Harry FP and Leadership

[elfundeb2]

I think the Quidditch FP should be uploaded whenever it is ready.

Cindy disagreed, :-(  saying:

Either there have been fantastic OoP-inspired
> Quidditch posts or there have not been.  

Yahoomort's search function is not cooperating tonight, but my sense 
is that there has been little in the way of Quidditch discussions 
since OOP came out and that most Quidditch references are incidental 
to the topic at hand.  Perhaps a short discussion here and there on 
who will replace Angelina as captain, whether Harry will return and 
Ginny will in fact switch to chaser.  A search for post-OOP posts 
with Quidditch in the title should clear this up quickly, I think.  
IIRC, none have been identified in the database here.

When Pippin and I did the Mysteries FP update, we picked a certain end
> point (which was pretty much the day we got started).  I think the
> cut-off point was post 50,000.  We wrote, and then I think I added 
in
> any truly dynamite, stand-out posts I was aware had been posted
> recently.  

I think this is basically what Ali proposes to do with the Quidditch 
FP.

> Indeed, we gave serious consideration to not uploading the most 
dated
> FPs (Weasley Family and Pettigrew) at all because they were so dated
> that it was difficult to justify calling them "new" - I think 
Pettigrew
> may have only covered posts 1-4000.  We got around the problem as 
best
> we could by calling them "classic" FPs.  I'm not sure we could get 
away
> with that again, myself.

My recollection at the time was that they were already dated when 
they were posted and that as a listmember I would have found the 
Weasley FP to be a huge disappointment.

The fact that you've proposed to update the Pettigrew FP -- a 
character who did not even appear in OOP -- undermines the theory 
that the Quidditch FP should not be uploaded because it doesn't 
address OOP.  Unlike the Pettigrew or Weasley FPs, though, there 
probably hasn't been much new said about Quidditch since Ali's cutoff 
date.  
>  
> Anyway, to answer the question of whether members would rather have 
an
> FP that goes as far as it goes rather than nothing . . . who 
knows?  I
> suppose MEG could poll the main list if they like.  But my guess is 
that
> anyone opening a brand new FP of a character or subject that 
appeared in
> OoP and seeing that it does not cover OoP will figure that we are 
just a
> bit daft for failing to include discussion of the most recent canon,
> *if* there has been any such discussion.

FPs will always run a bit behind the latest theories.  It's better, I 
think, to have something out there, especially on a topic like 
Quidditch that isn't exactly brimming with new theories.

Debbie