section 1.7 because the main group had recently 
discussed at length whether or not Harry would fail in his fight 
against Voldemort.  In OOP, he did just so - does this make this 
section superfluous or should it remain?

Section 2 should probably remain largely unchanged, with the 
exception of section 2.2.  Harry is obviously special, and 
Trelawney's first prediction has panned out.  However, I've seen 
posts on the main group that continue to defend both 
Stoned!Harry and Heir of Gryffindor, so they should probably 
remain.  However, this section will obviously have to include 
discussions of the prophecy.  Similarly, section 2.5 will also have 
to be updated in light of the prophecy.  In fact, I'm wondering if a 
section devoted to the prophecy might not be in order.

And, of course, this is just what I see.  Reading one post in ten 
doesn't make me an expert on the ideas raised on the list, and 
I'm sure there are topics that I've overlooked.  

Where I'm of two minds should now be obvious.  There are not 
enough fantastic posts discussing OOP and Harry's development 
in that book.  At least not that I've seen.  On the other hand, 
the FPs are now woefully out of date, and by the time the group 
produces material of the caliber that we'd like to see it'll be at 
least fall, and I personally won't have as much free time as I have 
now.  

So, Hufflepuffs and other FPers - should we get started on the 
Harry FP now or should we wait?  I suspect that this question 
has been on the minds of the other houses as well, and is partly 
the reason for the silence on the group these past three weeks.

On a more personal nature, I have an OT question.  I thought it 
might be cute to record my reactions to OOP on a 
chapter-by-chapter basis.  I was thinking mainly of several 
discussion on the group that touched on readers' immediate 
reactions to events, and I wanted to keep a sort of snapshot of 
my own reactions.  I was thinking of posting this to the group, 
but now I just don't know.  There's been so much posted already, 
and not a lot of what I have to say hasn't already been covered.  
Also, it's rather long.  Does this sound like something that anyone 
would be interested in, or should I just cannibalize the file for a 
few good ideas and leave it at that?

Abigail
 





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Aug 17 01:46:05 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 01:46:05 -0000
Subject: What's our responsibility, anyways?
In-Reply-To: <bficem+2nuc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhmmot+m67k@eGroups.com>

Tom wrote:

> I was taking a gander through all of the various stuff that's 
> connected to the HPfGU portkey, and started to wonder: exactly 
>what are we updating, now, anyways?

Oh, good question, Tom.  

And Porphyria.  And Pippin.  And Amanda.  And Abigail and others who 
have posted recently.

In fact, several of us have raised important questions over the last 
days or weeks, and I feel a bit guilty about having failed to 
respond.  On the one hand, I did explicitly state that I was not the 
leader of the FAQ group.  On the other hand, I have been fairly 
active on this list, so perhaps folks were hoping to hear my views 
on things.

Oh, ugh.

If truth be told, I am in a bit of a tough spot here.  You'll all 
recall that I was a member of MEG until I took a break in April or 
so, specifically advising MEG that I hoped to return.  Several 
months have passed, so I recently asked to return to MEG.  MEG 
denied my request -- even though every Elf or Geist who ever left 
MEG and later asked to return was welcomed back with open arms, and 
even though many MEGs urged me to take that break in the first 
place.  

I anticipate that certain issues MEG will soon decide will impact 
the operation of this group.  Further complicating things is that 
MEGs consider MEG business to be highly confidential and not to be 
discussed with non-MEGs -- I would be unable to discuss MEG business 
that impacts the FAQ list with the members of MEG because I am not 
on MEG.  

After giving things some thought, I don't see how I can make a 
significant contribution to the FAQ list if MEG decisions in which I 
am denied input may be handed down at any time.  I also must admit 
to having some brand new trust issues due to MEG's decision to 
depart from established custom in handling my request to return.  
I'm happy to be a contributing member of the Slytherin team, but 
that is about all I can handle, I'm afraid.

I think the best solution here would be for us to come to some sort 
of consensus decision about how we'll move forward on this list.  I 
know, that sounds weird coming from me when I just told you all that 
I'm not in charge here.  But I think if I had simply remained silent 
when questions were raised on this list, the effect would be, erm, 
awkward, to say the least.  I figured you deserved an explanation.  

I must apologize to those of you who joined the FAQ list in the most 
recent group of new members.  I swear, I had no idea that the 
trouble on MEG would affect us the way it has.  I thought the thing 
was *over,* fer cryin' out loud.  Apparently, there is still a great 
deal of personal animosity on MEG, and I wish there were something I 
could do to help things get back to normal.  I can't, and I am very 
sorry.

Cindy




From Malady579 at hotmail.com  Sun Aug 17 19:02:32 2003
From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:02:32 -0000
Subject: What's our responsibility, anyways?
In-Reply-To: <bhmmot+m67k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhojg8+h626@eGroups.com>

First and foremost:
I *adore* the site, as I said in OT.  I love the people I have met,
the people I have debated with, and the people that have encouraged me
to keep writing.  I have no intention of abandoning it now.

But...I want to chime in with a non-MEG opinion here, if my words hold
any weight at all with them.

Second:
I mean no disrespect to anyone I mention here, or to MEG is general. 
I am just tired of all this.


Cindy wrote: 
> In fact, several of us have raised important questions over the last 
> days or weeks, and I feel a bit guilty about having failed to 
> respond.  On the one hand, I did explicitly state that I was not the 
> leader of the FAQ group.  On the other hand, I have been fairly 
> active on this list, so perhaps folks were hoping to hear my views 
> on things.

I like to hear your opinion on thing, Cindy.  Period.  Not because you
are or were MEG or even because you write such good posts, I just like
opinions that are honest and truthful which yours always are to me.  I
respect your opinion, and you often times give answers and reasons
while also treating us like we are human beings that are equals.  

 
> If truth be told, I am in a bit of a tough spot here.  You'll all 
> recall that I was a member of MEG until I took a break in April or 
> so, specifically advising MEG that I hoped to return.  Several 
> months have passed, so I recently asked to return to MEG.  MEG 
> denied my request -- even though every Elf or Geist who ever left 
> MEG and later asked to return was welcomed back with open arms, and 
> even though many MEGs urged me to take that break in the first 
> place.  

Ok.  I do not know all the facts here, mostly because MEG seems to
think they are the CIA or FBI and need to sign a confidentiality
agreement before joining their super-secret operations  ::snort::, but
isn't an old elf or mod automatically made a geist when they "retire"?    

Cindy, I know you love the site too, but do you really want to be a
part of a group that seems to have decided you are not wanted?

See, because that is the way MEG is, it seems to me.  They alone get
to choose whom they work with and who they deem worthy to share in
being the facilitators to the HP fandom.  And frankly, when you are
trying to create a team that can work together, sometimes those that
are able to do the job but do not get along with the "right people",
are booted to the curb.  That is what *I* see has happened to Cindy. 
I say that because I *know* she is highly respected by the site and
common posters.  She has proven to be a good leader and a good poster.
 What else does MEG need?  It must be a more shallow, but also
important reason, y'all have declined to let Cindy back. 

But that is the word on the HPfGU street.  
Since we do not have a "Daily Prophet" to tell us what we think.  ;)

 
> I anticipate that certain issues MEG will soon decide will impact 
> the operation of this group.  Further complicating things is that 
> MEGs consider MEG business to be highly confidential and not to be 
> discussed with non-MEGs -- I would be unable to discuss MEG business 
> that impacts the FAQ list with the members of MEG because I am not 
> on MEG.  

Now why is that, anyway?  Why can't MEG business be discussed with
basic HPfGU citizens?  Are we not privy to the perspectives y'all are?
 Are we not to be burdened with the responsibility?  Can we not make
decisions based on the information y'all are too?  

Maybe I am not actually the everyday poster, but I kind of resent the
idea that I am not smart enough or privy enough to understand the
everyday dealings of MEG.  You must understand that the site does talk
off site.  Gossip is inevitable, mostly because we all talk about what
we know with our friends.  When we are concerned about the state of
the site, we talk about it and if we are misinformed, then we try to
figure what is true and what is not.  If our leadership does not talk
to us, then we are left to talk amongst ourselves and figure out *why*
they are not talking to us.   
   

> After giving things some thought, I don't see how I can make a 
> significant contribution to the FAQ list if MEG decisions in which I 
> am denied input may be handed down at any time.  I also must admit 
> to having some brand new trust issues due to MEG's decision to 
> depart from established custom in handling my request to return.  
> I'm happy to be a contributing member of the Slytherin team, but 
> that is about all I can handle, I'm afraid.

Cindy, that seems to be all they want you to do.  It is sad to me
though that there is little leadership on this FAQ site.  I have been
here about two months, and I am still a bit confused as to what goes
on here.  I also feel a bit guilty that I am not reading the main
site, but it seems none of the rest of us are either.  We are all in a
daze.  If I am not fulfilling my agreed upon tasks, should I quit this
site?  I do not intend to ignore the main site forever, but right now,
with my thesis and my life, I just do not have the time nor the desire
to read it.  That does not mean I do not love the main site, or that I
will always be wary of it, but right now, I just find it tedious.  

Sorry, but that is my honest opinion of it.  Fall in and out of love I
guess, but I will fall in love with it again.  :D  I adore HP and I am
dying to talk OoP eventually, but I learned patience a long time ago,
and I can wait for the site to get bored so I can crawl out of my cave
and chat away again.  I just hope this hurricane did not scare away
some on the posters I have grown to love.  It might have.  It seems to
have already.


> I think the best solution here would be for us to come to some sort 
> of consensus decision about how we'll move forward on this list.  I 
> know, that sounds weird coming from me when I just told you all that 
> I'm not in charge here.  But I think if I had simply remained silent 
> when questions were raised on this list, the effect would be, erm, 
> awkward, to say the least.  I figured you deserved an explanation. 

It is awkward.  I am new here, and I was chosen to be here.  I do not
want to step on any toes, but what is the point of this FAQ site
again?  Can we really do this task now that the site has grown so
large because we nurtured it so well?

And *that* is what I see MEG facing.  The old method of moderating and
governing was good.  So good that the site grew to unwieldy
proportions.  They are burrowed down in work and do not get to play as
much as they use too.  When a pot starts to boil, it does not take
much added in to make it boil over.  That seems to be where about the
mods disbanded, other went somewhere else, and those that are loyal
are still here our of love or stubborn will.  They do not want the pot
to boil again and are taking measures to make sure it has not
happened, but the pot still seems to be simmering and that scares them.

Again, maybe I am assuming this out of nowhere, but it is what I have
observed from the outside having friends in each area of these
operations.  

MEG does not want the site to deteriorate, but frankly, it has anyway.
 There is nothing we seem to be able to do to control the duplicate
posts or the non-clippers.  There are just too many of them.  That
makes MEG want to add people on but they are afraid of new people
causing problems since they are still sore....sigh.  

I am guessing here.  

Sorry.  I just want to help.  I love this site, and want to do what I
can to fix what is wrong.  I don't know what *is* wrong, so I am left
to chat with those I can and piece together from a post here and a
post there.  

I am an American.  And that is what we do.  We kind of trust our
congress, but we kind of don't.  That is the essence of our system and
the fact we vote them in is what makes the representatives so timid at
times to say anything.  

But- we do not vote on MEG members.  We are subject to those that pick
and choose to be a part of it by other people.  Some are oldies that
have not posted since *I've* been here and that is a year.  I do not
know those people, but they act as if I am a newbie and thus unable to
determine what is best for this site.  The site *has* changed.  I know
the charm of the old site was endearing, but what we have now is the
fandom as it is.  Originally, the "grown up" part of our title
actually meant grown-up conversations.  Now it has deteriorated to not
quite fan-girl giggles, which I saw enough of at Nimbus to last till
next HP conference, but it has taken a notch down, in my not so humble
opinion.  Maybe I am bias, and maybe I am being short sighted, but as
for me, this is not working.

So what can we do?  Not that my opinion is that educated here, but it
is bad to gripe without some sort of solution presented.  

*Someone* has to be in charge of this site.  Cindy has been the most
vocal, maybe because she has the free time or maybe because she is
just the type to take charge.  I think of her as the leader here
because of those facts.  MEG, is very silent over here from what I can
tell and the FAQ is thought almost as a vacation from their duties in
MEG.  Unfortunately, after several months of boiling water in MEG,
they all just are sick of all of this and want a vacation from it all.
 Fair enough, vacations are good.  

But it is now two months after OoP has been released, and four or five
months since the smack went down in MEG.  ::hehe  sorry, my cousin
like The Rock and subjected me to watching WWF...anyway::

Now here is this list kind of a step above the main list and a step
below the MEG list, and we are left to limbo between them.  Do y'all
not respect those of us that are not MEG but have to know what is
going on to actually do our job here properly?  I for one am sick of
all this crap and desperately want us to move on, but it seems the
leadership *has* cracked and divided, and it so timid it is afraid to
decide anything for fear of hurting anyone else.  

But that is my assessment from outside the box.  I am not in MEG and
that is because they *choose* to not let me be a part of it.  The
choices of membership is very evident on the main site, and it use to
be a badge of honor to be a part of it.  Now it seems a chore and a
politician's dream.  We are a part of the HP fandom.  A big part yes,
but just a part.  Seems to me some have decided we facilitate HP
fandom itself.  Funny, I though Warner Bros. held the copyrights to
the whole damn thing.  


> I must apologize to those of you who joined the FAQ list in the most 
> recent group of new members.  I swear, I had no idea that the 
> trouble on MEG would affect us the way it has.  I thought the thing 
> was *over,* fer cryin' out loud.  Apparently, there is still a great 
> deal of personal animosity on MEG, and I wish there were something I 
> could do to help things get back to normal.  I can't, and I am very 
> sorry.

At least you are talking to us, Cindy.  At least we get honest
emotions and thoughts from you and not a well crafted, carefully
censored post from the "admin".  Guys, I know you mean well, but when
is this going to stop?  This is just a silly site, and it is just a
silly book.  Is it worth all this?  

But then again, I just spent the better part of my Sunday afternoon
writing this, so it is worth it to me.  Is this all-just power going
to everyone's head?  


Melody





From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Mon Aug 18 00:46:08 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:46:08 -0000
Subject: What's our responsibility, anyways?
In-Reply-To: <bhmmot+m67k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhp7kg+a44i@eGroups.com>

Hi, Cindy

Could I have your permission to post the email I recently sent to 
you on this board? The one explaining MEG's decision not to re-admit 
you or any other ex-MEG to the MEG board at this time.

I would like your permission to post this letter because it will 
show that the FAQ board was not mentioned. Your membership of the 
FAQ board (and the membership of the many ex-MEGs who belong to it) 
was not mentioned. Your leadership status on FAQ was not mentioned. 
That the troubles on MEG would in any way impact on FAQ was not 
mentioned.

I did mention the phrase 'governance issues'. The 'governance 
issues' in the email referred to are the ones whereby MEG is trying 
to change its secretive ways and work out a more democratic and open 
form of governance. 

Part of that change is that the MEG membership now gets to vote on 
things - like MEGs returning to the board. The proposal that 'Former 
MEGs should be permitted to return at any time, upon request' was, 
in a democratic vote, defeated.

So I wrote to you and explained that I couldn't readmit you, that 
yes, it was a change of policy, and yes, it is our fault, not yours. 

The first sign of any response was when you posted to the FAQ board. 
You did send me a note. After you had posted here.

Like Melody, I am sick of this. I think it's apparent to everyone 
that MEG has had a major bust up in the last few months, and I'm 
truly sorry that our nasty series of arguments is spilling out onto 
FAQ. 

Yes, Mel, you have some very valid points - and the irony is that 
those are the very points we've been discussing over on MEG. But 
it's a struggle, because we're also trying to administer a main list 
that has tripled in volume with a MEG list where over a third of our 
membership has left. Sorting out an entirely new form of governance 
for this list has taken longer than we thought, because 
administering the list has been more work than we imagined.

If you folks on FAQ would like to make any suggestion about how you 
see the List Admin, what we could do about changing that view, if 
there's anything you could do to help - I would actually be 
delighted.

And Cindy - angry as I am with you right now (because you could have 
written to me, and I would have told you this) - you are doing an 
excellent job leading FAQ. It is a working list, and we have no 
intention of changing it without the FAQ members input and 
discussion. 

Pip






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Aug 18 01:21:21 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 01:21:21 -0000
Subject: What's our responsibility, anyways?
In-Reply-To: <bhp7kg+a44i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhp9mi+pkuv@eGroups.com>

Pip wrote:

> Could I have your permission to post the email I recently sent to 
> you on this board? The one explaining MEG's decision not to re-
>admit you or any other ex-MEG to the MEG board at this time.

Absolutely.  I wasn't sure whether it would be OK to post it myself, 
as I assumed it was meant to be confidential.


> I would like your permission to post this letter because it will 
> show that the FAQ board was not mentioned. Your membership of the 
> FAQ board (and the membership of the many ex-MEGs who belong to 
>it) was not mentioned. Your leadership status on FAQ was not 
>mentioned. That the troubles on MEG would in any way impact on FAQ 
>was not mentioned.

Yup, all of that is true.  You mentioned none of those things in 
your letter.

I did, however, tell two MEGs that one reason I wished to return to 
MEG was the FAQ list (another reason being that I thought something 
needed to be done about list volume).  MEG never asked me *why* I 
wished to return, so the issue was not discussed with all 26 of 
you.  

I did not mean to imply that MEG had tossed me off the FAQ list or 
anything like that.  I hope no one got that idea, because it didn't 
happen.  

I was talking about what *I* decided to do as a result of, well, 
some obviously shabby treatment by MEG that makes it impossible for 
me to help lead this group.  MEG most definitely did refuse my 
request to return to the MEG list, and I simply do not think I can 
contribute to the leadership of this FAQ group in an effective way 
without knowledge of and input into policy decisions. 

 
> So I wrote to you and explained that I couldn't readmit you, that 
> yes, it was a change of policy, and yes, it is our fault, not 
>yours. 
> 
> The first sign of any response was when you posted to the FAQ 
board. 
> You did send me a note. After you had posted here.

Yep.  

I do not wish to argue whether MEG can or cannot bar my return to 
MEG, so I did not dispute your decision with a reply.  Obviously, 
you can do as you wish, and you did.  Case closed, I think.  I 
believe that I can't help lead this FAQ group under these 
circumstances, so I advised the group of that.  I see no reason for 
you to be upset or peeved.

I mean, really.  I'm not just blowing smoke here.  I have no clue 
what you all are planning to do about list volume and post quality, 
for instance.  But those things do matter to the FAQ list.  So I 
would have opposed the abandonment of the elfing system in favor of 
ADMIN notices of the elf of the day, for instance.  I would have 
opposed reducing the number of posts needed to get off moderated 
status, because the FAQ team can't work if the posts on the main 
list aren't "fantastic."  As it stands, I heard about these policy 
changes through the grapevine and through watching the lists (and 
for all I know, my information is flatly wrong), and I can't 
possibly think about long-range FAQ issues and planning if I have no 
idea what is coming.


 
> Like Melody, I am sick of this. I think it's apparent to everyone 
> that MEG has had a major bust up in the last few months, and I'm 
> truly sorry that our nasty series of arguments is spilling out 
>onto FAQ. 

Yeah.  Me too.  I really wanted to keep this a "Modgate-free" zone.  
I hope we still can.  'Cause I think it is way past time to, you 
know, get *over* it already.

 
> And Cindy - angry as I am with you right now (because you could 
>have written to me, and I would have told you this) - you are doing 
>an excellent job leading FAQ. It is a working list, and we have no 
> intention of changing it without the FAQ members input and 
> discussion. 


I am sorry that you are angry, Pip.  But your FAQ list message to 
which I am replying did not contain any information I didn't know.  

The facts are not in dispute.  I cannot be on the MEG list until 
further notice, if ever.  I feel I can't help lead this FAQ list 
unless I have notice and input into list policy matters.  I didn't 
want FAQ members looking to me for leadership I was unable to 
provide.  My hands were tied, so I advised everyone of what had 
happened.  I don't know what else I could do except reply to MEG's 
very polite and nice "Thanks, but no thanks" message and try to beg, 
grovel, whine and nudge my way back onto MEG, which I was unwilling 
to do.

Dang.  Even I have some dignity, you know.

Cindy 





From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Mon Aug 18 08:31:18 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:31:18 -0000
Subject: What's our responsibility, anyways?
In-Reply-To: <bhp9mi+pkuv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhq2sm+mu9h@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
> Pip wrote:
> 
> > Could I have your permission to post the email I recently sent 
> > to you on this board? The one explaining MEG's decision not to 
> >re-admit you or any other ex-MEG to the MEG board at this time.
> 
> Absolutely.  I wasn't sure whether it would be OK to post it  
> myself,as I assumed it was meant to be confidential.
> 

So, with Cindy's permission, here is the letter referred to.


Hi, Cindy

We regret to inform you that we must decline your request to rejoin
MEG. Your petition sparked Yet Another Lively MEG Discussion, which
led to a vote on whether ex-MEGs should be allowed to return before
the governance issues are resolved. The majority voted that they
should not.

The primary reason for refusing your petition is that people are
worried that the return of any ex-MEG at this stage would result in a
disruption of the fragile state in which MEG remains.

In this we recognize our failure to honor the erstwhile tacit
agreement that MEGs who unsubbed would be welcomed back. We also are 
forced to acknowledge that we still have a lot of problems to work
through before we become a reasonably healthy group. When we get the
governance issues resolved, we'll revisit the issue of admitting
ex-MEGs.

We're not very happy about the fact that we have to turn you down. We
certainly could use the extra hand, but the "Lively Discussion"
revealed that we're still a mess from the events following your
Ouster, and for that we're truly sorry.

Best regards,

Pip
For the Administration Team




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 18 16:56:46 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:56:46 -0000
Subject: What's our responsibility, anyways?
In-Reply-To: <bhq2sm+mu9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhr0ge+slh2@eGroups.com>

Look, I'm not exactly clear what's going on on the MEG 
list and why, and I'm pretty certain I don't want to know.  
It all sounds like the sort of mess that's best left behind 
as quickly as possible.  I realize that may not be possible 
for the people who have become emotionally entangled 
in it, but as a bystander I see no reason to complicate 
matters further by trying to wade in.  All I know is that 
I've been asked to participate in the FAQ list - to use the 
term in its loosest possible meaning, that's my job.  

Cindy feels that she can no longer "lead" the FAQ group.  
I'm not entirely certain that I agree with her - or, for that 
matter, that I understand her reasons - why should we 
care that we don't have input into the running of HPfGU?  
Is there a chance that the FPs will be discontinued?  Pip, 
since you seem to be the voice of MEG at the moment, how 
about giving us some semblence of a policy regarding our 
work?  Nevertheless, it is Cindy's perogrative to feel this way 
and act accordingly.  At this point, however, I'm not sure 
how much leadership we really need.  Our mandate is clear, 
we have outlined the four tasks to which we were planning to 
devote ourselves first and divided ourselves into groups.  
We have at our disposal the awsome resource of the 
Enchilada, not to mention the new Fantastic Posts table.  
We know what to do.  

Important questions have been raised, by myself and others, 
over how, or more importantly, when to proceed with our 
work.  Those questions were asked of this entire group 
- the fact that Cindy feels she can no longer shoulder the 
burden of answering them unilaterally is not an excuse for 
the rest of us to remain silent.  There are 40 members on this 
list, most of them active, at least a quarter of them brand new 
members eager to get to work.  We are perfectly capable of 
making decisions.

So, the most important question before us is when and if we 
should  begin writing or updating the four FAQs which have 
been assigned to houses (which are Weasley Family, Harry, 
Lupin & DE/Aurors/Justice).  For that matter, in light of OOP, 
does anyone feels that these topics should be changed (for my 
money, Lupin can probably be replaced with Sirius)?

Personally, I think we should wait.  The material on the list 
is simply not coherent enough to be worth the time and 
effort.  By the time we finish writing an FP it will already 
need updating.  That having been said, I think there is 
probably work that we can do in the interim.  The different 
houses can get to work on outlines for their FPs, and we can 
start scouring the list for Fantastic Posts on a more formal 
basis as opposed to counting on eagle-eyed members as we 
are now.  For that matter, if the latest 15,000 posts seem 
unlikely to yield enough good messages to be worth the 
trouble, there are still 10,000 uncatalogued messages not 
included in the Enchilada - we could get to work on those.

Speak up, people.

Abigail  

P.S. I don't want this message to be interpreted in any way 
as meaning that I don't think we need Cindy or that her input 
is not important.  Nothing could be further from the truth, 
and I'm very glad that she's chosen to remain as a member 
of Slytherin house.  I'm just trying to say that I think the rest 
of us can and should take a more active role in this group.




From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Mon Aug 18 21:15:43 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:15:43 -0000
Subject: What's our responsibility, anyways?
In-Reply-To: <bhojg8+h626@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhrflv+711b@eGroups.com>

Pip [who would like to point out that a lot of this is her opinion, 
and that other MEGs may hold different views]. 

> Cindy wrote: 
 
> > If truth be told, I am in a bit of a tough spot here.  You'll 
> > all recall that I was a member of MEG until I took a break in 
> > April or so, specifically advising MEG that I hoped to return.  
> > Several months have passed, so I recently asked to return to 
> > MEG.  MEG denied my request -- even though every Elf or Geist 
> > who ever left MEG and later asked to return was welcomed back 
> > with open arms, and even though many MEGs urged me to take that 
> > break in the first place.  
> 
Mel replied:
> Ok.  I do not know all the facts here, mostly because MEG seems to
> think they are the CIA or FBI and need to sign a confidentiality
> agreement before joining their super-secret operations  ::snort::, 
> but isn't an old elf or mod automatically made a geist when 
they "retire"?    

Pip:
That's one of the things we're trying to decide. But in the state of 
play at the moment, there were a few members of MEG who announced 
that they would not be participating in MEG for a while, but they 
wished to remain members of MEG, and there were other members who 
hit the 'unsub' button and removed themselves completely from the 
MEG group. Geists remain a member of the MEG group. They don't unsub 
completely.

In the very chaotic period which followed the collapse of the old 
administration, there were a number of people who unsubbed. Two of 
them asked to return very quickly, and were allowed to do so.

We have lost a lot of MEGs (from a high point of 42 members, we are 
down to 26, mostly active). The MEGs who left unsubbed completely, 
and did not ask to be given Geist status.

> 
> Cindy, I know you love the site too, but do you really want to be a
> part of a group that seems to have decided you are not wanted?
> 
> See, because that is the way MEG is, it seems to me.  They alone 
> get to choose whom they work with and who they deem worthy to 
> share in being the facilitators to the HP fandom.  And frankly, 
> when you are trying to create a team that can work together,  
> sometimes those that are able to do the job but do not get along 
> with the "right people",are booted to the curb.  That is what *I*  
> see has happened to Cindy. 

That's a good point, Mel. We do have a system right now where MEG 
alone chooses who it works with. One of the things we have to decide 
is if that system should change. That is on the agenda.

There may be one last selection of elves by the old method of 
invitation, but since MEG hasn't completed a vote on this, I can't 
confirm that yet. If there is, we have agreed to only choose people 
who have never been a member of MEG ? because we want people who can 
look at our system with fresh eyes, and if necessary say: `why are 
you doing it like that?' 

Ironically, we were discussing this very subject, and considering 
whether we only wanted non-ex-MEGs, when Cindy re-applied.  By sheer 
accident, her timing was dreadful.

Mel: 
> I say that because I *know* she is highly respected by the site and
> common posters.  She has proven to be a good leader and a good 
poster.
>  What else does MEG need?  It must be a more shallow, but also
> important reason, y'all have declined to let Cindy back. 
>

Pip:
The reason given in the rejection letter is the truth. We had a very 
painful bust-up on MEG, and we are terrified that the return of any 
ex-MEG now could break open a rather fragile truce. We want to hold 
MEG together until we can create a new constitution, a new way of 
running things and have a new group of MEGs who don't have all this 
baggage to carry.

We want this because the alternative seems to be going to the main 
list and saying `we need some volunteers for List Administration 
*right now*, because the current List Admin group has just collapsed 
completely.' 
 
Cindy:
> > I anticipate that certain issues MEG will soon decide will 
> > impact the operation of this group.  Further complicating things 
> > is that MEGs consider MEG business to be highly confidential and 
> > not to be discussed with non-MEGs -- I would be unable to 
> > discuss MEG business that impacts the FAQ list with the members 
> > of MEG because I am not on MEG.  
> 
Mel:
> Now why is that, anyway?  Why can't MEG business be discussed with
> basic HPfGU citizens?  Are we not privy to the perspectives y'all 
> are?
>  Are we not to be burdened with the responsibility?  Can we not   
> make decisions based on the information y'all are too?  

Pip:
I dunno why MEG has grown this way. I think that the secrecy started 
when someone hacked into a Moderator's identity and deleted the Main 
List in its entirety.  I wasn't there ? but I have been told that 
there was a very strong suspicion, and some evidence, that the 
hacker was working with a listmember that some of the Mods had 
thought of as a trusted friend. [The person referred to is no longer 
on the list, and hasn't been for some time]. Before that, Mods did 
mention mod business to listmembers, especially to friends. 

The post-deletion climate became one where you didn't discuss MEG 
business outside the group, where criticism of MEG had to be sent to 
a list that ordinary list members didn't have access to, and 
ideally, you didn't admit that you were a MEG at all [grin].

Many of you haven't been here long enough to realise how much of 
that secrecy has been relaxed from its high point. People have 
criticised Admins on the Main List, and MEGs have replied onlist, 
explaining the reasoning. There's a policy discussion going on at OT 
chatter about whether a second list is required. MEGs are joining 
in, giving the list admin view. The `banned topics' have been 
unbanned. But MEG still needs to work out where confidentiality is 
required (discussing whether a poster should be told off can be 
embarrassing when it takes place in front of 10,000 people) and 
where it isn't.

> Mel:
> Maybe I am not actually the everyday poster, but I kind of resent 
> the idea that I am not smart enough or privy enough to understand 
> the everyday dealings of MEG.  You must understand that the site 
> does talk off site.  Gossip is inevitable, mostly because we all 
> talk about what we know with our friends.  When we are concerned 
> about the state of the site, we talk about it and if we are 
> misinformed, then we try to figure what is true and what is not.  
> If our leadership does not talk to us, then we are left to talk 
> amongst ourselves and figure out *why*they are not talking to 
us.   
>  

Pip:
All too true.
   
> 
<Snip>
Mel:
> It is sad to me though that there is little leadership on this FAQ 
site.  

Pip:
I think that what you need to do is work out how you yourselves want 
FAQ to be run. Do you want an elected leadership, rather than one 
appointed by MEG? Do you want to be able to ask the MEGs on this 
list policy questions about things that may affect FAQ? And to be 
able to require us to answer? There are a large number of current 
MEGs who are also FAQers (and historically, FAQ has always been elf-
heavy). `The posts are all crap at the moment, what are you doing 
about it?' is a reasonable FAQ question. (The answer is `drowning', 
btw).

Mel:
> I just hope this hurricane did not scare away
> some on the posters I have grown to love.  It might have.  It 
> seems to have already.
> 

Pip:
A lot of us seem to be waiting out the storm in OT. We're also 
praying that this week's drop in joining rates (to almost pre-OOP 
levels) means that the surge of newbies is finally dying down.

> 
<Snip>  
> 
Mel:
> MEG does not want the site to deteriorate, but frankly, it has 
anyway.
>  There is nothing we seem to be able to do to control the duplicate
> posts or the non-clippers.  There are just too many of them.  That
> makes MEG want to add people on but they are afraid of new people 
> causing problems since they are still sore....sigh.  

Pip:
Yes, that's been true. I'll be honest; we decided against taking on 
new elves pre-OOP because we thought that you would take one look at 
our recent archives, decide we were all a bunch of back stabbing 
maniacs, and run screaming into the night. 

It's now nearly five months since the great bust up (nicknamed 
Modgate, btw), and we've made a few decisions about new elves. One 
is that we are not deleting posts from the archives (but will 
instead let them stand as a Dreadful Warning), another is that we 
are currently not taking back any old MEGs, and the final one that 
we are currently voting on is whether we are, as I said above, 
asking some new people to join. If we do it will be the swan song of 
the invitation only system. 

It's not just about workload. It's about new viewpoints. If the vote 
approves the idea of selecting new elves, we will be looking very 
seriously at the people who have *criticised* the present system.

<Snip>
Mel:
> Originally, the "grown up" part of our title
> actually meant grown-up conversations.  Now it has deteriorated to 
> not quite fan-girl giggles, which I saw enough of at Nimbus to 
> last till next HP conference, but it has taken a notch down, in my 
> not so humbleopinion.  Maybe I am bias, and maybe I am being short 
> sighted, but as for me, this is not working.

Pip:
We are all hoping that this is a replay of last summer, when list 
quality also took a very noticeable nose-dive.  Things started to 
improve September time.

<Snip>
> 
Mel:
> Now here is this list kind of a step above the main list and a step
> below the MEG list, and we are left to limbo between them.  Do 
> y'all not respect those of us that are not MEG but have to know   
> what is going on to actually do our job here properly? 

Pip:
I think we on MEG have become very inward-looking, and need the 
occasional kick from outside to tell us to *talk* to people. We know 
perfectly well that you are just as capable as us ? but everyone 
currently on MEG was trained to the old climate of secrecy. And it 
catches up with us at unexpected times and in unexpected ways.

Mel:
> I for one am sick of
> all this crap and desperately want us to move on, but it seems the
> leadership *has* cracked and divided, and it so timid it is afraid 
> to decide anything for fear of hurting anyone else.  
> 

Pip:
I think it's more that we have simply not told anyone what we have 
decided. So you don't know what progress we've made, because we 
don't tell you, because we're trained to *not* tell you


Vicious circle. We don't seem to be able to escape from it.

Mel:
> But that is my assessment from outside the box.  I am not in MEG 
> and that is because they *choose* to not let me be a part of it.  
> The choices of membership is very evident on the main site, and it 
> use to be a badge of honor to be a part of it.  Now it seems a 
> chore and a politician's dream.  We are a part of the HP fandom.  
> A big part yes, but just a part.  Seems to me some have decided we 
> facilitate HP fandom itself.  Funny, I though Warner Bros. held 
> the copyrights to the whole damn thing.  

<Snip>
> 
> At least you are talking to us, Cindy.  At least we get honest
> emotions and thoughts from you and not a well crafted, carefully
> censored post from the "admin".  Guys, I know you mean well, but 
> when is this going to stop?  This is just a silly site, and it is 
> just a silly book.  Is it worth all this?  

Pip:
No, it's not, and we need to stop it.

> Mel:
> But then again, I just spent the better part of my Sunday afternoon
> writing this, so it is worth it to me.  Is this all-just power    
> going to everyone's head?  

Well, I've just spent a huge part of my day off writing this back


Pip






From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Mon Aug 18 21:40:15 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:40:15 -0000
Subject: What's our responsibility, anyways?
In-Reply-To: <bhr0ge+slh2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhrh3v+afn6@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> 
wrote:
<Snip>  
> Is there a chance that the FPs will be discontinued?  Pip, 
> since you seem to be the voice of MEG at the moment, how 
> about giving us some semblence of a policy regarding our 
> work? 

::Pip blinks, wondering if being the 'Voice of MEG' is anything like 
being the 'Voice of Sauron'::

:-)

No, there is no chance that the FPs will be discontinued. They are 
very popular and much admired by listmembers. We would love you to 
produce some FAQ's that are updated to OOP status - we're perfectly 
aware that you may be some time doing that. 

We have no problem with Cindy continuing as FAQ group leader. As I 
said in a previous post, we also have no problem with you deciding 
yourselves how you want this list to run. On the whole, I personally 
see FAQ as a semi-autonomous task force, free to decide for itself 
how and by whom its work is organised.

<Snip>
> Personally, I think we should wait.  The material on the 
> list is simply not coherent enough to be worth the time and 
> effort.  By the time we finish writing an FP it will already 
> need updating.  That having been said, I think there is 
> probably work that we can do in the interim.  The different 
> houses can get to work on outlines for their FPs, and we can 
> start scouring the list for Fantastic Posts on a more formal 
> basis as opposed to counting on eagle-eyed members as we 
> are now. 

Canon changes between OOP and GOF, for example, might be a good 
thing to include. That doesn't need the main list. A summary of 
the 'new things we learnt in OOP' might be a handy paragraph or two 
for the FP.

Yours

Pip





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Mon Aug 18 22:34:10 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:34:10 -0000
Subject: re What's our responsibility?
Message-ID: <bhrk92+rjqt@eGroups.com>

This is just my personal response to some of the questions and 
comments posed by Cindy's resignation and Melody's post. I've also 
posted it onto MEG.

First, let me concur with Melody's sentiment regarding Cindy the 
poster; I think that Cindy ? and indeed all of you here, are great 
posters. I would love to see you all posting more. The absence of 
many of your posts has IMO made the main list a dimmer place to be. 
Before I joined FAQ or MEG I had formed a hypothetical team of what 
I called "Big Hitters" of whom Cindy was one. I also had a number 
of "Legends", older members who commanded enormous respect both by 
reason of their posts, and their time in the community. Amongst 
those, I would include the likes of Penny and Neil.

What has saddened me greatly over the "Modgate" debacle is that MEG 
has lost so many of these individuals, some have left HPfGU 
altogether. Penny was the list Mom, but still chose to go when she 
felt her time was up. Truthfully, what has happened is that the need 
for a working team has outgrown the need for brilliant individuals. 
What we lost so catastrophically in March was our governing team. We 
have been trying to rebuild, and yet waves reverberating from 
Modgate have caused us to lose yet more dynamic dedicated people. I 
know people who have lost considerable weight because of the 
problems, many have shed tears, and still more friendships have been 
strained to breaking point. 

Meanwhile, we have been running the list, we have been desperately 
deciding on a new governance system, and we are aware that we need 
new blood. Prior to OoP, I was adamant that it was too early for new 
elves as I felt it only fair that we could prove that we could pull 
together and move on, before we invited anyone else. We have pulled 
together, in a fashion, and are moving on.

MEG has needed to heal; we are once again a working team. Different 
teams need different kinds of team members, we needed to move on 
from the old system. We have moved on from the old system and that 
has meant changing some of the old ways. We will move on further, if 
we can. We will do this by voting.

Melody, you rightly ask about democracy? Democracy to me is an 
ideal, I'm not aware of any other groups on the internet which 
operate such a system, simply because of making sure such a system 
could work in the cyber world. How would an HPfGU democracy work? 
Would only the current posters vote ? in which case most of us would 
never be voted for as we are spending too much time behind the 
scenes, or simply lurking. Do we allow everyone who has posted more 
than 50 messages vote? This would seem very unfair on the large 
numbers of dedicated lurkers we have. Do we allow anyone who has 
been on the list more than say 6/12 months a vote? 

It's not that I think you are wrong to mention democracy, or that it 
would necessarily be wrong to instigate it, but it isn't the catch-
all easy system which it might first appear.

Like you, I'm fully in favour of a more open, transparent form of 
governance. And yet, this in itself can cause problems. In normal 
times, 4 good posts is deemed sufficient to be removed from 
moderated status. How should a good post be defined? What about when 
we worry about whether the snipping rules have been learnt, if we 
worry about a poster's tone? We need to be able to reserve the right 
to keep them on moderated status without rancour, and that means 
without publishing our guidelines ? well IMHO.

It is arguments such as the above which have made the change of 
governance slow, especially at a time when we were suffering from 
ever reducing numbers, and when erm, we had one or two new members, 
and a few pendings to deal with <bg>.

Actually, that brings me to another point. We did indeed replace 
individual welcome messages, for I think a 2 week period ? it could 
have been longer. I think I was the first to admit I could not do 
150 on my elfing day. Whilst that was unfortunate, given the 
situation we had at the time, I don't regret it. We are doing 
welcome messages again now.

In terms of the FBI state of MEG, I would gladly show you MEG, but 
I'm not Tom Riddle, I can't let you see into our past, and don't 
have the right to show you around the list, without full MEG 
agreement. Sorry. But, please do ask questions, and we will do our 
best to answer ? if we can.

Ali






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Aug 18 23:19:51 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:19:51 -0000
Subject: Now I'm Just Ranting, So Indulge Me This One Time And I Will Stop
In-Reply-To: <bhrflv+711b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhrmun+hlc7@eGroups.com>

Pip:

> That's one of the things we're trying to decide. But in the state 
>of play at the moment, there were a few members of MEG who 
>announced that they would not be participating in MEG for a while, 
>but they wished to remain members of MEG, and there were other 
>members who hit the 'unsub' button and removed themselves 
>completely from the MEG group. 


Just to be clear, here is what I posted when I left MEG when I 
unsubscribed some months ago, *after* having been explicitly 
encouraged by several MEGs to take a break after all the Modgate 
stress:

****************

Hey all,

You know, this just isn't working out for me.  It's no big deal, 
really.  I think it best if I just take off for a while.  Maybe once 
things have settled down I'll try to come back.

Take care, and see ya on the list.

Cindy

 
*****************

In reply, several MEGs wished me well and said they hoped I'd be 
back.  Prior to this, 3-4 MEGs had unsubbed and had been welcomed 
back upon request.  I had every reason to believe I could return 
when I was ready.

So I foolishly sat there, taking a break, getting my head together, 
trusting MEG to let me back when I was ready.  I was never informed 
that the MEG door was being slammed until *after* I asked to 
return.  IMHO, the fair and honorable way to handle this situation 
would be to grant my request, write to all of the other MEGs who 
left in reliance on the MEG "open door" policy and advise them that 
they come back now or not at all, and *then* implement the change.  
This policy change was retroactive, and that simply is not fair.  

This may be the decision of the majority, but that does not make it 
fair.  Or right.  Or defensible.

And now I find out that, not only am I Unwelcome on MEG because I 
was stupid enough to believe that MEG wouldn't treat me unfairly, I 
am less welcome on MEG than someone brand new who must be trained 
and will take some time to get up to speed?

Gah!  Man, I am such a *chump!*

Oh, well.  Trust, but verify.  Live and learn.  Rant Over.

FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with Abigail that we can do fine if I, 
er, climb into the back seat.  I do believe in this project, and I 
have invested quite a bit of myself in it.  So let's get back to 
work, shall we?

Cindy -- feeling a bit punch drunk at the moment




From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Aug 18 23:29:29 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:29:29 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Now I'm Just Ranting, So Indulge Me This One Time And I Will Stop
In-Reply-To: <bhrmun+hlc7@eGroups.com>
References: <bhrmun+hlc7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061249402.1ED036C0@s5.dngr.org>


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 7:19PM -0500, Cindy C. posted her 
resignation-from-meg email which included this bit:

> really.  I think it best if I just take off for a while.  Maybe once
> things have settled down I'll try to come back.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I was on meg when she sent 
this, although I resigned & unsubbed about 3+ weeks ago to focus on my 
family, including my 11 week old, and my law practice.

But almost regardless of that, Cindy, the most relevant bit of your 
email to meg seems to me to be 'maybe once things have settled down...'

I think from pip and ali's posts here and the discussion on otc, it's 
clear to me, as someone who is currently a meg-outsider, that things 
have not yet fully 'settled down'.

Also, while I may be mixing my dates a bit, if you truly thought that 
you couldn't lead the faq team without being on meg, why did you offer 
to take on/continue leadership of the faq list knowing that there would 
at least be a period until things settled down when you wouldn't be on 
meg?

I agree with abigail - I think that your work steering things here was 
quite helpful to the team genesis regardless of your nonmeg status, and 
I think things would've been fine if you'd continued in that vein, but 
of course, you have the right to choose to do what's good for you.

Heidi



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Aug 19 00:29:58 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:29:58 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Now I'm Just Ranting, So Indulge Me This One Time And I Will Stop
In-Reply-To: <1061249402.1ED036C0@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c365e9$05965730$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hey,
 
But almost regardless of that, Cindy, the most relevant bit of your 
email to meg seems to me to be 'maybe once things have settled down...'


Yes, but when I wrote that, I did not mean that things have to settle
down on MEG under someone else's future definition.  I wasn't writing a
contract.  I was just indicating that this was not to be a permanent
departure, that I was not angry, that I was not burning my bridges, that
I was not slamming the door on the way out.  And I had no reason at all
to believe I had to guard my back and write with fine precision at that
point with my friends on MEG.
 
As for whether things have "settled down," well . . . I guess it doesn't
matter.  The decision stands, there's nothing to be done, and that's it.

 
Also, while I may be mixing my dates a bit, if you truly thought that 
you couldn't lead the faq team without being on meg, why did you offer 
to take on/continue leadership of the faq list knowing that there would 
at least be a period until things settled down when you wouldn't be on 
meg?


For the record, I didn't offer to lead the FAQ list.  I offered to work
on a few FAQs, and the facilitators wrote back telling me to run with it
and asking me to let them know if I need anything.  
 
Anyway, that is a fair question, and the answer is very simple.  
 
I believed that I could return anytime, for reasons I have explained.  
 
I then volunteered to assist the FAQ list, believing I could return
anytime.  I figured I'd have a cordial working relationship with MEG,
and I wouldn't need to be on MEG to keep track of things.
 
For a while, I could find out information about policy decisions that
impacted the FAQ list from MEG friends, as folks were quite friendly and
forthcoming with that information.  Indeed, I had a lengthy off-list
with the two facilitators about certain issues of autonomy between MEG
and the FAQ list.  This worked fine for a time, but I heard there was
some, er, irritation that I was asking too many questions, and I was
told that MEG policy was none of my business because I was not on MEG.
MEG also tightened up confidentiality so that MEGs were admonished not
to discuss policy with me.  So I figured I'd better just return, keep
track of what was going on, and speak up when FAQ-related issues arose.
 
Had I known MEG would decide to change the policy retroactively, I
wouldn't have left when I did.  Obviously.  
 
 

I agree with abigail - I think that your work steering things here was 
quite helpful to the team genesis regardless of your nonmeg status, and 
I think things would've been fine if you'd continued in that vein, but 
of course, you have the right to choose to do what's good for you.


 
Yep.  I think that's about where things stand.
 
Cindy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 19 02:10:45 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:10:45 -0000
Subject: Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer
Message-ID: <bhs0v5+g8ns@eGroups.com>

> Mel: 
> > I say that because I *know* she is highly
> respected by the site and
> > common posters.  She has proven to be a good
> leader and a good 
> poster.
> >  What else does MEG need?  It must be a more
> shallow, but also
> > important reason, y'all have declined to let Cindy
> back. 
> >
> 
> Pip:
> The reason given in the rejection letter is the
> truth. We had a very 
> painful bust-up on MEG, and we are terrified that
> the return of any 
> ex-MEG now could break open a rather fragile truce.
> We want to hold 
> MEG together until we can create a new constitution,
> a new way of 
> running things and have a new group of MEGs who
> don't have all this 
> baggage to carry.

Er. . . Heidi, Pip, I obviously don't know how you personally voted on this, or even if 
you did, so it could easily be Not At All Your Fault, but it seems. . . well, I mean, if 
there's a *truce,* then saying "The only way we can maintain our truce is if we don't 
have to deal with you" seems a fairly. . . counterproductive strategy, if you want to 
*keep* that truce. 

I mean, I understand the reasoning, I get that MEG *didn't* want to deal with all of 
that again -- but it just seems like a slap in the face: yes, we made mistakes, yes 
we've forgiven you for your own mistakes, no, we're not going to try to work with you 
any more. It just seems like MEG was saying: "You're not worth the effort." It would be 
a hard thing not to take personally.

Yes, I know that I am *tremendously* biased in Cindy's favor; and I *don't* know all of 
what went on; and I am bearing in mind the *possibility* that there was some 
hideously dark misdeed she committed to warrant such treatment [1] -- but if there 
*wasn't*. . . well, I'd frankly say that she's one of the best posters on the list; and has 
been (judging from my own experience) very encouraging to the newbies; and she 
also seems to be one of those people who are very good at running things, and right 
now HPfGU is obviously in desperate need of people like that. 

If she's worth hanging on to, and if the truce is worth *anything,* then it's worth a 
risk. And MEG has decided that she isn't, and that the truce isn't, then I don't see how 
you can expect Cindy not to be hurt.

And Cindy is also *right*: whatever MEG is doing, it needs to be changed. I think that 
the drastic solutions being proposed on OT are entirely in line, considering that the 
situation has gotten as bad as it has; I've seen a couple of comparisons to last 
summer, but were people talking about setting up newbie lists last summer? Was 
there anything like the degree of public concern that there is now? 

I am discouraged on more than one front, and I would like to take the opportunity 
*now* to massively apologize to Pip and Heidi for this post. Guys, I know it's not your 
personal responsibility, and I know that even if it was I'd be way out-of-line here, and 
you have both always been really very nice to me, and I'm probably not doing any real 
good -- I'm sorry. I'm going to regret sending this post about five seconds after I 
send it. Please forgive me for being so interfering. It's just that. . . well, from what I've 
heard, Cindy does seem to have been treated rather shabbily -- or at least rather 
*thoughtlessly* -- and I think it's a shame.





Derannimer, who would also like to apologize to Abigail. I'm nowhere near as mature 
as you are, or I wouldn't be writing this.


------------


[1] I started reading Agatha Christie when I was ten years old, after all. It's *always* 
the person you least suspect.




From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Aug 19 02:24:24 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:24:24 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer
In-Reply-To: <bhs0v5+g8ns@eGroups.com>
References: <bhs0v5+g8ns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061259895.3A6EDB98@s5.dngr.org>


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:10PM -0500, derannimer wrote:
>
> Er. . . Heidi, Pip, I obviously don't know how you personally voted on 
> this, or even if
> you did, so it could easily be Not At All Your Fault, but it seems. . . 
> well, I mean, if
> there's a *truce,* then saying "The only way we can maintain our truce 
> is if we don't
> have to deal with you" seems a fairly. . . counterproductive strategy, 
> if you want to
> *keep* that truce.

I did not participate in that vote. I resigned from meg, as I said 
earlier today, a little over 3 weeks ago. I know nothing more about that 
vote than anyone else on this list.

Heid



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Aug 19 15:06:55 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:06:55 -0000
Subject: I have an idea
Message-ID: <bhteef+lm3b@eGroups.com>

Hey,

I was going to respond to the woman on OTC who was upset at the 
newbie bashing.  One of the things I was going to say was that, 
rather than write off-lists to newbies berating them for rules 
violation, it might be better to write nice notes of appreciation to 
newbies who write great posts.  Blah, blah, blah.

But then I had an idea.  How about if I also say that the FP team is 
working, and that we'd like to have list members send us a message 
if they see a fantastic, killer post on the list.  I'd give them the 
address to that other FAQ list I started, and their e-mails could go 
there (rather than to our individual mailboxes, which is where they 
would go if people sent their comments here).  

When it is time to write, the FAQ writer could go over there and 
search for things ("Thestrals") and see if there are any posts that 
are truly fantastic that we missed.  I could also mention that 
sending us an e-mail doesn't mean we'll be able to include the post 
(the author decides what to use), but it will perhaps expedite and 
improve our work.

Then I'd invite you all to that other FAQ list, and you could set it 
to no e-mail and go over there and see if there's anything useful 
whenever you want.

What do you think?  I'll take silence as "Go for it!"

Cindy




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 19 15:28:31 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:28:31 -0000
Subject: I have an idea
In-Reply-To: <bhteef+lm3b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhtfmv+ctho@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
 
> But then I had an idea.  How about if I also say that the FP team is 
> working, and that we'd like to have list members send us a message 
> if they see a fantastic, killer post on the list.  I'd give them the 
> address to that other FAQ list I started, and their e-mails could go 
> there (rather than to our individual mailboxes, which is where they 
> would go if people sent their comments here).  

You have more then my silence on this Cindy - you have my 
enthusiastic support.  This is a great idea.  The only possible 
problem I can envision is that people may have different 
notions of what constitutes a Fantastic Post - especially 
newbies who haven't yet experienced the group at its best.  
Perhaps you could point people to the FP site to give them a 
taste of what they should be looking for (it might not be a 
bad idea to remind them that the site exists anyway), or give 
a bit more detail then Fantastic.  You might want to stress 
well-written, coherent, presents new ideas or offers a good 
overview of old ones, preference to well-formatted (good 
grammar & spelling, capitalization and punctuation where 
appropriate, more then one paragraph) posts, etc.

Abigail 




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 19 15:40:17 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: I have an idea
In-Reply-To: <bhtfmv+ctho@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20030819154017.46949.qmail@web14301.mail.yahoo.com>

Cindy wrote:

> But then I had an idea.  How about if I also say   
> that the FP team is 
> working, and that we'd like to have list members
> send us a message 
> if they see a fantastic, killer post on the list. 
> I'd give them the 
> address to that other FAQ list I started, and
> their e-mails could go 
> there (rather than to our individual mailboxes,
> which is where they 
> would go if people sent their comments here).  
> 

And then Abigail wrote:

> You have more then my silence on this Cindy - you
> have my 
> enthusiastic support.  

I'd just like to third this. My only concern -- well,
that depends on how you define the meaning of the word
"fantastic" -- was already addressed by Abigail. I
think she's right that linking to the existing FAQs
for guidelines should help; the other thing is that,
unless people forward the entire *list* in to us,
we're still doing better than we are now. Besides, I
kind of like the idea of deputizing the entire list. 
; ) It's nice for everyone to have a hand in this.




Derannimer

P.S. Oh, and one other concern -- Cindy, make it
really, *really* plain that these *are* just for
consideration, or you could have some angry people
when the FAQs are put up without some of their
suggestions. Especially if people start recommending
their own posts.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



From steve at hp-lexicon.org  Tue Aug 19 15:46:55 2003
From: steve at hp-lexicon.org (Steve Vander Ark)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:46:55 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] I have an idea
In-Reply-To: <bhteef+lm3b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c36669$22f24d90$1bb85e3f@castle>

Excellent idea! I have often thought that I could us something like this to
alert me to good essay material for the Lexicon, but I never actually set it
up. I think it will save a lot of work.
 
Steve
The Lexicon

-----Original Message-----
From: Cindy C. [mailto:cindysphynx at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:07 AM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] I have an idea


Hey,

I was going to respond to the woman on OTC who was upset at the 
newbie bashing.  One of the things I was going to say was that, 
rather than write off-lists to newbies berating them for rules 
violation, it might be better to write nice notes of appreciation to 
newbies who write great posts.  Blah, blah, blah.

But then I had an idea.  How about if I also say that the FP team is 
working, and that we'd like to have list members send us a message 
if they see a fantastic, killer post on the list.  I'd give them the 
address to that other FAQ list I started, and their e-mails could go 
there (rather than to our individual mailboxes, which is where they 
would go if people sent their comments here).  

When it is time to write, the FAQ writer could go over there and 
search for things ("Thestrals") and see if there are any posts that 
are truly fantastic that we missed.  I could also mention that 
sending us an e-mail doesn't mean we'll be able to include the post 
(the author decides what to use), but it will perhaps expedite and 
improve our work.

Then I'd invite you all to that other FAQ list, and you could set it 
to no e-mail and go over there and see if there's anything useful 
whenever you want.

What do you think?  I'll take silence as "Go for it!"

Cindy



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	

ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17075441
08:HM/A=1595056/R=0/SIG=124p07ne0/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogy
o?YH=3707890&yhad=1595056> Click Here!	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1595056/rand=558117224> 	

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Tue Aug 19 16:00:03 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:00:03 -0000
Subject: I have an idea
In-Reply-To: <000f01c36669$22f24d90$1bb85e3f@castle>
Message-ID: <bhthi3+ep0r@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Steve Vander Ark" <steve at h...> 
wrote:
> Excellent idea! I have often thought that I could us something 
like this to
> alert me to good essay material for the Lexicon, but I never 
actually set it
> up. I think it will save a lot of work.
>  
> Steve
> The Lexicon


Me Too!

Ali

(I apologise but I've always wanted to do a me-too post!)




From editor at texas.net  Tue Aug 19 16:36:23 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:36:23 -0000
Subject: Opinion, and FAQ-Tasks That Need Doing
In-Reply-To: <bhojg8+h626@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhtjm7+2csn@eGroups.com>

Melody:

> At least you are talking to us, Cindy.  At least we get honest
> emotions and thoughts from you and not a well crafted, carefully
> censored post from the "admin".  Guys, I know you mean well, but 
when
> is this going to stop?  This is just a silly site, and it is just a
> silly book.  Is it worth all this?  

You know, it may not be.

Preface: I have not read every word of every post on this. That said.

I am tired of people making assumptions. I'm tired of MEG making 
assumptions about the list; I'm tired of the list making assumptions 
about MEG; I'm tired of being discussed in the abstract as a MEG, and 
I'm tired of emotional reactions being flung about as reasoned 
opinions.

MEG carefully crafts responses to make sure we are clear, and to 
attempt to keep the potential hurt feelings to a minimum, and to make 
sure we are diplomatic. That "careful crafting" is an expanded 
version of what we ask all posters to do--reread, think about how 
your audience will receive it, etc. I refuse to apologize for 
exercising a higher level of care.

Cindy, I find it terribly inappropriate to vent about MEG over here. 
You should be venting to the MEGs. I still consider you a friend and 
I agreed with the decision. In fact, I did a lot of the commenting. 
If you have any questions or want clarification, you should ask the 
ones who made the decision, not post your "take" on what you were 
told as This Is How It Was. You weren't a part of that decision-
making process and cannot comment on the motives or reasons of those 
who were.

Melody, I'm more than happy to talk, but to really explain all of 
what went on in the decision to not allow Cindy back, I'd have to 
forward you MEG posts. Suffice it to say that it was NOT personal. It 
is entirely possible to like someone a lot and not want to work with 
them. MEG is not a social club, casting it as one is inaccurate, 
Cindy is not a pariah in anyone's mind but her own, and if anyone 
wants information about what MEG's doing, all they have to do is ASK.

This is not fun anymore. I am *this* close to unsubbing from 
everything: MEG, FAQ, the main list, Chatter, Movie, *all* of it. 
This was my *escape.* This was my *avocation.* Now the limited time I 
can devote to it, is involved with reading power struggles and the 
Machiavellian intent attributed to me (as a representative member of 
MEG).

Could we just do FAQs? Could we just all accept that Cindy's 
interactions with MEG are a side issue? Could we decide that the many 
other MEGs on this list are sufficient MEG representation to handle 
the FAQ/list administration angle? Could we stop judging without 
knowing the facts?

Thanks.

I don't get much email time, and most of it is from work now, but I 
will check my home email if anyone wants to offlist me.

About FAQ, now:

As I recall, the last substantive suggestions for proceeding were:

Cindy's method for flagging likely posts; I don't know if it was 
implemented but it should be; it was very good. Someone needs to 
write instructions for flagging posts and make sure the setup works. 

My suggestion to make pre-OoP FAQs "volume I" and compile "volume 2" 
FAQs for all the post-OoP theorizing (with the thought that book 6 
would be volume 3, etc.). This was to avoid "losing" all the good 
thought and work already invested in the earlier FAQs. Someone who 
can do tech-things needs to set this up, rename the earlier FAQs as 
[subject]: Volume I, with a note on the page somewhere that Volume I 
covers theorizing from Books 1-4.

And we need people to start going through the likely post-OoP posts 
and begin categorizing and compiling. Cataloguing. I don't know how 
you do that. We need a schedule of people who will do this, and we 
need either blocks of main-list messages or blocks of flagged ones.

We could do with instructions to TechnoSquibs like me, and for new 
people, outlining how we construct a FAQ: catalog the posts (how), 
compile them according to topic (method), construct the FAQ around 
those (options: lists of message-number links with minimal text; 
standalone essay, etc.); posting the FAQ for proofing and link-
checking; uploading; etc. 

And Porphryia and I need to get back in gear on updating Snape.

So. *THOSE* are our responsibilities. Anybody got any others? That's 
more than enough to keep us busy, and NONE of it involved MEG-
carping. Imagine that.

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Aug 19 16:52:49 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:52:49 -0000
Subject: I have an idea
In-Reply-To: <bhthi3+ep0r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhtkl1+lhbp@eGroups.com>

Hi,

OK, I'll post something to OTC including the excellent advice you 
all just gave.  I'm in a hurry, so if I don't give enough detail, 
scoot over to OTC and embellish.

Also, the other FAQ list is 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/.  I just re-wrote the 
group description, so can someone check it and advise?  

Also, I need some tech advice.  We want people to be able to post to 
recommend a main list message, but not read what others have 
recommended (I think (?)).  The reason is that we don't want it to 
turn into a discussion list ("You think *that* piece of crap was 
fantastic?")  Does anyone want to figure out what Moderator settings 
are needed to achieve that?  We don't want all of these e-mails 
coming to us all by asking people to post to the owner's box, so 
we'll want them to be able to post their recommendations rather than 
send an e-mail to the owner's box.  Uh, I think.  

If I invite you all, I'll have to type in all of your individual e-
mail addresses.  Can you instead go the home page and request an 
invitation?  Then I can just wave you in, I think.  Then maybe 
someone can volunteer to give all of us proper mod privileges over 
there . . . 

Cindy




From editor at texas.net  Tue Aug 19 16:56:51 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:56:51 -0000
Subject: Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer
In-Reply-To: <1061259895.3A6EDB98@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <bhtksj+7j54@eGroups.com>

Heidi clarified:

> I did not participate in that vote. I resigned from meg, as I said 
> earlier today, a little over 3 weeks ago. I know nothing more about 
that 
> vote than anyone else on this list.

I clarify more.

Many MEGs are on this list and feel constrained not to comment, or 
not to comment at length, as the forum is inappropriate. I will "out" 
us, so that anyone who wants to offlist us, can(in another way than 
to the "owners" address; I can never remember that address anyway).

Off the top of my head (and profuse apologies, for I will miss some, 
it's been A Day At The Office), the MEGs on this list are Ali, Dicey, 
me, Debbie, Eloise, Pippin, Jim Ferer, Paul Kippes, Pip, Marina, 
Sheryll, and Tabouli. And anyone else I missed.

~Amanda





From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Aug 19 16:57:38 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:57:38 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: I have an idea
In-Reply-To: <bhtkl1+lhbp@eGroups.com>
References: <bhtkl1+lhbp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061312263.2F2E594A@w5.dngr.org>

Cindy, the settings are simple. You set it on messages so everyone can 
post, but close list archives to all but members. Then you make the 
*join* setting so people have to be approved. Every week or so, go and 
reject everyone who isn't on the faq list.

If you give me mod privs I could configure it in about 2 minutes.


On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:53PM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
> Real-To:  "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Hi,
>
> OK, I'll post something to OTC including the excellent advice you
> all just gave.  I'm in a hurry, so if I don't give enough detail,
> scoot over to OTC and embellish.
>
> Also, the other FAQ list is
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/.  I just re-wrote the
> group description, so can someone check it and advise?
>
> Also, I need some tech advice.  We want people to be able to post to
> recommend a main list message, but not read what others have
> recommended (I think (?)).  The reason is that we don't want it to
> turn into a discussion list ("You think *that* piece of crap was
> fantastic?")  Does anyone want to figure out what Moderator settings
> are needed to achieve that?  We don't want all of these e-mails
> coming to us all by asking people to post to the owner's box, so
> we'll want them to be able to post their recommendations rather than
> send an e-mail to the owner's box.  Uh, I think.
>
> If I invite you all, I'll have to type in all of your individual e-
> mail addresses.  Can you instead go the home page and request an
> invitation?  Then I can just wave you in, I think.  Then maybe
> someone can volunteer to give all of us proper mod privileges over
> there . . .
>
> Cindy
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From editor at texas.net  Tue Aug 19 16:58:38 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:58:38 -0000
Subject: I have an idea
In-Reply-To: <bhtkl1+lhbp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhtkvu+jjnu@eGroups.com>

Drive-by suggestion:

Sorry if this has been floated, but can we run a main-list advisory 
asking for nominations? Can any listmember put posts up for 
consideration? That would give us 10,600 sets of eyes, instead of 40.

Just an idea. I can help draft the text if wanted.

~Amanda




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Aug 19 17:30:11 2003
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:30:11 -0000
Subject: MEGs (was Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer)
In-Reply-To: <bhtksj+7j54@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhtmr3+geas@eGroups.com>

Amanda wrote:

 the MEGs on this list are Ali, Dicey, 
> me, Debbie, Eloise, Pippin, Jim Ferer, Paul Kippes, Pip, Marina, 
> Sheryll, and Tabouli. And anyone else I missed.

Hey! Me!

Though all I've ever done is put a couple of posts in the database.

David




From dicentra at xmission.com  Tue Aug 19 17:33:43 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:33:43 -0000
Subject: Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer
In-Reply-To: <bhs0v5+g8ns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhtn1n+og2v@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "derannimer" <susannahlm at y...> wrote:

> Yes, I know that I am *tremendously* biased in Cindy's favor; and I 
> *don't* know all of what went on; and I am bearing in mind the 
> *possibility* that there was some hideously dark misdeed she 
> committed to warrant such treatment...

You want to see the smoking gun, right?  Well, I'll tell you, in as
unbiased a way as I can, what the deal is.

Cindy was Ousted from the Mod group on the suspicion that she was
staging a coup d'etat.  Six of the Mods believed that she was
attempting to hound Penny out of the Mod group, thus to become the new
List Mom.  A secondary suspicion was that she had become mentally
unstable.  They believed that they had reached a point where ejecting
her was their only choice.  Elkins disagreed with them both on Cindy's
motives and on the course of action.

As for what went on in MEG, I cannot say why people voted the way they
did.  I imagine each person had a different reason.  

When she asked to return, a few MEGs reacted strongly against it right
off the bat.  A lengthy discussion ensued with much disagreement and
many diverging viewpoints.  A few felt that the very fact that we were
having such a discussion indicated that Cindy was a disruptive
influence even when she wasn't on MEG; therefore, her presence on MEG
would be disruptive.

Other thoughts expressed by some MEGs were that she is a loose cannon,
that she would cause disruptions by agitating for changes not wanted
by the group at large, that she would act unilaterally and
independently of the group, that we would have to spend too much time
and energy keeping her under control.  A few feel that Cindy is
unbalanced or untrustworthy.

Other opinions given were that Cindy had left under the assumption
that she would be allowed to return, and that because there was no
policy set when she left, it would be wrong of us to up and change the
policy now.  Some observed that we really could use an extra hand with
MEG duties, and Cindy is an experienced admin.  Others genuinely did
not want *any* of the ex-Mods to return.

Amanda says, of the MEG decision: "Suffice it to say that it was NOT
personal."  For some of the MEGs it was not; for others it was, and
that applies to both those who voted for and against her return.  I
would be hard-pressed to say who fits in which category nor do I know
how many people voted for personal reasons.  I have no way to make
those kinds of distinctions.  I am no Legilimens. 

Amanda also said, "Cindy is not a pariah in anyone's mind but her
own."  I don't know if this is entirely correct.  I get the impression
from some of the comments on MEG that a few of them would not
associate with Cindy unless ordered to do so by God Himself.  Those
MEGs are not in the majority, BTW.

Like Amanda, I'm also tired of people making assumptions.  MEG is an
extremely diverse group, all of us motivated by different things, all
of us seeing things differently.  We were forced to choose a single
option.  The vote was what it was.  What it means with regard to
anyone's personal opinion of Cindy is impossible to tell, so it's not
a good idea to speculate.  

I'd like to assert that this isn't the forum to debate whether the
Mods were right about Cindy nor whether their course of action was
correct nor whether MEG perceptions about Cindy are correct nor
whether the decision to deny her re-entry was correct.  The chips have
fallen as they have; it's now time to move on.  Please.

--Dicentra, who hopes that Amanda will stick out this Latest MEG
Eruption because we need her




From editor at texas.net  Tue Aug 19 17:59:04 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:59:04 -0000
Subject: Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer
In-Reply-To: <bhtn1n+og2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhtoh8+hj4i@eGroups.com>

Dicey summarized:

> Cindy was Ousted from the Mod group on the suspicion that she was
> staging a coup d'etat.  Six of the Mods believed that she was
> attempting to hound Penny out of the Mod group, thus to become the 
new
> List Mom.  A secondary suspicion was that she had become mentally
> unstable.  They believed that they had reached a point where 
ejecting
> her was their only choice.  Elkins disagreed with them both on 
Cindy's
> motives and on the course of action.

Important distinction to note: the Mod team that is discussed above, 
and the MEG list discussed below, are *different groups.* The Mods at 
that time were a high-level moderator group, supported by the elves 
and geists on MEG. Almost all the Mod team are gone; MEG is actually 
now just EG, elves and geists, there are not Mods per se anymore.

> As for what went on in MEG, I cannot say why people voted the way 
they
> did.  I imagine each person had a different reason.  

~Amanda





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Aug 19 17:22:24 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:22:24 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Opinion, and FAQ-Tasks That Need Doing
In-Reply-To: <bhtjm7+2csn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001001c36676$750d3600$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
You will all be deeply impressed with the restraint I will show in this
post.
 
>Cindy, I find it terribly inappropriate to vent about MEG over here. 
>You should be venting to the MEGs. 
 
Nah.  I needed to explain why I am pulling back to the people have a
right to know.  This has been done.  I am moving on.
 
 
>If you have any questions or want clarification, you should ask the 
>ones who made the decision, not post your "take" on what you were 
>told as This Is How It Was. 
 
I have no questions.  I require no clarification.  I know precisely what
the objective facts were, they are not in dispute, and Pip and I have
disclosed them.  
 
 
>You weren't a part of that decision-
>making process and cannot comment on the motives or reasons of those 
>who were.


I didn't.  I can, however, connect the dots "as only Snape can."  And I
can say how I feel about what was done.
 

> Could we just do FAQs? 
 
Yup.  Let's.
 
Cindy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From editor at texas.net  Tue Aug 19 18:20:18 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:20:18 -0000
Subject: Opinion, and FAQ-Tasks That Need Doing
In-Reply-To: <001001c36676$750d3600$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bhtpp2+jp61@eGroups.com>

Request Cindy input on the other half of the post, the Tasks That 
Need Doing part?

~Amanda, duly impressed with Cindy's restraint





From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Aug 19 18:23:50 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:23:50 -0500
Subject: Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer
References: <bhtn1n+og2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004b01c3667f$0aac4e50$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

Yes, I am still here.  I've been evaluating whether or not I have any time to devote to updating some of the FPs that I originally wrote in early 2001 and/or whether I want to carry through on my commitment to do some work on a Harry FP.  I'm still not entirely sure whether I have the time or not, but one thing is certain: if the discussion on this forum doesn't remain strictly about FP business and idle chit-chat, I definitely will not be sticking around.  I competely echo what Amanda and Dicey have said on that front: this is *not* the forum to discuss the former Mods, MEG or any other policy decision except as it pertains to the FP work.  IMHO of course.

Oh.  I'm completely in favor of setting up a system where people can flag Fantastic Posts to the team at large ---- I'd echo Amanda in saying let's not confine it to OTC.  

Penny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Aug 19 18:56:58 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:56:58 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Opinion, and FAQ-Tasks That Need Doing
In-Reply-To: <bhtpp2+jp61@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c36683$ab029d10$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Um . . . *my* input?
 
 
Uh.  I dunno.  I haven't wrapped my brain around it, and I don't think I
can do so right now.  My straightjacket is getting in my way.  :-D
 
 
Cindy - noting that her previous message of restraint was sent before
Dicey's, FWIW
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Amanda [mailto:editor at texas.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:20 PM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Opinion, and FAQ-Tasks That Need Doing
 
Request Cindy input on the other half of the post, the Tasks That 
Need Doing part?

~Amanda, duly impressed with Cindy's restraint






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1595054/R=0/SIG=124ukap9t/*http:/ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitake
nattogyo?YH=3707890&yhad=1595054> Click Here!

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1595054/rand=809417381> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From psychic_serpent at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 19 19:45:07 2003
From: psychic_serpent at yahoo.com (psychic_serpent)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:45:07 -0000
Subject: MEGs (was Rant From IrritatingInterferer!Derannimer)
In-Reply-To: <bhtmr3+geas@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhtuo3+rpsn@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "David" <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> Amanda wrote:
> 
>  the MEGs on this list are Ali, Dicey, 
> > me, Debbie, Eloise, Pippin, Jim Ferer, Paul Kippes, Pip, Marina, 
> > Sheryll, and Tabouli. And anyone else I missed.
> 
> Hey! Me!
> 
> Though all I've ever done is put a couple of posts in the database.
> 
> David

I'm here too, although usually very quiet.  I did code the OOTP FAQ 
and recently moved a bunch of files and images around to allow for 
the fact that Yahoomort is not going to allow groups to have public 
files anymore that can be viewed by folks who aren't signed up for a 
group.  (::generalized grumbling in the direction of Yahoo::)  Am 
also working on adding the regional lists to the Portkey and other 
tech jobs as they arise.

--Barb the lurking Babsgeist





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Aug 19 21:48:52 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:48:52 -0000
Subject: Message to OTC
In-Reply-To: <004b01c3667f$0aac4e50$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>
Message-ID: <bhu604+j94c@eGroups.com>

Hey, guys,

I'm beat.  Can someone else write up whatever message is appropriate 
to ask members to advise of Fantastic Posts?

Thanks.

Cindy




From editor at texas.net  Tue Aug 19 21:53:13 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:53:13 -0000
Subject: Message to OTC
In-Reply-To: <bhu604+j94c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhu689+v1un@eGroups.com>

Cindy:

> Hey, guys,
> 
> I'm beat.  Can someone else write up whatever message is 
appropriate 
> to ask members to advise of Fantastic Posts?

Were we going to ask on Chatter, or on the main list? And do we just 
want them to tell us (if so, how?) or can they enter candidates in 
some database?

Hmm..
Why don't we make a database on the main list, so the members can 
access it, and have them log likely candidates? The complexities of 
how to access it will filter a few of them. What do you think?

~Amanda




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Aug 19 21:54:58 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:54:58 -0000
Subject: Owner privileges on FAQ Archives List
Message-ID: <bhu6bi+93p9@eGroups.com>

Hi,

I went over and made Derannimer and Jo Serenadust owners of the FAQ 
Archives.  Why?  Well, they're as cute as the dickens, that's 
why!  :-D

Feel free to change that, folks.  There are only a few people there, 
so I just picked.

Cindy






From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 19 22:02:59 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:02:59 -0000
Subject: I propose...
Message-ID: <bhu6qj+1l4k@eGroups.com>


Man, I've been off for a while, and come back to find this whole 
discussion. Good grief, and I just love controversy, too. ;-) 
Although there have been lots of excellent points made, I'll only 
cover a few.


Melody wrote:
<snip some wonderful observations>
But- we do not vote on MEG members. We are subject to those that pick
and choose to be a part of it by other people. Some are oldies that
have not posted since *I've* been here and that is a year. I do not
know those people, but they act as if I am a newbie and thus unable 
to determine what is best for this site.

I reply:
Melody, I could not agree with you more. 

Frankly, on that note, I can't see why MEG should have *any* input 
at all regarding how the FP group works - in many cases, the MEG 
group seems totally irrelevant to the main list itself, nevermind 
the deliberations of this group. 

And if you think about it, to allow the MEG's any say over what 
we're doing is, in a sense, like the government telling the press 
what to print. 

No, I'm of the opinion that the FAQ group should be autonomous, and 
if others think similarly, then I'd advocate taking steps 
immediately to ensure that there will be no interference.


Amanda wrote:
MEG is not a social club, casting it as one is inaccurate, 
Cindy is not a pariah in anyone's mind but her own, and if anyone 
wants information about what MEG's doing, all they have to do is ASK.

Tom replies:
Now Amanda, that's not exactly true. I understand that you guys must 
be overworked and stressed out due to the OoP release, but let's 
face it ? I wrote the MEG list an absolutely *humungous* e-mail full 
of questions and comments on your "operating procedures" on July 
first, and I have yet to hear back on it. To be fair, I did get a 
brief note from Ali, which told me that my questions were heard and 
would eventually be answered. 

That was over a month-and-a-half ago, and there's been no subsequent 
response. I know you've all got a lot to do, and I understand that 
this is supposed to be fun for y'all, and that y'all are volunteers 
and all that stuff. However, as I pointed out in that same e-mail, 
whether or not you volunteered, you still agreed to take on the job. 
And that job is not getting done. And just because y'all are 
volunteers doesn't mean you're exempt from criticism. 

Because *that's* how I perceive the behavior of the MEG's, whether 
I'm privy to your group's inner-sanctum discussions or not.


Abigail wrote:
All I know is that I've been asked to participate in the FAQ list - 
to use the term in its loosest possible meaning, that's my job.

Tom:
Totally, one-hundred percent agreed!


Pip wrote:
On the whole, I personally see FAQ as a semi-autonomous task force, 
free to decide for itself how and by whom its work is organised.

Tom replies:
Since I'm already inclined to see it this way, I think that's a 
great point, Pip!

So, in the interests of getting to work, my thinking is along these 
lines: the MEG group is dealing with too many of its own internal 
issues and fragile truce-type-melodramatic-whatevers right now to be 
of any real relevance (or, for that matter, help) to our operation. 
As far as I'm concerned, they'll only slow down the procedure 
further, since they're already overworked and trying to cope with 
the stuff they have to do. So let's just nevermind adding more to 
that; otherwise, we might as well postpone any action at all for the 
next six months or so.

Therefore, (and despite the fact that I'm an unqualified newbie who 
probably has no right to propose the following,) I hereby propose 
the following:  ;-)

1) To solve all of these issues, the FAQ group should take whatever 
steps are necessary to separate itself *formally* and *completely* 
from any and all MEG governance, so that it functions more like the 
Lexicon than the HPfGU main-list. In other words, MEG should have 
ZERO input on the FAQ list. Period.

2) The FAQ group should elect a leader whose responsibility will be 
to act as a de-facto chair for the group ? to organize us, help us 
designate our tasks, and help us to clarify our responsibilities. 
This person will serve at the pleasure of the group at large, again, 
regardless of the desires of MEG.

(I hope it's clear that I'm making a distinction between MEG as-a-
group, and individuals on this group who overlap.)

I nominate Cindy as our leader, because she has demonstrated serious 
know-how, admirable enthusiasm, and definite willingness to do the 
work. I can think of no more qualified candidate.

As far as I see it, we can't wait around for some other disoriented 
group to decide our fate for us, so we should take matters into our 
own hands.

I, for one, am eager to get to work, particularly before I lose 
steam. ;-)

-Tom




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Aug 19 22:21:20 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:21:20 -0000
Subject: I propose...
In-Reply-To: <bhu6qj+1l4k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhu7t0+l27l@eGroups.com>

Necessary background . . . 

> Pip wrote:

> On the whole, I personally see FAQ as a semi-autonomous task 
>force, free to decide for itself how and by whom its work is 
>organised.

I mentioned in a rather vague way the reasons I felt I needed to be 
on MEG, but I need to flesh one thing out that is pertinent to what 
Pip and Tom wrote.

A few months back after I unsubbed from MEG, I asked a MEG friend 
how things were going.  The MEG replied that there was an idea to 
store MEG documents on the FAQ list, on the theory that all HPfGU 
documents should reside in one place because they're all 
documents.   (I think that was the idea; it has been a while).

I wasn't fond of the idea.  FAQ has no role in administering the 
list; we only cover the news, as they say.  We want the posts to be 
good, etc., but we don't edit administrative documents, I thought.  

I approached the two facilitators at the time (Amy and Joywitch) and 
advocated having FAQ be fully autonomous from MEG.  Amy initially 
took the position that FAQ was not autonomous -- that we had to 
comply with the HPfGU philosophy or some such.  I had to compose a 
second long message that re-articulated my position.  Joywitch 
concluded that the issue would probably not be important, but the 
FAQ list is "semi-autonomous."  I have no idea if those views were 
the result of MEG discussion, a MEG vote or something else.  I 
considered that to be the best I was going to do, so I let the 
matter rest.  

That is all I know.

> I nominate Cindy as our leader, 

Thanks, Tom, but I think I should defer.  Let's face it -- my 
leadership style freaks people out.  If a good idea pops into my 
head, I'll speak up, but it would be best for everyone if someone 
else took a turn at the helm.

Cindy




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 20 00:28:29 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:28:29 -0000
Subject: Owner privileges on FAQ Archives List
 
 
Message-ID: <bhufbd+7l4u@eGroups.com>

<Derannimer looks at Jo Serenadust>

We're apparently as cute as the dickens.

Guys, this disturbing discovery aside, are we supposed to *do* anything, as owners? 
Or do we just have to own it to fit with Yahoo's policy or something? I'm assuming the 
latter, but I just thought I'd ask.



Derannimer, who gets a blue star, anyway. That's something in life, surely.




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 20 00:36:50 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:36:50 -0000
Subject: "No Author," Yet Again
Message-ID: <bhufr2+35fk@eGroups.com>

GAAAAH! Don't any of these smart technical-minded people here have some idea why 
my posts keep *doing* this?



Derannimer




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Aug 20 00:38:27 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:38:27 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Owner privileges on FAQ Archives List
In-Reply-To: <bhufbd+7l4u@eGroups.com>
References: <bhufbd+7l4u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061339912.3A6EDB98@s5.dngr.org>

Well, per my earlier email, if you gave me mod powers over settings I 
could fix the group to allow emails in from listies without alowing them 
to read each others' posts.

Heidi

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 8:28PM -0500, derannimer wrote:
> Real-To:  "derannimer" <susannahlm at yahoo.com>
>
> <Derannimer looks at Jo Serenadust>
>
> We're apparently as cute as the dickens.
>
> Guys, this disturbing discovery aside, are we supposed to *do* 
> anything, as owners?
> Or do we just have to own it to fit with Yahoo's policy or something? 
> I'm assuming the
> latter, but I just thought I'd ask.
>
>
>
> Derannimer, who gets a blue star, anyway. That's something in life, 
> surely.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com  Wed Aug 20 00:48:24 2003
From: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com (HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 20 Aug 2003 00:48:24 -0000
Subject: New poll for HP4GU-FAQ 
Message-ID: <1061340504.135.34047.w80@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HP4GU-FAQ group:

Do you think that the FAQ group should 
run itself independently of the MEG 
(Moderator) group that currently 
governs the HPfGU main-list and sister 
groups? 

  o Yes 
  o No 
  o Undecided 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/surveys?id=1128683  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 20 00:53:57 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:53:57 -0000
Subject: Poll: Should our FAQ group declare independence from MEG?
Message-ID: <bhugr5+64i6@eGroups.com>

Well, I've done some tallying. 

According to my calculations, seventeen members of the FAQ group are 
ALSO members of MEG. Since there are forty of us on this list, this 
means that less than half of our number overlap with the MEG group.

This, in turn, means that independence could possibly be within our 
grasp, should a vote succeed. Of course, for the sake of argument, I 
assumed that even if all of the overlapping MEG members vote as a 
block (which I know is silly and unlikely to happen,) we'd still 
have a chance.

Therefore, I've set up a poll. It's anonymous, so feel free to vote 
your conscience.

I set it to close up in a month (on 20 September) so there's plenty 
of time for everyone to sit back and think about what they'd like to 
do. When the poll results are in, they'll be mailed to everyone.

For now, (since Cindy's declined my nomination, and since I don't 
know everyone else super-duper well) I think we can put aside the 
question of 'leadership.' In fact, I think it's perfectly possible 
for us to do everything democratically, by post or poll without any 
one leader (although I do think that a 'leader' would help us get it 
together.)

But I suppose that that's another question for a later time. And 
after all, if you think about it, it *is* sort of jumping the gun to 
decide who's going to lead when we're not independent.

So, stroll on over to the polls and give it a thought.

On that note, I figure it's pretty important to ask around about how 
this should be handled - I mean, what we *want* to do is, I suppose, 
not the same thing as what we're *allowed* to do.

Is this a futile attempt in the first place? Can a veteran shed some 
light? Any MEG's wanna chime in on our authority as a group?

Anyways, it can't do any harm to take the poll. What we do with the 
results, I guess, should come later.

Vote away!

-Tom




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Aug 20 01:06:27 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:06:27 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] New poll for HP4GU-FAQ
In-Reply-To: <1061340504.135.34047.w80@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1061340504.135.34047.w80@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061341607.85E1DD0@s5.dngr.org>


On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 8:48PM -0500, HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Do you think that the FAQ group should
> run itself independently of the MEG
> (Moderator) group that currently
> governs the HPfGU main-list and sister
> groups?


I have an argument against complete independence, and it's entirely 
technical.

The faqs are hosted on hpfgu's server, which has had its hosting fees 
thru the end of the year and a little beyond paid for by the mods of 
hpfgu. Complete independence, to me, means that they wouldn't be hosted 
there anymore.

Now, some of you might be perfectly happy withthat situation in theory, 
but practically speaking, if that approach was adopted and the faqs were 
hosted elsewhere, the faq writers would have to be more careful about 
quoting without getting permission from the posters - there is, iirc, a 
license to hpfgu to use post content in the faqs, at least for any posts 
generated since august, 2000, but there's no such license to a group 
operating separate from hpfgu.

Personally, I'm going to vote against complete independence because of 
this - ip law wise and technically, I don't think it's feasible. I would 
vote for a strong measure of autonomy, though.

Heidi



From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 20 01:11:50 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Owner privileges on FAQ Archives List
In-Reply-To: <1061339912.3A6EDB98@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <20030820011150.81319.qmail@web14303.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Heidi Tandy <heidit at netbox.com> wrote:
> Well, per my earlier email, if you gave me mod
> powers over settings I 
> could fix the group to allow emails in from listies
> without alowing them 
> to read each others' posts.
> 
> Heidi

The powah! Heidi, I just made you a moderator. Or, at
least, I think I did. Possibly I just accidently
deleted your credit card information or something
though. I'm not the greatest at this computer stuff.




"No Author," apparently the Nymphadora Tonks of the
digital world

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



From editor at texas.net  Wed Aug 20 02:26:39 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:26:39 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] New poll for HP4GU-FAQ
References: <1061340504.135.34047.w80@yahoogroups.com> <1061341607.85E1DD0@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <002a01c366c2$7d91c6a0$836463d1@texas.net>

Heidi:

> Now, some of you might be perfectly happy withthat situation in theory,
> but practically speaking, if that approach was adopted and the faqs were
> hosted elsewhere, the faq writers would have to be more careful about
> quoting without getting permission from the posters - there is, iirc, a
> license to hpfgu to use post content in the faqs, at least for any posts
> generated since august, 2000, but there's no such license to a group
> operating separate from hpfgu.

I'd agree. I wouldn't be happy with my posts being quoted by anything but an
HP4GU affiliate. Someone would have to go remove them. It would be polite to
ask the other contributors, too; some may feel the same way.

~Amanda






From Malady579 at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 20 02:34:13 2003
From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:34:13 -0000
Subject: Ignoring the pink elephant
In-Reply-To: <bhtjm7+2csn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bhumn5+b6l9@eGroups.com>

I realize that Amanda, Dicey, and Penny has said this thread should
not go on.  I kind of started it as a thread to begin with, and I want
to give my take here.  Mostly because if I sent this to only MEG,
those on this site who are not in MEG will not read my reply otherwise.

If this is stopped now, it will be brushed under the rug and fester.
What it seems to have been doing for months now.   


I said:
>>At least you are talking to us, Cindy.  At least we get honest
>>emotions and thoughts from you and not a well crafted, carefully
>>censored post from the "admin".  Guys, I know you mean well, but
>>when is this going to stop?   

To which a tired Amanda wrote:
>MEG carefully crafts responses to make sure we are clear, and to 
>attempt to keep the potential hurt feelings to a minimum, and to make 
>sure we are diplomatic. That "careful crafting" is an expanded 
>version of what we ask all posters to do--reread, think about how 
>your audience will receive it, etc. I refuse to apologize for 
>exercising a higher level of care.

I realize the need to be political and try to make everyone happy and
sedate and just to post well.  I think my question of when is it going
to stop, really was not intended to modify that previous question, and
I am sorry for that.  That was towards the end of the post and I was
kind of tired by then.  

What I really found that needed to stop was the silence from MEG when
the site knew something was going on.  We knew y'all were having
problems, and maybe the "we" I speak here is those of us that should
be aurors and read between lines well, and we desperately wanted to help. 

 
Amanda:
>Melody, I'm more than happy to talk, but to really explain all of 
>what went on in the decision to not allow Cindy back, I'd have to 
>forward you MEG posts. Suffice it to say that it was NOT personal. It 
>is entirely possible to like someone a lot and not want to work with 
>them. MEG is not a social club, casting it as one is inaccurate, 
>Cindy is not a pariah in anyone's mind but her own, and if anyone 
>wants information about what MEG's doing, all they have to do is ASK.

But Amanda, I see many of you that are in MEG that *did* seem to need
to talk, but none of you were.  You needed someone outside of MEG, who
does love the site, to rationally think about this whole situation,
but because of how y'all were trained, it seems, no one would talk.  I
*have* asked, and no one told me.

I care about the whole lot of y'all.  I care about your frame of mind.
 You have a huge task, and since March, *March*, I have suspected that
things have not been good.  And this is not from some leak in your
system, but more from the posts from MEG members, the availablility of
MEG, the frame of mind of my friends on MEG, and other things I cannot
remember.  Just know that there are ways to test how your govenment is
doing.  :)  Anyway, I assumed you would, of course, work things out,
but it is now August and the relief does not seem to be coming, from
my perspective.  

So I asked.  

I asked in a forum where others who are not in MEG, but do care for
the site, could see my post but *not* all of those on the main site or
in OT.  All of us here in FAQ are dedicated to the site and not just
to ourselves.  If I had asked this in OT, it would have caused a riot.
 Especially with the threads right now.  I wrote as a concerned listee
that many in MEG have chatted with either in email or personally in
chat.  As a friend.  


Amanda:
>Could we stop judging without knowing the facts?
> 
> Thanks.

I tried to post showing what my perspective (and yes it was a bit
emotional at the time but I too was tired of it all) was at that time
with the facts I had.  I was requesting the perspective from the other
side, and not just Cindy's.  I wanted the facts, so I could understand
finally why MEG is as shattered as it is.  Now whether or not Cindy
should have done what she did, she did it.  And when I read that post,
I figured that MEG would off list her an email telling her to stay
quiet, and I and others would be left only knowing Cindy's side and
growing more angry at MEG without their perspective.  I was trying to
*prevent* judging without the facts.  

So since I was talking about perspectives, let me move on to Dicey's
enlightening post.  :)


Dicey:
>Cindy was Ousted from the Mod group on the suspicion that she was
>staging a coup d'etat. Six of the Mods believed that she was
>attempting to hound Penny out of the Mod group, thus to become the
>new List Mom. A secondary suspicion was that she had become mentally
>unstable. 
**clip the rest for space**

Excuse me?  Oh my.  Now I am understanding Cindy's viewpoint.  And the
mods.  And the elves.  Thank you, Dicey.


Tom wrote:
>Frankly, on that note, I can't see why MEG should have *any* input
>at all regarding how the FP group works - in many cases, the MEG
>group seems totally irrelevant to the main list itself, nevermind
>the deliberations of this group. 
**semi-shift in paragraphs**
>As far as I see it, we can't wait around for some other disoriented
>group to decide our fate for us, so we should take matters into our
>own hands.

Um, Tom.  Almost than half this group *is* in MEG.  More maybe soon
joining MEG.  And many of those that are no longer in MEG are still
here.  FAQ without recognizing its biggest subgroup is impossible.  It
is not that we should succeed from them, it is more the emotional and
mental state of MEG *does* effect FAQ whether we like it or not.


Tom wrote:
>I understand that you guys must be overworked and stressed out due to
>the OoP release, but let's face it ? I wrote the MEG list an
>absolutely *humungous* e-mail full of questions and comments on your
>"operating procedures" on July first, and I have yet to hear back on
>it. To be fair, I did get a brief note from Ali, which told me that
>my questions were heard and would eventually be answered.

I think the reason you are not receiving a response Tom is because
they are not sure what their operation procedures will be from week to
week.  They are trying to change them, so once they iron it down, they
will get back to you as Ali said.  This is just taking longer than
they expected.  But that is *my* assumption from reading these posts
and knowing MEG.  They do listen though, and I am sure they are taking
whatever you said into account based on the knowledge they have about
what is take to run a site.  *That* is one thing I have learned from
this thread.  ::big grin::   


Tom wrote:
>However, as I pointed out in that same e-mail, whether or not you
>volunteered, you still agreed to take on the job. And that job is not
>getting done. And just because y'all are volunteers doesn't mean
>you're exempt from criticism. 

Acutally, they seem *very* open to criticism.  More so than many
volunteer operations, in my opinion.  They are listening and are
talking amoungst themselves to find a solution.  Just all that are
presented are not easy to accomplish.  Also not all agree.  When one
agrees to take on the job of mmoderating post in HP, I think they did
not expect all this.  Just reading some wide-eye newie posts. 
Encourage them.  Watch them grow.  But this is turning into a full
time job for most, I think.  Something not planned.  


So why did I post tonight?
Because I want MEG to calm down.  I want MEG to know we are listening
to both sides.  You know I am speaking in we, but I can only speak in
I.  I am listening.  Here and in OT.  I see the fragile group of MEG
trying to change, but it is not easy.  But they are talking.  They are
trusting.  They are listening.  And making hard decisions.  I'm sorry
Cindy, you are one of them.


Melody 
who will not post OT/MEG posts here anymore for the sake of FAQ as a
group.  :)




From editor at texas.net  Wed Aug 20 02:43:37 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 21:43:37 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] I propose...
References: <bhu6qj+1l4k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006401c366c4$dc352740$836463d1@texas.net>

Tom:

How come you wasted all this time and energy to do this divisive thing,
instead of focusing on the valid FAQ questions and issues at hand?

You also just threw a poll out there without any sort of input on the
options, or consideration of what a decision would constitute. Half?
Two-thirds? MEG's wheels may turn slow, but part of that is because we think
and do some planning before we post.

~Amanda, irritated






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Aug 20 02:23:15 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:23:15 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] New poll for HP4GU-FAQ
In-Reply-To: <1061341607.85E1DD0@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <000001c366c2$03c64580$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
>The faqs are hosted on hpfgu's server, which has had its hosting fees 
>thru the end of the year and a little beyond paid for by the mods of 
>hpfgu. Complete independence, to me, means that they wouldn't be hosted

>there anymore.
 
I think I'm confused.  Is there any reason that the FAQs couldn't remain
on FAs server with the 40 members of the FAQ list donating to pick up
the cost?  Especially since Heidi is on FAQ and not MEG?  Last year's
cost was $60.  
 
Cindy

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Aug 20 06:32:38 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:32:38 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] New poll for HP4GU-FAQ
In-Reply-To: <000001c366c2$03c64580$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
References: <000001c366c2$03c64580$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <1061361163.14FA688A@s5.dngr.org>

This wouldn't be my decision to make - Simon and Amber are my co-voard 
members at FaWC (the minnesota corporation behind FictionAlley). But 
this question doesn't seem to take into consideration the question of 
what the domain name would be, or whether, as Amanda also noted, quoting 
could be as extensive as it is in the faqs these days.

Heidi

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:30PM -0500, cindysphynx wrote:
> Real-To:  "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Hi,
>
>> The faqs are hosted on hpfgu's server, which has had its hosting fees
>> thru the end of the year and a little beyond paid for by the mods of
>> hpfgu. Complete independence, to me, means that they wouldn't be hosted
>
>> there anymore.
>
> I think I'm confused.  Is there any reason that the FAQs couldn't 
> remain
> on FAs server with the 40 members of the FAQ list donating to pick up
> the cost?  Especially since Heidi is on FAQ and not MEG?  Last year's
> cost was $60.
>
> Cindy
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 20 10:24:55 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:24:55 -0000
Subject: I propose... & Message to OTC (and Main list, I think)
In-Reply-To: <006401c366c4$dc352740$836463d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bhvi9n+s0t1@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" <editor at t...> wrote:
> Tom:
> 
> How come you wasted all this time and energy to do this divisive thing,
> instead of focusing on the valid FAQ questions and issues at hand?

Hear, hear, Amanda.  I see no meaning in claiming that FAQ is or 
is not independant from MEG.  Ignoring the fact that half our 
members are MEGs, what control does that list exert over us?  
Really?  What meaning would our so-called independance have?  

And Tom, please don't quote me in support of this idea.  When I 
wrote that writing FAQs is my job at the back of my mind was the 
recognition that that job was given to me by the leadership of 
HPfGU.  Who am I working for if we set ourselves apart from them?  
What would our mandate be?  

Finally, if you feel so strongly about doing our job, maybe you 
wouldn't mind addressing the actual questions plaguing this list 
- such as when and how we should begin our work - instead of 
pouring fuel on the fire of what is quickly becoming Modgate 2.

This is not what I signed on for.  I don't understand the internal 
politics of MEG and I don't want to understand them.  I want to 
write FAQs and I wish this group would stop being distracted by 
outside matters.  This is exactly why we don't need to know what's 
going on in MEG.  

As for this poll, I'm not entirely certain whether I should dignify 
it with a vote.  What will you do, Tom, if not the entire group votes?  
If you have ten voters against seven in favor of seperating, will you 
do it?  Will you have either the right or the authority?  For that 
matter, what significance will the decision have, except for 
annoying people?

Just so this post isn't entirely a rant, and to remind you all that we 
do have business to attend to, how about this language for a 
request for submissions to OTC and, I think, the main list as well:

Dear HPfGU Members,

Hello from the FAQ team!  We're in charge of writing the Fantastic 
Posts essays, which can be found at

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/

These essays collect posts on a variety of different subjects, 
ranging from The Weasley Family to Justice in the Wizarding World.  
They also provide summaries of important and popular theories 
such as LOLLIPOPS or George.  The Fantastic Posts are a great 
asset to group members old and new, providing a coherent 
perspective on the ideas that came before us.  They also allow us 
to save from Yahoo! oblivion those posts which are truly 
remarkable and worth remembering.

We on the FAQ team are eager to get to work on updating the old 
FPs and writing new ones in the wake of OOP, but we'd like you 
all to help us.  Have you read a post recently that really made you 
think?  A well-written post, that offered a new perspective or 
submitted a new thoery?  In short, have you read a Fantastic Post 
recently?  If you have, we'd like to hear about it.

We've opened the archive group for the FAQs for posting by anyone.  
You can reach it at 

(URL of homepage would go here)

or email it at

(email of archive group would go here)

Please send us a brief note about any post that you think is truly 
fantastic.  A message number in the subject line will suffice, but you 
can give a short summary or a reason why you think the post is 
fantastic if you like.

Before you get going, a few words on what makes a post Fantastic.  
You might want to check out some of the posts referenced in the old 
FPs to get an idea of the kind of quality we're looking for.  Also, bear 
in mind that a a Fantastic Post should:

1. Be well written and coherent
2. Present new ideas or offer a good overview of old ones
3. Have good formatting - good grammar and spelling, capitalization 
and punctuation where appropriate, more then one paragraph, etc.

Finally, any post you send is only a suggestion.  If you look at the 
old Fantastic Posts you might notice how few messages they actually 
reference.  This isn't because these are the only good messages in 
over 70,000 posts, but because if we were to include all the fantastic 
posts ever made to the group we would drown, and the very purpose 
of the FPs is to provide brief and concise overviews of ideas on the list.  
We can't promise to use every post you send us, but we do promise 
to read and consider every one with all due gravity, no matter who the 
author is.

Wishing you happy hunting,

The FAQ team

Any thoughts?  I'm not so sure about that last 'no matter who the 
author is', but I wanted to stress that we don't discriminate against 
newbies if they write good stuff.  By the way, could someone post 
the URL of the archive list?  I'd like to join it.

Abigail




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Wed Aug 20 11:00:12 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:00:12 -0000
Subject: Another call to move onwards
Message-ID: <bhvkbs+sig6@eGroups.com>

I just wanted to add my voice to those who have urged that we move 
onwards. As you are now very aware MEG has been bitterly divided. At 
the time OoP hit us we were aware that we were short of numbers, but 
we also felt that we had a duty to pull together before inviting 
anyone else in. Before this latest crisis hit, I naively thought we 
were.

In some ways, I feel that we have our hands tied; by not responding 
to comments that I heartily disagree with, I let them stand as 
though they were fact, by responding, I risk a slanging match which 
I believe to be wrong. So, in not responding, I would just ask 
everyone to recognise that there is more than one view of what has 
happened. Indeed, I suspect that we all have a "different" version. 

Anything that you might have been told to prepare you for this group 
is likely to be a coloured version of events. This is not because 
anyone has tried to deceive you, but we all approach things from our 
own perspective. If you wish to hear different "sides", I'm sure 
most people will be happy to tell you what they *think* occurred. 
Please remember though that just as different readers look at Harry 
Potter and are convinced of an  H/H ship or H/R ship, so our stories 
will just be a biased commentary on what we have seen or been 
through.

I do think we all have to understand that these events are not 
really about victims and villains; they are about humans. To err is 
human afterall. I'm not trying to say that people haven't been 
wronged, or that people individually or collectively couldn't have 
handled things better. I am trying to say beware of the "halo and 
horns" effect. I would also have to thank all those both here and on 
OTC who have come up with very good, objective suggestions for the 
way forward. I do believe that we will get through this and push the 
standards of HPfGU to the point where we know they should be.

We all presumably joined the FAQ group because HPfGU means something 
to us. I had loved Harry Potter for 3 years before I even thought of 
joining an on-line group, but I love this group with a passion. I am 
frustrated that we don't yet have a Harry FP, and I do feel that we 
should remedy this. As I write now, I don't feel quite ready to dive 
in, but give me a day or two, and I will. I still have my Quidditch 
FP to finish, and will at some point start asking pointed questions 
on the lists to bring about the sort of debate I want. 

A very upset, but still hopeful Ali





From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Aug 20 11:37:14 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:37:14 -0000
Subject: Owner privileges on FAQ Archives List
In-Reply-To: <20030820011150.81319.qmail@web14303.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bhvmha+u1vp@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, Susannah Myers <susannahlm at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- Heidi Tandy <heidit at n...> wrote:
> > Well, per my earlier email, if you gave me mod
> > powers over settings I 
> > could fix the group to allow emails in from listies
> > without alowing them 
> > to read each others' posts.
> > 
> > Heidi
> 
> The powah! Heidi, I just made you a moderator. Or, at
> least, I think I did. Possibly I just accidently
> deleted your credit card information or something
> though. I'm not the greatest at this computer stuff.

Thanks - can you go back in and edit my levels so I can edit the 
settings? Basically, you need to click EDIT next to my name in 
MEMBERS and then check the box regarding SETTINGS. It's either EDIT 
or MANAGE or something vaguely similar.




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Aug 20 11:57:07 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:57:07 -0000
Subject: Draft of Call for Fanfic Recs to be posted to OTC
In-Reply-To: <20030722163643.95575.qmail@web14305.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bhvnmj+iqs3@eGroups.com>

Per my post on July 21, while I know it's been well more than a week 
(can we just presume I said "month?" Nah, didn't think so...) I've 
finally managed to draft my Request for Fanfic Recs - and here's what 
I'd like to do with it - I want to post it to OTC and Announcements 
and ask people to send their recs to the Fantastic Posts Yahoogroup - 
as soon as I fix the settings there...

If there's no objections, I'll post this to OTC on Friday - but if 
anyone has editing suggestions, please feel free to make them.

--------------------------------------

In days of yore, when there were only a few thousand members of 
HPfGU, only a few hundred Harry Potter fics on ffn, no Harry Potter-
focused fanfiction archives, and regular discussion/recommendation of 
HP fanfics on the main list Ebony and Penny created the very first 
HPfGU Fanfic FAQ. 

Since then, it's been updated a few times, and the current version 
can be found here: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/fanfiction.html. 

Since the release of OotP, however, it's due for another update. 

Since the FAQ is supposed to include recommendations by HPfGU 
listmembers, though, we need your help in compiling it. Please send 
your fanfic recs to fantasticposts at yahoogroups.com using this 
template:

Fanfic Title:
Author:
URL: 
Rating (if any): 
Summary:

You can also discuss fanfics you like here on OTC, but it'll be 
easier for us to compile the FAQ if people use the template above. 

Thanks for your help and participation!

Heidi for the HPfGU FAQ Squad

--------------------------

Well? Ok?




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Aug 20 14:29:34 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:29:34 -0000
Subject: I propose...
In-Reply-To: <006401c366c4$dc352740$836463d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bi00ke+ja7n@eGroups.com>

Amanda scolded:

> Tom:
> 
> How come you wasted all this time and energy to do this divisive 
thing,
> instead of focusing on the valid FAQ questions and issues at hand?
> 
> You also just threw a poll out there without any sort of input on 
the
> options, or consideration of what a decision would constitute. 
Half?
> Two-thirds? MEG's wheels may turn slow, but part of that is 
because we think
> and do some planning before we post.
> 
> ~Amanda, irritated

Do you think we could all agree that we will *not* address each 
other in this fashion on this list?  This is unacceptable, and if it 
continues, then I will be unhappy.

Cindy -- who is going to write a response on the autonomy issue and 
the governing-by-democracy issue and who will keep her tone civil




From editor at texas.net  Wed Aug 20 15:02:21 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:02:21 -0000
Subject: Message to OTC (and Main list, I think)
In-Reply-To: <bhvi9n+s0t1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi02ht+udma@eGroups.com>

I didn't read the proposed message to OTC and the main list in 
excruciating detail--I will later when I have more time--but in tone 
and overall gist it is *exactly* what I'd had in mind.

To proceed, these are my suggestions:

--start the ball rolling by asking MEG if we can post such a notice 
to the main list. Don't send text now; get the concept okayed. I 
suggest another MEG do this, and let us know they have. (I don't have 
time today).

--I don't think we need permission to post it on Chatter; this sort 
of corollary thing is what Chatter was made for.

--Let us over here refine the text, so it'll be ready to send to MEG 
for approval and posting when they okay the concept of the notice.

Any other thoughts, anyone?

Great job, Abigail. Thanks for taking this on.

~Amanda





From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Wed Aug 20 15:21:57 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:21:57 -0000
Subject: Message to OTC (and Main list, I think)
In-Reply-To: <bi02ht+udma@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi03ml+oihj@eGroups.com>


Amanda wrote:
 
> --start the ball rolling by asking MEG if we can post such a 
> notice to the main list. Don't send text now; get the concept 
> sokayed. I uggest another MEG do this, and let us know they have. 
> (I don't have time today).
> 
> --I don't think we need permission to post it on Chatter; this 
> sort of corollary thing is what Chatter was made for.
> 

You don't need permission to post the notice on OT Chatter. The only 
reason you need permission for the Main List is because of 
the 'canon only' rule on there. 

Even MEGs have to get permission from the rest of MEG to send out an 
ADMIN to the main board. ;-)

I'll be happy to tell MEG that FAQ wants to post a Main List request 
for people to send you message numbers of Fantastic Posts. Also that 
people are working on the text right now, if you want me to do that.

Thanks for taking this on, Abigail.

Pip 







From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Wed Aug 20 15:32:41 2003
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:32:41 -0000
Subject: The elephant was blue
In-Reply-To: <bhumn5+b6l9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi04ap+jbt0@eGroups.com>

Melody wrote:

> I think the reason you are not receiving a response Tom is because
> they are not sure what their operation procedures will be from 
week to
> week.  They are trying to change them, so once they iron it down, 
they
> will get back to you as Ali said.  This is just taking longer than
> they expected.  

No, it was mostly incompetence.  Some MEGs drafted a reply, but we 
then managed to fail to actually hit the 'send' button.  I have now 
sent it to Tom: I hope it is adequate.

Thanks for explaining, Melody.

David




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Aug 20 18:01:36 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:01:36 -0000
Subject: Governance and Autonomy
Message-ID: <bi0d21+7s7n@eGroups.com>

Hi,

First, I want to thank Dicey for giving us an overview of Modgate.  
We are now all operating on the same base of information (sort of), 
and we should all learn what we can from that debacle, I'd say.  I 
feel comfortable saying that none of us wants this list to turn out 
to be what MEG has become.  I still can't put my finger on precisely 
how and why a group of 42 MEG friends went from functioning well and 
liking each other and running the best list anywhere to being in a 
state of intermittent warfare, but once is enough for me.  

I have theories about where things went wrong and how we can avoid 
the same mistakes.  Everything I am going to say will be my own take 
on various bits of MEG history and practice, based on faded memory 
of outdated information.  Please don't quibble with me too much on 
details, but try to focus on the principles being discussed.  Also, 
I believe that all of the MEGs who are on this list believe strongly 
in the governing principles of MEG, so I will be articulating a 
minority viewpoint as I try to find my way here.  So go easy on me, 
OK?

I.  CIVILITY.

We cannot achieve anything if we do not get along.  There are people 
on this list who don't like me, and there are people on this list I 
don't count among my closest friends.  I can work with them because 
I am an adult.  If someone on this list upsets you or does something 
that you don't like, it might be best to assume the best of 
intentions and be kind and patient.  As a Moderator of HPfGU, I had 
the power to address rudeness.  That is not the case here, so all I 
can do is beg.

Further, let's check our grudges and personal animosity at the door, 
shall we?  If the three former Moderators on this list can do that, 
everyone else should be able to as well.

Lecture over.

II.  DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!

As I see it, there are two basic ways to run a working group like 
this.  

Option 1:  Benign Dictatorship.

You elect 2-3 people to be the leaders.  They keep an eye on things, 
keep things from falling through the cracks, nudge people who are 
procrastinating, think ahead, handle interpersonal issues, work off-
list to extinguish fires, make the decision when there is a split of 
opinion, etc.  That is what we were doing on this list previously, 
more or less.

Option 2:  Democracy

Every member has an equal say in all decisions, and majority rules.  
You might have a few designated individuals to move things along, 
but no one calls the shots.  Everyone has the same amount of 
influence and power, and no one is ever disenfranchised.

Democracy sounds great, huh?  Most of us live in countries that have 
democratic governance, so the idea has appeal.

IMHO, trying to run a group like this or MEG via democracy is 
doomed, doomed, doomed.

Problems include:

1.  The Majority can be wrong or unfair.  

Majority groups can trample the rights of minority groups, so proper 
democracies have safeguards to protect minority groups.  Often, 
democracies function under an articulation of important principles 
(a constitution) as well as checks and balances.  

Imagine that in real life, the citizens of Arizona decided that all 
black people must be sent back to Africa.  This would never be 
implemented because the Constitution prohibits it and the courts 
uphold the Constitution.  The majority does not get its way because 
the majority is doing the wrong thing and is being unfair.

MEG has no such safeguards or checks and balances.  If MEG voted 
that TBAY should be banned (and yes, some MEGs have advocated that), 
then TBAY would be banned ?- even though doing such a thing would be 
inconsistent with the principles that guide this list.  In contrast, 
the Moderator Team, being a benign dictatorship, simply refused to 
ban TBAY, and would have reached the same conclusion about TBAY (or 
any other style of prefixed post) even if the majority of MEGs 
disagreed.

2.  Democracy is about making list administrators feel empowered 
than about the best interests of the list.

Oooh, those are fighting words, huh?  ;-)

I think Tom's poll will be very useful in helping illustrate what I 
mean here.  Tom, feeling that certain issues were important, set up 
a poll here on FAQ.  Some people reacted badly to this.  But why?  
What harm was done?  None, as far as I can see.  So why all the 
hostility?  Beats me.  

I just think that sometimes people like to have their say, even if 
they have nothing to say.  They want to be consulted on everything.  
This strikes me as peculiar.  In my profession, everyone is expected 
to pick up balls and run with them.  Those who do not don't last 
long.  If someone takes an action without consulting someone, it 
would be considered inappropriate to object and then fail to 
identify a substantive mistake or omission in what was done.  In 
contrast, in a democracy, no one can make a move without 
permission.  

Oh, the trouble this can cause.  I remember that there were 
instances where MEGs voted "no" on a proposal because they didn't 
understand it.  There were times when interest in a proposal was so 
low that it was difficult to have a vote at all.  IMHO, becoming a 
democracy meant that MEG spent *way* too much time talking about MEG 
and not nearly enough time talking about the lists -? and preparing 
for OoP.  MEG was bogged down, not lean and mean.

I'll use Heidi's FF message of today as an example.  I would have no 
trouble had Heidi just gone ahead and posted her message without 
consulting this group.  If she would like input or is unsure of 
herself, she can and should consult this group, of course.  On the 
other hand, I decided to consult with you all before asking our 
members to advise us of Fantastic posts.  But I'd prefer that we not 
require people to consult and seek permission on simple matters ? so 
long as they are mature enough to take the consequences if they err. 

3.  Democracy leads to illogical piece-meal decisions.

Democracy carries the risk that weird things will be decided because 
the group is working piecemeal rather than having one or two smart 
people develop a comprehensive strategy.

For instance, when I was on MEG, lots of people had different 
proposals for how the group was to be governed.  At some point, we 
had to find a way to take a poll that would help us determine the 
very best proposal.  Elkins and I had a very long YM in which we 
tried to figure out a polling strategy that would allow polling to 
work effectively and expediently.  

We discovered that it was not feasible to simply put each proposal 
to a vote ? voters could be expected to vote against the proposal if 
they objected to any of its components.  Voting against the 
proposals individually, we felt, also wouldn't work because each 
proposal only made sense with all of its individual components.  We 
got nowhere.  

I don't know if MEG ever found a way around this problem, but I have 
my doubts.  On the question of whether MEG will add new elves now 
(or perhaps explaining why MEG had not already done so), Judy 
indicated that they will not because it takes too long to train 
them.  At the same time, it appears that MEG has decided (on a 
separate vote?) that it wants only elves with no experience.  
Somehow, these issues seem related to me, and I wonder if an 
individual tasked with sorting out personnel issues on MEG would 
have perhaps recognized that something was amiss.

3.  Democracy is a time suck.

When I was on MEG, the hope was to rule via democracy.  This meant 
that issues were raised on MEG, then there might be a straw poll to 
figure out if there was interest in the idea, then there would be 
discussion, then there would be a vote.  The voting period had to be 
long enough to allow everyone to think things over and then vote.  
The polling options had to be to everyone's liking, so drafts of the 
polls were floated.  There was once a poll to decide how what 
percentage was required before the measure passed.

In contrast, in a benign dictatorship, someone has an idea and 
either just executes it if it is a simple matter, or more often than 
not, just raises the issue in the group with a "I'm going to do this 
tomorrow if no one objects."  If someone fails to object, they won't 
usually say, "Hey, how come no one waited for me!"  If a serious 
problem is identified with the action taken, it is simply fixed.

4.  This is a fun hobby, not a small nation.

MEG has been discussing how MEG will govern MEG for 4 months now, 
and there is no end in sight, I believe.  I didn't come to this list 
to grind through complex discussions about governance.  I came to 
write FPs.  Benign dictatorship will save us a huge and protracted 
governance discussion.

After all, I can't think of a single successful corporation that 
uses a form of democracy to make decisions.  I smile at the idea of 
Ford Motor Company gathering everyone in the cafeteria to vote on 
whether to recall a vehicle.  No, successful groups run as lean and 
mean as possible.  Everyone doesn't get input into everything, and I 
would think that is even more important given that HPfGU is just a 
pleasant diversion and none of us wants to devote our lives to it.

Abigail wrote:

>I see no meaning in claiming that FAQ is or 
>is not independant from MEG.  Ignoring the fact that half our 
>members are MEGs, what control does that list exert over us?  
>Really?  What meaning would our so-called independance have? 

Actually, those are good questions and are very difficult to 
address.  I know this because Amy and I struggled with them when we 
discussed autonomy.  

To elaborate, one thing that concerned me was that Amy seemed to be 
saying that (going from memory) FAQ members are list administrators 
in a sense, kind of, sort of.  To me, this raised the possibility 
that all or some of MEG believed that its personnel policies might 
apply to the FAQ list.  

For instance, many MEGs seemed to like the idea of six-month term 
limits for MEGs.  You know, make it so that list administrators were 
less entrenched, give others a chance, get a fresh set of eyes.  
Term limits, IMHO, would be a terrible idea for FAQ, as we don't 
want people to drop projects because their time is up before their 
work is completed.  Also, FAQ work requires people who are excellent 
writers, so the talent pool is much smaller.  But if MEG were to 
decide that term limits were necessary on both FAQ and MEG 
because "it's the HPfGU way of life," I suppose they could decide 
that and impose that upon us if the majority of MEGs wished to do so.

The issues, then, are both difficult to grasp, hypothetical in 
nature , yet threatening to FAQ list members nonetheless.  Obtaining 
some clarity on it would be nice, but I have no idea how to frame 
the issues.

I do have one thought, though.  We could flip this problem around 
and look at it backwards.  We could envision what an ideal MEG/FAQ 
relationship would be, and then try to get as close to that as we 
can.

In my mind, an ideal relationship would be symbiotic, and MEG would 
know what was going on at FAQ, and vice versa.  This should reduce 
miscommunication and enhance trust.  If MEG wants a second opinion 
or can't find a solution to a problem, they should feel free to 
consult with FAQ members off-list for a fresh perspective and use 
FAQ as a resource.  If one group is overwhelmed, perhaps they could 
delegate to volunteers on the other list.  

The alternative, I fear, is that the trust issues will overwhelm 
us.  I sense a feeling that some FAQ members believe that the mere 
presence of many MEGs on FAQ means that the lines of communication 
will be open and there is no issue to address.  I don't think that 
is true at all, largely because the MEGs on the FAQ list are 
inundated and do not have time to monitor this list closely and 
issue-spot for us.  Also, MEG has (I believed) beefed up its 
confidentiality expectations and its members feel constrained in 
what they can say about MEG business.  

For that reason, I think that the way to address the autonomy issue 
is to have the FAQ list leader/leaders be members of MEG.  If the 
leaders are not members of MEG, then they would need to join.  And 
if MEG refuses, well . . . then I don't know what to say.  

This suggestion would mean two things:  (1) if autonomy is something 
that concerns us, we might be better off having a benign 
dictatorship in which our leaders know what is going on with MEG, 
and (2) I can't be a leader of this group.

OK.  I've said a lot of harsh things about MEG, I know.  But as I 
said, I still find it amazing that a group of friends -- the 8 mods 
and then the 42 MEGs -? could find themselves with all of these 
problems in so short a period of time.  Is the problem the people 
involved or the process?  Well, it's probably a bit of both, if 
truth be told.  But I can't help thinking that the current problems 
on the list and on MEG are more the result of choosing democracy and 
all of its disadvantages.

So can we just elect some leaders, see if MEG will accept them, and 
then get back to work?  

Cindy -- just tossing out ideas




From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Wed Aug 20 19:32:48 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:32:48 -0000
Subject: I propose...
In-Reply-To: <bhu6qj+1l4k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi0id0+s14t@eGroups.com>

 
> Pip wrote:
> On the whole, I personally see FAQ as a semi-autonomous task  
> force, free to decide for itself how and by whom its work is 
> organised.

> Tom replies:
> Since I'm already inclined to see it this way, I think that's a 
> great point, Pip!

And I meant it, too.

<Snip the details of the poll>

Like Abigail, I'm not sure *how* FAQ could be completely autonomous. 
A 'hands off' policy, where we decided that as far as possible we 
would not interfere with the way you run things, has actually been 
in operation for a while. Again, the problem is probably that we 
forgot to tell you ;-)

I think myself that FAQ is more symbiotic with HPfGU than the 
Lexicon, because the Fantastic Posts are taken from HPfGU posts. FAQ 
members are taken from the HPfGU lists. So things like list quality 
affect you - which is a good argument for a two way flow of 
information.

The problem has been that that two way flow just hasn't happened. 
Every time you ask questions, they vanish into a black hole 
(sometimes by sheer accident, which is what happened to your set of 
questions, Tom). Unfortunately, because you can't see what's going 
on, you don't know that. Tom doesn't know that loads of MEGs were 
saying 'bloody good questions'. He couldn't know, because this all 
takes place in secret.


How do we change?

*******************************************************************

Several people have asked that FAQ stick to 'things of relevance to 
FAQ'. Personally, whilst this is new to most of FAQ, for me it's 
been going on since March. 

So you have to understand that rehashing Modgate yet again tends to 
evoke thoughts of suicide in many MEGs and former MEGs. I've been 
fighting a desire to say 'Will you shut up about this, already' - 
not because I want to stop you talking, but because I'm just 
personally *so* sick of the whole subject. 

I'd like to be able to devote time to working out a new system of 
governance for MEG which is more open, more responsive, and selects 
new elves in a way that's more appropriate to a list of 10,000 
people. Spending yet more time discussing the events of March/April 
is depressing for me as a person. I understand that you folks have 
been kept in the dark too long, and want to know - but to those who 
went through it, the events here on FAQ provoke flashbacks to 
Modgate. 

So, have we told you enough? And do you have any suggestions? Being 
told 'you're doing it all wrong' is interesting, but it's not half 
as useful as - 'have you thought about doing it this way, instead?'. 

Pip







From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Aug 20 21:07:12 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:07:12 -0000
Subject: Bouncing Mike
Message-ID: <bi0nu0+28bt@eGroups.com>

Hi, all,

Our membership number declined to 39, but I think Mike is soft 
bouncing.  I can't see any indication that he unsubbed.  

Um, are we supposed to do something to help him fix this?  I've 
never understood how this works.

Cindy




From editor at texas.net  Wed Aug 20 23:39:14 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:39:14 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Bouncing Mike
References: <bi0nu0+28bt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c36774$454198e0$0704a6d8@texas.net>

Cindy:

> Our membership number declined to 39, but I think Mike is soft
> bouncing.  I can't see any indication that he unsubbed.
>
> Um, are we supposed to do something to help him fix this?  I've
> never understood how this works.

He's bouncing on MEG, too. Someone speculated that he's away and his mailbox
is full of virus-laden spam, courtesy of the -owners address.

No idea what to do.

~Amanda






From heidit at netbox.com  Thu Aug 21 00:09:35 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 20:09:35 -0400
Subject: Can I make an edit?
Message-ID: <1061424580.3B4DBE05@s5.dngr.org>

Despite Cindy's assurances to the contrary, I do plan to continue asking 
before posting on behalf of the group, and also before editing things 
that are visible to the public on the fantastic_posts yahoogroup.  After 
all, if one is going to speak for a group of bright and diverse 
personalities, one should at least be willing to give 24 hours or so for 
those colleagues to give comment, imo.

So along those lines, if nobody objects by tomorrow evening, I'm going 
to edit the front page of the f_p yahoogroup so that 'please post a 
message here' links to the *post* page of the group.

I think we should also create a template, because we all know that 
searching for a post from a particular day is difficult, whereas 
searching when you have the post's number is dead easy, and with the way 
the front page looks now, people might not give the url or post number, 
but the author and date instead.

If nobody objects or has edits, tomorrow evening, I'll add this:
Url of Fantastic Post or Post's number:
Author of Fantastic Post:
Topic of Fantastic Post:
Date of Fantastic Post:
------
Feel free to edit; I have no pride of authorship with this.

As an fyi, I've edited the membership stuff, per the discussions earlier 
today and yesterday, so anyone can post, attachments are stripped (to 
save us from virus risk if anyone wants to get the group via individual 
messages) and only members can see the archives.

Heidi



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Aug 21 00:42:38 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:42:38 -0000
Subject: Can I make an edit?
In-Reply-To: <1061424580.3B4DBE05@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <bi14hu+c15c@eGroups.com>

Hey!

Heidi wrote:

> Despite Cindy's assurances to the contrary, 

Oh hey.  Hang on.  I wasn't making any assurances or anything.  No, 
no, no.  I was just explaining my own POV, is all.  Advocacy, not 
assurances.  That post wasn't intended to be any sort of ruling or 
decision on what we will or won't do.  

Sorry for any confusion.

Cindy -- one more week until school starts!




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Thu Aug 21 09:18:55 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:18:55 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Can I make an edit?
References: <1061424580.3B4DBE05@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <005701c367c5$3f340d60$9ddc5644@arlngt01.va.comcast.net>

Heidi wrote:
  I think we should also create a template, because we all know that 
  searching for a post from a particular day is difficult, whereas 
  searching when you have the post's number is dead easy, and with the way 
  the front page looks now, people might not give the url or post number, 
  but the author and date instead.

  If nobody objects or has edits, tomorrow evening, I'll add this:
  Url of Fantastic Post or Post's number:
  Author of Fantastic Post:
  Topic of Fantastic Post:
  Date of Fantastic Post:
If we have the post number and author, we probably don't need the date.  However, could we perhaps say "Description of Fantastic Post" instead of (or perhaps in addition to) "Topic" which might garner us a better explanation of what the post is about?  If we just say "topic" it might come back as "Umbridge" but "description" would be more likely to be "analysis of Umbridge's narrative function".

Also, I'd like to refocus on the suggestion Amanda made the other day:


<<Why don't we make a database on the main list, so the members can 
access it, and have them log likely candidates? The complexities of 
how to access it will filter a few of them. What do you think?>>

This would give members two methods of nominating posts.  I think some members might be more willing to add posts to the database than to send suggestions off into the ether.  Also, we could start the database with a couple of examples of our own, so they could see exactly what kind of information we're looking for.

I actually think the main list database is a much better and simpler solution than sending messages to the archive list, which are going to have to be sifted through message by message and put into a usable format.  This way, the messages would be in a single easy-to-read database which can (I think) be imported into this group intact.  The separate archives list always struck me as a very cumbersome way of doing this.  

I'm sorry I didn't make this comment earlier.  Unfortunately, my office's internet connection was offline on Monday, and by the time I was back online, it seemed to already be too late to object.  This is why I think a 24 hour comment period is really necessary if the group's opinions are asked for.

Does anyone else have thoughts on any of this?  

Debbie

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Aug 21 13:37:29 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:37:29 -0000
Subject: Can I make an edit?
In-Reply-To: <005701c367c5$3f340d60$9ddc5644@arlngt01.va.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <bi2hup+8fqa@eGroups.com>

Hey,

I think that asking that messages be sent to the other FAQ list is a 
better idea, for two reasons.

First, I don't think we want members reading the database.  They'll 
be looking for their own posts, and when their own posts don't turn 
up in an FP, they may feel insulted.  

Second, we can give instructions on the home page of the Other FAQ 
list, but I don't think we can do that with a database.

Cindy


--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" <elfundeb at c...> wrote:
> Heidi wrote:
>   I think we should also create a template, because we all know 
that 
>   searching for a post from a particular day is difficult, whereas 
>   searching when you have the post's number is dead easy, and with 
the way 
>   the front page looks now, people might not give the url or post 
number, 
>   but the author and date instead.
> 
>   If nobody objects or has edits, tomorrow evening, I'll add this:
>   Url of Fantastic Post or Post's number:
>   Author of Fantastic Post:
>   Topic of Fantastic Post:
>   Date of Fantastic Post:
> If we have the post number and author, we probably don't need the 
date.  However, could we perhaps say "Description of Fantastic Post" 
instead of (or perhaps in addition to) "Topic" which might garner us 
a better explanation of what the post is about?  If we just 
say "topic" it might come back as "Umbridge" but "description" would 
be more likely to be "analysis of Umbridge's narrative function".
> 
> Also, I'd like to refocus on the suggestion Amanda made the other 
day:
> 
> 
> <<Why don't we make a database on the main list, so the members 
can 
> access it, and have them log likely candidates? The complexities 
of 
> how to access it will filter a few of them. What do you think?>>
> 
> This would give members two methods of nominating posts.  I think 
some members might be more willing to add posts to the database than 
to send suggestions off into the ether.  Also, we could start the 
database with a couple of examples of our own, so they could see 
exactly what kind of information we're looking for.
> 
> I actually think the main list database is a much better and 
simpler solution than sending messages to the archive list, which 
are going to have to be sifted through message by message and put 
into a usable format.  This way, the messages would be in a single 
easy-to-read database which can (I think) be imported into this 
group intact.  The separate archives list always struck me as a very 
cumbersome way of doing this.  
> 
> I'm sorry I didn't make this comment earlier.  Unfortunately, my 
office's internet connection was offline on Monday, and by the time 
I was back online, it seemed to already be too late to object.  This 
is why I think a 24 hour comment period is really necessary if the 
group's opinions are asked for.
> 
> Does anyone else have thoughts on any of this?  
> 
> Debbie
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Aug 21 14:00:05 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:00:05 -0500
Subject: Fantastic Post Flagging & Governance and Autonomy
References: <bi0d21+7s7n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02e601c367ec$876f0a90$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

I actually like Debbie's suggestion of having a database as one option for main list members to use.  I'd be in favor of having an email option, but I think the database just sounds tons easier from an administrative point of view, long-term especially.

<<<<<<<So can we just elect some leaders, see if MEG will accept them, and then get back to work?>>>>>>>>>

Yes, I wish you'd just cut to the chase without the lengthy discourse on your view of the various failings of MEG over the years, but I agree with your final end conclusion, Cindy.  

I don't know if dissociating this group from MEG's purview is still on the table officially or not, but I do want to comment briefly on how I see this issue.  MEG is at the moment the governing administrative body for HPfGU.  The FPs are based on HPFGU posts and a resource for HPfGU members.  If MEG no longer exercised any control over the FPs or the group tasked with creating them, then I don't see how the FPs could be said to be fully within the HPfGU purview.  Accordingly, I'd probably have to seriously consider withdrawing the 9-10 FPs that I wrote originally (which, I might add, is a still substantial percentage of what's "live" at the moment).  Please don't misunderstand: this isn't a threat.  But, those FPs are based on quotes from HPfGU posts, some of which I obtained specific permission to use for this purpose, and as Heidi has explained, HPfGU has a license to use quotes for this purpose.  So, speaking as a lawyer, I am not at all comfortable with the idea of having this group be independent of HPfGU.  My apologies if I've misunderstood the basic premise or if that option has been tabled already.

Penny  




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From editor at texas.net  Thu Aug 21 15:07:56 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:07:56 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Fantastic Post Flagging & Governance and Autonomy
References: <bi0d21+7s7n@eGroups.com> <02e601c367ec$876f0a90$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>
Message-ID: <002601c367f6$01c7e880$5604a6d8@texas.net>

Penny:

> I actually like Debbie's suggestion of having a database as one option for
main list members to use.  I'd be in favor of having an email option, but I
think the database just sounds tons easier from an administrative point of
view, long-term especially.

Is there a reason we can't do both? Options are good; we just have to
remember to *check* the things, but we can possibly set up a cycling
responsibility like the elves have? I mean, we'd have to remember to check,
either way.

> <<<<<<<So can we just elect some leaders, see if MEG will accept them, and
then get back to work?>>>>>>>>>
>
> Yes, I wish you'd just cut to the chase without the lengthy discourse on
your view of the various failings of MEG over the years, but I agree with
your final end conclusion, Cindy.

I'm not sure I do. If there's any list that seems to operate well by
consensus, it's this one (at least, when we're *active*). We are a focused
list with one purpose: comb the main list posts for candidates for
inclusion; compile FAQs. When there's questions about how to do something,
we discuss. It works.

About the only thing I think we'd need to elect is a representative to MEG,
if you want to start doing "status reports" or anything.

I *so* don't want to get into another governance discussion on another list.
When we're working on FAQs, it *works.* Let's not get derailed yet again.

~Amanda




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Aug 21 15:53:39 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:53:39 -0000
Subject: I . . . I'm a Public Nuisance!
Message-ID: <bi2pu3+l0lc@eGroups.com>

Uh oh.

You'll all recall that someone has been using my e-mail address for 
spoofing.  I receive many e-mails each days that bounce back to me, 
and the addressee was always someone I've never heard of.  This is 
annoying, but I haven't found a solution yet.

Well, an e-mail just bounced back to me (to my "cindysphynx" 
address), but this time the addressee was Mike!  The heading was "My 
Details."  That must mean I have that virus thing that is going 
around that invades your address book and sends e-mails to people.  
My husband's office sent around a warning about it just yesterday, 
and he forwarded it to me.  I can forward that here, if you like.

In the meantime, uh . . . shun my off-list e-mails.

Cindy




From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk  Thu Aug 21 16:23:29 2003
From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:23:29 -0000
Subject: Unsubbing
Message-ID: <bi2rm1+n417@eGroups.com>

Hi all,

I've just caught up on this list in the first time in ages - having 
slightly more time on my hands since moving house.  And what do I 
find?   That the whole Modgate stuff has been stirred up yet again.  
Well, I just can't deal with reading posts such as Dicey's without 
wanting to rant again - and God knows, I've held my tongue until 
this point and I'm not going to start venting now.   I left MEG 
primarily for that reason, and it's best that I do the same thing 
here.

It's just all too depressing for words.  

Catherine




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 21 16:05:17 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Fantastic Post Flagging & Governance and Autonomy
In-Reply-To: <002601c367f6$01c7e880$5604a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <20030821160517.96568.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com>

Cindy wrote:

> So can we just elect some leaders, see if
> MEG will accept them, and
> then get back to work?
> 

And then Heidi wrote:

> Yes, I wish you'd just cut to the chase without
> the lengthy discourse on
> your view of the various failings of MEG over the
> years, but I agree with
> your final end conclusion, Cindy.
> 

Well. . . although she could hardly just say: "We need
a benign dictatorship and not a democracy" without
*some* explanation, could she? How would *that* have
come across? (Besides, those who do not remember the
past. . .) 

But yeah. I agree with the end conclusion too.

Amanda wrote:

> I'm not sure I do. If there's any list that seems to
> operate well by
> consensus, it's this one (at least, when we're
> *active*). We are a focused
> list with one purpose: comb the main list posts for
> candidates for
> inclusion; compile FAQs. When there's questions
> about how to do something,
> we discuss. It works.
> 
> About the only thing I think we'd need to elect is a
> representative to MEG,
> if you want to start doing "status reports" or
> anything.

*No!* Nonononono! I *need* a benign dictator!

I'm with Heidi and Cindy on this one. Either FAQ
should have a BD, or the working house teams should
each have a Head of House, or *something.* There has
to be some kind of centralized authority -- to kick
people when they procrastinate, to help out us *still*
very confused newbies, to make judgement calls when
they need to be made. Anyway, if I don't have someone
in authority over me, I will procrastinate from here
until kingdom *come.* [1] If we don't have some kind
of centralized authority, I will either want my own
*personal* dictator, or you will want to kick me off
the list, because I won't be getting very much done.

And, while I frankly doubt that anyone here
procrastinates to the extent that I do, I surely can't
be the only one with *some* issues that way. And
leaders are useful for procrastinators. 

Amanda:

> I *so* don't want to get into another governance
> discussion on another list.
> When we're working on FAQs, it *works.* Let's not
> get derailed yet again.

Actually, this entire discussion is something of a
case in point -- if we had a leader, we wouldn't *get*
bogged down in governmental decisions, because one
individual would just make those calls. And it does
seem likely that governmental decisions will resurface
again at some point -- when they do, will we have any
more of a structure to handle them than we do now?

I dunno. Maybe I'm just a creature of structure, but I
think that things here are just sort of. . .
*chaotic,* as is. I'm not very good at coping with
those sorts of situations -- I'm never sure what I'm
supposed to be doing, and so I never get very much
done.



Derannimer

[1] "I've been living my life for a long time. I know
how it works." -- Rincewind the Wizzard, Terry
Pratchett's _The Last Hero_.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



From heidit at netbox.com  Thu Aug 21 16:38:21 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:38:21 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Fantastic Post Flagging & Governance and Autonomy
In-Reply-To: <20030821160517.96568.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030821160517.96568.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1061483908.1C54B567@r5.dngr.org>

Nup, wasn't me. Was it penny?

Heidi, who's already deleted emails but thinks that having 4 team 
leaders might make sense and not pu the whole onus on one person


On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:32PM -0500, Susannah Myers wrote:
> Real-To:  Susannah Myers <susannahlm at yahoo.com>
>
> Cindy wrote:
>
>>  So can we just elect some leaders, see if
>>  MEG will accept them, and
>>  then get back to work?
>>
>
> And then Heidi wrote:
>
>>  Yes, I wish you'd just cut to the chase without
>>  the lengthy discourse on
>>  your view of the various failings of MEG over the
>>  years, but I agree with
>>  your final end conclusion, Cindy.
>>
>
> Well. . . although she could hardly just say: "We need
> a benign dictatorship and not a democracy" without
> *some* explanation, could she? How would *that* have
> come across? (Besides, those who do not remember the
> past. . .)
>
> But yeah. I agree with the end conclusion too.
>
> Amanda wrote:
>
>>  I'm not sure I do. If there's any list that seems to
>>  operate well by
>>  consensus, it's this one (at least, when we're
>>  *active*). We are a focused
>>  list with one purpose: comb the main list posts for
>>  candidates for
>>  inclusion; compile FAQs. When there's questions
>>  about how to do something,
>>  we discuss. It works.
>>
>>  About the only thing I think we'd need to elect is a
>>  representative to MEG,
>>  if you want to start doing "status reports" or
>>  anything.
>
> *No!* Nonononono! I *need* a benign dictator!
>
> I'm with Heidi and Cindy on this one. Either FAQ
> should have a BD, or the working house teams should
> each have a Head of House, or *something.* There has
> to be some kind of centralized authority -- to kick
> people when they procrastinate, to help out us *still*
> very confused newbies, to make judgement calls when
> they need to be made. Anyway, if I don't have someone
> in authority over me, I will procrastinate from here
> until kingdom *come.* [1] If we don't have some kind
> of centralized authority, I will either want my own
> *personal* dictator, or you will want to kick me off
> the list, because I won't be getting very much done.
>
> And, while I frankly doubt that anyone here
> procrastinates to the extent that I do, I surely can't
> be the only one with *some* issues that way. And
> leaders are useful for procrastinators.
>
> Amanda:
>
>>  I *so* don't want to get into another governance
>>  discussion on another list.
>>  When we're working on FAQs, it *works.* Let's not
>>  get derailed yet again.
>
> Actually, this entire discussion is something of a
> case in point -- if we had a leader, we wouldn't *get*
> bogged down in governmental decisions, because one
> individual would just make those calls. And it does
> seem likely that governmental decisions will resurface
> again at some point -- when they do, will we have any
> more of a structure to handle them than we do now?
>
> I dunno. Maybe I'm just a creature of structure, but I
> think that things here are just sort of. . .
> *chaotic,* as is. I'm not very good at coping with
> those sorts of situations -- I'm never sure what I'm
> supposed to be doing, and so I never get very much
> done.
>
>
>
> Derannimer
>
> [1] "I've been living my life for a long time. I know
> how it works." -- Rincewind the Wizzard, Terry
> Pratchett's _The Last Hero_.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Aug 21 18:04:47 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:04:47 -0000
Subject: Governance and Autonomy
In-Reply-To: <002601c367f6$01c7e880$5604a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bi31jv+stke@eGroups.com>

Amanda:

> If there's any list that seems to operate well by
> consensus, it's this one (at least, when we're *active*). We are a 
>focused list with one purpose: comb the main list posts for 
>candidates for inclusion; compile FAQs. When there's questions 
about how to do something,
> we discuss. It works.

Actually, um, we've always been a BD.  I was the dictator on and off 
since October, although opinions may differ on whether I was benign 
or not.  ;-)

As BD, I handled lots of touchy interpersonal issues off-list, which 
is why FAQ members weren't burdened by them and we merrily posted 
bios and wrote silly posts etc.  Highlights include:

"Cindy, if she posts that crap again, I will scream!  *Do something!*

"Cindy, I want to work on the XXX FP, but so-and-so just joined and 
I can't work with her.  Can you smooth things over?"

"Cindy, I wrote this whole FP, and so-and-so is trying to change it 
and his changes *suck.*  Am I out of line here?"

And so forth.  

Also, my knowledge of past MEG smackdowns was useful in predicting 
which interpersonal issues required intervention and which did not.  

So yeah.  You need a leadership team.  If anything, I should have 
been doing much more over the last month or so, and I apologize for 
the resulting chaos.  It wasn't fun for me, either.  ;-)

Further, I think you need more than one person to lead.  I darn near 
killed myself last winter, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  
Also, when Elkins was around, I had someone to bounce ideas off of, 
which was helpful.  Also, this gives FAQ members a choice of leaders 
to approach -- who knows, maybe their complaint concerns the leader 
himself.

Lastly, we need leaders who can handle discipline off-list so that 
rudeness and personal attacks are addressed and that repeat 
offenders are dealt with in a way that doesn't spoil the party here.


> About the only thing I think we'd need to elect is a 
>representative to MEG,if you want to start doing "status reports" 
>or anything.

I'd recommend the following course of action:

1.  Agree that we want a BD (does anyone want to make the case for 
democracy, BTW?).  The leaders will have unlimited powers to use 
their discretion to resolve problems in the best interests of the 
group, hopefully in a way consistent with efficiency, fair play,  
due process and the like.  They could, for instance, unilaterally 
decide whether Pippin's new member could join so that this group 
needn't debate the issue.  They would, of course, seek our input on 
many things and do their deliberations and express their opinions 
and, well, *lead* here on this list.  They would be *benign.*

2.  All leaders must be on MEG.  Having a liaison to MEG won't work 
(IMHO) because the liaison might not twigg to issues without 
knowledge of what the leadership team is coping with, and the 
leadership team shouldn't hear about MEG issues as filtered through 
the eyes of the liaison.  

3.  To select leaders, we should set up a database on this list.  
Anyone who does *not* wish to be a leader under any circumstances 
will list their name.  We will then have a list of potential 
nominees.  We will have nominations -- no one nominates themselves --
 and then a vote, with election requiring a 75% supermajority.  If 
six people run and only three get supermajorities, then we have 
three leaders.

Anyway, that's what I'd do.

Cindy




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 21 16:13:53 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] I . . . I'm a Public Nuisance!
In-Reply-To: <bi2pu3+l0lc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20030821161353.83317.qmail@web14307.mail.yahoo.com>

Um. Come to think of it, I might be one too. 

I found a message in my Inbox this morning from
tiara_askew, with the subject heading: "That Movie."
Now, I thought this was odd, as I couldn't recall
writing to her *at all* recently. (I guess I must have
once, though, or she wouldn't have my email address.)
So, as I'd seen news about the virus, I didn't open
the attachment -- I *did* click on the email though,
come to think of it. Whoops. I scanned the attachment
with Norton and Norton said that it had the virus; I
just hit the back button and deleted the message.

So: opened email, did not open attachment, deleted
email. D'you think my email has it?



Derannimer, who suggests that, until she knows one way
or the other, no one open her off-list emails either.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



From editor at texas.net  Thu Aug 21 19:33:00 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:33:00 -0500
Subject: Governance, and some FAQ task stuff
References: <bi31jv+stke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003101c3681b$0a497da0$106463d1@texas.net>

Cindy:

> Also, my knowledge of past MEG smackdowns was useful in predicting
> which interpersonal issues required intervention and which did not.
>
> So yeah.  You need a leadership team.

>From your example, sounds to me like we need a counselor.

>Also, this gives FAQ members a choice of leaders
> to approach -- who knows, maybe their complaint concerns the leader
> himself.

This may be a silly question, but why the hell weren't these people talking
to each *other*? If I have a problem with someone, I'm going to talk to that
someone or make a choice to live with the situation. I'm not going to go
complaining to someone else in the expectation of the someone else's fixing
it.

I'm not sure that's what I want a leader *for.* Someone to be there to be
complained to when others have a problem with me? No, thanks.

> Lastly, we need leaders who can handle discipline off-list so that
> rudeness and personal attacks are addressed and that repeat
> offenders are dealt with in a way that doesn't spoil the party here.

Discipline. I'm sorry. I don't think I want to be disciplined by a Leader,
either. If I step over the line, I expect to hear about it. From anyone I
offended; from anyone I hurt. But not from the Leader who is Disciplining me
so that I will be a productive worker bee again. Nope. We are a group of
equals and I'm not ready to change that.

Cindy, you may have assumed a mantle, but I for one simply considered you as
a great organizer who got things done. If you served in other capacities
offlist, thank you and I'm glad they seemed helpful, but that was offlist. I
think the business of this list stops with the list, and empowering someone
to take offlist actions is not within that scope.

I see no reason to set up a structure like this, where we can so readily be
distracted into discussions of the structure and away from our purpose. Like
this post shows.

A hierarchy is not what I'm after. I don't mind point-people or
spokespersons. But I definitely don't want a Leader to whom I am expected to
be subservient. If that's not what you meant to intimate, clarify.

> 1.  Agree that we want a BD (does anyone want to make the case for
> democracy, BTW?).

I want to make the case for dropping this discussion, getting on with
things, and seeing how things progress. If a difficult situation arises,
let's deal with it then.

My favorite example: the architect who won some award for his dorm grouping.
He built the dorms, put in the landscaping, did everything but put in
sidewalks. People pointed this out; he said to wait. Three months later
there were "wear patterns" in the grass, and that's where he poured the
walkways. They were both attractive and *effective,* because they reinforced
patterns that had been established.

So. What is wrong with getting on with the job and seeing what patterns
emerge?

> 2.  All leaders must be on MEG.

I have a problem with this, because it limits selection, and because you
will not be able to stop your leadership qualities just because you don't
wear the label. And if we end up doing this thing, you have disqualified
yourself, opening us up to problems when you can't help but want to help.

>  Having a liaison to MEG won't work
> (IMHO) because the liaison might not twigg to issues without
> knowledge of what the leadership team is coping with, and the
> leadership team shouldn't hear about MEG issues as filtered through
> the eyes of the liaison.

Ah, this is too paranoid for me. If MEG wants to know more, they can ask any
FAQ member or join the list as an observer.

I think this is a giant waste of time and I applaud those who are getting
things rolling on the mechanism for nominating good posts. MEG has been
asked about our posting an ADMIN to the main list. I think we need to ask
about making a database, so we can have both mechanisms for nomination
available.

I also think someone needs to write step-by-step instructions for how you
email a nomination to the other list or whatever, because I, for one, still
don't really understand it. I need short words of one syllable or less.

~Amanda





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Aug 21 22:57:29 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:57:29 -0000
Subject: ::waves to Michelle::
Message-ID: <bi3iop+kne2@eGroups.com>

Hey,

We appear to have a new member -- Michelle from the FAQ 
list!  ::schnoogles Michelle::

Michelle, don't forget to do your bio (search for a thread 
called "Getting to Know You").  

<stern look>

A few of the rest of you owe a bio or two.  Don't make me come over 
there!  ;-)

Cindy




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Aug 22 00:28:19 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:28:19 -0000
Subject: Governance
In-Reply-To: <003101c3681b$0a497da0$106463d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bi3o33+22p5@eGroups.com>

Amanda asked:

> This may be a silly question, but why the hell weren't these 
>people talking to each *other*? 

Who knows?  It's not a novel concept to have a Human Relations 
manager, though.  The fact that you had no idea I was doing this, 
though, suggests to me that I was doing all right.  ;-)


>If I have a problem with someone, I'm going to talk to that
> someone or make a choice to live with the situation. I'm not going 
>to go complaining to someone else in the expectation of the someone 
>else's fixing it.

You know, some people operate that way.  I operate that way, in 
fact.  Usually.

But not everything is black and white.  Sometimes people just want a 
second opinion, another perspective, a solution.  Also, we have 
newbies and veterans here, and I can understand why some folks might 
be a bit intimidated by some of the personalities around here.

I do have to say this, though.  If we do not have someone with the 
power to handle rudeness and civility, I can tell you what will 
happen.  Person A will say something snide on this list to Person B, 
and Person B will retailiate on this list.  Or Person C will take up 
for Person B.  I would like this list to be a fun place without 
sniping, myself.  If no one has the power to discipline or even 
expel problematic individuals, I think we're setting ourselves up 
for trouble, and good people will leave.

> Discipline. I'm sorry. I don't think I want to be disciplined by a 
>Leader, either. If I step over the line, I expect to hear about it. 

See, I just can't agree.  

If someone is stepping over a line, I want it dealt with.  I want 
them to receive a warning.  If they keep at it, I want them 
unsubscribed.  I am willing to trust the judgment of our leaders on 
these matters, but I don't want FAQ to be lawless.


>But not from the Leader who is Disciplining me so that I will be a 
>productive worker bee again. Nope. We are a group of
> equals and I'm not ready to change that.

Maybe we have a different idea of discipline.  I mean enforcing 
standards of civility.

As far as being a group of equals, well . . . that would be 
democracy rather than a benign dictatorship.  And I've already said 
what I think about democracy.  ;-)


> Cindy, you may have assumed a mantle, but I for one simply 
>considered you as a great organizer who got things done. If you 
>served in other capacities offlist, thank you and I'm glad they 
>seemed helpful, but that was offlist. I think the business of this 
>list stops with the list, and empowering someone
> to take offlist actions is not within that scope.

Thank you.  

I never had to give out any really serious "Do it again and you're 
gone" warnings, thankfully.  I certainly addressed instances of 
rudeness by contacting individuals off-list.  And as I explained, I 
was able to head off trouble with off-list communications.

I do not mean that the leader should *police* off-list 
communications.  No, no, no.  I mean that the leader should 
privately rebuke/discipline those who cannot speak in a civil tone 
or otherwise act like adults on this list.  

I feel fairly confident that no one could lead this list if they 
lacked the power to take off-list action.  Do you really mean *any* 
off-list action?  If, for instance, the leader hears that someone is 
about to unsub and is unhappy, obviously the leader ought to be able 
to contact them off-list and buck them up.  

> A hierarchy is not what I'm after. I don't mind point-people or
> spokespersons. But I definitely don't want a Leader to whom I am 
>expected to be subservient. If that's not what you meant to 
>intimate, clarify.

I believe that if 12 people want to work on the same FAQ and if no 
one would budge, you must have someone to decide.  That would be 
your leader.

If someone misbehaves and is rude, you would need someone with the 
authority to tell them to knock it off.  The person could even be 
placed on moderated status.  The person could be ejected.  I would 
trust our leaders to handle those things.


> I want to make the case for dropping this discussion, getting on 
>with things, and seeing how things progress. If a difficult 
>situation arises, let's deal with it then.

Well, OK.  Anyone else?


> So. What is wrong with getting on with the job and seeing what 
>patterns  emerge?

As Derannimer said, the result will be chaos.  Things feel chaotic 
to me right now, in fact.

And I gotta tell you, allowing people here to be as Rude As They 
Wanna Be is not going to work for me.

> I have a problem with this, because it limits selection, and 
>because you will not be able to stop your leadership qualities just 
>because you don't wear the label. And if we end up doing this 
>thing, you have disqualified yourself, opening us up to problems 
>when you can't help but want to help.

Um . . . I don't understand.  I really don't.  Can you explain?  I 
was planning to put my name in the database for "Those Who Will Not 
Lead, No How, No Way."  As far as limiting selection, current MEGs 
could be leaders, and non-MEGs could be leaders and simply join MEG.

Hey, I detest governance discussions, myself.  But I am hoping this 
one will be short.  In fact, I will pop over and do a poll now.  

Cindy 




From HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com  Fri Aug 22 00:32:32 2003
From: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com (HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 22 Aug 2003 00:32:32 -0000
Subject: New poll for HP4GU-FAQ 
Message-ID: <1061512352.160.11800.w42@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HP4GU-FAQ group:

How would you prefer this list to be 
governed? 

  o Democracy -- everyone is equal, and most decisions are made through polling 
  o Benign Dictatorship -- leaders elected, with leaders to have power to address civility issues, facilitate discussion, and decide close questions 
  o Consensus -- no elected leaders 
  o Undecided 
  o None of the above (or "I have a better idea") 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/surveys?id=1129279  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 01:54:38 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:54:38 -0000
Subject: Governance
In-Reply-To: <bi3o33+22p5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi3t4u+f951@eGroups.com>

I like the idea of having each of the four teams nominate a "head of 
house," but I don't see that option on the poll.  Perhaps it's 
considered the same as "BD," but I don't see it as the same.  I see 
it more as a team leader who organizes the team's FP writing efforts 
rather than a "dictator" (albeit "benign") who has the power to make 
decisions whether his/her team members agree or not.

Which is why I (alone, so far) voted for a democracy.  When I joined 
this group, I was really pleased that everyone was an equal - we were 
all mods, there was no one who had more autonomy or authority than 
anyone else.  As I have quite enough hierarchy to deal with in my 
daily government job, I would be very distressed if that were to 
change around here.

What I see is a need for a team leader to organize each of the four 
FPs and get things going.  Since this list is invitation-only and 
small in size, I think it's possible to manage it without needing to 
have a BD.

Cindy wrote:

> As far as limiting selection, current MEGs could be leaders, and 
> non-MEGs could be leaders and simply join MEG.

Perhaps it's because I'm not a member of MEG, but this confuses me.  
I thought individuals were invited to join MEG rather than this being 
an option that is open to all?  Regardless, I don't see the necessity 
of being a member of MEG in order to serve as a team leader for one 
of the FPs.

~Phyllis





From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 02:03:29 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:03:29 -0000
Subject: ::waves to Michelle::
In-Reply-To: <bi3iop+kne2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi3tlh+7127@eGroups.com>

Welcome, Michelle!

~Phyllis






From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 02:18:20 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:18:20 -0000
Subject: FP Database vs. E-Mails to Separate Group (WAS: Can I make an edit?)
In-Reply-To: <005701c367c5$3f340d60$9ddc5644@arlngt01.va.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <bi3uhc+n78q@eGroups.com>

Debbie wrote:

> Also, I'd like to refocus on the suggestion Amanda made the other 
> day:
 
> <<Why don't we make a database on the main list, so the members can 
> access it, and have them log likely candidates? The complexities of 
> how to access it will filter a few of them. What do you think?>>
 
> This would give members two methods of nominating posts.  I think 
> some members might be more willing to add posts to the database 
> than to send suggestions off into the ether.  Also, we could start 
> the database with a couple of examples of our own, so they could 
> see exactly what kind of information we're looking for.

I like the idea of offering two methods of nominating posts.  I think 
the database will make our lives easier in the long run.  And those 
who can't navigate the database would still have the option of 
sending an e-mail.

I don't see the problem with having members reading the database - 
when we put together the FPs, it's clear which posts have been 
deemed "fantastic," so if someone is going to feel insulted, the 
information on which to feel slighted is already public.  As for 
providing instructions, I think Debbie's idea of providing a couple 
of examples would help, and if this isn't sufficient, we could always 
direct people to a document in the files section which provides 
instructions.

~Phyllis




From editor at texas.net  Fri Aug 22 02:34:19 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:34:19 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Governance
References: <bi3o33+22p5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001501c36855$e729efe0$1504a6d8@texas.net>

I said, earlier:

> > So. What is wrong with getting on with the job and seeing what
> >patterns  emerge?

Cindy said:

> As Derannimer said, the result will be chaos.  Things feel chaotic
> to me right now, in fact.

It doesn't feel like chaos to me. It feels like large room full of people in
that "okay, let's get started" mode. Someone just needs to start the ball
rolling. Or balls. The chaos you feel is the milling around, until people
fall into motion in some direction.

> And I gotta tell you, allowing people here to be as Rude As They
> Wanna Be is not going to work for me.

I never said that. There will always be a certain amount of self-policing. I
don't have to be a "leader" to offlist someone who's rude on the list. If
it's egregious, I probably won't even do it offlist. And I'm willing to bet
most of our FAQ-ers feel that way. Intimidating as some of the personalities
on this list may be, none of us are exactly shrinking violets; I bet they
could gear themselves up if a need arose.

> Um . . . I don't understand.  I really don't.  Can you explain?  I
> was planning to put my name in the database for "Those Who Will Not
> Lead, No How, No Way."

Cindy. You can't help it. You see a need, you move to address it, you make
suggestions, you move and shake things. You will do this anywhere you are,
this is what you *do,* you are a fixer. If you are not on the leadership
team, this will create conflict. You'll have the best of intentions. They
may well misunderstand your motives. Why build the potential for this into
any system?

>  As far as limiting selection, current MEGs
> could be leaders, and non-MEGs could be leaders and simply join MEG.

MEG would have to buy in on this. MEGs are invited after deliberation (at
least that's the current procedure). I'm not saying that an elected leader
of FAQ won't be acceptable--but we can't presume that anyone we elect will
automatically be taken on.

If we absolutely *must* do this election thing, remove the MEG membership
requirement. What's wrong with a mix?

> Hey, I detest governance discussions, myself.  But I am hoping this
> one will be short.  In fact, I will pop over and do a poll now.

Is this informational, or binding? If the latter, what constitutes the
minimum needed to call it a Decision? And have you gotten buy-in from this
list to abide by the poll, if it's binding?

~Amanda




From editor at texas.net  Fri Aug 22 02:51:21 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:51:21 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] On Second Thought . . .
References: <bi3vsl+af3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002001c36858$4d4cdec0$1504a6d8@texas.net>

Well, *I* know her and I invited her. I was not aware of any restrictions on
bringing interested people on board, she was interested, and I thought she
would be very useful to the purpose of FAQ. Inviting her seemed the quickest
way.

Did you run every single person you brought on past everyone? I didn't make
her a Mod, as you did with everyone you brought, either. [Nor did you didn't
run *that* action past anyone.] She was just a member.

You could have inquired how she came on, or asked why she was there, or any
number of less drastic actions before you kicked her off. Nobody has elected
you dicator *yet.*

~Amanda, truly irritated




From pennylin at swbell.net  Fri Aug 22 03:14:36 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:14:36 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] On Second Thought . . .
References: <bi3vsl+af3t@eGroups.com> <002001c36858$4d4cdec0$1504a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <03fe01c3685b$84a4a080$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

Cindy, I am so INCENSED with you that I can barely type.  Yes, that absolutely was the wrong thing to do, so please start groveling.

I've been a member of this group from the get-go.  I *started* this group in fact.  And, the criteria has *always* been: anyone who is interested in helping with FAQs could join in.  The more, the merrier.  

I completely echo Amanda's thoughts that you could have taken any number of less drastic actions rather than unsubbing Michelle.  

I also completely echo the sentiment that noone has elected you dictator, yet.   

I also have more to say on this whole governance issue, but it will have to wait until I'm less emotional and more coherent.

Penny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dicentra at xmission.com  Fri Aug 22 03:26:44 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra at xmission.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:26:44 -0600
Subject: How to rid your system of the SOBIG.B worm
Message-ID: <1061522804.3f458d74a7a0b@webmail.xmission.com>

These instructions come from the Trend Micro Virus Encyclopedia
www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/

Description:

This worm propagates by using its own SMTP engine to mass-mail copies of
itself to other users. It sends email with the following details:

From: support at microsoft.com
Subject: (any of the following)
Approved (Ref: 38446-263)
Cool screensaver
Re: Approved (Ref: 3394-65467)
Re: Movie
Re: My application
Re: My details
Screensaver
Your details
Your password

Message Body:
All information is in the attached file.

Attachment: (any of the following)
application.pif
approved.pif
doc_details.pif
movie28.pif
password.pif
ref-394755.pif
screen_doc.pif
screen_temp.pif
your_details.pif

This worm runs on Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, and XP.

Solution:

MANUAL REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS

Terminating the Malware Program

This procedure terminates the running malware process from memory.

   1. Open Windows Task Manager.
      On Windows 9x/ME systems, press
      CTRL+ALT+DELETE
      On Windows NT/2000/XP systems, press
      CTRL+SHIFT+ESC, and click the Processes tab.
   2. In the list of running programs*, locate the process:
      msccn32.exe
   3. Select the malware process, then press either the End Task or the End
Process button, depending on the version of Windows on your system.
   4. To check if the malware process has been terminated, close Task
Manager, and then open it again.
   5. Close Task Manager. 

*NOTE: On systems running Windows 9x/ME, Windows Task Manager may not show
certain processes. You may use a third party process viewer to terminate the
malware process. Otherwise, continue with the next procedure, noting
additional instructions.

Removing Autostart Entries from the Registry

Removing autostart entries from the registry prevents the malware from
executing during startup.

   1. Open Registry Editor. To do this, click Start>Run, type REGEDIT, then
press Enter.
   2. In the left panel, double-click the following:
      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE>Software>Microsoft>
      Windows>CurrentVersion>Run
   3. In the right panel, locate and delete the entry:
      System Tray = %Windows%\msccn32.exe
   4. In the left panel, double-click the following:
      HKEY_CURRENT_USER>Software>Microsoft>
      Windows>CurrentVersion>Run
   5. In the right panel, locate and delete the entry:
      System Tray = %Windows%\msccn32.exe
   6. Close Registry Editor.

NOTE: If you were not able to terminate the malware process from memory, as
described in the previous procedure, restart your system.

Deleting a Malware File

   1. Locate the malware file.
            On Windows 9x/NT
            Click Start>Find>Files and Folders.
            On Windows 2000/ME/XP
            Click Start>Search>For Files and Folders.
   2. In the Search for files and folders named input box, type:
      hnks.ini; msdbrr.ini
   3. In the Look In drop-down list, select the drive which contains
Windows, then press Enter.
   4. Once located, select the file then press Delete. 



From dicentra at xmission.com  Fri Aug 22 03:29:16 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra at xmission.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:29:16 -0600
Subject: How to rid your computer of the SOBIG.F worm
Message-ID: <1061522956.3f458e0c89d27@webmail.xmission.com>

These instructions come from the Trend Micro Virus Encyclopedia
www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/

Description:

TrendLabs has received several infection reports of this mass-mailing worm
from Norway and Spain. As of August 19, 12:19 PM GMT, Trend Micro has
declared a Medium Risk alert to control the spread of this malware.

This worm propagates by mass-mailing copies of itself using its own Simple
Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) engine. It collects email addresses from files
with the following extensions:

    * DBX
    * HLP
    * MHT
    * WAB
    * HTML
    * HTM
    * TXT
* EML

It sends out email messages with the following details:

Subject: <any of the following:>
Re: Thank you!
Thank you!
Re: Details
Re: Re: My details
Re: Approved
Re: Your application
Re: Wicked screensaver
Re: That movie
Your details

Message body: <any of the following:>
See the attached file for details.
Please see the attached file for details.

Attachment: <any of the following:>
your_document.pif
document_all.pif
thank_you.pif
your_details.pif
details.pif
document_9446.pif
application.pif
wicked_scr.scr
movie0045.pif

It may spoof the FROM field using email addresses found on the infected
machine so that its email messages appear to originate from one source but
was actually sent from another.

This worm deactivates its propagation routine on September 10, 2003.

This worm runs on Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, and XP.

Solution:

AUTOMATIC REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS

To automatically remove this malware from your system, please use the Trend
Micro System Cleaner.

MANUAL REMOVAL INSTRUCTIONS

Identifying the Malware Program

To remove this malware, first identify the malware program.

   1. Scan your system with your Trend Micro antivirus product.
   2. NOTE all files detected as WORM_SOBIG.F.

Trend Micro customers need to download the latest pattern file before
scanning their system. Other Internet users may use Housecall, Trend Micros
free online virus scanner.

Terminating the Malware Program

This procedure terminates the running malware process from memory. You will
need the name(s) of the file(s) detected earlier.

   1. Open Windows Task Manager.
      On Windows 95/98/ME systems, press
      CTRL+ALT+DELETE
      On Windows NT/2000/XP systems, press
      CTRL+SHIFT+ESC, then click the Processes tab.
   2. In the list of running programs*, locate the malware file or files
detected earlier.
   3. Select one of the detected files, then press either the End Task or
the End Process button, depending on the version of Windows on your system.
   4. Do the same for all detected malware files in the list of running
processes.
   5. To check if the malware process has been terminated, close Task
Manager, and then open it again.
   6. Close Task Manager. 

*NOTE: On systems running Windows 95/98/ME, Task Manager may not show
certain processes. You may use a third party process viewer to terminate the
malware process. Otherwise, continue with the next procedure, noting
additional instructions.

Removing Autostart Entries from the Registry

Removing autostart entries from the registry prevents the malware from
executing during startup.

To remove the malware autostart entries:

   1. Open Registry Editor. To do this, click Start>Run, type Regedit, then
press Enter.
   2. In the left panel, double-click the following:
      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE>Software>Microsoft>Windows>
      CurrentVersion>Run
   3. In the right panel, locate and delete the entry or entries:
      TrayX = "%Windows%\winppr32.exe /sinc"
      (Note: %Windows% is the Windows folder, which is usually C:\Windows or
C:\WINNT.)
   4. In the left panel, double-click the following:
      HKEY_CURRENT_USER>Software>Microsoft>Windows>
      CurrentVersion>Run
   5. In the right panel, locate and delete the entry or entries:
      TrayX = "%Windows%\winppr32.exe /sinc"
   6. Close Registry Editor.

NOTE: If you were not able to terminate the malware process from memory as
described in the previous procedure, restart your system.

Deleting Dropped File

   1. Right-click Start then click Search or Find depending on your
version of Windows.
   2. In the Named input box, type:
      WINSTT32.DAT
   3. In the Look In drop-down list, select the drive which contains
Windows, then press Enter.
   4. Once located, select the file then hit Delete. 



From jenp_97 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 04:36:48 2003
From: jenp_97 at yahoo.com (Jennifer Piersol)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 04:36:48 -0000
Subject: On Second Thought . . .
In-Reply-To: <bi3vsl+af3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi46l0+2vls@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Hey, guys,
> 
> I just did something that you all may not like.  I unsubbed Michelle.

I know I don't speak up or contribute much here - I've only coded four
faqs - but I think this was a mistake, Cindy.  We could use anyone who
volunteers, and I wasn't aware that there was a policy of having to
ask for permission, first (even though I hadn't thought about asking
anyone).  I just recently came back to all this drama, and I have to
say, I'm feeling a little like Catherine at the moment.  Why are we
having this conversation now?  Why are new people being unsubbed
before they even get a chance to post?  Why do we have to have a
leadership at all?  Why can't we just sign up to write faqs (not me,
I'm no writer), sign up to code finished fps, etc?  If there needs to
be a cattle driver in all this to keep us all moving, why do they get
to have more power than everyone else?  I mean, come on.  All we do
here is keep up with faq progress.  We shouldn't have much to argue about!

I'm just dumbstruck.  This whole thing just seems so out-of-place...
and *that* is why I didn't unsubscribe to the faq group when I
unsubscribed to MEG and whatnot... because I never thought that -faq
would be infected with that whole debacle.

-Jen, reconsidering that decision.




From dicentra at xmission.com  Fri Aug 22 05:22:55 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 05:22:55 -0000
Subject: On Second Thought . . .
In-Reply-To: <bi3vsl+af3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi49bf+rhj5@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
 
> I just did something that you all may not like.  I unsubbed Michelle.

I have to say I agree with Penny and Amanda.  We were all given Mod
privileges for the express purpose of performing Mod tasks such as
inviting new members.  I don't recall any policy, tacit or otherwise,
that required the permission of the group to invite people to FAQ. 
This list has been self-governing in the past, and until there's a
decision to change that, it still is.

--Dicey




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Aug 22 11:04:12 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:04:12 -0000
Subject: Governance etc
Message-ID: <bi4tbc+on88@eGroups.com>

As some people may know, I'm really upset by this whole 
business. ""Where there is a problem, fix it, where there isn't, 
leave well alone", is a motto that I feel could be useful here.

Cindy, please can I remind you of your post 1753, telling new 
members how this list has worked:

<<<OK. This is the FAQ list. The only thing we do is handle 
the "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them." 

We don't have anything to do with the administration of the HPfGU 
lists. No, no, no. There is a whole separate list for that -- you 
know, sending howlers, assigning elves to new members, posting ADMIN 
announcements, determining list policy. Quite a number of the FAQ 
members are members of that other list (known as the "MEG" list -- 
for Moderators/Elves/Geists). So don't worry. You won't have to do 
any actual heavy lifting or anything. Everything we do is creative 
-- we're creating new FPs and updating the old ones.

We do, however, have our own system of governance -- anarchy. No 
one is in charge, and our active members all have moderator powers. 
Just don't, er, delete the list, OK? ;-) When someone has an idea 
or proposal, they just toss it out, and if a few people nod and no 
one objects, then we act on it.>>>

I feel like I'm a moving floor at the moment, everything keeps 
changing underneath my feet.

I do actually agree with you, that we *shouldn't* have new members 
without some sort of a discussion. *But*, given your above 
statement, if it is a representative of the way that we work, Amanda 
was perfectly ok to invite Michelle. She didn't delete the list 
afterall, did she? I don't understand how one minute you are asking 
Michelle for a bio, and the next minute she has been unsubbed. 
Whatever your misgivings about the way that Michelle was invited, 
that seems rather unfair on her.

I personally like the idea of project leaders to handle the FPs 
currently under discussion, but I don't see the need for anymore. I 
also don't think that the MEG list can be forced to accept a new 
member, just because *this* list wants it. In practice, it would 
probably be ok, but I am uncomfortable with the principle. 

Ali

(Whose husband has actually banned her from reading this list for 
the next few days).






From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 13:33:13 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:33:13 -0000
Subject: How to rid your computer of the SOBIG.F worm
In-Reply-To: <1061522956.3f458e0c89d27@webmail.xmission.com>
Message-ID: <bi562p+mev2@eGroups.com>

I'm getting these e-mails, too, and have not opened them since they 
looked virus-y (three of them were addressed by FAQ-ers, btw, but I 
knew you didn't send them to me).  Is there any way to stop them 
coming into your in-box?

~Phyllis






From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 15:02:44 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:02:44 -0000
Subject: Some Thoughts on Improving Communication
Message-ID: <bi5bak+coc8@eGroups.com>

It seems to me that a lot of what has been happening here lately has 
to do with a lack of communication.

While I agree that we are all equals (at least at the present time), 
I also believe that it's important that we have a group discussion 
before one of us takes an action another of us may not agree with.

On new members - it seems to me that if we want to have anyone who is 
interested in working on FAQs do so, this should not be a restricted 
membership list.  Instead, we should put the URL of this list on the 
HPfGU home page or in the bigfile and allow people to join.

If we want to keep the FAQ membership restricted, I would suggest 
that we create a database into which current FAQ members could add 
the names of potential new members.  If, after a specified period of 
time (a week perhaps), no one has offered any objection to the 
nominee, the person who nominated the individual would proceed to 
issue an invitation to join.

On polls - I would suggest that before a poll is put up for a vote, 
we have a group discussion about whether or not we agree that the 
poll is needed, what the voting categories should be, when the poll 
closing date should be and what type of majority is required for the 
results of the poll to be binding.

Just some thoughts.

~Phyllis




From jenp_97 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 16:35:03 2003
From: jenp_97 at yahoo.com (Jennifer Piersol)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:35:03 -0000
Subject: That's enough drama for me.
Message-ID: <bi5gnn+7fha@eGroups.com>

Hey all...

If you need some help coding, just let me know.  I'm sorry, but I'm
just not a fan of drama.  My life is hectic enough as it is.

-Jen





From editor at texas.net  Fri Aug 22 17:19:35 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:19:35 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: On Second Thought . . .
References: <000001c36894$f67b7380$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <001601c368d1$904c9f20$2b04a6d8@texas.net>

Cindy:

> Second, I disagree that anyone can invite anyone in anytime.  Pippin
> asked whether that newbie could join, for instance, and I would have
> been unhappy had she invited that person unilaterally.

One question: Why?

> Third, I disagree that this list has always been self-governing.  When
> it was time to bring in new people a few months back, I ran everyone by
> the group.  That didn't happen this time.  And the list was certainly
> not self-governing when Elkins and I were the Mods in charge from
> October to March.  We were in charge, and we made decisions and
> consulted the group.

May I point out that, like the perception problems betwixt MEG and the
Tower, what you perceived the understanding to be may *not* have been shared
by the rest of the list? Because I never considered you to be "in charge" in
any formal or strict sense; you were just the ones rolling the ball.

Are you telling me that you and Elkins consulted the rest of the list, got
our input, and then did whatever you thought was right? That if you totally
disagreed with what the list said, you'd have done what you wanted? This was
NOT my understanding in the past and it is NOT the way I want this list run
now.

> Fourth, I disagree that we were all given Mod privileges to perform any
> Mod task we wanted, such as inviting new members.  I mean, could one of
> us unilaterally place another FAQ member on moderated status?

Then why, Cindy, does just about every member have full Mod powers here?
Even the new ones you brought on? What *were* we, and they, given the powers
for?

> Fifth, I have concerns about inviting Michelle, much the same as I had
> concerns about others who were potential candidates but were not asked.
> I can elaborate if anyone is interested.

I'd kind of like to hear. Because if they don't involve their ability to
read, catalog posts, compile FAQs, check links, or do server-y things with
completed FAQs, I don't think they're relevant or applicable.

> Sixth, both facilitators of MEG are members of this list, so I don't
> think the rationale can be that MEG needs to keep an eye on us.

*blinks in disbelief* And where did you get *that*? Why would you even
*think* that?

> I'm very sorry to have exacerbated this problem, but I do think it
> something worthy of discussing.

To be honest, I don't think you exacerbated it at all. I think you *caused*
it.

Nor do I think it's worthy of discussing. NOTHING is worthy of discussing on
this list that *so* distracts us from compiling FAQs. That, and only that,
is what this list is for. We have, once again, despite the best efforts of
several of us, been totally derailed from the project at hand to discuss
this sort of nonsense.

I'm sorry you disagree with the reactions to your unsubbing Michelle. But
the fact that those reactions were all bad should tell you something. The
thing to do would be learn from this, apologize to Michelle, invite her back
on, and get busy on FAQs.

> If the consensus of the group is that
> Michelle should join us, then we can invite her back, IMHO.

I refuse to discuss "candidates" over here too. I get enough of that on MEG
where it's a legitimate function. People want to help, they can come help.
Penny is absolutely right, as are your own words quoted by Ali. Whatever you
believed your role to be, I am by no means certain the rest of the list was
on the same page with that.

Please abide by that "IMHO" you used above, and realize that what you have
is just what the rest of us have, an *opinion,* not a final decision.

~Amanda





From editor at texas.net  Fri Aug 22 17:24:24 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:24:24 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Some Thoughts on Improving Communication
References: <bi5ejr+t4pm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001d01c368d2$3c1c14c0$2b04a6d8@texas.net>

Cindy:

> 1.  I understand that Michelle wished to "observe."  I do not wish
> to be observed.

I'd like to know where you got that idea. Michelle never posted that I am
aware of. I hadn't gotten around to sending my introduction of her. Were you
acting on unsubstantiated rumor?

> This is not a zoo.

Really.

> 2.  People are invited to this list, and they are invited because
> they are believed to be interested in the group, to have excellent
> interpersonal, analytical and writing skills, as well as sustained
> interest in our community.  We do not invite people if anyone in the
> group has a reasonable objection.

I would very much like to be directed to where these guidelines are written
out.

> 3.  Size matters.  If all of us go out and invite a pal, this group
> will become unwieldy.

I didn't invite a "pal." I invited someone I thought would be genuinely
useful. I'm really sorry you didn't know her, which apparently was one
reason you unsubbed her.

> 4.  We are currently discussing governance.  If we opt for
> democracy, new members will probably be selected by a vote.  If we
> go with BD, the leaders would hold a discussion and then implement
> the group's decision.  I think we should hold off on new members
> until we at least decide how we will move forward.

I am trying to move forward on FAQs. You are trying to move forward on
issues which I don't think are particularly needed and are very distracting
to this list's purpose.

> 5.  Amanda prefers a consensus form of governance where we deal with
> issues as they arise and everyone is equal; I favor BD.  Others
> favor democracy.  We are currently having a poll on the issue.

You *still* have not said whether you consider this poll to be binding, or
whether it is for gathering information on opinions. Nor have you said what
number of votes will constitute a quorum and end the poll. This is very
erratic.

> Obviously, none of us should bring in friends which could tip the
> balance of power.  I am not saying that Amanda did this, but absent
> approval of the group, I cannot agree with what Amanda did.

I totally and completely resent that implication. You have been given
several public indications of the response of the group and are choosing to
ignore them.

> 6.  Michelle's sudden appearance here on this list raises some
> serious autonomy issues.  Is the rule going to be that MEGs can come
> here any time they want, even if they will do no work, but FAQ
> members do not have the same privileges on MEG?  Personally, I
> wouldn't touch that issue with a ten foot pole.  But some members do
> have concerns about autonomy, so I think it would have been a better
> idea to consult the group before inviting Michelle because she was a
> MEG (assuming this is why she was invited).

NO. Again, you have taken action on unfounded speculation. She was invited
because she indicated an interest to me and I sincerely believed she would
help with the job of the list. Which is, I believe, screening posts and
compiling FAQs.

> 7.  Now, to the meat of the issue.  I know from my time on MEG and
> as a moderator of HPfGU that there were some issues with Michelle.
> Michelle was invited to join MEG as an elf.  She elfed once or twice
> (my memory is poor; she may never have elfed at all).  She then
> began to drop the ball, and then declared that she did not wish to
> elf.  The mod in charge of elfing was so frustrated with Michelle
> that she did not even want her on the elfing team.  She then lurked
> for a very long time, popping up occasionally to comment, but not
> doing any real work IIRC.  The moderators were resentful that
> someone would come in to perform a task and then immediately blow
> off their obligations, and we spent a great deal of time deciding
> what to do about this.  Further, I have seen little to suggest that
> Michelle is an excellent writer, has a sustained interest in the
> community, and has first-rate analytical skills.  I think if we need
> new members, there are others who are more reliable and talented
> than Michelle.  IMHO.

Oh. Okay. So you made a decision and took action based on your 1/7 of the
Moderators' viewpoint and some unfounded impressions.

May I digress to point out that you are violating the trust of the Mod group
at the time by sharing this and speaking for them? Even if you only mention
them by title and not name, you are stating their positions as absolute
fact. You could have summarized all of this neatly with "When I was a Mod
there was some concern about the quality of her elfing." You had no reason
to go into such detail, especially when neither she, nor possibly the Mod in
question are around to give any clarification or viewpoint. This is
inappropriate material for this list, or for public repetition anywhere, and
I find it irresponsible.

> I am very sorry that some of you are unhappy with my decision to
> unsub Michelle, but . . . well, I would think my opinion about a
> prospective new member (and the opinions of everyone in this group)
> would matter.

Your opinion would, does, and is noted. But you are frankly ignoring the
opinions of the others who have posted on this issue as well. You have a
opinion, no more, no less.

> So no, I won't be issuing a groveling apology after all.  If the
> group decides to invite Michelle, I will accept that decision, of
> course.

I don't know that she *would* come back, after this treatment. Have you
emailed *her* to let her know what you did and why?

Also, a clarification for non-MEGs: it is my understanding that the Mod list
(the Tower, not MEG) routinely "scrubbed" its archives before a new Mod was
brought on, removing any posts that might discuss that new Mod. MEG itself
has recently decided that it will not do this. I support this non-altering
of history wholeheartedly.

For the purposes of FAQ, I don't think it's our business to be talking about
people in that manner in the first place; there should be nothing to scrub.
I completely disagree that anyone interested should not be allowed to help
without some "screening" procedure and vote and such.

In the second place, if there has been discussion of a person, it should be
up to the poster who put the comments there to delete them, not someone
else. So I would not have searched the archives to make sure Michelle wasn't
mentioned. And I wouldn't have deleted any mention if I'd found one.

~Amanda





From pennylin at swbell.net  Fri Aug 22 17:46:19 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:46:19 -0000
Subject: Some Thoughts on Improving Communication
In-Reply-To: <bi5ejr+t4pm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi5ktb+680t@eGroups.com>

Hi everyone --

> I believe it was quite disrespectful for one member of this group to 
> invite someone in without consulting the group, to fail to announce 
> to the group that this was done and why, and to fail to address the 
> question of whether the archives had been searched to delete 
> unfortunate references to our new member.

I don't, in principle, disagree with this point.  But, I think that's
just a matter of courtesy, and I'm not entirely convinced that the
protocol has been followed consistently in the past.  If we as a group
want to agree that this is how we'll operate in the future, then
that's fine.

However, the fact remains that what you did was about 8 billion times
worse than Amanda's action.  You engaged in a *very* serious abuse of
your Moderator privileges, IMHO.  An absolutely appalling abuse of
power.  I still cannot believe that you didn't recognize this for what
it was.  *You* welcomed her, and then *you* unilaterally decided to
reverse *your* decision -- your own words.  This list is not about
YOU, Cindy.  It's about the FAQs for HPfGU.

> 2.  People are invited to this list, and they are invited because 
> they are believed to be interested in the group, to have excellent 
> interpersonal, analytical and writing skills, as well as sustained 
> interest in our community.  We do not invite people if anyone in the 
> group has a reasonable objection.

Well, back in the day, when *I* started this group and *I* was leading
it, that was not the way it was done.  There were a group of us who
decided we wanted to try and distill the burgeoning substance of HPfGU
posts into easily-accessible essays, which could be updated
periodically.  We divvied up the FAQs and we got down to work. 
Granted, most people didn't fulfill their entire commitment, but it
kept getting more and more out of control.  We didn't, however,
evaluate the "interpersonal, analytical and writing skills, or
interest level in the HPfGU community" before we allowed someone to
join us.  You make it sound like a job interview, for God's sake. 
This is a volunteer operation.  Period.  
> 
> 3.  Size matters.  If all of us go out and invite a pal, this group 
> will become unwieldy.

I was not aware that there were any size issues at all.  
> 
> 4.  We are currently discussing governance.  If we opt for 
> democracy, new members will probably be selected by a vote.  If we 
> go with BD, the leaders would hold a discussion and then implement 
> the group's decision.  I think we should hold off on new members 
> until we at least decide how we will move forward.

Well, that's your opinion, but it's not binding on the rest of us.  

As far as I'm concerned, this whole "governance" issue is a huge waste
of time.  It's making things far more complicated than they need to
be.  Let's just get down to the business of writing FAQs, shall we?  
 
> 6.  Michelle's sudden appearance here on this list raises some 
> serious autonomy issues.  Is the rule going to be that MEGs can come 
> here any time they want, even if they will do no work, but FAQ 
> members do not have the same privileges on MEG?  Personally, I 
> wouldn't touch that issue with a ten foot pole.  But some members do 
> have concerns about autonomy, so I think it would have been a better 
> idea to consult the group before inviting Michelle because she was a 
> MEG (assuming this is why she was invited).

Ah, yes, it all comes down to MEG again, right?  
> 
> I am very sorry that some of you are unhappy with my decision to 
> unsub Michelle, but . . . well, I would think my opinion about a 
> prospective new member (and the opinions of everyone in this group) 
> would matter.

I agree with Amanda: please remember that your opinion is no more
important than those held by the rest of us.  Therefore, unilateral
drastic action is completely unacceptable.  It's an abuse of power,
plain and simple.  If you wanted to off-list everyone to raise
concerns about Michelle, you could have taken that step, rather than
taking matters fully into your own hands.  

As you can see: I'm still quite enraged.  I'm about a nano-second away
from following Jen P right out the door.  

Could we just get back to the FAQs, please?  

Penny




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Aug 22 18:01:23 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:01:23 -0000
Subject: Background and Answers
Message-ID: <bi5lpj+mse0@eGroups.com>

Amanda asked (about my suggestion that Michelle was an observer):

>I'd like to know where you got that idea. Michelle never posted 
>that I am aware of. I hadn't gotten around to sending my 
>introduction of her. Were you acting on unsubstantiated rumor?

No, although there may have been a miscommunication on the point.  I 
read this from one of your prior posts, which is where I came to 
believe Michelle wished to be an observer:

************


>Ah, this is too paranoid for me. If MEG wants to know more, they 
>can ask any FAQ member or join the list as an observer.

************

Further, I feel I must address two additional points.

1.  Cindy's role as BD.  No, this is not a figment of my 
imagination.  As I explained, the Mod team representatives (Cindy 
and Elkins) ran this list for a time.  Yes, if the team wished to do 
something that we thought would be a bad idea, we had the power to 
overrule them.  It never came to that, of course. 

Post Modgate, Amy and Joywitch told me to take this list and run 
with it.  I didn't wish to assert my authority too aggressively, and 
I did hope that others would take on a great deal of the work.  Did 
I have the power to overrule the group?  We never crossed that 
bridge, but, erm, I wouldn't have done it because I don't need no 
trouble.

2.  Open List or Closed List.  I am quite confident that this has 
been a closed list since October, at least.  I say that because 
Phyllis suggested a new member, and that person was not invited.  
Pippin has a newbie who would like to join, and we need to decide 
that question.

But the best evidence that this list has never had an open 
membership is that all members did not receive Mod privileges until 
this latest group of FAQ members arrived.  So prior to May or so, 
Amanda *couldn't* have asked anyone to join without seeking 
permission of someone with Mod powers or consulting the group.

3.  Why everyone has Mod powers.  Previously, I had to handle 
everything that required Mod powers.  This was tiring and 
inefficient.  As everyone here is trustworthy, I saw no great risks 
to setting things up in this fashion, and it does enhance our sense 
of community in some ways.  I thought it obvious that each of us 
should use our Mod powers to do our work, not to unilaterally make 
major policy decisions.

4.  Scrubbing of archives.  I understand MEG has decided not to 
scrub its archives when new people arrive.  That has not been the 
practice here; I have always scrubbed the archives.

As far as Michelle's feelings go, I will speak with her, of course.  
The other solution that occurred to me was sending out an e-mail to 
40 people behind her back and explaining my objections, and that 
solution is not much better.  

5.  The Poll.  The poll is an information gathering device and not 
binding.  Consider it a straw poll.

*******************

I, too, would like to get to work.  If you all wish to drop all 
governance discussion, that is fine, really.  It does seem, however, 
that there are some divergent expectations in the group that will 
cause us much trouble in the future.

Cindy 






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Aug 22 18:24:33 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:24:33 -0000
Subject: Letter to Michelle
Message-ID: <bi5n51+gfrt@eGroups.com>

I sent this to "'michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk'".  If that is not 
the best address for Michelle, can someone forward this to her?

Thanks,

Cindy

***********************

Hi, Michelle,

By now, you know that I unsubscribed you from the FAQ list shortly 
after Amanda invited you.  The reason for that is that the group had 
not decided what we wished to do about inviting new members, and I 
wished to weigh in on that question before our new members arrived.  
There also may have been some miscommunication about whether the FAQ 
list has an open membership and, if so, how new members should be 
chosen.  There is much to sort out, as you might imagine.

Let me set your mind at ease about one thing:  this was not intended 
to be a personal rebuke.  Not at all.  And, you will be relieved to 
hear, this incident does not have its roots in Modgate.  It was a 
simple glitch due to growing pains.  As soon as we have some idea 
how we should proceed, one of us will be right back to you.

Again, I'm sorry if there are any hurt feelings, and I regret that 
you were caught in the middle on this one.

Oh, and you should know that I am sending this message in my 
personal capacity, not on behalf of the group.

Take care,

Cindy




From jmmears at comcast.net  Fri Aug 22 18:47:23 2003
From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:47:23 -0000
Subject: Plea
Message-ID: <bi5ofr+jgf5@eGroups.com>

Can we please, please, *please* just stop this?  Now?

What I mean is stop EVERYTHING in terms of actions concering this 
group.  This would include adding new members, unsubscribing, 
putting up polls.

I feel absolutely whipsawed, and suspect I'm not alone.  I haven't 
posted any opinions or taken any sides over the past 2 days because 
every time I think I've got a handle on things, more charges fly, 
more spleens are vented, and more blood is spilled.

I joined this group after receiving an invitation.  I was frankly, 
thrilled and flattered, and accepted in the knowledge that I had a 
lot to learn and expected to be guided and helped along by the more 
established members.  I'm the ultimate techno-squib, and have been 
reading all the files, but I admit that I'm going to require 
guidance and hand-holding before I begin to produce anything of 
value.  So far, all I've done is join the team for the Weasley FAQ, 
and nominate 2 posts for consideration for FAQ (one of which hasn't 
taken for some reason, so I'll have to re-nominate).

FAQ was also attractive to me because I'm frankly too uncomfortable 
with inter-personal conflicts to be much good as an elf, and I knew 
the MEG list has long been rife with them.  I didn't know the 
particulars and though I admit to having been curious about them at 
times, didn't really need to.

However, obviously the whole soap opera dragged on for *so* long 
that many members of the main list and elsewhere became more and 
more concerned and curious.  They got information where they could, 
speculated and gossiped and drew the best conclusions they could, 
given the information available. 

Sound familiar, anyone?

It's too bad it all had to spill over on this list, but it has and 
you really can't blame people for asking questions out of concern.  
Sometimes the MEGs and former Mods seem to forget that they are not 
the only ones who care about the list continuing to be the excellent 
resource it always has been, and the recent decline has been obvious.

It's obvious that there's plenty of blame to go around, and everyone 
can make a case for finger-pointing but I don't understand what 
everyone engaging in it hopes to accomplish by it.  I'll be bold 
enough to speak for everyone who has been silent so far and say that 
we *all* feel terrible.  Was that the goal?  Congratulations.

I've also considered doing what Jen has decided to do, but I keep 
thinking things will settle down, and I want to hang in and 
contribute.  I've made a conscious choice to check my ego at the 
door because I know that I have lots to learn.  However, if everyone 
else cannot leave their grudges and conflicts (justified or 
otherwise) elsewhere, then I fear we are doomed to irrelevance.

I'm already feeling a bit paranoid, wondering who will be hostile 
toward me because I happened to have been invited to join by Cindy. 
I'm trying not to wonder what may have been said about me, on or off 
list before that happened.  I didn't request Mod status and would be 
happy to relinquish it if it bothers anyone, and I really won't bear 
any ill will over it.  I don't care.  I won't be responding to the 
governance poll because I can see the costs and benefits of all the 
options, and I personally don't have enough experience with this 
sort of group to feel strongly about any of the choices.  I'll be 
happy to work under whatever system results.


What's happened, has happened. It may be deplored, it may be 
regretted, but it can't be changed.  If any of you can't move on 
without nursing grudges, then these kind of conflicts can be swept 
under the rug, but they are sure to erupt again.  So, I'm asking 
that no one take *any* unilateral action on behalf of FAQ until this 
episode is behind us.  If I've offended anyone at all by anything 
I've written here, I'm truly sorry.  Please believe that was never 
my intent.

If anyone has any tangible suggestions for how I can begin working 
on the Weasley FAQ, please email me off-list.

Thanks for listening,

Jo Serenadust




From editor at texas.net  Fri Aug 22 19:42:21 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:42:21 -0500
Subject: Okay. was Plea
References: <bi5ofr+jgf5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001001c368e5$820263a0$7c04a6d8@texas.net>

Jo said:

> Can we please, please, *please* just stop this?  Now?

I'm up for that.

> If anyone has any tangible suggestions for how I can begin working
> on the Weasley FAQ, please email me off-list.

No, really, if it has come to the pass where FAQ members are doing their FAQ
posting offlist to make room for the nonFAQ stuff, that's beyond bizarre.

So. FAQstuff.

I saw the polls up asking which of the four FAQs we should work on, or
something. Were those concluded? Who are the team leads for  those four, and
what's the status?

Will Pip or whichever MEG it was who posted to MEG about the notice, try to
follow up and see if they said yes yet?

Didn't someone have proposed text for the message? Can we have comments?

At the risk of frightening everyone with that four-letter word "poll," can I
set one up to get a take on everyone's thoughts about doing FAQ volumes?
I.e., volume 1 = theorizing and thoughts through Book 4 (basically what's
already up); volume 2 = theorizing and thoughts about Book 5 (what we'll be
working on); etc. This seemed a good way to retain all that old thought; let
it stay as a snapshot of what people thought then, and preserve the work and
writing to that point.

What else; Oh, on gathering post nominations:

Did the notice that someone drafted have instructions in it? I don't recall;
we'll need to be telling listmembers *how* to nominate, as well as
requesting input.

And about the alternate nomination method, a main list database: can another
MEG post to MEG and ask about permission to set up a database for FAQ-worthy
post nominations? I have no idea how list size and memory stuff and all that
work; we need the minds on MEG who do, to tell us if this is feasible.

So, what size of sample do we wait to get before we start..? And do we keep
refining the Volume II FAQs up until Book 6 comes out? Bring me up to speed,
guys.

That's all I can think of. I summarize and organize pretty well, but I don't
have a lot of time to actually *do* stuff, so there will be suggestions and
ideas from me more than actual bookwork. Apologies. Full-time working mom
with three kids, 8, 7, and 4. Also a TechnoSquib. Alas.

~Amanda




From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Fri Aug 22 20:40:42 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:40:42 -0000
Subject: FAQ admin was Okay. was Plea
In-Reply-To: <001001c368e5$820263a0$7c04a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bi5v4a+nhf8@eGroups.com>


> Will Pip or whichever MEG it was who posted to MEG about the 
notice, try to
> follow up and see if they said yes yet?
> 

They said 'yes'. Sorry, we work on a '24 hours for any objections to 
be posted' system, so I had to wait (it's to cover the time zones).

So yes, prepare and work on the ADMIN, and you have permission to 
post on the main board. 

Pip




From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Fri Aug 22 21:15:54 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:15:54 -0000
Subject: Some Thoughts on Improving Communication
In-Reply-To: <bi5ejr+t4pm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi616a+t665@eGroups.com>


> 7.  Now, to the meat of the issue.  I know from my time on MEG and 
> as a moderator of HPfGU that there were some issues with 
Michelle.  

To balance Cindy's experience - my experience of Michelle during the 
recent OOP release was of a person very much willing to fulfil her 
elf obligations. She worked (and is working) extremely hard, and was 
happy to both volunteer for needed jobs and to actually do the work.

I'm not entirely sure what 'a sustained interest in the community' 
means. She's been a member of HPfGU longer than I have.

Pip 




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Aug 22 19:57:10 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:57:10 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Okay. was Plea
In-Reply-To: <001001c368e5$820263a0$7c04a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <000201c368e7$93327f00$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
Jo said:

> Can we please, please, *please* just stop this?  Now?

I'm up for that.


 
Yes, I'm up for that, too!
 
Cindy
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 22:12:13 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:12:13 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff
Message-ID: <bi64ft+567a@eGroups.com>

I was going to ask for a progress report on the request for 
contributions - what did MEG think about it?  But it seem that we 
have permission to post.

As for the letter itself, Heidi suggested that we add a template so 
that people will know exactly what kind of information to include.  
Frankly, I think just a message number is sufficient, but I guess 
having a template might not be a bad idea, so I'll add that to the 
letter.

I'm less crazy about the idea of adding a database to HPfGU, 
because I think people will add themselves or check to see that 
they've been added, but the consensus seems to be in favor of it.  
I assume the same fields included in Heidi's template should go in 
the database - post number, author, topic and date.  If no one 
objects, I'll create the database - unless I need permission from 
MEG to do that too.

So, the letter requesting submissions will look something like this:

 Dear HPfGU Members,
 
 Hello from the FAQ team! We're in charge of writing the Fantastic 
 Posts essays, which can be found at
 
 http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/
 
 These essays collect posts on a variety of different subjects, 
 ranging from The Weasley Family to Justice in the Wizarding World. 
 They also provide summaries of important and popular theories 
 such as LOLLIPOPS or George. The Fantastic Posts are a great 
 asset to group members old and new, providing a coherent 
 perspective on the ideas that came before us. They also allow us 
 to save from Yahoo! oblivion those posts which are truly 
 remarkable and worth remembering.
 
 We on the FAQ team are eager to get to work on updating the old 
 FPs and writing new ones in the wake of OOP, but we'd like you 
 all to help us. Have you read a post recently that really made you 
 think? A well-written post, that offered a new perspective or 
 submitted a new thoery? In short, have you read a Fantastic Post 
 recently? If you have, we'd like to hear about it.
 
There are three simple ways to let us know about a Fantastic Post:

1. A database has been created on the HPfGU homepage.  To get 
there, simply go to the homepage and click on the 'Database' link 
in the sidebar on the left-hand side of the screen.  Scroll down the 
list until you find a database entitled 'Fantastic Posts'.  Click on the 
title and you will be transferred to the database page.  From there 
you can simply click on the 'add record' link at the top of the table 
to make your suggestion.  You don't need to fill out all the fields, 
but you must include a message number - finding a message in any 
other way is all but impossible.

2. We've also opened the FAQ archive group to posting by the 
general public.  You can e-mail us at

(e-mail of archive group should go here)

Please use the following template when sending us a 
recommendation e-mail

 Fantastic Post number:
 Author of Fantastic Post:
 Topic of Fantastic Post:
 Date of Fantastic Post:

Again, not all fields have to be filled, but we must have the 
message number.

3. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way 
you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from 
there - simply use the 'Post' link on the sidebar.  Again, use the 
template above, and be sure to include the message number.

 Before you get going, a few words on what makes a post Fantastic. 
 You might want to check out some of the posts referenced in the old 
 FPs to get an idea of the kind of quality we're looking for. Also, bear 
 in mind that a a Fantastic Post should:
 
 1. Be well written and coherent
 2. Present new ideas or offer a good overview of old ones
 3. Have good formatting - good grammar and spelling, capitalization 
 and punctuation where appropriate, more then one paragraph, etc.
 
 Finally, any post you send is only a suggestion. If you look at the 
 old Fantastic Posts you might notice how few messages they actually 
 reference. This isn't because these are the only good messages in 
 over 70,000 posts, but because if we were to include all the fantastic 
 posts ever made to the group we would drown, and the very purpose 
 of the FPs is to provide brief and concise overviews of ideas on the list. 
 We can't promise to use every post you send us, but we do promise 
 to read and consider every one with all due gravity, no matter who the 
 author is.
 
 Wishing you happy hunting,
 
 The FAQ team

What do you think?  Idiot-proof enough?  By the way, no one's posted 
the URL or e-mail of the archive group, and I need them.

I was going to say some stuff about what's been going on over the 
last 24 hours - the Michelle debacle and the entire governance 
issue, but I see that most of what I wanted to say has already been 
said.  I'll just echo several other posters and say that I want to get 
to work.

In that spirit, I would greatly like to hear from as many of you as 
possible on the following questions:

1. When should we start writing the new FPs?  Should we wait a while, 
and if so, how long?  Should we set a date on which we'll start our 
work or just wait until we feel that the group has produced enough 
posts of a sufficient caliber?  

2. Should we attempt to comb the 15,000 posts since the publication 
of OOP for Fantastic Posts?  I know we're going to deputize the group, 
but I doubt that many people will remember more then a few days 
back.  I also know that we set up our own FP database, but 
something tells me that most of us haven't been very conscientious 
about adding to it - I *know* there have been more then 20 
Fantastic Posts in the last two months.

3. Should we attempt to complete the Full Enchilada?  There are 
10,000 posts between the last catalogued one and the publication 
of OOP, and there are certainly some truly wonderful posts during 
that period.

My own answers to these questions are:

1. I think we should wait - say three months - and then take a look 
at the tone of the list.  In the discussion that's been going on on OTC 
there's been a lot of the repeating of the notion that once summer 
ends we'll see a rapid decrease in volume and increase in quality on 
the list (both of these things are already happening), and hopefully by 
December there should be stuff worth putting in an FP.  However, I 
don't know about the other houses, but the Harry FP does have sections 
that could probably be compiled now without referring too heavily to 
OOP - see my updated outline from a few days ago.  It might not be a 
bad idea to get started on these segments right now - this is something 
I'd like to hear about from my other house members - Penny, Dicey, Ali 
and Phyllis.

2. I'm not sure there's a point in combing the list for FPs, although I'd 
be happier if we had more posts in our own database - it seems like a 
great deal of work for what will probably be slim returns.

3. This idea I like better.  I made a cursory review of 5000 of the 
uncatalogued messages and found several dozen gems - I can't imagine 
what a proper review will uncover.  Since we might have some time on 
our hands, we might as well finish the job and have a truly Full Enchilada 
for when we want to start working.

I really want to hear some opinions on these topics.  I get the feeling 
that many members are staying out of this discussion - some out of 
shock at what's been going on.  A few members have actually left.  I 
think we need to refocus ourselves on the task at hand, and in order 
for that to happen all of us need to start offering our input.

Abigail




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 22 22:18:34 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:18:34 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff - Addendum
In-Reply-To: <bi64ft+567a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi64rq+ojhc@eGroups.com>

Amanda wanted opinions on splitting the FAQs into volumes.  I have 
to say I'm not crazy about the idea.  It seems to me that preserving the 
old FPs is more about preserving the old work and the old (and possibly 
outdated) posts then it is about providing the group with coherent and 
helpful information.  Add to that the fact that Volume 1 is incomplete, 
and that some of it will no doubt be used as parts of Volume 2, and I 
see very little point in the exercise.  As cruel as it may sound, I think we 
should cannibalize the old FPs for what they can give - which, I have no 
doubt, is a great deal.

I'd like to emphasize that I don't mean to be disrespectful of either 
the old FPs, or their writers, or the writers of the posts that they 
reference.  Ultimately, however, the FPs are meant to serve the group, 
not the other way around.

Abigail




From editor at texas.net  Fri Aug 22 22:23:25 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:23:25 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Request for contributions and other stuff
References: <bi64ft+567a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c368fc$021e66e0$0d05a6d8@texas.net>

Abigail:

> I was going to ask for a progress report on the request for
> contributions - what did MEG think about it?  But it seem that we
> have permission to post.

Thus spake Pip. Good news.

> As for the letter itself, Heidi suggested that we add a template so
> that people will know exactly what kind of information to include.
> Frankly, I think just a message number is sufficient, but I guess
> having a template might not be a bad idea, so I'll add that to the
> letter.
>
> I'm less crazy about the idea of adding a database to HPfGU,
> because I think people will add themselves or check to see that
> they've been added, but the consensus seems to be in favor of it.
> I assume the same fields included in Heidi's template should go in
> the database - post number, author, topic and date.  If no one
> objects, I'll create the database - unless I need permission from
> MEG to do that too.

I think we may; I am about to have to become Mom again because Jan goes off
to work overtime tonight and this weekend--any of you other MEGs want to ask
this one? Do they have any objection and will there be memory or size or
whatever problems?

> So, the letter requesting submissions will look something like this:

The letter looked fine, worded well. My suggestions are interleaved:

> Dear HPfGU Members,
>
> Hello from the FAQ team! We're in charge of writing the Fantastic
> Posts essays, which can be found at
>
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/
>
> These essays collect posts on a variety of different subjects,
> ranging from The Weasley Family to Justice in the Wizarding World.
> They also provide summaries of important and popular theories
> such as LOLLIPOPS or George. The Fantastic Posts are a great
> asset to group members old and new, providing a coherent
> perspective on the ideas that came before us. They also allow us
> to save from Yahoo! oblivion those posts which are truly
> remarkable and worth remembering.
>
> We on the FAQ team are eager to get to work on updating the old
> FPs and writing new ones in the wake of OOP, but we'd like you
> all to help us. Have you read a post recently that really made you
> think? A well-written post, that offered a new perspective or
> submitted a new thoery? In short, have you read a Fantastic Post
> recently? If you have, we'd like to hear about it.

I would put the "what makes a post Fantastic" up here, before you tell  them
how. Let the criteria be in a position of prominence in the letter,
otherwise people will read the instructions, think "Oh,I really liked [---]"
and go off and do it, and may never get to what we're asking *for.*

> There are three simple ways to let us know about a Fantastic Post:
>
> 1. A database has been created on the HPfGU homepage.  To get
> there, simply go to the homepage and click on the 'Database' link
> in the sidebar on the left-hand side of the screen.  Scroll down the
> list until you find a database entitled 'Fantastic Posts'.  Click on the
> title and you will be transferred to the database page.  From there
> you can simply click on the 'add record' link at the top of the table
> to make your suggestion.  You don't need to fill out all the fields,
> but you must include a message number - finding a message in any
> other way is all but impossible.

There are legitimate concerns over the use and misuse of this option--so I
suggest putting it in the middle of the three. Whichever one is placed first
will be subtly emphasized.

> 2. We've also opened the FAQ archive group to posting by the
> general public.  You can e-mail us at
>
> (e-mail of archive group should go here)
>
> Please use the following template when sending us a
> recommendation e-mail
>
> Fantastic Post number:
> Author of Fantastic Post:
> Topic of Fantastic Post:
> Date of Fantastic Post:
>
> Again, not all fields have to be filled, but we must have the
> message number.

Put little asterisks or something around "must"?
>
> 3. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
> you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
> there - simply use the 'Post' link on the sidebar.  Again, use the
> template above, and be sure to include the message number.
>
> Before you get going, a few words on what makes a post Fantastic.
> You might want to check out some of the posts referenced in the old
> FPs to get an idea of the kind of quality we're looking for. Also, bear
> in mind that a a Fantastic Post should:
>
> 1. Be well written and coherent
> 2. Present new ideas or offer a good overview of old ones
> 3. Have good formatting - good grammar and spelling, capitalization
> and punctuation where appropriate, more then one paragraph, etc.


Ending with this is great. It's just the paragraph *above* that I'd move up
to above the "how."

> Finally, any post you send is only a suggestion. If you look at the
> old Fantastic Posts you might notice how few messages they actually
> reference. This isn't because these are the only good messages in
> over 70,000 posts, but because if we were to include all the fantastic
> posts ever made to the group we would drown, and the very purpose
> of the FPs is to provide brief and concise overviews of ideas on the list.
> We can't promise to use every post you send us, but we do promise
> to read and consider every one with all due gravity, no matter who the
> author is.
>
> Wishing you happy hunting,
>
> The FAQ team

--------------

> 1. When should we start writing the new FPs?  Should we wait a while,
> and if so, how long?  Should we set a date on which we'll start our
> work or just wait until we feel that the group has produced enough
> posts of a sufficient caliber?

Superb questions. O Ye Brave Few who read all the main list--thoughts?
>
> 2. Should we attempt to comb the 15,000 posts since the publication
> of OOP for Fantastic Posts?  I know we're going to deputize the group,
> but I doubt that many people will remember more then a few days
> back.  I also know that we set up our own FP database, but
> something tells me that most of us haven't been very conscientious
> about adding to it - I *know* there have been more then 20
> Fantastic Posts in the last two months.

Is this nomination method going to *replace* the combing over blocks of
messages? Or was it intended to *augment* that? I wasn't clear on that.

> 3. Should we attempt to complete the Full Enchilada?  There are
> 10,000 posts between the last catalogued one and the publication
> of OOP, and there are certainly some truly wonderful posts during
> that period.

I'd say so. Those can be integrated into the volume I FAQs. I know Snape,
for one, needs a Part 2 of Volume I, that has nothing to do with post-OoP
speculations (Volume II).

Thanks, Abigail.

~Amanda




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Aug 22 22:42:54 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:42:54 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff - Addendum
In-Reply-To: <bi64rq+ojhc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi669e+10mdm@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote:

> Amanda wanted opinions on splitting the FAQs into volumes.  I have 
> to say I'm not crazy about the idea.  


<snip reasons>

Quickly . . . I think I agree with Abigail's thoughts on this.

Cindy




From Malady579 at hotmail.com  Fri Aug 22 22:49:20 2003
From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:49:20 -0000
Subject: old faq tough love and Snape
In-Reply-To: <bi64rq+ojhc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi66lg+gaa5@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote:
>As cruel as it may sound, I think we should cannibalize the old FPs
>for what they can give - which, I have no doubt, is a great deal.
>
>I'd like to emphasize that I don't mean to be disrespectful of either 
>the old FPs, or their writers, or the writers of the posts that they 
>reference.  Ultimately, however, the FPs are meant to serve the
>group, not the other way around.


Um, I want to second this sentiment.  I know y'all put a lot of work
into the old FAQ, but this is a working idea.  I am not sure on how
much the server can hold, but can we place the faqs we replace into a
"before OoP area" so people can see how HP fandon theories evolve from
book to book?  I personally find it as facinating how the minds of HP
fans shift over time as I do the actual text.  It is as much a part of
the HP fandom history, in my opinion.

But then again, we all like to improve over time, so maybe when we
find one that needs to be greatly updating, we can ask the previous
composers if they want the task to rework it.  It just seems polite to
me.  But, as Abigail well put, we are writting for the group.

Oh and I finally found a faq I would not mind helping (since Harry
seems to be well covered).  If Porphyria and Amanda don't mind, can I
join you in Snape world?  He is not my favorite character, well
outside of MD, but it would be interesting to learn more about him. 
Anyway, where do I sign up?


Melody




From heidit at netbox.com  Sat Aug 23 00:38:22 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:38:22 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: old faq tough love and Snape
In-Reply-To: <bi66lg+gaa5@eGroups.com>
References: <bi66lg+gaa5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061599105.30EC5E41@r5.dngr.org>


On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 6:49PM -0500, Melody wrote:
>
>
> Um, I want to second this sentiment.  I know y'all put a lot of work
> into the old FAQ, but this is a working idea.  I am not sure on how
> much the server can hold, but can we place the faqs we replace into a
> "before OoP area" so people can see how HP fandon theories evolve...

Sure. We have pretty unlimited space, actually. I like the idea of 
hosting these, as is (other than the fanfic one, which doesn't need a 
rewrite as much as an update, as almost all the fics mentioned are still 
online) as 'archival' faqs.

Heidi



From joyw at gwu.edu  Sat Aug 23 03:52:16 2003
From: joyw at gwu.edu (- Joy -)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:52:16 -0400
Subject: Bouncing Mike and Hi
References: <1061454981.669.63940.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <009101c36929$f19252e0$6401000a@Joy>

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to poke my head out and say that I'm here.  I don't have much
time to contribute at the moment, between wrapping up my summer internship
and getting ready to start a new semester, but I am reading everything.  I'm
very happy to help with the tech stuff, though, since I'm familiar with both
YahooGroups and HTML.  I get the digest version of the list, and don't
always read it right away, so if there's something time sensitive that needs
a techie, you can email me directly at joyw AT gwu.edu.

Speaking of tech stuff, I've sent a reactivation request to Mike.
Basically, this will let him know that he's bouncing and give him a link to
reactivate the account.  Not sure if it will go through, though, since
between all of the messages here and the virus going around, his mailbox is
probably still full.

For future reference, here's how to unbounce someone:
Go to the group home page.
Click on Members.
Click the Bouncing tab.
Look under the Bounce Status column - if someone is soft bouncing, their
address exists, but the mailbox is full.  If someone is hard bouncing, the
address no longer exists.  It's no use trying to reactivate hard bouncing
people, but if the person is soft bouncing:
Click the History link.
Click the button under Email Account Reactivation.

Time for me to go back to my lurking corner...

~Joy~




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Sat Aug 23 05:39:42 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 05:39:42 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <bi64ft+567a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi6umu+2alr@eGroups.com>

Abigail asked some good questions to get the ball rolling. 

On the database idea:

I've posted to MEG about using a database for fantastic post 
nominations. If people aren't crazy about this idea, though, we could 
get Abigail's request out to the lists and revisit when we see what 
kind of response we get.  I think I would be much more likely to 
enter a post in a database on the same list than to find an address 
for some other place to send it to (too many steps . . .) but then I 
always out of sync with the rest of the world so the archive list 
might work fine.

> 
> 1. When should we start writing the new FPs?  Should we wait a 
while, 
> and if so, how long?  Should we set a date on which we'll start our 
> work or just wait until we feel that the group has produced enough 
> posts of a sufficient caliber? 

I agree I would wait out much of the fall as the more in-depth 
analysis is just starting to materialize, but begin work on some of 
the more basic background material that comes straight from the books 
(e.g., an overview of the WW justice system).  Maybe each team should 
get together and sort out among themselves which portions of the FP 
each will write, and nominate one person to start on the basic 
stuff?  If I had a specific assignment, I know I would read all posts 
on the topic carefully and keep a record of the good ones; that way 
less would fall through the cracks.
> 
> 2. Should we attempt to comb the 15,000 posts since the publication 
> of OOP for Fantastic Posts?  I know we're going to deputize the 
group, 
> but I doubt that many people will remember more then a few days 
> back.  I also know that we set up our own FP database, but 
> something tells me that most of us haven't been very conscientious 
> about adding to it - I *know* there have been more then 20 
> Fantastic Posts in the last two months.

This is a tough question.  Trawling through June-July posts won't 
likely yield a bountiful catch, but there are some gems.  I think 
this is a worthwhile exercise for those of us that are anxious to get 
started.
> 
> 3. Should we attempt to complete the Full Enchilada?  There are 
> 10,000 posts between the last catalogued one and the publication 
> of OOP, and there are certainly some truly wonderful posts during 
> that period.
> 
This is definitely worthwhile, but we'll probably need to limit the 
inclusions to the real *highlights* in the interest of time.  (When 
we were cataloguing, on the other hand, we were trying to represent 
every single thread.)  At current posting rates, we would never get 
around to writing FPS if we didn't seriously limit our inclusions.

To answer Abigail's question about Amanda's proposal to 
create "volumes" I'm starting to lean against the idea, for several 
reasons.  First, much of the old material is still quite relevant and 
only would need a little bit of updating.  Second, I think it would 
be feasible -- and of more value for the reader -- to keep some of 
the old dead theories in the updated FPs while noting the new canon 
that swept the theory away.  I might even do that a little bit for 
new FPs -- I have trouble still using "Avery" in a sentence without 
also using the words "Fourth Man." <g>

Another thing we can do to gear up when we're not busy *writing* 
fantastic posts is to sort the Enchilada for topics relevant to your 
subject.  (Note to Slyths:  I did that last March for Justice and 
Aurors.)

One last thought.  There are a couple of completed FPs (I'm thinking 
of Sirius and Neville) out there that are crying for an update in 
light of OOP.  Do we have enough people to detail anyone to work on 
these?  

Debbie




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 08:53:29 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:53:29 -0000
Subject: Some considerations about the current situation
Message-ID: <bi7a29+jtua@eGroups.com>

Sorry for this, but I thought I *should* say it. This is simply my 
opinion, and I figure that if I don't say it myself, it will never be 
known, and other people might take my silence as approval of this or 
that side and start speaking for me without really consulting me. I 
wouldn't want that.

I do understand why many people here are eager to forget the whole 
governance issue and get back to work. On the other hand, I do 
believe that this is a huge mistake. The matter is delicate and 
unpleasant to deal with, but ignoring it now will only cause it to 
explode later. There's clearly a considerable amount of animosity 
here, and I can see that only from the few that *have* posted their 
opinions. If the others are silent, I don't reckon it's safe to 
assume that they don't feel as strongly, no matter to which direction 
they're leaning to. All too soon we're going to stumble in another 
issue involving "hey, you don't have the right to do this!" or "who 
are you to tell me such thing?" or "can't someone do something?" and 
we'll be back to this same hole. Only it's likely that the degree of 
animosity will have escalated even more then. 

It's understandable that the people involved in what you call the 
Modgate aren't happy at all with the idea of reliving it here. I 
obviously don't know a thing about what happened but, the way I 
understand the HPfGU structure, it just wasn't possible for this 
group not to be affected by it. The FAQ isn't independent, FAQ used 
to work in close contact with MEG (by having a leader from MEG), and 
we also have a considerable number of MEGs and former MEGs here. 

Now Cindy feels she can't give us proper leadership anymore and have 
stated her reasons. I happen to agree that this group needs a leader, 
and a leader who is indeed a member of MEG. The more I observe the 
works of this group, the more I realise it needs the contact with MEG 
to work properly. 

How should this leader be chosen? Before addressing this, I should 
say that I was born in 1973, during the administration of General 
Em?lio Garrastazu M?dici, the most ruthless of our military 
presidents during the dictatorship in Brazil. It was the time of 
the "Institutional Act #5", which basically eliminated civil rights. 
Anyone could be arrested anywhere, at any time, for any duration, 
without any need of formal charges... I turned 16 (minimum age to 
vote) in 1989, just in time to vote for the first direct election for 
president after the end of the dictatorship. So I tend to consider 
democracy, although a problematic system for many reasons, something 
sacred.

But running a country and running a working group are entirely 
different things. Before a few days ago I had no idea MEG worked as a 
democracy. Now I start to understand why it's been so hard to solve 
the problems concerning the Main List. Again, this is simply my 
humble opinion, but I do think democracy has tremendous setbacks that 
make it incompatible with the dealings and procedures of a working 
group. In my opinion, a benign dictatorship would be the only way to 
go. 

Which takes me to something someone brought it up a while ago. Wasn't 
this group an "anarchy" before? I'd say, no, no way. "Anarchy" was 
the poetic, friendly description the former leader used to explain 
her leadership methods. In fact, the way I understood it, she trusted 
the members' common sense. That was why we were trusted with 
moderator status, so we could have full access to the database and be 
able to modify the files when needed. The FAQ isn't, to my 
understanding, a discussion group like the other HPfGU lists; we use 
a yahoogroup as a tool to keep a working team in communication and 
with access to all the files we need to deal with. Being a moderator 
didn't imply, in these circumstances, that I'm entitled to go to the 
management sector and do whatever I want. That's common sense.

And this is when I have to say that I think Cindy was being very 
naive. Common sense, despite the name, isn't common at all. Common 
sense is actually something outrageously rare. Unfortunately, some 
people must be *told* that playing with knives is dangerous, and some 
people will keep on doing it even after that, and will keep on doing 
it even after having a finger cut off. There are circumstances where 
a working team does work splendidly with just common sense to guide 
the members, but those require (at least) excellent communication and 
mutual trust. And so shortly after a Modgate, I think it's safe to 
assume that we have neither. Those might be (hopefully *will* be) 
restored at some point in the future, but not so soon.

And I'm sorry, but it's also my opinion that inviting someone to join 
the group without consulting the group and right in the middle of a 
governance debate isn't exactly common sense. In fact, inviting 
someone to join without consulting the group was neither democracy 
nor benign dictatorship (since as far as I know *no one* was elected 
dictator here yet), and it certainly wasn't consensus either. I'm 
sure I'd have been terribly criticised if I had used my moderator 
status to invite my sister to the group without consulting anyone. 
The way I see it, giving me moderator status was a gesture of trust, 
and abusing that status would have been a breach of trust. I don't 
think anyone here was invited in a whim. I just have to look around 
and see the high-quality posters around me to figure there was some 
well-thought selection before bringing us over here, and I used to 
see my inclusion as some huge (and possibly undeserved) praising. So 
it was clear to me, without ever being told, that if I wanted to see 
someone else here, I'd have to make sure this person is up to the 
task, and I'd *definitely* have to consult the group about it. 

Anyway, I think this incident proves that this group needs to have 
its rules established more clearly. We need to know what we can and 
what we can't do, and what are the correct procedures to invite new 
members, edit the files archived here, upload new material to the 
database, communicate with outsiders and the HPfGu sister groups, 
etc. Or else all too soon someone else will do something one third of 
the list considers wrong, another third considers right, while the 
remaining third wisely ducks to avoid being hit by the crossfire, and 
we'll have unpleasant on-list quarrels again. Maybe it's just me, but 
I'd rather deal with the problems now than postpone them to next 
time, when they might get even bigger and impossible to solve.

Just a final note: in my opinion, and contrary to what others have 
said here, part of the job of a leader *is* dealing off-list with 
matters of personal disagreements between members. I've never seen 
any team of any kind being properly led without that kind of 
diplomacy being dealt in private by the leader. I wouldn't expect 
anything less from a leader, and I know that's what people expect 
from me whenever I'm trusted with any sort of leading position. I 
don't really understand how things could be any different, as a 
matter of fact. I thought that was how MEG used to deal with problems 
between members, actually -- I remember when a MEG message leaked to 
the Main List by mistake with a strong complaint against Steve Bboy; 
I trust the matter was settled by the MEGs with the people involved, 
away from the other members' eyes. I assume the same has happened 
over and over again, making sure the groups could go on with their 
proper activities without suffering any significant stress. I don't 
see why the FAQ leader(s) would have any less responsibility. 

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

Morgan




From pennylin at swbell.net  Sat Aug 23 13:08:36 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 08:08:36 -0500
Subject: Opinions on Various Suggestions (not governance-related)
Message-ID: <009e01c36977$aa457810$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi all --

DATABASE --- I'm definitely still in favor of creating it, so I think
Abigail should run with creating it as she suggested.  Though it appears
that we ought to get MEG's blessing and/or even let one of them create the
database.

Even if people do nominate their own posts or posts that aren't worthy, we
can cull those out based on the subjective judgment of the FP team working
on the relevant FP, which is exactly how it will work with email suggestions
I would think.  IOW, the FP team will look at both emailed suggestions
relevant to their topic and the database, and will include those posts and
thoughts that they collectively deem to be the best.

LETTER TO MAIN LIST -- Looks great to me with Amanda's edits ----- I say go
with it.

VOLUMES SUGGESTION --- I think this has merit, but I think it depends on the
FP in question.

Debbie said:

<<<<<<First, much of the old material is still quite relevant and
only would need a little bit of updating.  Second, I think it would
be feasible -- and of more value for the reader -- to keep some of
the old dead theories in the updated FPs while noting the new canon
that swept the theory away.>>>>>>>

And, I agree with these thoughts.  The Hermione FP, for example, would
probably be most easily *updated* rather than catalogued as Volume I, with a
new volume to be written in the post-OoP world.  I would make a note under
the "what is her age" section that this used to be debated quite alot, until
the CoS DVD timeline put the issue to bed for the majority of fans
(excepting those who won't agree that anything related to the movie,
sanctioned by JKR or not, is canon -- <g>).

Amanda ----- could you take me through the basics of your volume theory, and
how it differs from what Debbie has said above?

WHEN SHOULD WE BEGIN WRITING?

I think that it again will depend on the FP in question.  The Sirius FP
could certainly be updated right now, as someone mentioned.  Neville could
be updated, though I think that good thoughts about him and his role in
future books may take longer to come to light.  I guess I would agree with
Debbie that fall is a good time to *really* get rolling, though the
background & straight factual information from OoP could be added in to all
the FPs right now.  I also like her suggestion of each team setting their
own timetable, based on the FP in question.

COMBING POST-OOP POSTS FOR FANTASTIC POSTS --

I would say that this is not a bad idea.  If we have 30+ people here, that
conveniently is 500 posts each.  It shouldn't take any of us too much time
to comb through 500 posts.  We'd have to decide if we want to actually
catalogue those posts or just skim them for FP content.  I'd vote for
cataloguing them while we're at it, but even just skimming seems worthwhile.

COMPLETING THE WHOLE ENCHILADA --

Yes, it should be completed.  I for one am happy to take on some
cataloguing.  Nimbus planning prevented me from fulfilling my commitment
last time, but I know I can do better this go-around.

HARRY FP --

Yes, let's get going.  It probably makes sense to talk to the entire team
off-list, recirculate Abigail's outline, etc.  On something like the Harry
FP, does it make sense to set up another yahoogroup?  Is that what the Snape
FP people did?  Or, did you all work just be individual emails amongst the
working group members?

HERMIONE FP -- 

I will definitely commit to updating this one, though truly Fantastic Posts
on her may not fully circulate until the fall.  But, since she hasn't been
updated since April 2001, there should be plenty to add in the interim.
:--)

Penny
(who is ready to get back to work with those who are so inclined..........)






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Aug 23 15:12:03 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 15:12:03 -0000
Subject: Loose Ends and a Proposal
Message-ID: <bi8083+cdtk@eGroups.com>

Hi,

First things first . . . 

::waves to Joy and Porphyria::

A few things:

1.  Tom raised some good issues regarding how we want to deal with 
the MoM FAQ and its relationship to the "Justice" FAQ.  We should 
probably revisit those so they don't get lost in the shuffle.

2.  We might want to clarify who will be working on what FAQ.  We 
have a database for that, but some of the houses do not have 
prefects, and some people have suggested they wish to work on FAQs 
that are not in the database.

3.  We took a poll to determine which current and new FAQs would be 
our priorities.  Now that OoP has been released, perhaps folks 
should consider whether they wish to change their votes.

4.  On cataloguing and beefing up the enchilada . . . I don't object 
to this but can't personally commit to help, although I'm always 
willing to benefit from the hard work of others.  :-D  How would we 
get this project rolling?

5.  I've rather lost track of the implementation of our effort to 
deputize the list to find good posts, which is fine.  Will the 
notice to the list be placed as a regularly occurring event on the 
calendar of the main list, like the chat reminders?

*****************

I've given some thought to some of the unfortunate events of this 
week, and I'd like to put something on the table.

I think that, given recent history in our community, civility 
problems and other interpersonal issues are likely to come up from 
time to time.  This is unfortunate and unpleasant, and I consider it 
a real threat to our group.  This is supposed to be fun.  People 
will leave if things become unpleasant.

Here's an idea, then.

I think we should designate "Aurors" in this group.  The "Aurors" 
would have the ability to address instances of rudeness on this list 
(by sending off-list communications and warnings, etc.).  
The "Aurors" would also have the power to address and correct issues 
such as abuse of moderator powers, for instance.  The "Aurors" could 
place a member on moderated status if necessary to control rudeness, 
for instance, or could adjust someone's moderator powers to address 
abuse.

I imagine the "Auror" system would work something like this.

FAQ member posts a personal attack on another member.  The Aurors 
would contact the member off-list and advise that the post was 
inappropriate and why.  Hopefully, the tone of the communication 
would reflect the severity of the violation.  Depending on the 
severity of the violation, the Aurors could also contact 
the "victim" of the rudeness and simply advise that the rudeness had 
been addressed.  

In addition, FAQ members who would like an instance of rudeness 
addressed could write to the Aurors and ask that action be taken.  
It would up to the Aurors to decide how to handle the matter.

The Aurors would not, however, have any authority to address 
instances of off-list rudeness.  If two members wish to have a 
smackdown off-list, it does not affect this group as directly as on-
list rudeness.  In addition, if a member wishes to take matters into 
her own hands and address rudeness off-list, that is also fine.

I understand the argument that anyone with a grievance should 
approach the offender off-list.  I do think that we must realize 
that we have many different personality types here, and some people 
abhor conflict.  Also, having the victim contact the perp off-list 
is all well and good, but there is nothing to prevent the perp from 
doing the same thing again and again and again, to the detriment of 
our community.  Prevention is very important, IMHO.

I understand the concern of some of our members that they don't wish 
to be policed.  Frankly, I don't want to be policed either.  But I 
think the well-being of this group is in jeopardy if we don't do 
something about this.  I am willing to behave myself and take the 
consequences when I do not.  After all, we don't allow the main list 
to police itself regarding issues of civility.  We send howlers, and 
we place repeat offenders on moderated status.

I would recommend that we choose 2-3 people to serve as Aurors.  I 
further recommend that no current or former MEG could serve as Auror 
because we are Modgate Survivors.  Our judgment may be clouded by 
our memory of those painful events, and we may be biased as a 
result.  Fortunately, we have several strong and fair non-MEG 
members who could serve, if they were willing.  

I think the mere fact that we put such a system in place would be 
such an effective deterrent to rudeness and abuse of moderator 
powers that the Aurors would find themselves to have very little to 
do.

And we would all win.

Cindy





From kippesp at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 15:55:47 2003
From: kippesp at yahoo.com (kippesp)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 15:55:47 -0000
Subject: Some Thoughts on Improving Communication
In-Reply-To: <bi5ktb+680t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi82q3+v7ps@eGroups.com>

Penny wrote:
> Well, back in the day, when *I* started this group and *I* was 
leading it,
> that was not the way it was done.  There were a group of us who 
decided we
> wanted to try and distill the burgeoning substance of HPfGU posts 
into
> easily-accessible essays, which could be updated periodically.  We 
divvied up
> the FAQs and we got down to work.  Granted, most people didn't 
fulfill their
> entire commitment, but it kept getting more and more out of 
control.  We
> didn't, however, evaluate the "interpersonal, analytical and 
writing skills,
> or interest level in the HPfGU community" before we allowed 
someone to join
> us.  You make it sound like a job interview, for God's sake.  This 
is a
> volunteer operation.  Period.  

I was here at that time as well and the group worked fine.  It may 
have been a
bit slow, but it worked.  If we had a leader, it certainly didn't 
feel like it.
Things just worked.

Sometimes not having a leader can work.  We know the tasks at hand.  
And we're responsible enough to complete them or say when we can't.






From editor at texas.net  Sat Aug 23 17:46:28 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:46:28 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Opinions on Various Suggestions (not governance-related)
References: <009e01c36977$aa457810$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>
Message-ID: <003201c3699e$7b8a0d20$2004a6d8@texas.net>

> DATABASE --- I'm definitely still in favor of creating it, so I think
> Abigail should run with creating it as she suggested.  Though it appears
> that we ought to get MEG's blessing and/or even let one of them create the
> database.

FYI: Pip posted a request to MEG and I believe they're looking at the
current databases, considering clearing out defunct ones, and in general
seem to like the idea and just want to make sure there's room. No final word
yet, though.

> Amanda ----- could you take me through the basics of your volume theory,
and
> how it differs from what Debbie has said above?

I've been thinking about this--I think the merit of having volumes may well
depend on the style in which the FAQ is written. From what I've seen (and I
haven't read them all), there are a couple of methods.

The one I am most familiar with is Snape's, which was written as an essay.
The essay is standalone; even if you don't click on any links, you get the
gist of what was said and postulated. This is one reason I was *not* wanting
to simply update it, because it was a piece of writing in its own right, by
Porphyria (mostly) and I was unwilling to fool with someone else's work.
That's why I suggested a Snape 2, to cover some additional theories, instead
of "working them in." The same problem would apply to adding new theorizing
and such from OoP. So probably, whether we do volumes or not, I'm going to
strongly suggest a Part 2, for Snape and any of the others which are lovely
bits of writing by themselves, even without the embedded links.

The other style of FAQ (this is a broad generalization) is a sort of brief
summary of what a theory was, followed by a list of posts. This style could
very easily be updated with OoP material without losing anything. More on a
new theory? Add the links, possibly with a header "post-OoP." A new theory?
Add it and put the links.

There are several ways of compiling a FAQ. Some will lend themselves to
updating with no pain at all, but some will be an author's work or very well
 done, nicely rounded out as statements of "this is what we thought up to
now" (like Snape's), and a volume-approach might be better for those.

Such are my thoughts. The FAQs *do* have many styles; decide on an
individual basis?

And whether we do volumes or not, are we going to try to identify the
post-OoP links/theories from the pre?

Other stuff:

(1) Melody--I accept on behalf of myself and a totally unconsulted
Porphyria. Dibbies on Melody for help on the Snape FAQ!

(2) Listen, is there a procedure? I mean, for new people, were there "How To
Do A FAQ" steps anywhere? Most of what I did for the existing FAQs was help
read them when they were done; I'd like to understand the whole procedure
from [very good post on the list] to [FAQ].

Sorry I'm ignorant.

~Amanda






From heidit at netbox.com  Sat Aug 23 18:41:28 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:41:28 -0400
Subject: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
References: <001801c369a1$bdd06c30$192da944@D2HZ5M21>
Message-ID: <1061664096.10AEEAEA@r5.dngr.org>

Here's a question which will need to be addressed: should we allow links 
directly to nc17 fics?

In the past, hpfgu has not done so, and given that the faqs were hosted 
on fa's server, it would not have been permissible for them to have, as 
no links directly to nc17 material were permitted on the server - or are 
now, in fact.

But next month, fa is moving to a new server and as I understand it, 
links to nc17 material are permitted (although fa still won't do so).

Do we want to allow links directly to nc17 fics?

Can I ask that nobody create a poll on this for at least a week, so we 
can discuss it first?

Heidi


-----Original Message-----
From: Jessica Bridges <jeziguh at adelphia.net>
To: fantastic_posts at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:09:48 -0400

Real-To:  "Jessica Bridges" <jeziguh at adelphia.net>

Fanfic Title: The Familiar
Author: Resonant
URL: http://trickster.org/res/familiar.html
Rating: NC-17
Summary: A potion goes awry and Harry lives as a frog for the summer. 
Harry/Snape.

Fanfic Title: Book of Shadows
Author: Lux
URL: http://www.snowroses.net/apollo/bookofshadows.htm
Rating: R
Summary: The final weeks of Harry's seventh year in which he watches 
people have sex, skips classes, and tells Dumbledore what he really 
thinks. Explores depressed!under-appreciated!witty!artistic!Harry.
Warnings: angst, mild humor, self-mutilation, little bit of 
incest...sort of (you'll understand when you see it).

Fanfic Title: Harry Potter and the Legacy of the Light
Author: Gramarye
URL: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Gramarye/
Rating: PG-13
Summary: When the Dark Lord comes rising, it is up to Harry and his 
friends to turn him back once and for all. Fifth-year, sequel to "Town 
and Gown", crossover/fusion with Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising 
Sequence.

Fanfic Title: Giving Notice
Author: Quoth the Raven
URL: http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=628937
Rating: PG-13
Summary: A look at the actions of a main character from the point of 
view of other characters. When death rocks Hogwarts, you'd be surprised 
who's affected.  Suicide fic.

Fanfic Title: Blackened Sunrise
Author: The Itch
URL: http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=1020928
Rating: R
Summary: Having vanished at the end of 4th year, Harry Potter is forced 
to return during 6th-- and he's changed. Big Time.

Fanfic Title: Je Te Plumerais
Author: Nimori
URL: http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=1089507
Rating: R
Summary: SLASH. A caged bird will sing, if only to conserve his spirit. 
Complete.

Fanfic Title: Fidelius
Author: Tradescant
URL: http://joyce.jteers.net/intellislasher/tradescant-fidelius.html
Rating: NC-17
Summary: Harry, all at sea and out in the cold. H/S.

Fanfic Title: Your Horoscope for Today
Author: Telanu
URL: http://www.amplexus.org/~telanu/shop.html
Rating: PG-13
Summary: The coffeemaker is broken, and Snape needs coffee. He really 
does. Like, he really needs...oy. What a day.  H/S.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fantastic_Posts-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 18:44:55 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:44:55 -0000
Subject: Whoa, keeping up to date!
Message-ID: <bi8cn7+59jp@eGroups.com>

First off, I'd like to apologize for setting off this mess and 
hitting the road ? when I posted the other day, I was frustrated by 
the lack of progress that we've been experiencing lately. When my 
request for clarification on what our `actual responsibilities' were 
was met with a flurry of responses indicating that we really couldn't 
move forward until MEG made some kind of decision, I decided that 
enough was enough.

So, at someone's suggestion, I followed it up with a poll. 

Now, (and this is meant especially to Amanda and Abigail,) it's 
*just* a poll, you guys. It seems to me like you're taking this way 
out of proportion, and responding with critical accusations 
of `divisiveness' and so forth. 

Abigail asked whether or not she should `dignify' the poll with a 
vote, and what I would do if only a few people voted. I'd do nothing, 
that's what ? the purpose of the poll was to see what people thought. 
If people think nothing, then there's not much that can be done, is 
there? 

Either way, I don't see how protesting the `poll' is very helpful. 
That's like saying that it's better 'not to ask' about such things. 
If you don't want to vote, then don't, although I'm sure that you 
must see that avoiding the poll is basically unhelpful as well... 
after all, as Morgan so eloquently posted, there are many legitimate 
points to be discussed, for those who can contain the theatrics. 

And I'll remind you both that I have been neither sarcastic nor 
insulting to either of you, and I hope that you'll keep the tone 
less `irritable' in the future.


Now, a few other points:

Heidi wrote:
"I have an argument against complete independence, and it's entirely 
technical.

The faqs are hosted on hpfgu's server, which has had its hosting fees 
thru the end of the year and a little beyond paid for by the mods of 
hpfgu. Complete independence, to me, means that they wouldn't be 
hosted there anymore.

Now, some of you might be perfectly happy withthat situation in 
theory, but practically speaking, if that approach was adopted and 
the faqs were hosted elsewhere, the faq writers would have to be more 
careful about quoting without getting permission from the posters - 
there is, iirc, a license to hpfgu to use post content in the faqs, 
at least for any posts generated since august, 2000, but there's no 
such license to a group operating separate from hpfgu."

Tom replies:
Heidi, thank goodness we have you here for legal-speak. Good point ? 
sorry that I was unclear.

I understand that you may interpret `independence' as something akin 
to `a complete severance.' 

I want to point out that, although I understand how this could be 
your reaction, you must agree that I'd be a buffoon for proposing 
such a thing. Our job would be reduced to searching for Fantastic 
Posts from... where? If you like `autonomy' then that's fine by me... 
I'm not going to get bogged down in specifics. What I *meant,* 
however one prefers to word it, is that we shouldn't have to wait 
around for MEG to make a decision for us to get to work. On that note:


Pip wrote:
Like Abigail, I'm not sure *how* FAQ could be completely autonomous. 
A 'hands off' policy, where we decided that as far as possible we 
would not interfere with the way you run things, has actually been 
in operation for a while. Again, the problem is probably that we 
forgot to tell you ;-)

Tom sighs a sigh of relief and heartily replies:
Brilliant! This is what I was looking for when I asked what we were 
responsible for a while ago. 

In other words, we don't have to wait around for MEG to decide 
anything in order for us to get cracking. Excellent!

I'm already signed up for the Death Eaters and Aurors FAQ, which 
after OoP, I'm convinced should be distilled out from each other. I 
know that listees tend to talk about these things together, but we 
now have ample information on the Aurors and the MoM that should go 
into a `Government' FAQ, IMHO, and plenty of other stuff on 
Voldemort's forces o' doom.


One final thing on the Issue-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named: I know that 
some would prefer to bury the whole governance thing and let it drop ?
 but I really enjoyed Morgan's exhortation to the contrary, and I am 
also of the mindset that anything deliberately buried will fester 
anyways, and eventually result in the same distress we sought to 
avoid by burying the whole thing in the first place. As Dumbledore 
and Harry teach us, it's better to call things by name, as fear of 
the name only increases fear of the thing itself. 

And why anyone should have either fear or irritation over an internet 
group is beyond me.

Let's talk about it, civilly, and figure out what the group wants to 
do. Just so y'all know, I'm not going to take it personally, or get 
saddened or scared away from some acerbic tongues ? I love a good 
debate. ;-)

-Tom




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 18:46:19 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:46:19 -0000
Subject: E-mail Full of Questions I wrote to MEG.
Message-ID: <bi8cpr+h4kk@eGroups.com>

Hey guys, here's the e-mail I wrote to MEG. Following is the response 
that Dave sent me recently. It *did* clear a bunch of stuff up. 
Thanks, guys.

-Tom

--------

Hi all,

It has recently come to my attention that some remarks
I made on the message board regarding the new OoP FAQ
were taken as 'rude' by some of your number, and that
subsequently it is more than likely that some feathers
were ruffled. So, first off, I'd like to begin by
offering both an apology and olive-branch to anyone
who may have been offended, and in particular to Pip,
whom I know has written the FAQ and has been working
hard to keep it up-to-date despite the avalanche of
new posts.

I hope that you all realize that nothing personal was
meant by my criticism. I also hope that you all
realize the distinction between complaining about some
inane matter of list procedure (and do I realize that
the `hbfile' advises members not to engage in this
kind of discussion, and will discuss that below) as
opposed to complaining about a Moderator *personally.*
Ordinarily I wouldn't have felt the need to draw this
distinction at all, but based on mail I've received, I
do feel it's necessary, as I also feel about the
apology.

In addition, it has been pointed out to me that I
don't know exactly what a Moderator does, and how
time-consuming the position can actually be.

So, in order to rectify this, and in order to
understand better the way that this list operates, I
have a variety of questions for all of you concerning
what exactly you do as Moderators, how you came to
have your present status in the HPfGU community, and
what your policies are regarding certain activities. I
would ordinarily have sent this just to Ali, my own
list-elf, but figured would be better to send it to
y'all instead, for three reasons: first, many heads
are better than one; second, Ali is probably as busy
as the rest of you right now, and so it seemed unfair
to burden her with a ton of questions; third, a search
through the information available to the HPfGU public
in the database and the files reveals practically none
of the information for which I'm asking. Based mostly
on number three, I'm hoping you all can do something
about this. In due time, of course. ;-)

First, what do you do as Moderators? Without knowing
anything specific in terms of `what Mods are
*required* to do,' yet having an idea how the list is
run in terms of what appears to go on here, I'd say
that you guys do the following stuff: you send out the
digests and special notice e-mails; you field
questions from HPfGU patrons like myself; you keep the
various webpages up-to-date; you monitor all messages
from members who are still on 'Moderated' status; you
monitor all other messages and delete them if they're
in violation of any Yahoo! term of service or legal
situation; you select the poll topics and run the
contests; you (meaning Pip, at the moment) are busy
with the new FAQ; you repost spoiler warnings and
legal policies to the group; you have the power to
shut down and reactivate the list; and you somehow
ensure coherence between these policies and those of
the sister Yahoo! groups, although exactly how they're
all related is a mystery to me. See below for more on
this last bit.

So, when someone says that you're all 'swamped' with
work right now, does that mean that you're all extra
busy reading through the Moderated messages because
there has been such an influx due to OoP, and/or that
there are other pressing things that are keeping you
very occupied at the moment? 

I'm asking because, as I mentioned earlier, it's not
exactly clear to me, or, I imagine, to the rest of the
HPfGU membership, exactly what it is that you guys do,
although by a cursory read through both the message
board and some private e-mail exchanges, it seems that
you all feel like you do quite a lot. For the record,
I am not questioning how much you all do for the list,
rather, I'm asking for clarification on what it is
that y'all *are* doing. Some enlightenment for the
average membership, after all, might increase the
respect that many of you feel you should be accorded
for your volunteered services.

Now, secondly, I'm also wondering how it is that you
all came to be Moderators, Elves, and Geists. Well,
Geists, I take it, used to serve the HPfGU community
and have agreed to remain on in a kind of
distinguished-veteran capacity. But other than the
Geists, I can't really figure out how it is that you
guys became Elves and Mods in the first place.

Who gets to be a Moderator? Who is eligible, and out
of those eligible, who gets selected and how? When
does the Mod team take on new members? I've heard
nothing about elections ? do they exist at all? Are 
democratic principles used in selecting the
Moderators? Are you chosen by some kind of an unbiased
panel? Or are you chosen by some kind of `elders'
council, like the Spartan Gerousia? Is the Moderator
group a self-selecting minority, which is how it
appears? If you guys are members of a self-selecting
group, I'm inclined to ask whether or not y'all think
that this is fair, and whether or not you`re trying to
do anything about changing it ? after all,
self-selecting oligarchies are notoriously resistant
to change, because normally they're reluctant to
relinquish their (often extensive and unchallenged)
authority.

In other words, do the members of the Mod team
exclusively select who will join the Mod team, thereby
ensuring that their own special-status is preserved?

Is the Mod team run like the Ministry of Magic, at the
decree of an official or group that isn't ostensibly
elected? Do you elect officials *within* the group,
i.e. is there anything comparable to a Moderator
`president' or `chair,' as in, who has access to the
owner-account `albusthewise?' Does seniority count?
Does activity on the list have anything to do with
becoming a Mod? For instance, there are several of you
from whom I am hard-pressed to remember having seen a
post on-list... others post regularly. So I am tempted
to ask how fair it is that some of the Moderators for
the list are less-involved than some regular members?
Bboy_mn and some others come to mind in this respect:
they have outstripped a great many of the current
Moderators in volume and quality of posts, yet seem to
have nothing to do with the Administrative team at
all. (Again, please do not take this personally. It is
simply an observation, and not intended as an insult.)

Surely the level of activity rates somehow in
determining eligibility for `Moderator' rank? Or does
it? 

What kind of influence do HPfGU Mods exert over the
sister Yahoo! groups? Is there some kind of core,
ubiquitous group of Mods throughout, or is authority
restricted to the main, book-related list? I've
noticed that the Mods for OT Chatter and Movie lists
aren't identical to the Mod-group for the main list,
and yet there is a noticeable overlap between them
all. How is eligibility for Moderator-status on the
other groups different from that status on the main
book group? Who determines eligibility for Mod-status
on the sister lists? To what extent is policy cohesive
between the groups? To what extent does the larger
Mod-group for the main list exact power over the
others, i.e. do representatives of the main list
report back on the activities of the sister groups?
Who appoints members to service-positions, i.e.
webmaster? Who is answerable to whom? What happens if
there's a conflict between two or more groups? With
whom does the buck stop?

Lot of questions, I know, and I am sorry if this adds
too much to what you have to do already. But, since I
pointed out that don't know exactly what these
activities are, I'll have to press on out of sheer
curiosity...

Lastly, I'm very interested in the policies that you
guys operate under. 

For instance (all examples here ? no actual cases),
where is the distinction between Elkins-the-member
posting her personal opinion, and Elkins-the-Moderator
posting on behalf of the team? What about when
Elkins-the-member steps out of line, or gets overly
rude, or violates some HPfGU policy? Are Mods held to
a higher standard than regular members, or can Mods
basically do whatever they want? In my example, would
Elkins be sent a Howler? 

How does discipline work? Is there a difference
between disciplining one of your own and a regular
member? Do you all decide who is disciplined and how,
or is it a smaller group of you to whom that authority
is delegated? Are there HPfGU `Aurors,' so to speak,
who seek out infractions or deal with mishaps? Is
there an equivalent to the `Wizengamot' on the
Moderator group? If I was to be disciplined, would it
come from some special official e-mail address, or
could it come from any of you individually? Would it
be clear that I was being disciplined, in that the
mail would be very official-looking? Can any one Mod
decide to send a Howler or change my membership status
unilaterally? Is the decision to discipline taken
lightly, or not? Is it a group decision, or not, and
if so, what percentage of votes is required to proceed
on a course of action, i.e is there some quota? Are
Howlers announced publicly, or kept private? How many
Howlers have been sent through the group's history?
Are records kept? Who keeps them? 

What infraction could result in an ouster from the
HPfGU group? What kind of infraction could result in
an ouster from the Moderator group? Who makes those
kinds of decisions? Can they be appealed? If so, to
whom can one appeal?

On another note, what happens when I am e-mailed by
one of you personally? Example: Pippin writes me
personally to complain about something I wrote
on-list. She doesn't write what appears to be an
official e-mail, and it's not signed with her elf-name
(which is either Pippy or Peppy ? I always confuse
Pippin and Pip in this respect... pardons, you two.)
At any rate, one way or the other, it's not clear to
me that she's writing on behalf of the Mods, or,
really, that the Mods have anything to do with
Pippin's e-mail at all, aside from the fact that she
is a Mod. So, when I write back to her, can I expect
that information to be relayed to the rest of you on
the Mod-message-board? Will it be posted and then
discussed and so forth? 

I ask because I know that some of my earlier
discussions on the list *have* been discussed by the
Moderators privately, and so I'm wondering exactly how
far you guys can go... where is the line drawn between
`public' and `private?' Is there a line at all? If I
write to Amanda to complain about something, can she
forward it on to the rest of you? Is there any kind of
confidentiality or privacy that exists between
Moderators and members? For instance, exactly who is
allowed to review the results of private polls? Is it
necessary for members to request privacy, and does it
matter even if they do? In other words, if `Peppy Elf'
writes to me, I'd expect that the contents of our
exchange would be subject to Moderator perusal if she
deemed it necessary. If `Pippin-the-member' writes to
me, my expectation is that the conversation would be
totally out of Moderator jurisdiction, and therefore
either kept privately between us, or else, (if
discussed at all) kept off the Moderator-list and
limited to private e-mail between individual Mods.
Surely the Mod-list isn't used as a way to complain
about other members, right?

Finally, as a `normal' member of HPfGU, what options
do I have to enact change if I desired? I ask this
because the no-longer-so-hb-file says: "Do not flame,
send obscenities or spam, engage in other
discourteous, disrespectful or illegal behavior or
**argue about list policy onlist** (send suggestions
to HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com instead)." 

In other words, there seems to be *no* public forum
for a discussion of list policy. In *other* other
words, you guys exclusively control list policy, and
when you discuss both it and suggested changes (unless
you feel inclined to ask for anyone's opinion via
poll) your discussions are private and you are
unaccountable to the rest of us, despite the fact that
HPfGU has more members than the entire town in which I
grew up. So, basically, at present you guys would seem
(to me) to be able to do whatever you want ? there's
no accountability, and no one is answerable to anyone
else ? succinctly put, there would appear to be no
oversight whatsoever. 

Example: I e-mail the Moderators, insisting that the
color of the main webpage be changed to puce because I
like puce more than the present hue. I get no
response. I e-mail again, and again, up to, say,
ninety times. Still, I get no response, or better, I
get a flat `no way,' without so much as an offer to
put out a poll. To whom can I go to either get an
answer, or to get some action? Is there an alternative
route to yourselves? Is it acceptable to write about
stuff like this on OT-Chatter? If a discussion occurs
on OT chatter, how much relevance would that have over
procedures for the other lists?

Anyways, those're all the questions I have for now.
Again, I hope that this isn't a tremendous burden on
all of you, since the OoP release seems to have
drastically raised your workload. And I also hope that
no one was offended by this e-mail... I mean it only
to ask questions and clarify, not to anger or insult
the group or any individuals within.

Oh, and one final thing, added at the suggestion of a
friend: I'm not asking these questions because I have
any designs to be a Moderator, or because I want to
cause trouble. Indeed, I have too much on my plate
already to entertain any such notions. However, after
the recent turn-of-events, I wanted to ask, as I am
very curious as to how these decisions are being made
and think that we could all benefit from an
explanation.

Thanks very much for your time, and keep up the good
work!

Tom Wall





From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 18:48:09 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:48:09 -0000
Subject: E-mail Full of Questions I wrote to MEG.
In-Reply-To: <bi8cpr+h4kk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi8ct9+p6qe@eGroups.com>

Hey all,

Here's the MEG response. It's very informative and helpful. Hope it 
answers some of the questions you (like me) may have had about HPfGU 
list operation.

-Tom

--------

Hi, Tom,

I have just seen your post on the FAQ list.  My sincere apologies on 
behalf of MEG for not getting back to you sooner.

The leter below was in fact drafted by Judy and Amy back in early 
July, 
but we then managed never to send it.  Here it is, I hope better late 
than never.

I think in the circumstances you should feel free to share it with 
the 
other members of the FAQ list, if you so wish.

David

Thanks for your post!  An Active Citizen!  I've been a
part of list admin for two years and no one's asked
most of these questions.  In fact, since we've been
talking about how to make list administration more
transparent, we'd really love to post your questions
and our answers as a file to the main list, if that's
okay with you.  Let us know.

The answers were written by a few of us and come from
HPfGU admin as a whole.  I am but a conduit.

Many of the questions you raise are on our minds as
well.  We beg your patience as we struggle to find the
best answers.  We have discussed many changes of late,
and each of them takes a lot of time, because the
administrative team *is* democratically run and we
have a lot of discussion and then a vote on each of
these matters.  We're getting there, slowly.



*********

>>>>>>>>>First, what do you do as Moderators?
Without knowing
anything specific in terms of `what Mods are
*required* to do,' yet having an idea how the list is
run in terms of what appears to go on here, I'd say
that you guys do the following stuff: you send out the
digests and special notice e-mails; you field
questions from HPfGU patrons like myself; you keep the
various webpages up-to-date; you monitor all messages
from members who are still on 'Moderated' status; you
monitor all other messages and delete them if they're
in violation of any Yahoo! term of service or legal
situation; you select the poll topics and run the
contests; you (meaning Pip, at the moment) are busy
with the new FAQ; you repost spoiler warnings and
legal policies to the group; you have the power to
shut down and reactivate the list; <<<<<<<<<<<

Most of the things you listed above are things that we
do, with a few
exceptions. The digests are automatically compiled by
Yahoo, and I
think anyone can set up a poll. There are a number of
additional tasks
that you missed, like deciding who gets to come off of
moderated
status. (Getting off moderated status is mostly a
straightforward
matter of having had several days of posts that met
all of the rules,
but we have a lot of members to keep track of.) Once
someone is ready
to come off of moderated status, their status has to
be changed in
Yahoo and they get an email from us telling them they
are now
unmoderated. Also, some of the List Admin has been
spending time
lately removing "spoilers" from the list, such as
posts that say right
in their title the name of the character who dies! We
also spend a lot
of time sending each new member a PWE ("personal
welcoming email"),
although we have had to skip a few days of this
lately, since things
have been so overwhelming. Approving the pending
messages is the
biggest task right now.  

We have a Help Desk for
people with disabilities or who speak English as a
second language; this can be quite labor-intensive, as
a few people request to have all of their posts
screened and proofread.  We also get requests to unsub
someone, delete a post they wish they hadn't sent, or
change their message delivery system--all things
people can do themselves, but if they are new to
YahooGroups they often don't know this and write to
-owner asking us to please help them with the deluge
of e-mails overflowing their inbox.

Other picky administrative tasks that take up a lot
of time:  we have an address that gets sent every
digest so that if a list member misses a digest, we
can forward it; this address needs to be cleaned out
periodically.  A couple of tech-savvy people take care
of the Archives and various and sundry technical
issues that arise.  A couple of law-savvy people
answer copyright-violation questions (these arise
quite often, though we all know the basics such as "no
quoting articles in full").  Every approved post is
entered in a database.  Each change in member status,
e.g. moving off moderated status, requires a bit of
"paperwork" as we update our database.  We also change
everyone who opts for webview to "Special Notices,"
which involves trawling through the new members
changing each one individually.

There are frequent matters that need discussion and
dealing-with, e.g. "incipient flame war on -Movie
between pro- and anti-Oldman forces!"  Many we address
individually, but in other cases we want to get each
other's input on how best to respond, so a flurry of
e-mails follows.  Sometimes we rewrite the
Used-to-Be-the-Humungous-Bigfile (just done) or the
home page (in progress), and those changes involve a
lot of discussion, as you can imagine if you picture
30 language-loving nitpickers sitting around a table.
And interesting policy questions pop up all the time
so that we're often discussing some new question or
other.

As you've noticed, most of the sister lists are also
run by various
HpfGU List Admin people. The regional lists are mostly
run by other
people. Anyone can start a regional list, if one is
not already
available for their area.

Another big task lately, in which some (but not all)
of the HPfGU List
Admin has been involved, is planning the Harry Potter
convention,
Nimbus 2003. We have also been spending a lot of time
lately trying
to think about the best way to run HPfGU and how to
seek member input.
More about that below.


>>>>>So, when someone says that you're all 'swamped'
with
work right now, does that mean that you're all extra
busy reading through the Moderated messages because
there has been such an influx due to OoP, and/or that
there are other pressing things that are keeping you
very occupied at the moment? <<<<<

Mostly the influx from OoP -- moderated messages,
sending PWEs,
demodding new members and answering questions,
although a few of us
are busy gettingr eady for Nimbus. Also, we've been
doing a lot of
discussion about the best way to run the list,
although this has
mostly been put on hold since OoP came out.

>>>>Now, secondly, I'm also wondering how it is that
you
all came to be Moderators, Elves, and Geists....<<<<

Originally, HPfGU was small, and the moderators were
either the people
who started the list, or other people they asked to
join them. Then,
the Mods asked for helpers -- the "List Elves" --
because the pending
messages and PWEs were a lot of work, and several
list members volunteered and were accepted.
Essentially, the people who
were in List Admin choose the new List Admin people.

In the early days, this seemed reasonable because it
was easy, and
anyone who didn't like the rules we used, or who
wanted to moderate a Harry Potter group and wasn't invited to help 
moderate ours, could just start their own Yahoo group. This is still 
true,
of course, but especially now that HPfGU has grown so
big, we're aware that we should switch to something more
democratic. We are seriously thinking of instituting some sort of
terms limits --
possibly quite short, like 6 months or less -- when
the OoP rush slows down. We are also thinking of dividing up the 
workload
more, with different committees for different tasks, to give more
people a chance to be involved.

>>>>Is the Mod team run like the Ministry of Magic, at the
decree of an official or group that isn't ostensibly
elected? Do you elect officials *within* the group,
i.e. is there anything comparable to a Moderator
`president' or `chair,' as in, who has access to the
owner-account `albusthewise?' Does seniority count?
Does activity on the list have anything to do with
becoming a Mod? For instance, there are several of you
from whom I am hard-pressed to remember having seen a
post on-list... others post regularly. So I am tempted
to ask how fair it is that some of the Moderators for
the list are less-involved than some regular
members?....
Surely the level of activity rates somehow in
determining eligibility for `Moderator' rank? Or does
it? <<<<

Up until a few months ago, there were eight or so
"full" Moderators
who had more power than the Geists and List Elves. We
changed that,
and now all the List Admins have equal power. We have
had a person
(or small group of people) serve as facillitator for
List Admin
discussions during the past couple of months; that
position was
elected, and rotated between people after a brief term
of office.

As for how people got chosen in the first place,
basically, people who
posted well, posted a lot, didn't get into
arguments or write
flames, and demonstrated diplomacy got invitations
to join the List Admin, typically as Elves. A
few people were asked to join List Admin because they
were heavily
involved in related parts of Harry Potter fandom, such
as the Harry
Potter Lexicon. Often, though, people's posting rate
would drop off
as soon as they joined List Admin, because List Admin
took up all of
their online time! However, virtually everyone on List
Admin was a
heavy poster at one time.  One reason we are
reorganizing how we do list admin is that the task has
been so time-consuming that it has reduced heavy
posters to non-posters.

It's been a long time since we asked anyone to join
List Admin, which
is why some of the currently active posters haven't
been asked to
join. We want to get a better system in place before
we recruit new
List Administrators, but we will probably do that
pretty soon, after
the current rush has slowed. (Maybe in a month or
two.)  So another topic of recent discussion is the
fairest and best way for new people to come
aboard--self-nomination and then open elections by
poll on the main list?  self-nomination and then
selection by the current admin?  etc.

>>>>What kind of influence do HPfGU Mods exert over
the
sister Yahoo! groups? Is there some kind of core,
ubiquitous group of Mods throughout, or is authority
restricted to the main, book-related list? I've
noticed that the Mods for OT Chatter and Movie lists
aren't identical to the Mod-group for the main list,
and yet there is a noticeable overlap between them
all. <<<<<

For the most part, people in HPfGU List Admin have
volunteered to run
the sister lists. The regional lists are somewhat
separate, and are
run by whomever volunteered first. There are a lot of
former HPfGU
list adminstrators who are still listed as mods on the
sister lists,
although they generally aren't actually running those
lists.

Everyone in List Administration for HPfGU has equal
authority on -OTC, -Announcements, and -Movie as well.
The reason we don't all appear on the Moderators
lists for all of them is that we informally divide up
duties ; e.g. some of us never pop into -Movie unless
alerted of a problem, so we never bothered to get
ourselves Moderator powers there.)


>>>>>What infraction could result in an ouster from
the
HPfGU group? What kind of infraction could result in
an ouster from the Moderator group? Who makes those
kinds of decisions? Can they be appealed? If so, to
whom can one appeal?<<<<

If someone is really not following the rules, they get
put on
moderated status permanently, rather than ousted.
Posts
they make that conform to the rules still go on the
list, and we revisit them once in a while "poster Q
has really not caused any trouble since that flareup
in late '02--shall we deMod?"). We do ban people who
send us spam ("Enlarge your penis today!!"), but I
assume that isn't what you meant.

We have not had written policies about what the rules
are for staying in the administration, and we are in
the process of doing so, in the larger context of
articulating how we'll deal with conflict within the
administrative group.  We're taking up the question of
whether to have some kind of Wizengamot, and lookee
here, JKR has given us a word for it.

>>>>>>>For instance . . . where is the distinction
between [a Moderator who is a member] posting her
personal opinion, and that Moderator
posting on behalf of the team?<<<<<<

In regards to posting opinions about HP, we want
Moderators to feel free to participate in the HP
discussion that brought us all here and not be treated
any differently than other list members in those
discussions.  I.e., "Lupin is Ever So Evil" does not
have extra weight because it is advocated by a
Moderator, Pippin; that's just her own view of canon.
We keep administrative messages separate from our
personal messages to the list in order to keep that
distinction clear, and everyone seems fine with it.

In regards to disciplinary matters, a moderator may
occasionally write offlist to someone in his capacity
as list member and say "I'm not speaking as a member
of list admin here--I thought that was rude" and sign
it "David" rather than "Elf David, for List Admin."
However, we try to be aware that no matter how many
qualifiers may hedge such a comment, and however
unofficial the capacity in which the author is
writing, it is nevertheless coming from a member of
list admin and reeks of a big stick.

>>>>> What about when
Elkins-the-member steps out of line, or gets overly
rude, or violates some HPfGU policy? Are Mods held to
a higher standard than regular members, or can Mods
basically do whatever they want? In my example, would
Elkins be sent a Howler?<<<<<<<<

Ah, tricky, that.  Mods *should* be held to a higher
standard if anything.  One advantage of hand-picking
the administrative team is that they seldom break the
rules.  It does happen, though, and we tend to take
each other quietly aside and point this out.  We try
to do the same with all list members, for that matter,
reserving Howlers for egregious offenses--we're trying
to bring about a culture change in this regard,
believing we were too free with Howlers in the past.
We're aware that *any* admonishment from list admin,
however gently worded, can be painful and
embarrassing, and we want to make them as helpful and
nurturing as possible.

>>>>>Finally, as a 'normal' member of HPfGU, what
options
do I have to enact change if I desired? I ask this
because the no-longer-so-hb-file says: "Do not flame,
send obscenities or spam, engage in other
discourteous, disrespectful or illegal behavior or
**argue about list policy onlist** (send suggestions
to HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com instead)."

In other words, there seems to be *no* public forum
for a discussion of list policy.<<<<<

Yeah.  The reason for having no on-list list policy
arguments is that we've all seen lists where the same
old policy questions get rehashed over and over
(sometimes irresolvably; e.g., there are always a few
people who think anti-flaming rules are a violation of
their civil liberties and want to revisit the question
of whether we should have any rules at all) and good
people leave because they were there to discuss HP or
Buffy or Medieval Agrarian History, not
administration.  We'd like to continue to keep policy
discussions separate.

We are very open to suggestions and have had many
interesting conversations with listies who write to
-owner with this or that idea, and have frequently
changed policies due to popular demand.  All of that
said, we aren't content with the way it's been, and in
fact have discussed setting up an open-membership list
just for policy discussion.  It seems likely that
there will always be a need for a small group that has
private discussions, unless list members are willing
to submit to having all disciplinary matters be
public.  We try to balance transparency with a respect
for people's privacy and dignity; most members who are
criticized for rudeness don't want it discussed on an
open list and are grateful that we deal with it
quietly.

> In *other* other words, you guys exclusively control
list policy, and
> when you discuss both it and suggested changes
(unless
> you feel inclined to ask for anyone's opinion via
> poll) your discussions are private and you are
> unaccountable to the rest of us

Yep, basically.  The list is *not* run democratically;
it's run by an oligarchy that makes its policy
decisions by vote.  It is, after all, a private
association, not a town; no one has to be here, no one
has a constitutional right to belong here (as long as
our rules aren't based on arbitrary dividers like "no
Italians allowed"), and ultimately, if one doesn't
like the rules in a private association, the solution
is to create a different private association with more
agreeable rules.  The fact is that most people don't
want to be involved in making policy at all; they join
the list because they like the way it's run, and are
more than happy to let someone else run it.

HOWEVER, we're moving the list toward a more
democratic model.  And we do want to be
accountable--that's why we give reasons for our
decisions, invite discussion and suggestions, and are
exploring ways to make policy discussions broader and
more transparent.

Best wishes

Amy and Judy

 





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 19:09:31 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:09:31 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <000c01c368fc$021e66e0$0d05a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bi8e5b+sv9n@eGroups.com>

In accordance with Amanda's comments, the revised version of the 
request for contributions:

Dear HPfGU Members,

Hello from the FAQ team! We're in charge of writing the Fantastic
Posts essays, which can be found at

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/

These essays collect posts on a variety of different subjects,
ranging from The Weasley Family to Justice in the Wizarding World.
They also provide summaries of important and popular theories
such as LOLLIPOPS or George. The Fantastic Posts are a great
asset to group members old and new, providing a coherent
perspective on the ideas that came before us. They also allow us
to save from Yahoo! oblivion those posts which are truly
remarkable and worth remembering.

We on the FAQ team are eager to get to work on updating the old
FPs and writing new ones in the wake of OOP, but we'd like you
all to help us. Have you read a post recently that really made you
think? A well-written post, that offered a new perspective or
submitted a new thoery? In short, have you read a Fantastic Post
recently? If you have, we'd like to hear about it.

Before you get going, a few words on what makes a post Fantastic.
You might want to check out some of the posts referenced in the old
FPs to get an idea of the kind of quality we're looking for. Also, bear
in mind that a a Fantastic Post should:

1. Be well written and coherent
2. Present new ideas or offer a good overview of old ones
3. Have good formatting - good grammar and spelling, capitalization
and punctuation where appropriate, more then one paragraph, etc.

There are three simple ways to let us know about a Fantastic Post:
 
1. We've opened the FAQ archive group to posting by the general 
public.  You can e-mail us at

(e-mail of archive group should go here)

Please use the following template when sending us a
recommendation e-mail

Fantastic Post number:
Author of Fantastic Post:
Topic of Fantastic Post:
Date of Fantastic Post:

Not all fields have to be filled, but we *must* have the message 
number - finding a message in any other way is all but impossible.

2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
there - simply use the 'Post' link on the sidebar.  Again, use the
template above, and be sure to include the message number.

3. A database has been created on the HPfGU homepage.  To get
there, simply go to the homepage and click on the 'Database' link
in the sidebar on the left-hand side of the screen.  Scroll down the
list until you find a database entitled 'Fantastic Posts'.  Click on the
title and you will be transferred to the database page.  From there
you can simply click on the 'add record' link at the top of the table
to make your suggestion.  You don't need to fill out all the fields,
but you must include a message number.

Finally, any post you send is only a suggestion. If you look at the
old Fantastic Posts you might notice how few messages they actually
reference. This isn't because these are the only good messages in
over 70,000 posts, but because if we were to include all the fantastic
posts ever made to the group we would drown, and the very purpose
of the FPs is to provide brief and concise overviews of ideas on the list.
We can't promise to use every post you send us, but we do promise
to read and consider every one with all due gravity, no matter who the
author is.

Wishing you happy hunting,

The FAQ team

I understand that MEG are going to let us know about setting up a 
database, and would someone, anyone, *please* post the e-mail and URL 
of the archive list so I can add it to the letter?

Amanda asked:
> Is this nomination method going to *replace* the combing over blocks of
> messages? Or was it intended to *augment* that? I wasn't clear on that.

That's a good question.  Personally I think that at least in the coming 
months rigorous cataloguing is probably not necessary - as long as we all 
keep our eyes peeled and add good posts to our database.  We may want 
to revisit this decision a few months from now when group quality picks 
up.  

I'm beginning to warm up to the idea of completing the Full Enchilada.  
The FE has catalogued posts until 45,000, and when OOP came out we were 
around 61,000.  That's 16,000 posts in the interim.  Penny has suggested 
that there are 30 of us willing to do archiving - I think that's a bit optimistic, 
but even 15 of us could finish the job in a few weeks.  I not sure if we need 
to be as rigorous as the FE cataloguers - representing every single thread, 
and all - but I'm sure there's plenty of good stuff there.  Who else is interested 
in doing this?

It seems that we've come back to the matter of which FPs to update first.  
Before OOP came out we had a poll, and then we sort of ignored the poll and 
decided on the four houses - Gryffindor had Weasley Family, Slytherin had 
DE/Justice/Aurors, Hufflepuff had Harry and Ravenclaw had Lupin.  The idea 
behind the seperation into houses was to have teams working on each FP but 
also to prevent the group from fragmenting too much to be productive.  Now 
it seems that some of us would prefer to work on other FPs - I've seen 
references to Snape, Hermione, Sirius and Neville, and I agree that they all 
deserve updates, but I worry that we may spread ourselves too thin.  Shall we 
have another poll, or shall we simply say that any topic that has enough (shall 
we say 3 as a minimum) FAQ writers interested in dedicating themselves to it 
will be taken up?

Penny wrote:

>>HARRY FP --
 
 Yes, let's get going. It probably makes sense to talk to the entire team
 off-list, recirculate Abigail's outline, etc. On something like the Harry
 FP, does it make sense to set up another yahoogroup? Is that what the Snape
 FP people did? Or, did you all work just be individual emails amongst the
 working group members? >>

It seems kind of silly to take a discussion of an FAQ off-list from the FAQ list, 
doesn't it?  This was another one of the reasons for dividing into houses - so 
that members of a specific FAQ team could talk amongst themselves and 
signal each other about a topic that has to do with that FAQ.  So, who is still 
in Hufflepuff house?  

Abigail




From joyw at gwu.edu  Sat Aug 23 20:01:09 2003
From: joyw at gwu.edu (- Joy -)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:01:09 -0400
Subject: How to rid your computer of the SOBIG.F worm
References: <1061627252.795.96968.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <03ec01c369b1$4c1d43a0$6401000a@Joy>

Phyllis asked:
<<I'm getting these e-mails, too, and have not opened them since they
looked virus-y (three of them were addressed by FAQ-ers, btw, but I
knew you didn't send them to me).  Is there any way to stop them
coming into your in-box?>>

The best way I know of is to use Outlook Express.  I've set up a mail filter
that sends all of the virus emails straight to the Deleted Items folder.  If
anyone's interested, here's how you do it:

Tools -> Message Rules -> Mail...
Click the New button on the right.
In the first box, choose Where the subject line contains specific words.
In the second box, choose Delete and choose Mark as read
In the third box, click on the blue underlined Contains specific words.
Type in the following words, and click Add after each one:
Re: Your application, Re: My details, Re: That movie, Re: Wicked
Screensaver, Your details
Click OK.

Hope that helps!

~Joy~, staying out of everything else.




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 20:41:23 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <1061664096.10AEEAEA@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <20030823204123.14826.qmail@web14311.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Heidi Tandy <heidit at netbox.com> wrote:
> Here's a question which will need to be addressed:
> should we allow links 
> directly to nc17 fics?
> 
> In the past, hpfgu has not done so, and given that
> the faqs were hosted 
> on fa's server, it would not have been permissible
> for them to have, as 
> no links directly to nc17 material were permitted on
> the server - or are 
> now, in fact.
> 
> But next month, fa is moving to a new server and as
> I understand it, 
> links to nc17 material are permitted (although fa
> still won't do so).
> 
> Do we want to allow links directly to nc17 fics?
> 
> Can I ask that nobody create a poll on this for at
> least a week, so we 
> can discuss it first?
> 
> Heidi

Er. . . I, at least, would be extremely uncomfortable
with the idea; I rarely, rarely. . . just about never,
really. . . read NC-17 fics myself. 

NC-17 content is definitely *not* something at all
suitable for discussion on HPfGU; and since the FAQ
will be compiled by the HPfGU FAQ list and will be, in
a sense, the recommendations of the HPfGU community,
I'm not sure it would be appropriate -- apart from
everyting else, although the list *is* primarily
composed of adults, we do have some younger members,
and if they go and read the Fanfic FAQ, I'd rather
think that they couldn't find links to explicit
material there. And if neither HPfGU *nor* FA contains
such material. . . well, all in all, I think it might
be better not to link to it.

The other thing, though, is that if I'm remembering
the first current Fanfic FAQ correctly, it is a fairly
selective and limited list; this is a list of the best
of the best, not a catch-all sort of thing. And the
proportion of truly excellent fic that is also NC-17
is, I imagine, and going by the very little of it that
I *have* read, quite, *quite* small. To be blunt, a
lot of it is simply smut. Not all of them are, of
course, but quite a lot. And I think that, like very
sexually explicit or violent filmmaking, very sexually
explicit or violent writing is often just a form of
laziness -- good writers can generally make their
stories sexy without making them explicit. 

Given the fact that it seems so OOC for HPfGU or FA to
link directly to NC-17 stories, and given the -- IMHO
-- very real possibility that it could stir up a
controversy on-list, the benefits of the possibility
of including the relatively few Fantastic NC-17
stories out there seem pretty slim. 

I would recommend against it.

And, you know, there's one other thing I've thought
of. I've seen complaints from time to time on OTC --
some of them from parents -- about the difficulty of
finding well-written fanfic that isn't adults only. It
is out there, and it's something a lot of people would
like to find more easily, but it can be hard to
locate. I think that including NC-17 fic on the FAQ
might just sort of. . . make that gap worse. The adult
stuff (not just NC-17, obviously, but between that and
R) already *has* a majority -- I'm not sure we need to
spotlight it. It might, on the other hand, be nice to
have a selection of younger-age appropriate fanfic on
the list. I think a lot of people, a lot of list
members, might be grateful to have it.

How's the FAQ going to be organized, d'you know yet?
It might make sense to have it -- although it could be
subdivided within these categories, of course --
organized be age.

Just a few thoughts.





Derannimer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Aug 23 20:47:20 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:47:20 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <1061664096.10AEEAEA@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <000201c369b7$bfbcf7f0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi, all,
 
Heidi asked for opinions, so here goes.
 
I'd prefer to see us not include nc17 links in the FPs.  Why?  Oh, I
dunno, really.  I think of this group as being rather wholesome in
nature.  People don't swear or discuss especially lewd things.  Even if
Yahoo's terms of service didn't require it, I'd like to think those
standards would still remain.
 
It's just so much classier that way.
 
Cindy
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at netbox.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 2:41 PM
To: Faq
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ
Recommendations
 
Here's a question which will need to be addressed: should we allow links

directly to nc17 fics?

In the past, hpfgu has not done so, and given that the faqs were hosted 
on fa's server, it would not have been permissible for them to have, as 
no links directly to nc17 material were permitted on the server - or are

now, in fact.

But next month, fa is moving to a new server and as I understand it, 
links to nc17 material are permitted (although fa still won't do so).

Do we want to allow links directly to nc17 fics?

Can I ask that nobody create a poll on this for at least a week, so we 
can discuss it first?

Heidi


-----Original Message-----
From: Jessica Bridges <jeziguh at adelphia.net>
To: fantastic_posts at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:09:48 -0400

Real-To:  "Jessica Bridges" <jeziguh at adelphia.net>

Fanfic Title: The Familiar
Author: Resonant
URL: http://trickster.org/res/familiar.html
Rating: NC-17
Summary: A potion goes awry and Harry lives as a frog for the summer. 
Harry/Snape.

Fanfic Title: Book of Shadows
Author: Lux
URL: http://www.snowroses.net/apollo/bookofshadows.htm
Rating: R
Summary: The final weeks of Harry's seventh year in which he watches 
people have sex, skips classes, and tells Dumbledore what he really 
thinks. Explores depressed!under-appreciated!witty!artistic!Harry.
Warnings: angst, mild humor, self-mutilation, little bit of 
incest...sort of (you'll understand when you see it).

Fanfic Title: Harry Potter and the Legacy of the Light
Author: Gramarye
URL: http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Gramarye/
Rating: PG-13
Summary: When the Dark Lord comes rising, it is up to Harry and his 
friends to turn him back once and for all. Fifth-year, sequel to "Town 
and Gown", crossover/fusion with Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising 
Sequence.

Fanfic Title: Giving Notice
Author: Quoth the Raven
URL: http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=628937
Rating: PG-13
Summary: A look at the actions of a main character from the point of 
view of other characters. When death rocks Hogwarts, you'd be surprised 
who's affected.  Suicide fic.

Fanfic Title: Blackened Sunrise
Author: The Itch
URL: http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=1020928
Rating: R
Summary: Having vanished at the end of 4th year, Harry Potter is forced 
to return during 6th-- and he's changed. Big Time.

Fanfic Title: Je Te Plumerais
Author: Nimori
URL: http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=1089507
Rating: R
Summary: SLASH. A caged bird will sing, if only to conserve his spirit. 
Complete.

Fanfic Title: Fidelius
Author: Tradescant
URL: http://joyce.jteers.net/intellislasher/tradescant-fidelius.html
Rating: NC-17
Summary: Harry, all at sea and out in the cold. H/S.

Fanfic Title: Your Horoscope for Today
Author: Telanu
URL: http://www.amplexus.org/~telanu/shop.html
Rating: PG-13
Summary: The coffeemaker is broken, and Snape needs coffee. He really 
does. Like, he really needs...oy. What a day.  H/S.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fantastic_Posts-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/hit
?page=1374-105951838331032> click here

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=459214644> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From heidit at netbox.com  Sat Aug 23 20:53:39 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:53:39 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <20030823204123.14826.qmail@web14311.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030823204123.14826.qmail@web14311.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1061672023.12581204@r5.dngr.org>


On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 4:42PM -0500, Susannah Myers wrote:

>
> How's the FAQ going to be organized, d'you know yet?
> It might make sense to have it -- although it could be
> subdivided within these categories, of course --
> organized be age.

The version-three of the faq is up at 
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/fanfiction.html - I wasn't going to change 
the structure much, although the summaries for some need to be beefed 
up, and it might be good to have a section featuring fics which a parent 
might be willing to let his/her 10-, 12- or 14-year old read, sort of 
separate from the rest.  So that would be new.

I also want to add some writing resources and some livejournal 
communities, and get rid of the other yahoogroups' links as they're not 
as often used anymore.

Heidi




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Aug 23 20:57:39 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:57:39 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <bi8e5b+sv9n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c369b9$30b0df70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

One quick suggestion . . . 
 
I don't think I'd ask that the author and date be included.  If we have
the message number and a description, then we have all we need to find
the post and to search for it in the database/FAQ list.
 
And the part about getting the author's name makes me nervous.  One
thing that I have found in FAQ writing is that the same people seem to
get quoted.  This is not because we are biased in favor of some people -
especially people on this list.  No, it is because some people write a
lot of great posts.  
 
Our members, however, may not see it that way - and they can and will
read the database.  If they see message after message after message by
"Cindy," it's not hard to reach the conclusion that the author of a post
matters more than the quality of the post.  Indeed, that is one reason
that Hypothetic Alley does not identify the authors of posts ("Cindy
wrote about the Big Bang theory . . . ").  It just looked way too
cliquish.  
 
Since the author really doesn't matter (not to me, anyway), can we omit
that information?
 
Finally, do we want FILKs?  
 
Forgive me if this has been discussed; I'm catching up.  
 
JMHO.
 
Cindy
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 21:08:27 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <000701c369b9$30b0df70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <20030823210827.35274.qmail@web14304.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey, Abigail:

I *think* that this is the URL for FP; it is, at any
rate, the thingie in the address bar thingie when I
was at the home page.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/?yguid=84155333

And I'm not sure about the email address; there's a
bit of text at the bottom, though, that says:

Post message:
Fantastic_Posts at yahoogroups.com

Is that it?

(I know, I know, I'm one of the *owners* of the group;
I do apologize for my extraordinary ignorance.)




Derannimer, hoping that one of those, at least, is right

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 21:09:02 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:09:02 -0000
Subject: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <20030823204123.14826.qmail@web14311.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bi8l5e+tkp6@eGroups.com>

Heidi Tandy:
> > Here's a question which will need to be addressed:
> > should we allow links 
> > directly to nc17 fics?

If they are clearly marked as NC-17, I don't see why not.


Deranimmer:
> The other thing, though, is that if I'm remembering
> the first current Fanfic FAQ correctly, it is a fairly
> selective and limited list; this is a list of the best
> of the best, not a catch-all sort of thing. And the
> proportion of truly excellent fic that is also NC-17
> is, I imagine, and going by the very little of it that
> I *have* read, quite, *quite* small. To be blunt, a
> lot of it is simply smut. Not all of them are, of
> course, but quite a lot. And I think that, like very
> sexually explicit or violent filmmaking, very sexually
> explicit or violent writing is often just a form of
> laziness -- good writers can generally make their
> stories sexy without making them explicit. 

There are tons of bad fanfiction out there, yes. But the percentage 
of sloppy writing doesn't get higher when you deal with NC-17. 
(Actually, judging by my experience, I'd say it's far easier to find 
sloppy writing as you search for G and PG fics. *That* is why, in my 
opinion, people complain about having trouble finding good fics 
without adult material.)

I'd recommend keeping the links for the NC-17 fics as a matter of 
coherence. It is a group for grown-ups. For mature people who should 
have the ability to judge what they want by themselves. 
Discriminating good NC-17 fics because they're NC-17 doesn't make 
much sense to me in a group like HPfGU. 

And just to let you know exactly where I stand: I am a fanfiction 
writer, but I don't write NC-17 fics for HP. (Not a matter of 
principles; simply a matter of my plot plans not including adult 
material.) So this isn't a matter of defending my own interests. I'm 
just stating my opinion.


Morgan




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 21:16:23 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:16:23 -0000
Subject: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <bi8l5e+tkp6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi8lj7+rbo8@eGroups.com>

Morgan wrote:
I'd recommend keeping the links for the NC-17 fics as a matter of 
coherence. It is a group for grown-ups. For mature people who should 
have the ability to judge what they want by themselves. 
Discriminating good NC-17 fics because they're NC-17 doesn't make 
much sense to me in a group like HPfGU.

Tom replies:
I'd tend to agree with Morgan on this issue, if and only if, as he 
stated, they're *clearly marked.* 

I normally am not a fanfic person, since I'm normally too engrossed 
with the canon itself to bother with others' fictional situations - 
not that I "don't like" fanfic as much as I'm just more interested 
in the actual storyline. 

However, since we are an adult group, it would seem silly to cut out 
the NC-17 fanfics (although, "mild incest?" Urgh...) just because 
they might make people like me a little squeamish, and in some 
cases, umm, disgusted. ;-)

I don't see any reason to cut the NC-17 (and heck, even the X-rated) 
fanfics from any reference list. Just as long as no one can 
accidentally stumble upon them...

-Tom




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 21:57:14 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:57:14 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <20030823210827.35274.qmail@web14304.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bi8nvq+vpti@eGroups.com>

Derranimer wrote:

> I *think* that this is the URL for FP; it is, at any
> rate, the thingie in the address bar thingie when I
> was at the home page.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/?yguid=84155333
> And I'm not sure about the email address; there's a
> bit of text at the bottom, though, that says:
> Post message:
> Fantastic_Posts at yahoogroups.com

I think we should just include the "post message" address because 
IIRC we just wanted people to forward messages there rather than to 
join the group (if I'm off-base on that, please set me straight!).  
Also, perhaps we should tell them how to forward the message 
(something straightforward that says "hit 'forward' rather than the 
usual 'reply' and then type in this address on the 'to' line:
<Fantastic_Posts at yahoogroups.com>."  While it's relatively 
straightforward, I know that this techno-squib had no idea how to 
forward messages until someone (I think it was Cindy, actually) told 
me how.

I think Abigail's message with Amanda's edits looks great and I think 
we should get it posted!  Thanks, Abigail and Amanda!

~Phyllis




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 22:01:26 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:01:26 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <bi8nvq+vpti@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi8o7m+s84q@eGroups.com>

I just wrote:

> I think we should just include the "post message" address because 
> IIRC we just wanted people to forward messages there rather than to 
> join the group (if I'm off-base on that, please set me straight!).  
> Also, perhaps we should tell them how to forward the message 
> (something straightforward that says "hit 'forward' rather than the 
> usual 'reply' and then type in this address on the 'to' line:
> <Fantastic_Posts at yahoogroups.com>."  While it's relatively 
> straightforward, I know that this techno-squib had no idea how to 
> forward messages until someone (I think it was Cindy, actually) 
> told me how.

I just realized that Abigail's message doesn't actual mention the 
option of forwarding the nominated fantastic post to the archive 
group (which was my assumption when I wrote the above).  Perhaps we 
should add that as an option?

~Phyllis




From pennylin at swbell.net  Sat Aug 23 22:18:20 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:18:20 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
References: <bi8l5e+tkp6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00f401c369c4$76815600$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

I think I agree with Morgan and Tom on the NC-17 issue.  This is a group intended for adults, and I think adults should be able to make those decisions for themselves.  Then again, I take a very dim view of content regulation in any form.  

So, I would clearly delineate the NC-17 fics in a category by themselves but include links to them and/or summaries just like all the other fanfic recommendations.  

Any fanfic I've ever tried to read that was "G" or "PG" has almost always been horribly written (not that I've tried to read all that many). 

Penny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Aug 23 22:20:44 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:20:44 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <bi8o7m+s84q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi8pbs+fcms@eGroups.com>

Hey,

Phyllis was wondering whether members should forward fantastic posts 
to our other list.  

In Message 1949 on this list, you can see the results of my 
forwarding a main list message directly to this list.  Asking that 
messages be forwarded won't help us because the message number 
doesn't show up.

In fact, we may want to mention in our message that we don't want 
members to forward the messages, as it would be reasonable to assume 
that the message number would show up.

Let's see.  I know there were some HA revisions in the works, a team 
list had been compiled, and HPfGU:  A History was being revised.

Boy!  How are we going to keep track of all this stuff?

Cindy






From heidit at netbox.com  Sat Aug 23 22:54:51 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:54:51 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <20030823210827.35274.qmail@web14304.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20030823210827.35274.qmail@web14304.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1061679295.85E1DD0@s5.dngr.org>


On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 5:08PM -0500, Susannah Myers wrote:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/?yguid=84155333

You can always get to the page without the yguid, if we want to make the 
url shorter.


Heidi



From heidit at netbox.com  Sat Aug 23 22:57:35 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:57:35 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <000701c369b9$30b0df70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
References: <000701c369b9$30b0df70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <1061679458.3B4DBE05@s5.dngr.org>


On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 4:59PM -0500, cindysphynx wrote:

> One quick suggestion . . .
>
> I don't think I'd ask that the author and date be included.  If we have
> the message number and a description, then we have all we need to find
> the post and to search for it in the database/FAQ list.
>

I included it to cross reference. If someone typos the post #, knowing 
author and date could help find it, whereas knowing date and subject 
might not be a big help.

Heidi



From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 23 23:16:43 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:16:43 -0000
Subject: Final version of the request for contributions - I hope!
Message-ID: <bi8skr+mvep@eGroups.com>

I've added the URL and e-mail of the FP archive group, and joined the 
group while I was at it - Derannimer, I think you need to approve me.  
I've also added a note telling people not to forward messages to us 
because that'll make us lose the message number.

Dear HPfGU Members,
 
 Hello from the FAQ team! We're in charge of writing the Fantastic
 Posts essays, which can be found at
 
 http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/
 
 These essays collect posts on a variety of different subjects,
 ranging from The Weasley Family to Justice in the Wizarding World.
 They also provide summaries of important and popular theories
 such as LOLLIPOPS or George. The Fantastic Posts are a great
 asset to group members old and new, providing a coherent
 perspective on the ideas that came before us. They also allow us
 to save from Yahoo! oblivion those posts which are truly
 remarkable and worth remembering.
 
 We on the FAQ team are eager to get to work on updating the old
 FPs and writing new ones in the wake of OOP, but we'd like you
 all to help us. Have you read a post recently that really made you
 think? A well-written post, that offered a new perspective or
 submitted a new thoery? In short, have you read a Fantastic Post
 recently? If you have, we'd like to hear about it.
 
 Before you get going, a few words on what makes a post Fantastic.
 You might want to check out some of the posts referenced in the old
 FPs to get an idea of the kind of quality we're looking for. Also, bear
 in mind that a a Fantastic Post should:
 
 1. Be well written and coherent
 2. Present new ideas or offer a good overview of old ones
 3. Have good formatting - good grammar and spelling, capitalization
 and punctuation where appropriate, more then one paragraph, etc.
 
 There are three simple ways to let us know about a Fantastic Post:
 
 1. We've opened the FAQ archive group to posting by the general 
 public. You can e-mail us at
 
 Fantastic_Posts at yahoogroups.com 
 
 Please use the following template when sending us a
 recommendation e-mail
 
 Fantastic Post number:
 Author of Fantastic Post:
 Topic of Fantastic Post:
 Date of Fantastic Post:
 
 Not all fields have to be filled, but we *must* have the message 
 number - finding a message in any other way is all but impossible.
 
 2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
 you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
 there.  The URL is 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/

 Simply use the 'Post' link on the sidebar. Again, use the
 template above, and be sure to include the message number.
 
 3. A database has been created on the HPfGU homepage. To get
 there, simply go to the homepage and click on the 'Database' link
 in the sidebar on the left-hand side of the screen. Scroll down the
 list until you find a database entitled 'Fantastic Posts'. Click on the
 title and you will be transferred to the database page. From there
 you can simply click on the 'add record' link at the top of the table
 to make your suggestion. You don't need to fill out all the fields,
 but you must include a message number.

 Important note: please do *not* forward a message to the archive 
 group.  A forwarded message will not contain a message number, 
 and that will make it impossible for us to locate it.
 
 Finally, any post you send is only a suggestion. If you look at the
 old Fantastic Posts you might notice how few messages they actually
 reference. This isn't because these are the only good messages in
 over 70,000 posts, but because if we were to include all the fantastic
 posts ever made to the group we would drown, and the very purpose
 of the FPs is to provide brief and concise overviews of ideas on the list.
 We can't promise to use every post you send us, but we do promise
 to read and consider every one with all due gravity, no matter who the
 author is.
 
 Wishing you happy hunting,
 
 The FAQ team
 
If there are no further suggestions, then as soon as we get an OK from 
MEG to create the database, we should post this to the main list and OTC.

Abigail




From jmmears at comcast.net  Sun Aug 24 01:16:26 2003
From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 01:16:26 -0000
Subject: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <1061664096.10AEEAEA@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <bi93la+prv4@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Heidi Tandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> Here's a question which will need to be addressed: should we allow 
links 
> directly to nc17 fics?
> 
> In the past, hpfgu has not done so, and given that the faqs were 
hosted 
> on fa's server, it would not have been permissible for them to 
have, as 
> no links directly to nc17 material were permitted on the server - 
or are 
> now, in fact.
> 
> But next month, fa is moving to a new server and as I understand 
it, 
> links to nc17 material are permitted (although fa still won't do 
so).
> 
> Do we want to allow links directly to nc17 fics?
> 
> Can I ask that nobody create a poll on this for at least a week, 
so we 
> can discuss it first?


I have some questions about the classification/ratings of the 
fanfics before I can form an opinion on whether or not to include 
them.  What distinguishes an R fic from the NC17 fics?  I'm trying 
to relate these ratings to movie ratings, but I realize that I don't 
think I've ever seen a movie rated NC17 advertised.  I've always 
assumed that they must be explicit to the point of being considered 
pure pornography.  Who rates the fics; the author or some sort of 
independant ratings board or individual?  If it's the author, then 
do we trust them to rate their own work in the event that makes a 
difference as to whether we link it or not?

I apologise in advance if the answers to these questions are common 
knowledge, but it's been a long time since I read any fanfic and I 
never really did know how all this stuff works.  My present 
inclination is to vote "no" to providing links to NC17 fics, given 
that that has always been HPfGU policy and that FA doesn't do it 
either.  I'm also influenced by the fact that JKR apparently has 
problems with certain kinds of explicit fanfiction and has taken 
some legal action against sites that carry it.  If it's not OK with 
her, then it's not OK with me either.


Jo S. who doesn't even want to think about what "mild incest" is 
supposed to mean




From editor at texas.net  Sun Aug 24 01:14:51 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 20:14:51 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
References: <000701c369b9$30b0df70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <001701c369dd$1fab1320$bc05a6d8@texas.net>

Cindy:

> Finally, do we want FILKs?

Couldn't we just link to Caius' archive? He's got it sorted and all. I
haven't been there in ages, but I know he keeps it up.

~Amanda






From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Aug 24 01:26:03 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 21:26:03 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <bi93la+prv4@eGroups.com>
References: <bi93la+prv4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061688366.3893B8EA@r5.dngr.org>

>
> Jo S. who doesn't even want to think about what "mild incest" is
> supposed to mean
>
I'll answer the other questions tomorrow, but 'mild incest' generally 
refers to things like sirius/narcissa, draco/tonks, certain variations 
on molly/arthur, stuff like that.


Heidi



From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 24 08:59:40 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:59:40 -0000
Subject: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <bi93la+prv4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi9ups+qfr4@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "serenadust" <jmmears at c...> wrote:
> 
> I have some questions about the classification/ratings of the 
> fanfics before I can form an opinion on whether or not to include 
> them.  What distinguishes an R fic from the NC17 fics?  

[R] Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult 
guardian : This signifies that the rating board has concluded that 
the fanfic rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to 
learn more about the fanfic before taking their children to see it. 
An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a fanfic's use of 
language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use. 

[NC-17] No One 17 and Under Admitted : This signifies that the rating 
board believes that most parents would feel that the fanfic is 
patently adult and that children age 17 and under should not be 
admitted to it. The fanfic may contain explicit sex scenes, an 
accumulation of sexually-oriented language, or scenes of excessive 
violence. The NC-17 designation does not, however, signify that the 
rated film is obscene or pornographic. 

(Standard definition found in many fanfiction archives, based on the 
the same definitions for USA movies.)


> I've always 
> assumed that they must be explicit to the point of being considered 
> pure pornography. 

That's a common misconception. For starters, a NC-17 might not have 
any kind of sex content. 


> Who rates the fics; the author or some sort of 
> independant ratings board or individual? 

Usually, the authors themselves, but archives are known to alter the 
rating if they feel the author misrated them. 


> If it's the author, then 
> do we trust them to rate their own work in the event that makes a 
> difference as to whether we link it or not?

As for the trust... You'll find rule-breakers everywhere. But an 
author can be punished in many ways for misrating his works, so 
cautious writers avoid that kind of risk. 

Besides, aren't we talking about a selection? About a list of only 
the *very* good fics? Doesn't that mean that at least someone with 
common sense has read them before adding a link to them? So I'd say 
we'd be running no risks of linking to pornography or misrated 
material.


> I'm also influenced by the fact that JKR apparently has 
> problems with certain kinds of explicit fanfiction and has taken 
> some legal action against sites that carry it.  If it's not OK with 
> her, then it's not OK with me either.

If I'm not mistaken, all the legal actions taken against sites 
hosting NC-17 material were eventually dropped. 


> Jo S. who doesn't even want to think about what "mild incest" is 
> supposed to mean

Pairings that involve distant cousins, distant relatives (which, by 
the way, wouldn't be considered incests in some countries). 


Morgan




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 24 09:08:59 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:08:59 -0000
Subject: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <bi9ups+qfr4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bi9vbb+nlin@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Morgan D." <morgan_d_yyh at y...> 
wrote:
> [R] Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult 
> guardian : This signifies that the rating board has concluded that 
> the fanfic rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to 
> learn more about the fanfic before taking their children to see it. 
> An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a fanfic's use of 
> language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use. 

Just noticed that this particular archive where I got the definitions 
from didn't even go to the trouble of fixing the verbs when turning 
the text about movies into a text about fics. "Before taking the 
children to see it"? ^__^

Anyway, the definition is exactly the same for movies and fanfics. 


Morgan




From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Aug 24 10:03:57 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:03:57 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Fwd: [Fantastic_Posts] HPfGU Fanfic FAQ Recommendations
In-Reply-To: <bi9ups+qfr4@eGroups.com>
References: <bi9ups+qfr4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061719442.9ECEF3E@s5.dngr.org>

Morgan answered everything well, so I'm only adding a few comments for 
simplicity's sake:

Jo asked:
>>
>>  I have some questions about the classification/ratings of the
>>  fanfics before I can form an opinion on whether or not to include
>>  them.  What distinguishes an R fic from the NC17 fics?
>
>
<snip of 'Standard definition found in many fanfiction archives, based 
on the
> the same definitions for USA movies.'

Fictionalley's ratings are a smidge different - you can find it at 
http://www.fictionalley.org/ratings.html - and internally we have a list 
of movies for comparison. For example, Cruel Intentions is an r-rated 
film, so we allow fics with that degree of sexual content/description, 
but not much more. And the level of violence involved in Harry's 
'killing' of quirrel is pg.

>
>
>
>>  Who rates the fics; the author or some sort of
>>  independant ratings board or individual?
>
> Usually, the authors themselves, but archives are known to alter the
> rating if they feel the author misrated them.

Right. We have a policy that's similar to sugarquill, as I understand  
their admins' take on it to be. If the fic is really nc17 but the author 
claims it's r, we don't upload it, so there's no concern that any r's on 
either archive are masquerading as r but really nc17.

If someone rates a fic pg or pg13 and we think it's r, we rerate it. But 
if someone rates a fic r that we think is pg13, we leave the rating as 
is, presuming the writer may have a reason for it, like other chapters 
in the story, or fics in a sequence, are actually r-rated.
>
>
>
> Besides, aren't we talking about a selection? About a list of only
> the *very* good fics? Doesn't that mean that at least someone with
> common sense has read them before adding a link to them? So I'd say
> we'd be running no risks of linking to pornography or misrated
> material.

If we link to things hosted by individuals, there is a theoretical risk 
that the content of the page will change somewhere down the line 
withoiut us knowing, which is why a disclaimer about links would be 
important. We had a problem like this at the leaky cauldron not four 
days ago.
fanfiction and has taken
>
> If I'm not mistaken, all the legal actions taken against sites
> hosting NC-17 material were eventually dropped.

Well, the sites added password protections and became ungoogleable. If 
we linked to something on, say, veelasinc,that was nc17, people would 
need to have the password before reading it, anyway. It wouldn't just 
open in their browsers.
>
>
> Pairings that involve distant cousins, distant relatives (which, by
> the way, wouldn't be considered incests in some countries).

Or in the wizarding world - it's canon that they intermarried.

Heidi



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Aug 24 12:14:33 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:14:33 -0000
Subject: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <001701c369dd$1fab1320$bc05a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <biaa79+60ao@eGroups.com>

Amanda:

> Couldn't we just link to Caius' archive? He's got it sorted and 
>all. I haven't been there in ages, but I know he keeps it up.

Actually, I was making a different point.  

If we do not want FILKs (because they are in Caius' archive or for 
any other reasson), perhaps we should say that in our instructions 
to the list.  No sense having people use their time and energy to 
give us something we don't want.  Assuming we don't want them.  

That's all.

Cindy




From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Aug 24 12:31:06 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:31:06 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <biaa79+60ao@eGroups.com>
References: <biaa79+60ao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061728272.4360378@r5.dngr.org>

Imho, if a filk is merely well written,  well rhymed, funny or clever, 
it's not exactly what we need, but if it says something particularly 
unique or insightful about a character, concept or something else we do 
filks on, then it would qualify as an fp, the same way a post written in 
fanfic style would. A tbay shouldn't be nominated just because the carp 
is particularly well done, if it doesn't add anything to the 
canon-focused topic discussion. If it's got a new acronym or theory 
that'll be listed elsewhere anyway.

Heidi


On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 8:14AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
> Real-To:  "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Amanda:
>
>>  Couldn't we just link to Caius' archive? He's got it sorted and
>> all. I haven't been there in ages, but I know he keeps it up.
>
> Actually, I was making a different point.
>
> If we do not want FILKs (because they are in Caius' archive or for
> any other reasson), perhaps we should say that in our instructions
> to the list.  No sense having people use their time and energy to
> give us something we don't want.  Assuming we don't want them.
>
> That's all.
>
> Cindy
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Sun Aug 24 12:39:30 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:39:30 -0000
Subject: Database for proposed fantastic posts on Main List
Message-ID: <biabm2+gvo5@eGroups.com>

Setting up a Main List db is absolutely fine by MEG. If you find you 
have space problems, mention it, and we'll work out which current db 
could be converted to text and deleted.

That's because there's a limit on the number of dbs you can have on 
each list - an extra one on Main *should* be OK, but if not, there's 
a couple we could probably convert to text to give you room.

Pip




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 24 12:52:58 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:52:58 -0000
Subject: Database for proposed fantastic posts on Main List
In-Reply-To: <biabm2+gvo5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <biacfa+q1dr@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pipdowns at e...> wrote:
> Setting up a Main List db is absolutely fine by MEG. If you find you 
> have space problems, mention it, and we'll work out which current db 
> could be converted to text and deleted.

Done!  No problem with space.  If no one has any more observations 
about the letter I'll post it to OTC and the main list in 24 hours.  I 
assume that in both cases I should add the ADMIN prefix?  

Regarding filks - I agree with Heidi that it's not outside the realm of 
possibility that a filk will be included in an FP, and anyway I don't 
think people will be that likely to nominate filks in the first place.  If 
there's a problem with that we can post a clarification later.

Abigail




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Aug 24 13:32:37 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:32:37 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <1061728272.4360378@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <000601c36a44$3570ef60$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Quickly . . . 
 
We have to remember that this group maintains HA.  So TBAYs should be
nominated for the reasons Heidi suggests, but also if they represent a
theory that will be confusing in its usage later on.  Also, a TBAY can't
be on the list if it isn't canon-based.
 
Er, was that clear?
 
JMHO.
 
Cindy
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at netbox.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 8:31 AM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
 
Imho, if a filk is merely well written,  well rhymed, funny or clever, 
it's not exactly what we need, but if it says something particularly 
unique or insightful about a character, concept or something else we do 
filks on, then it would qualify as an fp, the same way a post written in

fanfic style would. A tbay shouldn't be nominated just because the carp 
is particularly well done, if it doesn't add anything to the 
canon-focused topic discussion. If it's got a new acronym or theory 
that'll be listed elsewhere anyway.

Heidi


On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 8:14AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
> Real-To:  "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Amanda:
>
>>  Couldn't we just link to Caius' archive? He's got it sorted and
>> all. I haven't been there in ages, but I know he keeps it up.
>
> Actually, I was making a different point.
>
> If we do not want FILKs (because they are in Caius' archive or for
> any other reasson), perhaps we should say that in our instructions
> to the list.  No sense having people use their time and energy to
> give us something we don't want.  Assuming we don't want them.
>
> That's all.
>
> Cindy
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/hit
?page=1374-105951838331032> click here

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=333961783> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 24 16:21:46 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:21:46 -0000
Subject: Final version of the request for contributions - I hope!
In-Reply-To: <bi8skr+mvep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <biaomq+pos4@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote:

>  2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
>  you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
>  there.  The URL is 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/

Er, I'm still confused here.  I thought this was going to be a 
restricted membership list?  Can people access the homepage and post 
a message from there if they are not members?  Or were we going to 
lift the restrictions?

>  Important note: please do *not* forward a message to the archive 
>  group.  A forwarded message will not contain a message number, 
>  and that will make it impossible for us to locate it.

I'm still thinking this might be a good option to give people - it 
seems to me that it would be quite user-friendly to have the option 
of allowing someone to forward a potential FP immediately after they 
have read it.  Perhaps we could specify that they'll need to include 
the message number in their forwarding message so that we'll have it?

I'm also wondering whether we ought to have some sort of system for 
acknowledging e-mails.  Perhaps we could develop some standard 
language (such as: "Thank you for your Fantastic Post nomination.  
The Fantastic Post Owls appreciate your input and will take your 
nomination under serious consideration.") that would be sent to each 
person after their e-mail is received.  If people like this idea, I 
could draw up a schedule where we each take a month (or some other 
period of time) in which we would be responsible for sending 
replies.  Unless there's a way to do this automatically?

~Phyllis
techno-squib




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 24 16:25:42 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:25:42 -0000
Subject: Including Filks
Message-ID: <biaou6+54bh@eGroups.com>

On the topic of including filks - John (Haggridd) runs the "Pickled 
Toad" awards each year where HPfGU-ers have the opportunity to vote 
for the best filk in a number of categories.  So perhaps we should 
stick with this as the vehicle for recognizing noteworthy filks?  
Perhaps we could include a section on the Fantastic Posts page which 
lists each Toad category and the winning filk (and perhaps includes 
links so that people can view the winning filk if they choose).

Just some other ideas to throw into the mix.

~Phyllis




From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Aug 24 16:35:13 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:35:13 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Including Filks
In-Reply-To: <biaou6+54bh@eGroups.com>
References: <biaou6+54bh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061742917.1332B4C3@r5.dngr.org>

It would be easy enough for this to also be added to the fanfic update.


On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:26PM -0500, Phyllis wrote:
> Real-To:  "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com>
>
> On the topic of including filks - John (Haggridd) runs the "Pickled
> Toad" awards each year where HPfGU-ers have the opportunity to vote
> for the best filk in a number of categories.  So perhaps we should
> stick with this as the vehicle for recognizing noteworthy filks?
> Perhaps we could include a section on the Fantastic Posts page which
> lists each Toad category and the winning filk (and perhaps includes
> links so that people can view the winning filk if they choose).
>
> Just some other ideas to throw into the mix.
>
> ~Phyllis
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Aug 24 16:37:34 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:37:34 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for contributions - I hope!
In-Reply-To: <biaomq+pos4@eGroups.com>
References: <biaomq+pos4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061743057.1815D906@s5.dngr.org>


On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:23PM -0500, Phyllis wrote:
> Real-To:  "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com>
>
> Abigail wrote:
>
>>   2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
>>   you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
>>   there.  The URL is
>>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/
>
> Er, I'm still confused here.  I thought this was going to be a
> restricted membership list?  Can people access the homepage and post
> a message from there if they are not members?  Or were we going to
> lift the restrictions?

It's set up so anyone can post from the group, but only we, the members, 
can read posts.



> I'm also wondering whether we ought to have some sort of system for
> acknowledging e-mails.  Perhaps we could develop some standard
> language (such as: "Thank you for your Fantastic Post nomination.
> The Fantastic Post Owls appreciate your input and will take your
> nomination under serious consideration.") that would be sent to each
> person after their e-mail is received.  If people like this idea, I
> could draw up a schedule where we each take a month (or some other
> period of time) in which we would be responsible for sending
> replies.  Unless there's a way to do this automatically?

Nope, no autosend option this way :( - it would have to be manual.

Heidi



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Aug 24 18:25:08 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:25:08 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for contributions - I hope!
In-Reply-To: <1061743057.1815D906@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c36a6d$0cecc950$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
I'd be happy to be the person (or one of them) who acknowledges
nominations.  (Very listmember friendly suggestion, Phyllis - way to
go!)  Might be a fun way to get to know people.
 
Cindy - imagining herself going around thanking people and kissing
babies
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at netbox.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:38 PM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for
contributions - I hope!
 

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:23PM -0500, Phyllis wrote:
> Real-To:  "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com>
>
> Abigail wrote:
>
>>   2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
>>   you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
>>   there.  The URL is
>>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/
>
> Er, I'm still confused here.  I thought this was going to be a
> restricted membership list?  Can people access the homepage and post
> a message from there if they are not members?  Or were we going to
> lift the restrictions?

It's set up so anyone can post from the group, but only we, the members,

can read posts.



> I'm also wondering whether we ought to have some sort of system for
> acknowledging e-mails.  Perhaps we could develop some standard
> language (such as: "Thank you for your Fantastic Post nomination.
> The Fantastic Post Owls appreciate your input and will take your
> nomination under serious consideration.") that would be sent to each
> person after their e-mail is received.  If people like this idea, I
> could draw up a schedule where we each take a month (or some other
> period of time) in which we would be responsible for sending
> replies.  Unless there's a way to do this automatically?

Nope, no autosend option this way :( - it would have to be manual.

Heidi




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/hit
?page=1374-105951838331032> click here

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=163410132> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Aug 24 18:29:38 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:29:38 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Including Filks
In-Reply-To: <biaou6+54bh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001501c36a6d$adcd2c70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Crap.
 
Sorry to do this piecemeal.
 
Anyway, I think Phyllis has yet another good point.  FILKs are posts, so
if they are fantastic, they fall within our jurisdiction.  I think we
should think about adding another category to the FP Homepage with a
link to the best FILKs, using Haggridd's Toad awards either directly or
indirectly.  
 
Thoughts?
 
Cindy
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Phyllis [mailto:erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:26 PM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Including Filks
 
On the topic of including filks - John (Haggridd) runs the "Pickled 
Toad" awards each year where HPfGU-ers have the opportunity to vote 
for the best filk in a number of categories.  So perhaps we should 
stick with this as the vehicle for recognizing noteworthy filks?  
Perhaps we could include a section on the Fantastic Posts page which 
lists each Toad category and the winning filk (and perhaps includes 
links so that people can view the winning filk if they choose).

Just some other ideas to throw into the mix.

~Phyllis





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/hit
?page=1374-105951838331032> click here

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=932078183> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Aug 24 21:45:14 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 17:45:14 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for contributions - I hope!
In-Reply-To: <000b01c36a6d$0cecc950$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
References: <000b01c36a6d$0cecc950$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <1061761520.2C46D728@w5.dngr.org>

Oh Cindy, you should be able to go on vacation or take a day away from 
the computer without worrying about welcoming everyone!

Why don't we use the calendar nd each take a week?

Heidi

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 3:08PM -0500, cindysphynx wrote:
> Real-To:  "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd be happy to be the person (or one of them) who acknowledges
> nominations.  (Very listmember friendly suggestion, Phyllis - way to
> go!)  Might be a fun way to get to know people.
>
> Cindy - imagining herself going around thanking people and kissing
> babies
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at netbox.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:38 PM
> To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for
> contributions - I hope!
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:23PM -0500, Phyllis wrote:
>>  Real-To:  "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com>
>>
>>  Abigail wrote:
>>
>>>    2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
>>>    you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
>>>    there.  The URL is
>>>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/
>>
>>  Er, I'm still confused here.  I thought this was going to be a
>>  restricted membership list?  Can people access the homepage and post
>>  a message from there if they are not members?  Or were we going to
>>  lift the restrictions?
>
> It's set up so anyone can post from the group, but only we, the 
> members,
>
> can read posts.
>
>
>
>>  I'm also wondering whether we ought to have some sort of system for
>>  acknowledging e-mails.  Perhaps we could develop some standard
>>  language (such as: "Thank you for your Fantastic Post nomination.
>>  The Fantastic Post Owls appreciate your input and will take your
>>  nomination under serious consideration.") that would be sent to each
>>  person after their e-mail is received.  If people like this idea, I
>>  could draw up a schedule where we each take a month (or some other
>>  period of time) in which we would be responsible for sending
>>  replies.  Unless there's a way to do this automatically?
>
> Nope, no autosend option this way :( - it would have to be manual.
>
> Heidi
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
> 544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/hit
> ?page=1374-105951838331032> click here
>
>
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
> pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=163410132>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Aug 24 23:05:00 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:05:00 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for contributions - I hope!
In-Reply-To: <1061761520.2C46D728@w5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <000101c36a94$28d90080$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hmmm.
 
Well, I don't know what to say.  If others want to do this also, we can
form a team, I guess.  I don't mean to be grabby.
 
Part of the trouble, I figure, is that having lots of people involved
will require lots of coordination.  "Hey, did anyone get back to Alison
about her recommendation?"  That sort of thing.  I mean, I would just
send out a quick note via webview, which means no one else would know I
had done so unless I posted my notes.  Might make the job much more time
consuming.
 
Believe me, though.  If I were away, I'd certainly hand it off to
someone else.  ;-D
 
So, er, now what?
 
Cindy
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at netbox.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 5:45 PM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for
contributions - I hope!
 
Oh Cindy, you should be able to go on vacation or take a day away from 
the computer without worrying about welcoming everyone!

Why don't we use the calendar nd each take a week?

Heidi

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 3:08PM -0500, cindysphynx wrote:
> Real-To:  "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd be happy to be the person (or one of them) who acknowledges
> nominations.  (Very listmember friendly suggestion, Phyllis - way to
> go!)  Might be a fun way to get to know people.
>
> Cindy - imagining herself going around thanking people and kissing
> babies
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at netbox.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:38 PM
> To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for
> contributions - I hope!
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:23PM -0500, Phyllis wrote:
>>  Real-To:  "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com>
>>
>>  Abigail wrote:
>>
>>>    2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
>>>    you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
>>>    there.  The URL is
>>>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/
>>
>>  Er, I'm still confused here.  I thought this was going to be a
>>  restricted membership list?  Can people access the homepage and post
>>  a message from there if they are not members?  Or were we going to
>>  lift the restrictions?
>
> It's set up so anyone can post from the group, but only we, the 
> members,
>
> can read posts.
>
>
>
>>  I'm also wondering whether we ought to have some sort of system for
>>  acknowledging e-mails.  Perhaps we could develop some standard
>>  language (such as: "Thank you for your Fantastic Post nomination.
>>  The Fantastic Post Owls appreciate your input and will take your
>>  nomination under serious consideration.") that would be sent to each
>>  person after their e-mail is received.  If people like this idea, I
>>  could draw up a schedule where we each take a month (or some other
>>  period of time) in which we would be responsible for sending
>>  replies.  Unless there's a way to do this automatically?
>
> Nope, no autosend option this way :( - it would have to be manual.
>
> Heidi
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
>
544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/hit
> ?page=1374-105951838331032> click here
>
>
>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
> pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=163410132>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/hit
?page=1374-105951838331032> click here

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=729898710> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From eloiseherisson at aol.com  Mon Aug 25 05:49:48 2003
From: eloiseherisson at aol.com (eloiseherisson at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:49:48 EDT
Subject: FP database
Message-ID: <1dc.fce828b.2c7afd7c@aol.com>

Hi, guys!

I just woke up with a horrible realisation of what I'd done....
I entered Abigail's Fantastic Snapepost (78512) in the db. ;-)

Might I suggest that it is modified to include a "nominated by" column? 

I've deleted the entry for now, so that it doesn't look like Abigail is 
self-promoting, but I'm very happy to put it back again as soon as appropriate.

~Eloise
Who also just discovered just how close the "reply" and "delete" buttons are 
in webview and nearly deleted the last message.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 09:03:24 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:03:24 -0000
Subject: FP database
In-Reply-To: <1dc.fce828b.2c7afd7c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <bicjcs+6v28@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, eloiseherisson at a... wrote:
> Hi, guys!
> 
> I just woke up with a horrible realisation of what I'd done....
> I entered Abigail's Fantastic Snapepost (78512) in the db. ;-)

Why yes, that is horrible of you.

Oh wait, that's not what you mean...

> 
> Might I suggest that it is modified to include a "nominated by" column? 

I think that might cause more trouble that it would prevent.  It might stop 
people from nominating themselves, but if people know who nominated 
them - and who didn't - it might cause difficulties.  The simplest solution 
for all of us is simply to use our own FP database.  In fact, I think that we 
might want to consider that database the definitive list - it's been 
approved by FAQ writers and has keywords and everything.  As soon as the 
nomination process gets going - and assuming that people respond to it 
- we're going to have to divide amongst ourselves the job of reviewing those 
nominations and selecting from them the posts that are actually fantastic.

On the other hand, when people send in a recommendation to the archive 
group, we'll be able to see who recommended who.  Any thoughts on this?  
I don't think this is a decision that should affect sending out the letter - I 
can change the database later if people think it's a good idea. 

It's entirely impossible for me to write the next sentence without sounding 
arrogant or self-promoting, so I just won't try.  If you want to add my Snape 
post to the database, Eloise, you can use our database, as we all trust your 
opinion on what is or isn't an FP.  

Abigail




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 10:55:09 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:55:09 -0000
Subject: Are We Having Fun Yet?
In-Reply-To: <bibv2u+ae9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bicpud+ps1m@eGroups.com>

We have little in common so far, Captain. 

> Anyone else keep a car longer than 15 years?

My former car was kept in the family for 17 years, first with my Dad, 
than with me, and we finally given it up when the poor creature 
started spending more time with the mechanics than with us. I miss 
him terribly (in my native language, cars are male beings, I would 
feel weird calling a car a "she"). My current car might not last as 
long, since he wasn't new when we bought him, but I'll be very happy 
if he does.

Anyone else sings in a chorus?

Anyone else is obsessed by jewelry rings?

Anyone else has more books lying around then any sane person could 
expect to read in a lifetime?

Anyone else has a furry mouse-faced cover for the compy's mouse?

Anyone else has a goose feather quilt and can't live without it?

Anyone else has sung to the president of a foreign country?

Anyone else played the flute as a kid?


Morgan -- who has had two days of awfully dry heat after a week of 
extremely humid cold, and isn't feeling very well now.




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 13:46:13 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:46:13 -0000
Subject: Are We Having Fun Yet?
In-Reply-To: <bibv2u+ae9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bid3v5+n53t@eGroups.com>

Cindy asked:

> Anyone else meet their husband in college or grad school?

Yep, grad school.

> Anyone else met Janet Reno and Kenneth Starr and shaken Hillary 
> Clinton's hand?

No, but I have gone to the bathroom with Hillary.  In separate 
stalls, of course.  Nope, will not elaborate further!

> Anyone else fail every single year to win the President's Physical 
> Fitness award in elementary school?

Absolutely.  But I am now a third-degree black belt in karate.  So 
much for that program being an indication of future physical fitness!

> Anyone else play the piano?

Yep.  But not as well as I used to, since I now have no time to 
practice.  Have gone from Bach and Chopin to nursery rhymes.  Alas.

~Phyllis






From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 13:49:32 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:49:32 -0000
Subject: Final version of the request for contributions - I hope!
In-Reply-To: <1061743057.1815D906@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <bid45c+gn40@eGroups.com>

Heidi wrote (regarding user privileges on the FP Archives Group):

> It's set up so anyone can post from the group, but only we, the 
> members, can read posts.

Thanks for the clarification, Heidi.  I'm wondering if perhaps we 
ought to make this known so that people don't try to join the group 
only to have their application rejected.  Perhaps we could add into 
Abigail's message (and on the group's home page) something 
like:  "Please note that you do not have to join the group in order 
to post.  In fact, in order to keep the archives list manageable and 
nominations confidential, we are limiting membership to the Fantastic 
Post Owls team."

~Phyllis




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 13:52:03 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:52:03 -0000
Subject: Including Filks
In-Reply-To: <001501c36a6d$adcd2c70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bid4a3+rt7k@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:

> I think we should think about adding another category to the FP 
> Homepage with a link to the best FILKs, using Haggridd's Toad 
> awards either directly or indirectly.  

If the group wants to do this, I would be happy to reach out to 
Haggridd and have him send us the results of the 2003 Pickled Toad 
Awards so we'll have the information we need.

~Phyllis





From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 13:56:16 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:56:16 -0000
Subject: Acknowledging FP Nominations
In-Reply-To: <000101c36a94$28d90080$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bid4i0+klqt@eGroups.com>

I was thinking that if we each took a week or a month and we made the 
schedule public, we wouldn't have to worry about coordination - we 
would know that the person on duty during that period took care of it.

But if Cindy would like to do this, it's fine with me - just so long 
as she promises to let us know when she needs a break so we can give 
her a hand.

~Phyllis

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
> Hmmm.
>  
> Well, I don't know what to say.  If others want to do this also, we 
can
> form a team, I guess.  I don't mean to be grabby.
>  
> Part of the trouble, I figure, is that having lots of people 
involved
> will require lots of coordination.  "Hey, did anyone get back to 
Alison
> about her recommendation?"  That sort of thing.  I mean, I would 
just
> send out a quick note via webview, which means no one else would 
know I
> had done so unless I posted my notes.  Might make the job much more 
time
> consuming.
>  
> Believe me, though.  If I were away, I'd certainly hand it off to
> someone else.  ;-D
>  
> So, er, now what?
>  
> Cindy
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at n...] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 5:45 PM
> To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for
> contributions - I hope!
>  
> Oh Cindy, you should be able to go on vacation or take a day away 
from 
> the computer without worrying about welcoming everyone!
> 
> Why don't we use the calendar nd each take a week?
> 
> Heidi
> 
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 3:08PM -0500, cindysphynx wrote:
> > Real-To:  "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd be happy to be the person (or one of them) who acknowledges
> > nominations.  (Very listmember friendly suggestion, Phyllis - way 
to
> > go!)  Might be a fun way to get to know people.
> >
> > Cindy - imagining herself going around thanking people and kissing
> > babies
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at n...]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:38 PM
> > To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for
> > contributions - I hope!
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:23PM -0500, Phyllis wrote:
> >>  Real-To:  "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at y...>
> >>
> >>  Abigail wrote:
> >>
> >>>    2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
> >>>    you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
> >>>    there.  The URL is
> >>>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/
> >>
> >>  Er, I'm still confused here.  I thought this was going to be a
> >>  restricted membership list?  Can people access the homepage and 
post
> >>  a message from there if they are not members?  Or were we going 
to
> >>  lift the restrictions?
> >
> > It's set up so anyone can post from the group, but only we, the 
> > members,
> >
> > can read posts.
> >
> >
> >
> >>  I'm also wondering whether we ought to have some sort of system 
for
> >>  acknowledging e-mails.  Perhaps we could develop some standard
> >>  language (such as: "Thank you for your Fantastic Post 
nomination.
> >>  The Fantastic Post Owls appreciate your input and will take your
> >>  nomination under serious consideration.") that would be sent to 
each
> >>  person after their e-mail is received.  If people like this 
idea, I
> >>  could draw up a schedule where we each take a month (or some 
other
> >>  period of time) in which we would be responsible for sending
> >>  replies.  Unless there's a way to do this automatically?
> >
> > Nope, no autosend option this way :( - it would have to be manual.
> >
> > Heidi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
07
> >
> 544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-
bin/hit
> > ?page=1374-105951838331032> click here
> >
> >
> >
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
> > pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=163410132>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17
07
> 544108:HM/A=1712983/R=0/SIG=11u38u3s2/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-
bin/hit
> ?page=1374-105951838331032> click here
> 
>  
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=259538.3760361.5018013.1261774/D=egrou
> pmail/S=:HM/A=1712983/rand=729898710> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 14:04:07 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:04:07 -0000
Subject: Harry FP and Cataloging Post-OOP Posts
In-Reply-To: <bi64ft+567a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bid50n+iug8@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote:

> However, I don't know about the other houses, but the Harry FP does 
> have sections that could probably be compiled now without referring 
> too heavily to OOP - see my updated outline from a few days ago.  
> It might not be a bad idea to get started on these segments right 
> now - this is something I'd like to hear about from my other house 
> members - Penny, Dicey, Ali and Phyllis.

I think this is a good idea.  I'd like to at least get started on the 
Harry FP.  Perhaps the Hufflepuffs should review Abigail's outline 
and indicate what section(s) each of us would like to work on?

I can definitely see both the pros and the cons of reviewing all of 
the post-OOP posts.  On the one hand, there might be some really good 
posts in there that we may have missed given the heavy list volume.  
On the other hand, given that heavy volume, this would probably take 
quite a bit of time - time that we could have been using to compile 
the FPs instead.  So I'm leaning toward using our time to write the 
FPs rather than to catalog the 15,000 post-OOP posts.

~Phyllis





From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Aug 25 14:54:13 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:54:13 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Final version of the request for contributions - I hope!
In-Reply-To: <bid45c+gn40@eGroups.com>
References: <bid45c+gn40@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1061823259.36F33B1A@w5.dngr.org>

Oh, that works. We can also upload into the files section something that 
says substantially the same thing, which yahoo will send to anyone whose 
membership request is rejected.

Should I draft something?


On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 9:50AM -0500, Phyllis wrote:
> Real-To:  "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com>
>
> Heidi wrote (regarding user privileges on the FP Archives Group):
>
>>  It's set up so anyone can post from the group, but only we, the
>>  members, can read posts.
>
> Thanks for the clarification, Heidi.  I'm wondering if perhaps we
> ought to make this known so that people don't try to join the group
> only to have their application rejected.  Perhaps we could add into
> Abigail's message (and on the group's home page) something
> like:  "Please note that you do not have to join the group in order
> to post.  In fact, in order to keep the archives list manageable and
> nominations confidential, we are limiting membership to the Fantastic
> Post Owls team."
>
> ~Phyllis
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 15:54:13 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:54:13 -0000
Subject: The Deed is Done
Message-ID: <bidbf5+gchk@eGroups.com>

I just posted the request for contributions on OTC and the main list.  
Since no one objected, I used the ADMIN prefix in both cases - I'm 
now incredibly nervous and fully expect to receive twelve Howlers for 
my impudence.  The prefix is probably a good idea, however - the 
message has a very good chance of getting lost in the shuffle 
otherwise.  Always assuming, of course, that people don't see the 
ADMIN prefix and immediately hit the 'next' button.  I added, by the 
way, Phyllis' line about not joining the archive group.

These thoughts of getting lost in the shuffle have got me wondering 
whether it might not be a good idea to repost the request every month 
or so, although it might be a better to wait and see what kind of 
response we get first.

Abigail




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 18:58:30 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:58:30 -0000
Subject: Do we have any awards?
Message-ID: <bidm8m+nnfu@eGroups.com>

Something Phyllis wrote about letting people know that their posts 
were nominated as 'Fantastic' got me thinking:

Do we have any FP Awards, like the (oh, what is the name...) 
Chocolate Frog or Pickled Toad or whatever Awards that they have for 
FILKS?

I know that this could another item to our 'to-do' list, but do you 
think that it'd be fun to seek out not just the Fantastic Posts, but 
the truly exceptional ones over the next year or so, and then give 
out some Net-Awards for them? I mean, since we're already cataloguing 
stuff, we could maybe work out a way to flag the paragon posts, the 
ones with the most humor, or insight, or creativity, or whatever... 
we could even have categories 'n stuff. ;-)

Thinking that would be fun,
Tom




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 19:55:45 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:55:45 -0000
Subject: (TBAY In Hypothetic Alley) Re: Request for contributions and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <000601c36a44$3570ef60$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bidpk1+6co3@eGroups.com>


On the TBAY note, I have a question: 

Someone told me that Hypothetic Alley is comprised mostly of posts in 
the TBAY format as a matter of choice. Is this accurate? There are 
many theories in there that got their start outside of the TBAY 
format; Magic Dishwasher, one of the most prestigious, comes to mind 
in this respect. Granted, many of them have been further discussed in 
that format, but, well, how are we going to handle that stuff now?

I ask 'cause there has been such a flurry of new theories and 
additions to old ones... should we be using the 'TBAY' format as a 
criterion, or not? IMHO, if it's a good Hypothesis and well-defended, 
it should be there no matter what stylistic approach the author used.

Oh, and related to my previous question on this, in what order did we 
want to tackle Hypothetic Alley in our efforts to revise everything?

-Tom

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
> Quickly . . . 
>  
> We have to remember that this group maintains HA.  So TBAYs should 
be
> nominated for the reasons Heidi suggests, but also if they 
represent a
> theory that will be confusing in its usage later on.  Also, a TBAY 
can't
> be on the list if it isn't canon-based.
>  
> Er, was that clear?
>  
> JMHO.
>  
> Cindy
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at n...] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 8:31 AM
> To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other 
stuff
>  
> Imho, if a filk is merely well written,  well rhymed, funny or 
clever, 
> it's not exactly what we need, but if it says something 
particularly 
> unique or insightful about a character, concept or something else 
we do 
> filks on, then it would qualify as an fp, the same way a post 
written in
> 
> fanfic style would. A tbay shouldn't be nominated just because the 
carp 
> is particularly well done, if it doesn't add anything to the 
> canon-focused topic discussion. If it's got a new acronym or theory 
> that'll be listed elsewhere anyway.
> 
> Heidi
> 
> 
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 8:14AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
> > Real-To:  "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...>
> >
> > Amanda:
> >
> >>  Couldn't we just link to Caius' archive? He's got it sorted and
> >> all. I haven't been there in ages, but I know he keeps it up.
> >
> > Actually, I was making a different point.
> >
> > If we do not want FILKs (because they are in Caius' archive or for
> > any other reasson), perhaps we should say that in our instructions
> > to the list.  No sense having people use their time and energy to
> > give us something we don't want.  Assuming we don't want them.
> >
> > That's all.
> >
> > Cindy





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Aug 25 20:53:38 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:53:38 -0000
Subject: Are We Having Fun Yet?
In-Reply-To: <bicpud+ps1m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bidt0i+ntse@eGroups.com>

Morgan wrote:

> We have little in common so far, Captain. 

Nah, that can't be!  We both have a sister (mine is 2 years older 
and we get on very well).  Your sister is on the list, you said.  
What's her Yahoo ID?

<cars>

>I miss  him terribly (in my native language, cars are male 
>beings, I would  feel weird calling a car a "she"). My current car 
>might not last as long, since he wasn't new when we bought him, but 
>I'll be very happy if he does.

Cars are male, eh?  Hmmm, as you probably know, ships are female in 
English.  Is that true in Portuguese?  How come cars aren't "it?"

I tend not to accumulate much mileage on a car.  My little 15-year- 
old Chevy Nova had 95,000 miles on it.  It went to a good home -- a 
guy who just graduated from the University of Maryland Law School.  
Since I bought the car after graduating from law school myself, this 
somehow seemed right.


> Anyone else played the flute as a kid?

Yep.  Flute, clarinet, sax.  My tone on flute (and clarinet) was 
awful.  Just awful.

Phyllis revealed:

>No, but I have gone to the bathroom with Hillary. In separate 
>stalls, of course. Nope, will not elaborate further!

Did she wash her hands?  :-D

Phyllis:

>Yep. But not as well as I used to, since I now have no time to 
>practice. Have gone from Bach and Chopin to nursery rhymes. 

Ooooh, so you have a piano then?  I'm getting rid of my old upright 
that I got for free 4 years ago in favor of a piano that is *much* 
better than I am.  Must practice more!

Cindy








From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 21:00:45 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd: APPROVE -- boyd_smythe <boyd.t.smythe@fritolay.com> wants to join Fantastic_Posts 
Message-ID: <20030825210045.69905.qmail@web14306.mail.yahoo.com>

Who the -- *bleep* -- is "boyd.t.smith at fritolay.com?" 

Apologies if it's one of us, but. . . 

Note: forwarded message attached.



Derannimer who hopes that the forwarded message *is*
in fact attached, and also that she won't be getting a
whole bunch of these.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Mon Aug 25 21:38:54 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:38:54 -0000
Subject: The Deed is Done
In-Reply-To: <bidbf5+gchk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bidvle+5aut@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> 
wrote:
> I just posted the request for contributions on OTC and the main 
list.  
> Since no one objected, I used the ADMIN prefix in both cases - I'm 
> now incredibly nervous and fully expect to receive twelve Howlers 
> for my impudence.  

Hey, just tell them you had permission and they should take it up 
with me. If that doesn't scare them, nothing will. ;-)

> These thoughts of getting lost in the shuffle have got me 
> wondering whether it might not be a good idea to repost the 
> request every month or so, although it might be a better to wait 
> and see what kind of response we get first.
> 
> Abigail

There's two possibilities. One is that you send it out monthly, 
Abigail. 

The other is that it could be put on an automated monthly repeat, in 
which case it comes from, uh, something like HPfGU groups or 
somesuch.

That's do-able; you need a moderator of the group to do it - but 
then, I *am* a moderator of both Main and OT. 

So either is possible. It just depends which we on FAQ think is 
best - automatic repeats or reposting according to response.

Pip






From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 22:17:54 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:17:54 -0000
Subject: Two Responses to Tom and other stuff
Message-ID: <bie1uj+qmgf@eGroups.com>

Tom wrote:

>>I know that this could another item to our 'to-do' list, but do you 
 think that it'd be fun to seek out not just the Fantastic Posts, but 
 the truly exceptional ones over the next year or so, and then give 
 out some Net-Awards for them?>>

I don't think this is a good idea at all, and I think it falls quite outside 
our mandate.  The FAQ team's job is not to run a contest, or to pick 
out the best posts.  Our job is to help the group remember its past 
without drowning in it.  True, we try to identify the best posts on every 
subject, but the FPs are not a celebration of those posts.  They are 
informative articles.  The fact is that there might be messages better 
then the ones quoted in the FPs, but the FP references the messages 
that got there first - some of the message numbers there are under 
10,000, for heavens' sake, that's before Elkins and everything.

I know that the FPs are our chance at posterity, guys, but we have to 
remember that that is not the point.  The point is providing information.

Tom also wrote:

>>Someone told me that Hypothetic Alley is comprised mostly of posts in 
 the TBAY format as a matter of choice. Is this accurate? There are 
 many theories in there that got their start outside of the TBAY 
 format; Magic Dishwasher, one of the most prestigious, comes to mind 
 in this respect. Granted, many of them have been further discussed in 
 that format, but, well, how are we going to handle that stuff now?
 
 I ask 'cause there has been such a flurry of new theories and 
 additions to old ones... should we be using the 'TBAY' format as a 
 criterion, or not?>>

There is absolutely no requirement to present a theory in TBAY format.  
TBAY is a stylistic designation, nothing more and nothing less, and a 
theory is no more or less valid because it has been created within the 
TBAY environment.  I want to be especially clear on this because, like it 
or not, TBAY is a clique within HPfGU - a very open, inclusive clique, but 
a clique nonetheless.  To insist that HA theories can only come from 
TBAY posts is essentially to limit HA to a specific sub-group of HPfGU 
posters.

The only qualification for a theory to enter HA is for it to become popular 
enough to warrant the mention.  Again, the FPs and HA are meant as an 
informative service to group members.  If a theory gets mentioned often in 
discussions - such as MD or LOLLIPOPS - then it belongs in HA where new 
members can look it up and find out about it.  Auror!Arthur, for example, 
which is a TBAY theory, is not so popular, and so doesn't belong in HA 
(although I think a mention in the new version of The Weasley Family FP 
wouldn't be out of order, hint, hint).

Derannimer, the forwarded message was not attached, but I'm wondering 
if this isn't someone who read the request for contributions and somehow 
missed the note about not needing to join the archive group.  I think a form 
letter politely refusing such applicants was suggested at some point.

A scant five hours after posting the request for contributions, it has already 
disappeared from webview, and there have been no new entries on the 
database or in the archive group.  I'm trying very hard not to read too much 
into this.

Abigail




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 25 22:42:45 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:42:45 -0000
Subject: Two Responses to Tom and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <bie1uj+qmgf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bie3d5+oevl@eGroups.com>


Tom wrote:
I know that this could another item to our 'to-do' list, but do you 
think that it'd be fun to seek out not just the Fantastic Posts, but 
the truly exceptional ones over the next year or so, and then give 
out some Net-Awards for them?

Abigail responded:
I don't think this is a good idea at all, and I think it falls quite 
outside our mandate.  The FAQ team's job is not to run a contest, or 
to pick out the best posts.  Our job is to help the group remember 
its past without drowning in it.  True, we try to identify the best 
posts on every subject, but the FPs are not a celebration of those 
posts.  They are informative articles.  The fact is that there might 
be messages better then the ones quoted in the FPs, but the FP 
references the messages that got there first - some of the message 
numbers there are under 10,000, for heavens' sake, that's before 
Elkins and everything.

I know that the FPs are our chance at posterity, guys, but we have 
to remember that that is not the point.  The point is providing 
information.

Tom replies:
I agree with that, actually. You make sense. Still, I like the idea, 
and maybe there's a better way to go around it...


I (Tom) asked earlier:
Someone told me that Hypothetic Alley is comprised mostly of posts 
in the TBAY format as a matter of choice. Is this accurate? There 
are many theories in there that got their start outside of the TBAY 
format; Magic Dishwasher, one of the most prestigious, comes to mind 
in this respect. Granted, many of them have been further discussed 
in that format, but, well, how are we going to handle that stuff now?

Abigail responded:
There is absolutely no requirement to present a theory in TBAY 
format. TBAY is a stylistic designation, nothing more and nothing 
less, and a theory is no more or less valid because it has been 
created within the TBAY environment.  I want to be especially clear 
on this because, like it or not, TBAY is a clique within HPfGU - a 
very open, inclusive clique, but a clique nonetheless.  To insist 
that HA theories can only come from TBAY posts is essentially to 
limit HA to a specific sub-group of HPfGU posters.

The only qualification for a theory to enter HA is for it to become 
popular enough to warrant the mention.  Again, the FPs and HA are 
meant as an informative service to group members.  If a theory gets 
mentioned often in discussions - such as MD or LOLLIPOPS - then it 
belongs in HA where new members can look it up and find out about 
it.  

Tom replies:
Phew. That's excellent. I can't remember exactly when I heard that - 
I think Porphyria told me that several months ago when I sent her 
some suggestions (she's the listed 'webmistress' for the FP site,) 
which, I think, actually, she forwarded to this list.

If that's the case, then I think we should definitely be adding some 
stuff that's not in there already, as well as some of the newer 
stuff that's come out on the main list post-OoP. I'm all for waiting 
on that until we've updated the basic stuff, though. Hypothetic 
Alley will need more tinkering, I think, and maybe it would be 
preferable to designate that to the veterans who originally wrote it?

Oh, and in the note I wrote Porphyria, I suggested that a section be 
added to HA outlining the proofs for some of the better ESE theories 
out there - a search for Elkins' original Evil!McGonagall, and 
Pippin's Evil!Lupin is very difficult and unfruitful, since those 
posts are so old and our search options so limited; heck, I can't 
find some of my OWN posts from a few months ago! 

Eventually I found them (the ESE theories) and saved the message 
numbers, but I think some of our newest members would be hard-
pressed to locate them without help. Maybe we could consider this 
when we get to HA?


Abagail commented:
A scant five hours after posting the request for contributions, it 
has already disappeared from webview, and there have been no new 
entries on the database or in the archive group.  I'm trying very 
hard not to read too much into this.

Tom adds:
I know you guys were considering sending this out once-a-month or 
something, but maybe <flinches> it would be better to send it out 
more like once-a-WEEK for a while, just so that people get the 
message? 

If others read the list like I do, and don't deal with digests, then 
very likely some will completely miss the announcement. I dunno what 
MEG would think about that, though? Do you think that would be 
overdoing it?

-Tom




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Aug 25 23:04:30 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:04:30 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Two Responses to Tom and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <bie1uj+qmgf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c36b5d$3e25c8a0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
Abigail wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>>>There is absolutely no requirement to present a theory in TBAY
format.  
TBAY is a stylistic designation, nothing more and nothing less, and a 
theory is no more or less valid because it has been created within the 
TBAY environment.  I want to be especially clear on this because, like
it 
or not, TBAY is a clique within HPfGU - a very open, inclusive clique,
but 
a clique nonetheless.  To insist that HA theories can only come from 
TBAY posts is essentially to limit HA to a specific sub-group of HPfGU 
posters.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 
 
Well . . . 
 
Sort of.  When I was a member of the Moderator Team, I was the "Alley
Advisor" - the person in charge of Hypothetic Alley.  I had lots of help
from the TBAYers on MEG, of course.  Here's how we approached HA. 
 
The entire purpose of HA is to make TBAY more accessible.  That's it.
It isn't to memorialize the best theories or the most popular.  It is to
make sure people can get a base of information so they can understand
what is said and jump in.
 
This is why TBAY contains things like Yellow Flag violation and Flying
Hedgehogs.  The minute a theory is being referred to primarily as an
acronym or as metaphor, that is when it belongs in HA.  MD is in HA
because people use it as shorthand to refer to a huge and complex
theory.  But if people took to explaining the theory every time they
discussed Pip's theory, then it wouldn't have been included in HA.

>>>>>>The only qualification for a theory to enter HA is for it to
become popular 
enough to warrant the mention.  <<<<<<<<<<<<<
 
Mmmmm, not really.  Lots of people believe Snape is a vampire.  There's
no need to put it into HA because anyone reading a Vampire!Snape post
doesn't need an explanation of any terms of art.
 
Also, many of the HA theories don't come up much any more.  They are
still there, though, because they were once popular, so anyone reading
the archives may still need to know about them.  Popularity isn't the
test at all.
 
If we're thinking of changing the way we handle HA, that's fine by me.
Go for it! I say.  You might want to run the new policy past MEG,
though, because HA was written because of MEG's view at the time that we
didn't want TBAY to become a clique.
 
BTW, I don't see TBAY as a clique (i.e., a small and exclusive group),
primarily for two reasons.  HA, and the fact that TBAYers are welcoming
to newcomers.  I think our goal should be to keep it that way, to the
extent we have influence over that.
 
JMHO,
 
Cindy
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Tue Aug 26 00:18:27 2003
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria Ashenden)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:18:27 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?HA=92s_purpose_(response_to_Tom),_an_announcement_from_me,_and_new_members?=
Message-ID: <bie90j+u6s3@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote:
>>To insist that HA theories can only come from TBAY posts is 
essentially to limit HA to a specific sub-group of HPfGU 
posters.<<

Cindy replied:
>>The entire purpose of HA is to make TBAY more accessible. <<

Thank you for defending the original purpose of Hypothetic Alley, 
Cindy. I wasn't talking out of my ass when I answered Tom's
question the first time. If you read the introductory text in HA it 
actually states that it's all about Theory Bay and the acronyms
that float around in it. However, if you all would like to expand the 
scope of HA, be my guest. In fact


That brings me to my next point. If there's one thing I hate
it's someone who says they'll do tons of work and then they
disappear from the map, so with that in mind I have an announcement: 
I will no longer be available to do any work for the FAQ team apart 
from the strictly technical (HTML; uploading page updates).  

I must apologize to those of you I'm letting down: Debbie, to
whom I promised work on the Justice/DE FAQ, and Amanda who is 
counting on me for maintaining the Snape FAQ. Amanda, I bequeath my 
baby to your capable hands (and you too Melody). 

Part of my decision is technical: as a few of you know, I have 
recently moved into my own apartment, and with paying rent and basic 
utilities all by myself I can no longer afford a broadband connection 
or voice mail. Thus, it is too inconvenient for me to be online for 
long periods of time.

Part of my decision is also personal: I suppose I should be polite 
and insist that this year's upheavals have nothing to do with it,
but that would be a lie. In truth, I have decided that the atmosphere 
and group dynamics of online communities don't agree with me, and
I'd rather devote my time to maintaining individual
correspondences and otherwise spending my spare time offline. 

I'll remain subscribed to this list so I can still do technical 
duties for you all, but if someone hails me and I don't reply,
please email me to get my attention. (And no, I will not be returning 
to MEG whether I am allowed to or not.)

One last matter: is there a ruling on letting in new members? I was 
eager to welcome Juan Rodriguez since he has basically offered to do 
my job, and I would like eventually to be replaced by a capable 
substitute.

Thanks, ~P.





From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 26 00:48:12 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:48:12 -0000
Subject: User Privileges on Archives Group
In-Reply-To: <1061823259.36F33B1A@w5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <bieaoc+9gmq@eGroups.com>

Heidi wrote:

> Oh, that works. We can also upload into the files section something 
> that says substantially the same thing, which yahoo will send to 
> anyone whose membership request is rejected.
> 
> Should I draft something?

That would be great, Heidi.  Derannimer - was the message you were 
trying to forward a request from someone trying to join the archives 
group?  If we get this auto-send thingy going and put something on 
the homepage that explains the user privileges, hopefully you'll stop 
getting messages like that.

~Phyllis





From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 26 00:56:24 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:56:24 -0000
Subject: Are We Having Fun Yet?
In-Reply-To: <bidt0i+ntse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bieb7o+cji4@eGroups.com>

I wrote:

> No, but I have gone to the bathroom with Hillary. In separate 
> stalls, of course. Nope, will not elaborate further!

and Cindy asked:

> Did she wash her hands?  :-D

Yes, she did!  It's actually not as interesting as it could have 
been - she was campaigning for her Senate seat in Albany, NY (the 
only times we saw her in Albany, btw) and was visiting the State 
Capitol building (where I work) and (somehow) got access to 
the "private" bathroom that's normally reserved for nobodies that 
work there (like yours truly).  I was actually quite amazed that they 
allowed me to go into the bathroom at all - I could have been armed 
and dangerous for all they knew!  But the only juicy bit of 
information I overheard was her complaining to her aide that she was 
thirsty and needed to find some water.

Cindy:

> Ooooh, so you have a piano then?  I'm getting rid of my old upright 
> that I got for free 4 years ago in favor of a piano that is *much* 
> better than I am.  Must practice more!

I do have a good piano - a Yamaha upright.  I do have more time now 
than I did when my kids were smaller, but it's difficult to face re-
learning all of the pieces I used to be able to play so easily.  Sigh.

~Phyllis




From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Aug 26 01:03:34 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:03:34 -0400
Subject: Decline.txt
Message-ID: <1061859817.25C92052@r5.dngr.org>

http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/ELFKPw_x64s4_vzvUm8fj63qqSDVc3uVQW1E6MLl0onhFnthbqliXwTQLjy4g1LjlucyUfnh1nITBLL_/decline.txt

That link should take you to what I just wrote to be autosent by 
fantastic_posts if we  have to tell anyone no. Edits?

Heidi



From editor at texas.net  Tue Aug 26 01:03:08 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:03:08 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Are We Having Fun Yet?
References: <bibv2u+ae9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c36b6d$d3e65200$d804a6d8@texas.net>

> Anyone else have the middle name "Ann?"

Anyone else narrowly miss having a middle name "Caledonia"?

> Anyone else have a dark purple car?  Anyone else keep a car longer
> than 15 years?

Yes, and Yes. My mother painted our 1965 Chevy Impala hot purple (violent
purple) when my dad was out of town. It stayed purple. We got it used in
about 1970 and I only let it go a couple of years ago. **sob**

> Anyone else meet their husband in college or grad school?

Anyone else meet their husband when he was the baron of their barony,
hosting a tournament?

> Anyone else have a poodle and an aquarium full of fish?

(Is the poodle full of fish too?)

Anyone else have an aquarium that is a Crabitat with four hermit crabs
inside? (names: Coco, Rainbow, Mom's, and Bludger. I had absolutely no hand
in that last one.)

> Anyone else met Janet Reno and Kenneth Starr and shaken Hillary
> Clinton's hand?

(You *did* wash it, didn't you?) Anyone else travel 1200 miles (one way)
just to meet Alan Rickman?

> Anyone else play the clarinet in the marching band in high school?

Alto sax.

> Anyone else fail every single year to win the President's Physical
> Fitness award in elementary school?

Anyone else have their handlebars come loose and wobble Every Single Time
they entered the Bike Rodeo in elementary school, and never, ever even
place, not even the consolation stuff?

> Anyone else play the piano?

Bowed psaltery?

> Anyone else unable to carry a tune no matter what?

Anyone else from a family that performed as a group when you were small? I
had a whole verse of "Cindy" all to myself at age four. Played the
tambourine. I understand I was adorable.

One of my own now, hmmm...

Anyone else have a chain of 12 stuffed Golden Snitch keychains over their
desk at home? Or a real, dead skrewt spawn in lucite over their desk at
work?

Anyone else make sculpted cakes or marzipan?

~Amanda






From editor at texas.net  Tue Aug 26 01:13:56 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:13:56 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Decline.txt
References: <1061859817.25C92052@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <003001c36b6f$53655e80$d804a6d8@texas.net>

Is there any way to make it less wide? I had to scroll about four
screen-widths to get to the other side.

~Amanda

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heidi Tandy" <heidit at netbox.com>
To: "Faq" <HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 8:03 PM
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Decline.txt


>
http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/ELFKPw_x64s4_vzvUm8fj63qqSDVc3uVQW1E6MLl0onhFnt
hbqliXwTQLjy4g1LjlucyUfnh1nITBLL_/decline.txt
>
> That link should take you to what I just wrote to be autosent by
> fantastic_posts if we  have to tell anyone no. Edits?
>
> Heidi
>
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>             ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>




From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Aug 26 01:39:28 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:39:28 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Decline.txt
In-Reply-To: <003001c36b6f$53655e80$d804a6d8@texas.net>
References: <1061859817.25C92052@r5.dngr.org> <003001c36b6f$53655e80$d804a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <1061861973.F1A0929@r5.dngr.org>

It's in text format; when it is emailed, it'll autowrap. But in 
yahoogroups. Yahoomort doesn't make it changable in .txt.

Am v. sorry.

Heidi
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 9:29PM -0500, Amanda Geist wrote:
> Real-To:  "Amanda Geist" <editor at texas.net>
>
> Is there any way to make it less wide? I had to scroll about four
> screen-widths to get to the other side.
>
> ~Amanda
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heidi Tandy" <heidit at netbox.com>
> To: "Faq" <HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 8:03 PM
> Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Decline.txt
>
>
>>
> http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/ELFKPw_x64s4_vzvUm8fj63qqSDVc3uVQW1E6MLl0onhFnt
> hbqliXwTQLjy4g1LjlucyUfnh1nITBLL_/decline.txt
>>
>>  That link should take you to what I just wrote to be autosent by
>>  fantastic_posts if we  have to tell anyone no. Edits?
>>
>>  Heidi
>>
>>        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>              ADVERTISEMENT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>  HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 26 02:07:20 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] User Privileges on Archives Group
In-Reply-To: <bieaoc+9gmq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20030826020720.68585.qmail@web14305.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Phyllis <erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Heidi wrote:
> 
> > Oh, that works. We can also upload into the files
> section something 
> > that says substantially the same thing, which
> yahoo will send to 
> > anyone whose membership request is rejected.
> > 
> > Should I draft something?
> 
> That would be great, Heidi.  Derannimer - was the
> message you were 
> trying to forward a request from someone trying to
> join the archives 
> group?  If we get this auto-send thingy going and
> put something on 
> the homepage that explains the user privileges,
> hopefully you'll stop 
> getting messages like that.
> 
> ~Phyllis

Er, yeah, I think so. I just got this notification
from Yahoo, and wasn't sure if it was a confused list
member or some bizzare sort of spam, given the
"fritolay" thing.

Well, here -- since the forwarding thing didn't work.

------------------


Hello,

The following user would like to subscribe to the
Fantastic_Posts 
group:

  boyd_smythe <boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com> 

This subscription request requires your approval
because the 
Fantastic_Posts group is configured to restrict
membership. This 
means that a moderator must approve each new member.
This user 
will not become a member of the Fantastic_Posts group
unless you 
approve.

To approve or reject this pending subscription using
the web, 
please visit

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/members?group=pending

To approve this subscription using email, reply to
this message.

To reject this subscription using email, forward this
message to

Fantastic_Posts-rejectsub-irXsMg6zL6G7v6IJ at yahoogroups.com


Thank you for choosing Yahoo! Groups as your email
group
service for the Fantastic_Posts group.

Regards,

Yahoo! Groups Customer Care

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

---------------------

<shrugs>

Anyways.




Derannimer, who agrees that it would be *great* if
Heidi could draft something


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 26 02:11:53 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Decline.txt
In-Reply-To: <1061859817.25C92052@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <20030826021153.38381.qmail@web14303.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Heidi Tandy <heidit at netbox.com> wrote:
>
http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/ELFKPw_x64s4_vzvUm8fj63qqSDVc3uVQW1E6MLl0onhFnthbqliXwTQLjy4g1LjlucyUfnh1nITBLL_/decline.txt
> 
> That link should take you to what I just wrote to be
> autosent by 
> fantastic_posts if we  have to tell anyone no.
> Edits?
> 
> Heidi
> 

Nah. That looks great, Heidi. So. . . should I send it
off to the "fritolay man," or what?



Derannimer, much obliged

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Aug 26 02:47:57 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:47:57 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Are We Having Fun Yet?
References: <bibv2u+ae9g@eGroups.com> <000b01c36b6d$d3e65200$d804a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <019901c36b7c$7530b930$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

> Anyone else play the clarinet in the marching band in high school?

<<<<<<<Alto sax.>>>>>>>>>

Ooh, me too, Amanda!  I never knew that about you.  Cool.

Penny
(who is sorry to see Porphyria go, but fully understands the need to minimize online time these days as she is herself discovering all the joys of RL that *don't* involve online groups..................)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 26 10:47:23 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:47:23 -0000
Subject: Are We Having Fun Yet?
In-Reply-To: <bidt0i+ntse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bifdrr+g2ph@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> 
> Nah, that can't be!  We both have a sister (mine is 2 years older 
> and we get on very well).  Your sister is on the list, you said.  
> What's her Yahoo ID?

My sister (or half-sister, if we want to get technical) is 12 years 
older than me. We get along pretty well (after we both grew up, that 
is; I used to hate her for her "I'm-too-old-to-play-with-kids" 
attitude), and we share the house after my parents moved to the 
beach. I'm a Sirius fan, she's a Snape fan, and not even *that* get 
between us, so yeah, I can say we get along very well ^__^

Uhn... She probably wouldn't want me to reveal her ID. She enjoys 
pretending I'm only a friend in the web. I see her point, though. 
Sometimes, when she states her opinion to someone who knows we are 
sisters, she ends up hearing something like, "well, of course *you* 
would say that, if you're Morgan's sister". And that's really 
annoying.

She's mostly a lurker in the Main List. I suspect she's still being 
moderated, since she hasn't posted more than two or three times.


> Cars are male, eh?  Hmmm, as you probably know, ships are female in 
> English.  Is that true in Portuguese?  How come cars aren't "it?"

We don't have the neutral gender in Portuguese. People, objects, 
abstract concepts, everything is either male or female. Cars are 
male. Ships can be both, depending on the word you use ("navio" is 
male, "nave" is female). Bikes and motorbikes are female.


> I tend not to accumulate much mileage on a car.  My little 15-year- 
> old Chevy Nova had 95,000 miles on it.  

That would be... 152887 kilometers? Yeah, my Volkswagen Voyage should 
be around that mark too. (Long trips to the beach to visit my 
parents.)


> > Anyone else played the flute as a kid?
> 
> Yep.  Flute, clarinet, sax.  My tone on flute (and clarinet) was 
> awful.  Just awful.

Played the flute for 2 years. Wasn't really talented. I'm much better 
at singing.


Morgan




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 26 10:58:30 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:58:30 -0000
Subject: Are We Having Fun Yet?
In-Reply-To: <000b01c36b6d$d3e65200$d804a6d8@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bifegm+p6g7@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" <editor at t...> wrote:
> 
> Anyone else make sculpted cakes or marzipan?

I do. Sometimes. Making marzipan around here is a bit too expensive 
to turn it into a habit. 

Anyone else is *really* daring about combinations at cooking?


Morgan, who shouldn't be talking about food before breakfast.




From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Aug 26 16:13:45 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:13:45 -0000
Subject: Decline.txt
In-Reply-To: <20030826021153.38381.qmail@web14303.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <big0vp+tf1a@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, Susannah Myers <susannahlm at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- Heidi Tandy <heidit at n...> wrote:
> >
> 
http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/ELFKPw_x64s4_vzvUm8fj63qqSDVc3uVQW1E6MLl0
onhFnthbqliXwTQLjy4g1LjlucyUfnh1nITBLL_/decline.txt
> > 
> > That link should take you to what I just wrote to be
> > autosent by 
> > fantastic_posts if we  have to tell anyone no.
> > Edits?
> > 
> > Heidi
> > 
> 
> Nah. That looks great, Heidi. So. . . should I send it
> off to the "fritolay man," or what?

If you go to the FILES section and select EDIT for that document, 
then under AUTOSEND tick the box at "Upon rejected membership", it 
will autosend to him when you reject his membership. I don't have the 
ability to edit autosending of files, otherwise I'd do it myself. 




From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Aug 26 16:23:48 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:23:48 -0000
Subject: Can I make an edit?
In-Reply-To: <1061424580.3B4DBE05@s5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <big1ik+102em@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Heidi Tandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:> 
> If nobody objects or has edits, tomorrow evening, I'll add this:
> Url of Fantastic Post or Post's number:
> Author of Fantastic Post:
> Topic of Fantastic Post:
> Date of Fantastic Post:
> ------


Because of the presence of inlaws, I haven't been able to edit it 
until today - the template is now up at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/ - should I add a link 
to the database, too?

Edits can, of course, be made at any time if we decide we need 
more/better info. Also, we could add links in the LINKS sections of 
each of the lists, including MOVIE.




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 27 08:48:34 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:48:34 -0000
Subject: Two Responses to Tom and other stuff
In-Reply-To: <000001c36b5d$3e25c8a0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bihr92+2ls0@eGroups.com>

I wrote, in response to Tom:
> There is absolutely no requirement to present a theory in TBAY
> format.  
> TBAY is a stylistic designation, nothing more and nothing less, and a 
> theory is no more or less valid because it has been created within the 
> TBAY environment.  I want to be especially clear on this because, like
> it 
> or not, TBAY is a clique within HPfGU - a very open, inclusive clique,
> but 
> a clique nonetheless.  To insist that HA theories can only come from 
> TBAY posts is essentially to limit HA to a specific sub-group of HPfGU 
> posters.

To which Cindy responded:
 
> The entire purpose of HA is to make TBAY more accessible.  That's it.
> It isn't to memorialize the best theories or the most popular.  It is to
> make sure people can get a base of information so they can understand
> what is said and jump in.
>  
> This is why TBAY contains things like Yellow Flag violation and Flying
> Hedgehogs.  The minute a theory is being referred to primarily as an
> acronym or as metaphor, that is when it belongs in HA.  

Alright, I stand corrected.  But I do think that it's important that we stress 
that a theory doesn't have to be created or used in TBAY in order to belong 
in HA.  George, for example, was created outside of TBAY, and referenced 
quite frequently outside of TBAY before TBAY became what it is today and 
sort of kidnapped him.  It's entirely possibly (although, let's face it, rather 
unlikely these days) for an acronym or weird name theory to evolve and 
come into common usage outside of TBAY, in which case it still would 
belong in HA because new members wouldn't be able to intuitively 
understand what that theory refers to.  The only difference is that it's a lot 
easier to briefly explain any weird name theory in a non-TBAY post then it 
is in a TBAY post.

> BTW, I don't see TBAY as a clique (i.e., a small and exclusive group),
> primarily for two reasons.  HA, and the fact that TBAYers are welcoming
> to newcomers.  I think our goal should be to keep it that way, to the
> extent we have influence over that.

I agree, but the fact remains that TBAY is imposing to a lot of members, 
and not just newbies.  I've seen more then once the mention that people are 
afraid to respond to a TBAY post or even that they don't read them.  In 
general, I think HPfGU has its luminaries.  This is entirely justified as those 
people got where they are based solely on their talent, but when it comes to 
TBAY those people can often seem like "the rulers" even though we know that 
anyone is welcome.  That's why I wanted it to be clear that we don't consider 
non-TBAY theories to be less important or worthy or mention, in HA or 
anywhere else.

By the way, I think it's time we declared the request for contributions 
program an unqualified failure.  I haven't seen one entry on the database or 
one post on the archive group.  I think we should continue to post the 
request on a regular basis.  Tom suggested weekly, at least to begin with - 
that may be a bit much.  Any thoughts?  Also, we should seriously talk about 
going through the post-OOP posts.

Abigail




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Aug 27 17:47:26 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:47:26 -0000
Subject: More Background on HA (WAS Two Responses to Tom and other stuff)
In-Reply-To: <bihr92+2ls0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <biiqrf+aeh6@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote:

> Alright, I stand corrected.  But I do think that it's important 
>that we stress that a theory doesn't have to be created or used in 
>TBAY in order to belong in HA.  

Fair enough.  IIRC, MD is the only HA theory I can think of that is 
discussed quite often in a narrative format rather than CARP 
(er, "CARP" is the type of post where people have these elaborate 
settings and dialogue and such).  There may be another someday, 
true. 



>George, for example, was created outside of TBAY, and referenced 
> quite frequently outside of TBAY before TBAY became what it is 
>today and sort of kidnapped him.  

Well, he is a cutie!  Who can blame us for kidnapping him?  ;-)

Seriously, it isn't quite accurate to say that George orginated 
outside TBAY.  See, Marina's Snape theory (which she named "George") 
came about before Theory Bay existed.  So did Fourth Man.  So did 
Toadkeeper. 

A bit of history is required here, I think.  Before April 2001, some 
posters began doing their posts with short prologues or epilogues, 
and Tabouli did a fabulous LOLLIPOPS post in CARP (the one where she 
tossed Elkins onto a pile of lifejackets -- a personal favorite of 
mine).  This was great fun for the participants, but some people 
felt left out and couldn't understand some of the in-jokes.  Others 
just plain didn't like that style of posting.

There was an extremely contentious debate on MEG, and the result was 
the TBAY prefix and Hypothetic Alley.  The authors of HA included 
ideas and theories that were frequently referenced by a nickname or 
acronym.  So George didn't originate in the Bay because the Bay 
didn't exist.  

Also, there are many theories that come up in the Bay that don't 
make it into HA.  The test in my own mind was whether the theory was 
popping up so often in a shorthand form that newcomers might need 
some help.  Similarly, if term of art becomes so commonplace that it 
tends to leak out onto the main list without explanation (bangy, 
ESE, etc.), then it also is a candidate for HA.


>The only difference is that it's a lot 
> easier to briefly explain any weird name theory in a non-TBAY post 
>then it is in a TBAY post.

Perhaps.  But the test IMHO is whether people actually *do* explain 
the theory.  

There was an ADMIN on the usage of the TBAY prefix a while back, but 
it is not linked in what was once known as the "Humongous Bigfile."  
That might be helpful to reference in this discussion, but I don't 
have a copy available to me.  Many people think the prefix is 
required if the post is written in CARP, but that isn't the test, 
really.  

> I agree, but the fact remains that TBAY is imposing to a lot of 
>members, and not just newbies.  I've seen more then once the 
>mention that people are afraid to respond to a TBAY post or even 
>that they don't read them.  

Oh, sure.  Some folks absolutely cannot stand TBAY posts and will 
tell you so at the slightest provocation.  Some people are afraid to 
respond, concerned that they must CARP to join in and feeling much 
too bashful.

Thankfully, many people have worked out that it is possible to 
participate on a TBAY thread in an essay format, and there's 
actually quite a lot of that.  Or there was, anyway -- I'm rather 
behind on the main list.

Cindy




From dicentra at xmission.com  Thu Aug 28 04:47:55 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 04:47:55 -0000
Subject: SiriFAQ Update ready to be uploaded
Message-ID: <bik1hr+mmlh@eGroups.com>

Porphyria:

The file sirius1.html in the FAServersStaging folder needs to be
uploaded to the FA servers.

Thanks!

--Dicey




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 28 20:59:00 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:59:00 -0000
Subject: Good News, Everyone!
Message-ID: <bilqek+v2dg@eGroups.com>

<A moment of silence while Abigail laments the passing of Futurama, 
which was *better* then The Simpsons.  Yeah, you heard me.  OK, I'm 
done now.>

I noticed on OTC list that Elkins has been reading her way through the 
post-OOP period, so I dropped her a line to ask if she would record the 
message numbers of any particularly good posts she came across.  As it 
turns out, she'd already been doing this, and so she's been sending me 
her lists, which in fact include a short description of each post <a 
moment of appreciation for Elkins, please>.  I've added Elkins' FPs from 
posts 63,000-64,000, and tomorrow I'll do the next bunch.  

It's not quite cataloguing, and indeed it shouldn't come in place of 
cataloguing, especially as to expect Elkins to catalogue 15,000 posts 
single-handed is insane, but it does give us a good start.

Abigail