Ignoring the pink elephant

[Melody]

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.  :)