From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun Feb 1 17:02:32 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 17:02:32 -0000 Subject: Quidditch FAQ - Draft Message-ID: I've decided to post this now. It's not as finished as I would like, but I've managed to lose an entire paper draft that had loads of alterations on it, and I'm not a happy bunny! I've got mock exams next week, and then 2 weeks after that. So, realistically, I won't have much more time for this until my course finishes in mid-May. I would be grateful if people would start to look at it. Maybe, people will decide it's ready for editing, maybe you won't! I am aware that there are some message numbers missing. Unfortunately, some of these messages were on Neil's original FAQ, and I haven't got the details. I will ask him if he has them though. There are only very small sections on Oliver Wood and Krum. It might be better to leave these out altogether. In time perhaps there could be a minor character FAQ? The strategy section could probably be expanded. That's one of my missing alterations. Anyhow, have a read and see what you think. Ali Quidditch FAQ Contents Introduction The Quidditch metaphor A skeletal history Harry and the role of Quidditch Quidditch: the game Could Quidditch work? Strategy Has there ever been a Quidditch match where the snitch was not caught? Y1726 Gender representation 4309 Quidditch attire and accoutrements Quidditch at Hogwarts How many Quidditch Games are played? How are the House teams chosen? The first-year rule Do the flying lessons continue beyond the first year? Y669 When did Gryffindor last win the House Cup? Quidditch Cup and House Cup How does the Quidditch Cup contribute to the House Cup? Who won the Quidditch cup in Harry's first year? The Gryffindor Team (PS/SS through to PoA) Draco on Slytherin team The Quidditch World Cup Some Quidditch Personalities - Oliver Wood Victor Krum Discussions concluded by the publication of OoP Lack of Quidditch in Year 4 4073 Captains new players Will Ron Weasley ever get a chance to play? Y669: Introduction Quidditch is the sport of the wizarding world, creating a fervour and loyalty equal to that of any Muggle sport. The game is played on broomsticks with seven players per team battling out with a variety of balls to score points. The game ends when one Seeker catches the Golden Snitch. JKR invented Quidditch as "I wanted a sport for wizards, and I'd always wanted to see a game where there was more than one ball in play at a time" (JKR in Amazon.Co.UK interview). "Because sport is such an important part of life at school" (Scholastic, October 2000) Harry loves Quidditch and it seems central to both his life and to the Wizarding World in general. Yet, despite this, relatively few of our posts have been devoted to this them and it certainly seems to lack the passion and ambiguity necessary to really captivate HPfGU posters. Much of the early discussion on Quidditch has effectively been overtaken by the publication of the Hogwart's schoolbook "Quidditch Through the Ages" in March 2001. This book tells us much of the basic rules of Quidditch, the historic origins of the game and the Quidditch League (for Britain and Ireland). Later discussions have now been overtaken by the release of OoP. This document therefore serves as a historic record of what was discussed, and how close we were. Debbie has researched Quidditch [48192 and 88055] as "a Metaphor for the struggle against Voldemort and the players role in the fight; moreover, the Quidditch sequences appear to foreshadow subsequent events". This concept will be considered first, followed by sections on the role of Quidditch for Harry in particular, together with a discussion of the game itself ?A discussion of Quidditch at Hogwarts will follow. The FAQ will finish with a look at some of the finished debates. The Quidditch Metaphor In Debbie's essay, "The Quidditch Metaphor", Debbie suggests that Quidditch serves a variety of purposes ? a setting for plot developments, a diversion, or, a metaphor for the struggle against Voldemort". She further suggests that the matches themselves foreshadow the Voldemort struggle. Debbie highlights the parallel of seeker and Harry, comparing his real life to his on-pitch role. The seeker is solitary, team mates provide the support, but ultimately, the seeker is the probably match-winner and must catch the snitch alone, just as Harry is supported by Ron and Hermione, but ultimately wins each battle by himself. Debbie also points out that the best seeker is a team player, again, as Harry have demonstrated on pitch and off. In terms of Quidditch foreshadowing the books themes, in OoP, Harry is banned from Quidditch. Ginny takes over Harry's role. Ginny is of course the one other person who has been possessed by Voldemort and thus can explain to him the feeling of being possessed which greatly worries him at different points in the book. In OoP Harry does not play seeker. He does seek to rescue Sirius, but his reasoning is flawed, and unwittingly leads to Sirius' death, the very thing he was trying to rescue Sirius from. Harry also does not carry out his solitary seeking role at the climax of the book. This time he is saved by Dumbledore. Debbie's comments on the keeper remain pertinent after OoP, even the terminology of stopping a goal "save", borrowed from football showing the keeper as the last line of defence. Are Debbie's words going to be prophetic "Perhaps the new keeper will be called upon to choose whether to save himself (or herself) or to sacrifice to allow Harry to continue the quest to defeat Voldemort". The keeper is of course, Ron and it has long been debated whether Ron will choose to sacrifice himself in the final battle as he choose to do in the chess scene in the Philosopher's Stone. A Skeletal history of Quidditch The name "Quidditch" is a corruption of "Queerditch Marsh" where Gertie Keddle observed and wrote about this game played on broomsticks. Goodwin later discussed the game at a time when there was a "catcher" and a "Blooder" - Modern day equivalents being "chaser" and "bludger". At that time there was no seeker and no golden snitch. Bowman Wright of Godrics Hollow [an ancestor of Harry's?] invented the Golden Snitch, to replace the Golden Snidget bird which had first been released at a Quidditch match when Barberus Bragge placed 150 galleons on the head of the Snidget. This is the origin of the 150 points award for the snitch [QTTA p 14]. The Professional League in Britain is made up of 20 teams coming from different parts of the British Isles. This arguably points to a Wizarding World in which, the RL boundaries within the British Isles are not recognised. However, this is not entirely the case as Ireland and England compete as different Nations in the World Cup. Harry and the role of Quidditch There have been suggestions that Harry is a descendant of Bowman Wright, the Snitch inventor. This is based on the fact that Lily and James's cottage was in Godric Hollow, home to Bowman Wright, and the fact that James' wealth was inherited. The assumption here is that the snitch invention could have given the Potters a family fortune. There is also the hypothesis that Harry's Quidditch talent is inherited ? James was a talented Quidditch player, and it is possible that Harry comes from a long line of talented people. Harry has had fame thrust upon him and he lacks confidence. Hagrid and the Wizarding World might have sprung him from his childhood prison, but Harry dislikes being a "famous name", uncomfortable with the celebrity status which Snape taunts him about. Quidditch is very important to Harry and so for the reader, for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, understanding and even obsessing over Quidditch is a way to show he belongs to the WW. His support of the Chudley Canons, a mediocre team, rather than the fashionable Tornados, perhaps seals his original bond of friendship with Ron, the first person who really seems to have accepted him as an equal. Thus, with his Quidditch team support, the reader can see the importance Harry places on friendship.. Secondly, Harry is good at Quidditch, very good. In the words of Professor McGonagall "The boy's a natural. I've never seen anything like it." P. 112 PS UK edition. Harry is not a natural scholar. He carries the burden of fame for a past he cannot remember, and constantly zigzags between fame and infamy. Yet, with flying, with Quidditch, he feels he can justify his famous name: "In a rush of fierce joy he realised he'd found something he could do without being taught ? this was easy, this was wonderful". Harry doesn't really believe that he has any strengths, but "What was he best at? Well, that was easy, really ? "Quidditch" he said" GoF p.301 When Harry flew in the first task in GoF, "He realised that he had left not only the ground behind, but also his fear he was back where he belonged " p.310 Thus, Quidditch allows Harry to justify his fame to himself but it also allows him to forget it and all his worries. In contrast to his school work, Harry does work hard in Quidditch, he practices hard and reads up about the theory, showing that when Harry is dedicate to something, he can apply himself. Harry's Quidditch talent is recognised and encouraged by his adult mentors. Rules are broken to allow him to play Quidditch in the first year and to have his own broom. The gift of the Firebolt allows Harry to realise his talent more fully than if he had to continue with a slower Cleansweep, like Ron. Quidditch also gives Harry a link to his dead father, James who was a good Quidditch player. When Sirius gives Harry the Firebolt, it somehow connects Harry to the life he might have had ? with his father and godfather -to one of his most enjoyable past times now, Quidditch. Of course, because Quidditch is so important to Harry, JKR constantly deprives him of it: In CoS, Quidditch is cancelled because of the Basilisk menace. In GoF there is no Quidditch season because of the Tri-Wizard tournament, and of course, Umbridge knowing what Quidditch means to Harry, gives him a lifelong ban in OoP. In PoA, Harry's enjoyment of Quidditch is threatened until he can gain mastery over the Dementors. To date, Harry has never truly been beaten in Quidditch. When Hufflepuff won in PoA, it was because Harry was facing the Dementors. Arguably, despite his lack of attention at that point, Cedric would not have won if the Dementors (and Sirius) and had diverted Harry's attention. Despite Harry's ability, he seems never to have considered Quidditch as a post-Hogwarts Career. Perhaps this is because he knows that Quidditch can only ever be a diversionary hobby, but JKR has chosen not to explain this. With Umbridge removed, it would seem likely that Harry's lifelong ban has been lifted. Now, we must wonder will Harry ever be captain of the Gryffindor team and will he ever be beaten? Quidditch the game: Could Quidditch work? There has been discussion about whether Quidditch could actually "work". Ali felt that Quidditch was really 2 games roughly meshed together and questioned whether there was cohesiveness to the game [47806]. Tim felt that there were too many balls to work [47807]. Although this was the concept that actually drove JKR to invent the game (Amazon.Co.UK interview). On the other hand, Bboy [47809] believes " it is the dangers of stock car racing, sky diving, bungie jumping, motocross and high speed aerial combat, combined with the skill and strategy of any typical muggle team ball/puck type sport playable s Several posters have felt that 150 points for catching the snitch threatens the legitimacy of the game [47815 and 47916] as the snitch and seekers role overshadow the rest of the game to such a great extent. James [47832] countered this by theorising that in Professional Quidditch, the point difference of 150 might not be that great. He queried the comparative length of the Hogwarts matches with those in the League, deciding that greater talent must be the driving force. This view is challenged by Ali [47829] who asks where the Professional teams get their players from if it isn't Hogwarts. This is based on the oft-disputed statement that Hogwarts is the only Wizarding school in Britain [see interview ?] Ali suggests that the Professional League is kept afloat by foreign players. Alexander disagrees believing it to be additional evidence that there is more than one school despite JKR's word. Catlady [133] wondered how big a wizarding population is required to have enough players for all the professional/semi-professional Quidditch teams and to provide the associated financial support. Acting on the suggestion that there are 20 teams in the British Quidditch league, she proposed a low end guess of 200 active professional Quidditch players and pointed out that this estimate exceeds the apparent number of Quidditch players leaving Hogwarts each year. Joywitch referred to the teams of other countries and repeated her earlier (Y6031, Chapter 5 summary) comment that tiny Luxembourg "somehow has enough athletic witches and wizards for a world-class Quidditch team capable of beating JKR's Scotland." This, she asserts, is stretching logic. Ellen the Beekeeper [246] proposed that Luxembourg is rich enough to hire the best players and Catlady [304] reminded us that just seven good players or seven good brooms would be enough to sweep the board at the World Cup. In fact, as Luxembourg's population is 500,000, and Scotland's is 5.1 million, it is possible for Luxembourg to have a stronger team. This is perhaps a similar ratio to England and New Zealand. Despite the size differences, New Zealand has a superior rugby team. Strategy See 2627. Cho's Comet could not match Harry's Firebolt, so she just followed his coattails to see if she could get to the snitch that way. Simon thinks this would be a stupid stratagem, since the person with the slower broom would have to be in front of Harry in order to block his access to the Snitch [otherwise, he would easily reach it first]. Alternatively, they would have to be searching for the Snitch elsewhere, rather than trailing Harry. [2660]. Has there ever been a Quidditch match where the snitch was not caught? Y1726 Dave H suggests that maybe Quidditch has an equivalent to the "Fifty Move Rule" in chess, so that if the snitch is not caught within a certain time, the game is automatically drawn [or based on the score at that point]. [1766] Smitster1 pointed out an interview with JKR in which she said that a game can last indefinitely and only ends when the snitch is caught. [1867 for URL of clip?]. In PS, Wood tells Harry that a "game of Quidditch can go on for ages ? I think the record is three months, they had to keep bringing on substitutes so the players could get some sleep" p. 125. There is no canon to decide whether Hogwarts operates a truncated school version of Quidditch. Gender representation Professor Nellup [4309] commented on how well females were represented in Quidditch and on the fact that it was a unisex sport, something almost unknown in Muggle team sports. She gave the examples of Cho Chang, the Ravenclaw chaser, and in the World Cup in GoF, two of the three chasers - Mullet and Moran. In fact, when Ginny joins the Gryffindor team in OoP over half the Gryffindor team are females, this is in contrast to the Slytherin team which seems to be always male . It is interesting to note that the Weasleys, who are in many ways our benchmark of fair-minded wizards actually have many prejudices, and amongst these are allowing little sisters to play Quidditch. Ginny learned by borrowing her brothers brooms, they did not let her play with them. Quidditch attire and accoutrements Quidditch robes? And hats Jen P suggests "some synthetic fabric meant to be more aerodynamic and light". 2055 As to what is worn under the robes, at one point, we see Harry putting on a t-shirt under his Quidditch robes, but this could be underwear or outerwear, according to Catlady. Do the players wear jeans or boxer shorts underneath? [3217] JoAnna refers to p110 of SS, when Harry and Ron "took off their jackets and pulled on their long black robes." This supports the idea that Quidditch robes are worn over ordinary clothes. [3225]. The team certainly seem to get changed together again supporting the idea that they do not have to undress in forn of each other. Catlady wondered whether Quidditch hats - with team logos etc - are the same as the pointed witch hats worn otherwise. [5399]. She also wondered whether the hats worn by the players would fall off during play and noted that the robes could be cumbersome during play. [5400]. Quidditch at Hogwarts How many Quidditch Games are played? Steve Bboy [50570] thought that as there is no mention of Harry attending matches he does not play in, that the Quidditch Cup must be won after elimination rounds. Other posters pointed out that the Potterverse is "Harrycentric" and there is little time to see things in his peripheral vision. The consensus [Torsten, 50630 and Scott 50636] is that 6 games are played, each house playing each other once. How are the House teams chosen? Is the selection left to the Professor in charge of the house or are there "tryouts" each year? Penny [Y669] notes that in CoS, Harry was worried that he might lose his place as Seeker because he hadn't practiced in 2 months - could McGonagall have replaced him if he hadn't made the grade? In PS it is stated that there will be House Quidditch trials. [670]. This question appears to be answered in OoP. Angelina holds trials for the Goalkeeper position that Oliver Wood had just vacated. Angelina chooses Ron, not because he's the best, but because he's the best team player. Later on, after Harry, Fred and George are expelled from the team, trials are again held. But, it seems very likely that McGonagall would be able to throw someone off the team if she felt that they did not come up to scratch. She threatens Angelina with removing her captaincy after Angelina's outburst at Harry in the Great Hall [p. 285] The first-year rule There is a rule that first year students are not allowed their own broomsticks at Hogwarts (p. 53 PS ). It is slightly less clear whether this means that First years are not ordinarily allowed to play on the House Quidditch team .Draco complains that first years never get on the first team, (p. 107 PS) but this could be because the rule prohibiting them from using their own brooms all but rules them out of the teams because the school brooms are so slow. When McGonagall talks to Dumbledore about bending the rules in Harry's case it could be either to allow Harry to own his own broom or be on the House Team. Professor Flitwick later refers to the "special circumstances [670], again not clarifying what the rule is. Do the flying lessons continue beyond the first year? Y669 Flying lessons are only mentioned once, so people have often questioned whether students carry on these lessons passed the first year, perhaps Harry is exempt because he's obviously mastered the basics. But, we are never told, and we never hear whether Hermione and Neville managed to improve their broomstick skills. When did Gryffindor last win the House Cup? Quidditch Cup and House Cup In PoA, Wood says Gryffindor haven't won the Quidditch Cup for seven years, (p. 108) In PS, Fred says that Gryffindor haven't won the cup since Charlie Weasley left p. 114 PS, presumably meaning that Gryffindor hadn't won the Quidditch cup for the 5 years preceding Harry starting at Hogwarts. Y5349 & Y5352. However, when Harry goes to the end of term feast in PS, the Great Hall is decked in green and silver to celebrate the fact that Slytherin had won the House cup for the seventh year in a row. Thus, it would seem that in Charlie's final year, Gryffindor won the Quidditch cup, but Slytherin won the House cup. Stephanie75 [4973] wondered how Slytherin won the House Cup six years in a row? If they haven't won the Quidditch Cup in those years, where are they getting the points? Cheating? Catlady thought that Slytherin did win the Quidditch Cup all those years but was still puzzled by the implication in PoA that Slytherin started their winning streak in the Quidditch Cup one year before their winning streak of the House Cup [5039]. Milz suggested that the other Houses had lost more points than Slytherin, leaving them in a stronger position for the House Cup [4975]. During a discussion about the Weasley boys' ages, Milz pointed out the importance of Harry being the youngest Quidditch player in 100 years; this was evidence that Charlie Weasley must have been at least a second year student when he began playing for Gryffindor. Penny said she had the impression that Charlie Weasley had given Gryffindor the Quidditch Cup several years running, and the last time they had won it before PoA was in his final year at Hogwarts How does the Quidditch Cup contribute to the House Cup? It seems that it does. When Harry loses 50 points in PS/SS, he thinks that this will wipe out the lead he had just won in Quidditch. Gryffindor won the House cup in PoA, thanks largely to their spectacular performance in Quidditch. We are not told the exact correlation of Quidditch points to House Points. Whatever the correlation, Gryffindor Quidditch tactics have always been to secure wins, not maximise the House point score. Who won the Quidditch cup in Harry's first year? We aren't told who won the Quidditch Cup since Harry missed the last match, but Penny suggested that it would be whichever House was second to Gryffindor in the Quidditch matches; probably Slytherin since they were ahead in terms of House points in the race for House Cup and we can suppose that winning the Quidditch Cup yields a high number of points for the House who wins it. Penny suggests that Quidditch success secures points towards the House Cup, either accumulating points through individual matches won or through a set number of points being Quidditch champions. Kelley added that McGonagall tells the kids she's going to deduct 50 points. from Gryffindor, and Harry thinks "They would lose the lead, the lead he'd won in the last Quidditch match.". p. 178 PS Maybe the winning team gets the amount of points they score in the game added to their House points. Succession planning and reserve teams The Potterverse is unclear, but there is no evidence of succession planning in the Gryfindor team. Whilst Alicia Spinnet was on the reserve team prior to Harry joining, it seems very likely that this team never reformed. When Harry is in the hospital wing at the end of PS/SS, the team suffered its worst defeat for 300 years. Melanie Ravenclawlady [1498], asked whether the team continued without a seeker, whether there was an alternative, or whether one of the existing team members switched positions. Arguably, whatever they did, the team's spirit was diminished by the risk to Harry's life and so they failed to play effectively. The Gryffindor were wholly unprepared for losing their beaters and seeker after Fred, George and Harry received lifelong bans. Whilst their ban could not have been anticipated, their incapacitation probably could have been. More trials had to be held, again emphasising the lack of obvious reserves. This succession planning seems a weakness in teambuilding and is in contrast to professional level Quidditch as we know that Oliver Wood was selected to play for the Puddlemere United reserve team (p. 78 GoF). FFA wanted to know why there wasn't a team for each year in the school [1488]. The Gryffindor team hadn't changed at all in the first three years that Harry was seeker, there was then no Quidditch for a year. It could be to provide some reinforcement of the identities of the team members across the first three books. FFA also raised the fact that there are only about 40 pupils per year and about 70 per House, so perhaps they can only summon up one team per House. [1509] The Gryffindor Team (PS/SS through to PoA) Keeper and Captain: Oliver Wood -left Chaser : Angelina Johnson Chaser : Alicia Spinnet Chaser : Katie Beater : George Weasley Beater : Fred Weasley Seeker : Harry Potter Draco on Slytherin team There is an inference that Draco only got into the Slytherin team because Lucius bought brooms for the players [2967]. But, this is not really supported by canon. The Slytherin team seems second to Gryffindor in CoS and PoA. In OoP, they actually lose 2 of their 3 matches, but that could be because of the weakness of the other players (eg Crabbe and Goyle) rather than Malfoy himself. Malfoy may have bought himself onto the team, but he does seem to be a relatively effective player, just not a true opponent for Harry ? at least not yet. The Quidditch World Cup Jen P. sums up Chapter 8, "The Quidditch World Cup [428]the chapter devoted to the only Quidditch action in GoF: a match between Ireland and Bulgaria. We meet the team mascots - Leprechauns and Veela and the star Bulgarian Seeker, Viktor Krum. "Over the next few (many?) pages, we're treated to spectacular Quidditch moves, special effects from the omnioculars (nose-picking again and again and again, slow- motion gone wrong, etc), and rude gestures from the opposing teams' mascots. Catlady notes that this is fast-paced Quidditch of a level that Harry had never seen before. Krum eventually captures the snitch, even though Bulgaria is down by 160 points and it's not going to win them the game. Fred and George Weasley had bet some money on this happening and Kathleen MacMillan wondered how they managed to predict such an odd outcome: perhaps a few sessions with Professor Trelawney? Although Harry assumes that Krum caught the Snitch to retain some semblance of pride, Catlady points out that this is only Harry's assumption and also suggests that the twins had studied team form in placing their bet [538]. Catlady also suggests that all the players on the Irish team must have attended Hogwarts, and finds it strange that McGonagall had not mentioned any of them. Simon responded that perhaps there is another wizarding school in), or that maybe the Irish players were in Houses other than Gryffindor and spread over several school years. [581]. 6031 (Chap 5 summary) Joywitch points out that tiny Luxembourg "somehow has enough athletic witches and wizards for a world-class Quidditch team capable of beating JKR's native Scotland.". However, when you consider that Luxembourg has one twentieth of Scotland's population, it would be possible for Luxembourg to be better, just as New Zealand tend to be better than England at rugby despite their smaller pool from which to attract players. Some Quidditch personalities Oliver Wood Catlady imagines that Wood is a "nice, sincere, committed guy" and imagines having a conversation with him, in which she tries to get his one-track mind off the topic off Quidditch and on to global warming! [2841] After Hogwarts, Oliver Wood signs to Puddlemere United reserve team. 7630 Ch 7 summary Marcus Flint The Slytherin Captain had to repeat a year, according to an interview with JKR, but 4972 suggests that she just forgot that he would have left. At the end of CoS, when Flint is meant to be taking his NEWTs, Harry's exams are cancelled, so perhaps all exams were cancelled and Flint was forced to return the following year to take them. 5458 Simon. Later editions show Flint in the 5th year in PS, 6th year in CoS and 7th year in PoA. This had had two effects. Firstly, it shows us that JKR's interviews cannot always be treated as "canon" as sometimes she simply has to think on her feet and cover up minor inconsistencies. Secondly, it has led to the coining of the term a "Flint" which is now used by list members of HPfGU to point out perceived inconsistencies in the Potterverse. Viktor Krum Catlady [7340] raised the possibility that Krum was bewitched to play great Quidditch, based on the contrast between his "clumsy and graceless walk" and his "perfect broom-flying". Jim Ferer thought that if it were possible to use magic in this way, there would hardly be a need for Hogwarts [7361] Vicki thought that Krum was just "shy and basically insecure" with one major talent - his Quidditch playing - which he regards as "a freak talent". [7399] Questions concluded by the publication of QTTA:Aren't broomsticks uncomfortable? ? see QTTA for cushion charm Well, yes. Scott 6113. Ouch! Vicki noted that JKR had never mentioned that the brooms had seats and suggested that they "magically disperse the force along your whole legs, instead of just in your groin area". Otherwise, the boys would find the brooms a particularly rough ride and "would never grow up to reproduce". [6179] Dee [6154] thought it was unlikely that the girls in HP ride `side- saddle,' whereas in "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" witches were expected to "be a lady" and do just that. Discussions concluded by the publication of OoP Lack of Quidditch in Year 4 4073 Captains new players Several members bemoaned the lack of Quidditch in Harry's 4th year, due to the Triwizard Tournament. Simon 4106 commented that this also put off the question of who would be the new Quidditch captains, since there were at least three vacancies. He suggests that Harry would be a good candidate for captain of Gryffindor in Book 5. FFA thought this would be one glory too many and proposed Angelina Johnson as captain. Ebony suggests that the twins should co-captain, or that one of the three chasers should be captain. 6051. Catlady suggests that the twins should co-captain [6045] Ebony also suggests that Dean and Seamus could become Chasers, if Angelina has left the school in Book 5. Draco might be made captain of Slytherin in Book 5, and perhaps Cho Chang will be captain of Ravenclaw. .6045 Dean Thomas, being a fan of West Ham soccer team, was suggested as a replacement for Oliver Wood as Gryffindor Keeper. Jim Ferer pointed out that Wood was stocky, like a hockey goalie, and that either of the twins, who are also stocky, would make a good Keeper. In fact, Ron who is gangily played keeper. He was not the best, and suffered badly from lack of confidence, but showed his competence in the final match. Someone suggested that the Creevey brothers might turn out to be fairly good players and Ginny has been suggested. ? of course, Ginny proved herself to be a competent player in OoP and may reach greater heights in Books 6 and 7 once she changes position. Will Ron Weasley ever get a chance to play? Y669: In PS, the Mirror of Erised revealed that it was Ron's greatest desire to be Captain of the Gryffindor Quidditch team and he is obsessed with the game in general. Bedroom quote Ebony proposes that Ron is made Keeper of Gryffindor House team in Book 5. [6051] Penny thought Ron would get his chance when the twins and some of the chasers leave. Mike Gray [6376] suggested that Ron would get to be Keeper and Captain of the team, because he is good at chess, which requires "planning, insight, thinking ahead, laying out a strategy". He might join as a "second-string" player and surprise everyone by pointing out a brilliant strategy. This might still happen as the captaincy is once again open. Katie Spinnet and Harry are the most experienced players, but Harry did not play for much of the year through hot-headed Quidditch related behaviour which may rule him out of contention, although he successfully led the DA. Jen [6074] thought Ron should be a Beater and have one of the twins take over from Wood as Keeper, but Ebony thought the twins should not be split up as they were "like a pair of human Bludgers themselves" (Oliver Wood). Danemead [6393] was worried that if Ron played on the Quidditch team Voldemort might be better able to cause injury to Harry's `wheezy'. In eGroups Jinx noted that Ron has never played A-side Quidditch before [4945]. Captains need to be among the older more experienced players. Catlady said that when Cedric was introduced, he was said to be Hufflepuff's new Seeker and new Captain, which really made her question why a new team member would be chosen as Captain. [5037]. Amanda proposed that Cedric was on the team already and moved to Seeker, rather than being completely new to the team [5047]. Simon thought Ron's predicament could be part of a vicious cycle [4865]. He does not have a good enough broom so is not good enough to get onto the team. Because he is not good enough to get on the team he cannot justify asking his parents for a better broom. So he cannot get on the team. Although Ron isn't too proud to borrow a broom for tryouts, Catlady thinks he avoids trying out because he believes that his parents don't have enough money to buy him a decent broom even if he did get on the team. In a sense this argument was supported by JKR as Ron chooses a new broom as his reward for being a prefect. This in turn enables him to try for the keeper position ? something that his lack of confidence might never have allowed him without the talisman of a new broom. [When Ginny becomes seeker after Harry's ban, it would seem unlikely that she had a new broom, but does not seem to need the emotional crutch that the new broom gave Ron. It does beg the question though, what kind of broom Ginny must have had to allow her to play competently ? surely the school brooms were insufficient? From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Feb 2 09:54:16 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:54:16 -0000 Subject: Quidditch FAQ - Draft In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've just thought of one minor alteration. I wrote that despite the differences in size, New Zealand has a better rugby team than England. That was before England won the World Cup. But for years, New Zealand has had a superior team! Ali From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Feb 2 14:03:19 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:03:19 -0000 Subject: ADMIN Sent on Behalf of Abigail: A Proposal Message-ID: I am resending this message, first posted last week, as a Special Notice to make sure everyone has an opportunity to read and comment. Could everyone comment this week so we can move forward (assuming no objections) or discuss and vote (if there are objections)? Thanks! Debbie ********** Text of original message follows: Because Abigail is overwhelmed with RL at the moment, I am sending this message on her behalf as FAQ liaison: Dear Members of FAQ, As you've all no doubt noticed, FAQ has faded into silence in the weeks since our most recent unpleasantness. We feel that perhaps enough time has passed, and we're being nudged by list members wanting to know why the FPs haven't yet been updated. As Tom pointed out, the recent resignations have left several FP teams unmanned or undermanned. Other teams which still have nominal members are stuck in neutral. It is time to make a coherent plan of action. Even if all of you take on a new FP or update, it's clear that we don't have enough hands to get the project done in a timely manner. In light of that constraint, a number of us have come up with a proposal to find the needed manpower that we'd like to put before you. Instead of selecting good posters and inviting them to join the team, let's ask for volunteers, and let them select which FPs they'd like to work on. There are good reasons to make this a volunteer project -- it would get back to the project's roots, since the first FPs were written by volunteers. And even more importantly, there are many enthusiastic and talented members whom we would inevitably overlook if we undertook to select candidates. We will provide guidelines for how to write FPs, as well as a list of specific resources (such as the Enchilada). We envision that volunteers would choose which FPs they would like to work on. If each volunteer is working on a topic that interests them, they're likely to put more energy into the project, and the FPs that get written will be the ones the members want most. If more than one person is interested in the same FP, then they can split up the work as they see fit. While membership of this list would still be by invitation, we would generally allow anyone who expresses interest to join, as long as they've been active on the list for a sufficient period of time to have a good feel for the list and its culture. The leaders of the project (who will be drawn from among the list elves, reflecting the fact that Fantastic Post is an HPFGU project) will function as the "go to" people if the team members have problems or issues, and will monitor the progress of the FP project and its component parts. What would be the drawbacks? Would we get volunteers who don't write well? Probably, but we already have good editors on the FP team. Besides, most of the work is culling the archives for good posts, which doesn't involve writing skills. Would some of them not complete the FPs they chose to work on? Undoubtedly, but that already happens. We believe the benefits of recruiting volunteers far outweigh these drawbacks. But we'd like to hear what the rest of you think. Please, tell us what you think of this idea. Debbie (on behalf of Abigail) for the list admin team From HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com Tue Feb 3 11:21:19 2004 From: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com (HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com) Date: 3 Feb 2004 11:21:19 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HP4GU-FAQ Message-ID: <1075807279.1527.84769.w61@yahoogroups.com> Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HP4GU-FAQ group. File : /Guidelines for composing new Fantastic Posts.doc Uploaded by : elfundeb2 Description : Guidelines for Composing FPs (draft) You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/files/Guidelines%20for%20composing%20new%20Fantastic%20Posts.doc To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, elfundeb2 From elfundeb at comcast.net Tue Feb 3 11:23:51 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:23:51 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HP4GU-FAQ In-Reply-To: <1075807279.1527.84769.w61@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: I've just uploaded a draft of a "how-to" manual for writing FPs. Please look at them, whether or not you've written an FP before. As I'm sure I've left out something significant, comments are welcome. Debbie --- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com wrote: > > Hello, > > This email message is a notification to let you know that > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HP4GU-FAQ > group. > > File : /Guidelines for composing new Fantastic Posts.doc > Uploaded by : elfundeb2 > Description : Guidelines for Composing FPs (draft) > > You can access this file at the URL > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/files/Guidelines%20for% 20composing%20new%20Fantastic%20Posts.doc > > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit > > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files > > Regards, > > elfundeb2 From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Tue Feb 3 18:33:40 2004 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:33:40 -0000 Subject: ADMIN Sent on Behalf of Abigail: A Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Debbie wrote: I am resending this message, first posted last week, as a Special Notice to make sure everyone has an opportunity to read and comment. Could everyone comment this week so we can move forward (assuming no objections) or discuss and vote (if there are objections)?/END Tom: Hey everyone... look, I'll be honest here. I'm completely reeling from the flood of information that I've gotten over the last few days. I don't know how to respond to any of it, except to say that I'm sorry for bringing it all up in the first place. I do have some ideas and suggestions on the proposal and some other stuff, and I hope that things haven't been so ruined that y'all just don't want to deal with me any more. If that's the case, and I've fouled up any chance at a decent working relationship, then I will resign from FAQ voluntarily if y'all want. No muss, no fuss, I promise. If that's not the case, then please give me a day or two to write up a decent response. Thanks for your patience, -Tom From Ali at zymurgy.org Tue Feb 3 19:13:24 2004 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 19:13:24 -0000 Subject: ADMIN Sent on Behalf of Abigail: A Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tom wrote: > Hey everyone... look, I'll be honest here. I'm completely reeling > from the flood of information that I've gotten over the last few > days. I don't know how to respond to any of it, except to say that > I'm sorry for bringing it all up in the first place. None of us possess time turners to go backwards, but we can go forward together. > If that's not the case, then please give me a day or two to write up a decent response. Tom, please take your time and write your response. Believe me, I think that we do all want to have great FAQs written - even ok FAQs. We all came here in the first place because we love Harry Potter, because we love HPfGU. As long as that hasn't changed, then please stay on FAQ. Ali From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 14 00:22:00 2004 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Thomas Wall) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:22:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Some Ideas on Getting FAQ Up and Running Message-ID: <20040214002200.74942.qmail@web21325.mail.yahoo.com> Hey everyone, I know that over a week ago I asked for a "day or two" to write up a response to Debbie's post of suggestions for getting FAQ back on target. Er, thanks very much for being patient with me. ;-) For the record, Ive been extraordinarily busy in RL for the past two weeks; additionally, Ive tried to dole out my limited online time to the answering of personal e-mails, which I felt took a higher priority. Of course, Im still *very* behind on those, and still owe some responses. So, I havent until now - had enough time to convert my conglomeration of print-outs and notes into a post worthy of, uh, posting. However, I so hope that by the end of this letter you all will agree that the additional time it's taken me to put it together was worth it. It turns out, also, that I have inadvertently held up the progress on FAQ through my delay, and I am also sorry for that, as I recognize the need to get FAQ up and running again. Secondly, although I'm posting this to FAQ, Im also mailing it to HpforGrownUps-owner in order to save the liaison a bit of time, and also because I think that this letter will necessarily have to be discussed by MEG anyways. I think that one way or the other decisions will have to be made regarding the contents here. As the letter progresses onward, I think that my reasons for doing this will become clear. Primarily, Im writing this to address some of the issues that I believe require real change in order for FAQ to move forward and be productive. So, first off, I want to applaud the ideas in the post that Debbie sent on Abigails behalf, and also the group of people who put it together. It may surprise some when I say that I actually agreed with large swaths of it, though it probably wont surprise anyone when I say that I disagreed with a few points as well. Generally, though, it got me thinking about what I have perceived to be both the strengths and weaknesses of the FAQ culture since I joined this summer, and then it got me thinking about how we can play to those strengths and smooth some of our problem areas away. Disclaimer here: Im fairly confident that at least *some* of what I have to say here may annoy one or more people, although I am trying diligently to be as fair and sensitive as I can. However, I do ardently believe that it is by and large a very balanced assessment of the situation here, and that the suggestions for improvement are - overall - the best course of action for FAQ at the present. Please understand that ultimately, what I'm trying to do is get us to that "coherent plan of action" that was suggested. I just happen to feel that the plan needs more specifics. Consider this post a presentation of some specifics accompanied by suggestions for implementation. I want to start with what is probably the first contentious issue that I brought up this summer, notably that of autonomy. You have to understand that when I first joined FAQ, I had no idea *how* many past and present members of MEG were present on this list. I recognized a lot of the names, sure, but that recognition sprung primarily from the knowledge that many of you guys were veterans. I didnt realize just how many veterans were also Administrators. Of course, I never (until fairly recently) bothered to do an actual breakdown, and that was my mistake. As yall probably know, Im notorious for foot-in-mouth responses, and when I first brought up the idea of autonomy back in June or July, it was without the knowledge that I was a addressing a number of people who either had been, were presently, or were going to be on MEG. Furthermore, given the number of relatively vague statements to the effect that MEG wanted FAQ to be by and large a self-governing list, I was under the impression that FAQ mostly comprised a separate group of people. Looking back, I can see that this was an oversight on my part. Look at it this way: I thought (particularly after reading OoP) that the relationship between MEG and FAQ could best be analogized by the relationship between the Ministry and Hogwarts in the books. Namely, I believed that MEGs job was primarily to address the administration and governance aspects of HPfGU operations, whereas FAQ could better be described as either the press, or a school. In any case, I believed that the two were mostly independent of each other and that this meant that FAQ was free to determine its own fate and policies for itself (and that that was the preferable course of action), and that therefore I was free to propose what I did. It was this impression that fueled a great deal of my efforts which I now recognize as inherently flawed, given the symbiotic relationship that the two institutions share - to separate MEG and FAQ, as I believed that interference from MEG was in no small part connected to the lack of direction and order on FAQ (which had existed for months even before I joined). I still partially do feel that way, but now am much more prone to accept that there was a great deal of frustration and misunderstanding permeating the atmosphere here, and that most of what happened was the result of that vibe. Back to my point, however, subsequent attempts to discuss policy for FAQ nearly across the board resulted in calls to either defer to MEG, or else to adopt a policy that MEG already had in place. Further complicating the issue was the fact that in some cases, there was distinct leeway afforded so that FAQ could delineate its own policies and procedures. Essentially, I believe it is an understatement to point out that the relationship between the two lists was unclear, and that further attempts to pursue the subject were frustratingly mishandled by both sides. On the one hand, I concede that I was too fervent and insensitive in some of my posts. On the other, I do not feel as though anyone was actually hearing what I had to say. Maybe many people did, but it didn't feel that way. Before I go on, I should throw two of my *own* caveats in here. (For those who are uninterested in a brief explanation of some of my idiosyncrasies, feel free to skip the next two paragraphs.) ;-) First of all, many of you probably realize by now that I (in an unabashedly Percy-esque fashion) just *love* rules and order. I adore them. I learn rules quickly, and then assiduously abide by them. When peeved, I typically figure out what the loopholes and weaknesses in the rules are, and proceed to engage in pedantic discussions over what is and what is not permissible according to the rules as they stand, or at least, as I understand them. I do this not only with rules, but also very much with premises that involve canon and theories as well. Additionally, I am the kind of guy who *has* to tidy up my workspace before beginning any project, as the mere existence of alternative and unfinished clean-up stuff is enough to sidetrack me indefinitely until I have a clean and organized environment in which I can focus on my work. So, from my perspective (although many may understandably disagree) what I was trying to accomplish during the summer and early fall was *not* to make everyones life more difficult, nor to mire yall down in an inexhaustible series of complaints, questions and suggestions (although I do see how this impression could have been formed). Rather, my actions were an effort to adequately define my working relationship so that I could get to work. Figuratively, all of that was a miserably failed attempt on my part to tidy up my workspace. I hope with a few lessons tucked under my belt - that I have a little more success this time round. ;-) In that light, it may or may not surprise you guys when I tell you that after careful consideration of the present and possible problems that I perceive on FAQ, I truly feel that the only way to solve - and in the case of the possible problems, to circumvent - them is to start out by making it *as clear as possible* (especially for any new volunteers) that FAQ is firmly and unquestionably under the direct supervision and authority of MEG. IMHO, one of the pre-conditions for the genesis of the latest round of unpleasantness was the idea that there was maneuvering room for myself (and others) that would enable us to pitch in and help define our own policies and procedures. This, I believe, is a topic onto which many not all, but certainly many new FAQ volunteers (who may quite likely be not sick of policy discussions and also simultaneously eager to help out in any way that they can) will naturally jump. For instance, *this* is why I tried to bring up autonomy in the first place; its also the reason I tried to jumpstart the latest and ultimately failed - round of discussion on new members. Its cause I wanted to help. Having learned from that experience, I honestly feel that as long as such opportunities exist for FAQ to define its own policies, and as long as the policies and relationship remain vaguely defined, I will not be the only person willing or able to make use of that vagueness. If, hypothetically speaking, we were to announce tomorrow that FAQ would be taking applications for new members on a volunteer basis, I feel confident that within several weeks *someone* would notice a discrepancy and point it out. Thats all itd take for a few others to sign up on the topic and then wed be in a needless and protracted policy discussion all over again. In short, I feel like a large part of the unpleasantness (for which Im not at all interested in assigning blame onto anyone) was realistically due to the amount of leeway, coupled with a whole lot of policies which were indistinct. I think that one of the best things we can do right now is to eliminate as much of this vagueness before anyone comes in and catches on and we end up going in circles. Therefore, I would like to begin by proposing that any and all operational procedures and rules that MEG feels is relevant to FAQ first be defined here, and then implemented here. By this, Im referring to stuff like (but not limited to): security procedures, the number of moderators (who should *all* be elves without exception, IMHO, to reinforce the fact that this is an HPfGU project), the leadership (and/or the need for a liaison) on FAQ, policies on discussing and voting on new members, and scrubbing. My take on this is simple: if MEG doesnt scrub, then neither should FAQ. If MEG has determined the optimal number of moderators, then FAQ should have the same number. And so on. Let me be direct: essentially, I am now of the mind that the *only* issues to which the general membership of FAQ should have any input are the writing of FP essays, team assignments, and *perhaps* voting on new members (I'm still kind of the mindset that we should vote on new members instead of automatically accepting everyone that applies, but opinion isn't steadfast or anything). Frankly, I dont see the need for any other issue or policy to be up for grabs or open to discussion around here. Were here to write FP essays. *Thats* the priority. So lets make sure that - as a matter of precaution and prudence - theres nothing *else* outstanding that people could talk about. Anyways, after this review, MEG should decide which rules would best be applied here, and then should notify FAQ of the decisions, accompanying the additional rules with explanations for anything that may not be clear. My opinion is this: if it works on MEG, then it should be implemented here. Now, once that is done, the new rules need to be recorded in such a way as to make them conveniently available to all members at any time. Therefore, Id further this by asking that all of this information be incorporated into the original Policy Statement (in message #2447, including answers to questions in messages #2497, #2498, and the additional statement of intent in #2499) on which I have previously requested clarification. And once that revision is complete, I believe that the Policy Statement should be saved in the Files section of the FAQ list so that anyone can refer to it at any time (instead of having to flip backwards through old threads in order to find the original post and subsequent thread). For the record, I did not request that the policy statement be revised in order to create make work, as Abigail has understandably, I think, given the prior tension in the air - suggested; rather, it was and still is - an effort to tidy up my work space, to make it clear for myself and others (and now *especially* any for prospective volunteers that may sign up in the near future) exactly what the conditions are under which well be working. Im not, though, trying to make more work for yall, and I know that a clear policy statement could potentially take some time and effort. In that light, I would be glad to help with this task (even though I realize that its not really my place to pen official policies), as I already have a draft of the policy statement with all sorts of arrows and scribbled notes which might be of use, if that is - you guys think that this is both an acceptable and worthwhile proposition. I cant stress how central I think this will be if were going to generally open up FAQ to volunteers. I believe that a clear and defined policy and rules are absolutely *indispensable* if were going to proceed along this route, as many of the potential volunteers will likely possess some not all, Im sure, but certainly some - of the same feelings that I and others experienced this summer. Namely, I'm betting that theyll probably want to learn the rules so that they can abide by them (and not look stupid), theyll probably be full of vigor and ready to help out, and also that they might want to discuss just about anything that looks like its inviting their opinion. And when theres a lack of clarity coupled with a determination to reach clarity, questions and debate will naturally be the result. And those things arent always helpful, particularly not if the purpose is to be writing FP essays and not discussing and formulating FP policies. Guys, if the rules arent clear for everyone *before* the new people start coming in, I *guarantee* yall that at some point nitpicking and policy discussion will emerge once more (especially if certain other aspects of the FAQ culture remain unaddressed), and that this will sidetrack the project all over again. Given the fact that FAQ is now and has been for over a year - *extraordinarily* behind in its production, I do not think that we can afford to leave any sort of loopholes and uncertainty in our culture, lest we again get derailed. Therefore, I believe that it should be very clear to anyone who joins FAQ that, for example, this is not the place to discuss MEG history, policy, actions, or past conflicts, nor is it the place to express general complaints with List Admin or other members of HPfGU. A proper policy statement would probably also suggest alternatives to this, such as private e-mails, e-mails to owner, or even the Feedback list (if the topic is considered appropriate). It should also be clear that this is not a staging ground for getting onto List Administration. Most significantly, it should be concretely obvious to everyone that everyday netiquette rules *still* apply and will *still* result in Howlers or Moderation if egregious violations occur and/or continue. On this note, I would encourage the elves with Moderator privileges (again, I think that realistically there is no reason for anyone *other* than elves to possess Mod privileges, and am more than happy to relinquish my own as I dont need and don't really use them) to exercise these powers if things *ever* start to get out of hand again. I concede with a side dish of great hope - that stuff may never reach that point. But I also believe that we should prepare for it as though it were an eventuality. Just in case. Finally, it should be clear that its not acceptable to join FAQ unless you intend in some way even if that way is limited to contribute to the effort here. Excessive lurking on the part of too many members of FAQ, IMHO, is not only unhelpful to our progress, but actually dispiriting for those who feel like they're doing a lot of work and not getting any help. This is something I will get to later on. Now, is all of this in contradiction with my many past proposals? I can see how it would be taken that way, although I feel that it is not. Why am I proposing this now? What are my motivations? Thats simple. Given the events since this summer, I feel that it is only prudent that we make an effort to straighten up the FAQ situation in an honest attempt to ensure that those types of debates do not *ever* occur again, as they are clearly detrimental to FAQs culture, its ability to produce new work, and most significantly, the *morale of its members,* particularly members who are not on List Admin. I.e. no one should have to undergo the series of Admin messages from this fall that prompted all hell to break loose. That should never have to happen again. Although this may seem pessimistic (and I do not consider myself a pessimistic person), I believe that it is *essential* for us to prepare ourselves for the eventuality that something like these past events might recur. Therefore, we must assure ourselves, before admitting anyone new, that we have done everything within our power to circumvent any possible future ugliness. Finally, (please forgive the non-sequitur here; smooth segues arent exactly my forte) I have two briefer points to make regarding some other stuff thats been on my mind lately. First, the Topical Essays link on hpfgu.org.uk is still pointing to an expired file at the Lexicon. We are currently located at hpfgu.org.uk/faq, right? Could someone make sure that the link is fixed? Secondly, I read through Debbies recent FAQ Guidelines file, and it is *excellent.* Nice work, Debbie... Im amazed at how much information you managed to cram into a three page document. ;-) Id like to talk a little more, though, about one piece of it, which we already brought up on Feedback, and that is how we should best go about citing members work. Debbie wrote (in the Guidelines file): [Avoid direct quotes and using members full names.] Tom again: I know that we touched on this on Feedback, and so I know why you threw this in there. But part of me still really, *really* likes the way that the Snape FP is written. I'd be sad to see it changed in order to remove names and citations because personally, I think its the best one we have, although no insult is intended for the authors of the other essays. So, hoping that we might find a way to *keep* that style intact while also abiding by the rules and general courtesy, I drafted a Request for Use letter that we might possibly employ (with minimal additional effort required) in order to get permission from members to use their work and/or names in FP essays. I figure it like this: By and large, most people probably wont take offense at the inclusion of their work on an FP essay. Frankly, I think that most people would be *thrilled* to have their stuff included. And from a logistical standpoint, we do not *have* to actually cite anyones name or parts of the post in the actual essay. However, I do think that the inclusion of names and occasional citations does make the essay sound more personal, and also allows for more in-depth writing. So, what to do? What if we wrote our hypothetical FP essay the way we normally would (using names and citations if we so desire) and then, when the FP is done, we send out the Request for Use letter to anyone whose work/name wed like to directly cite in the FP essay? This way, we can *get* actual permission to use the work and/or the name of the individual. If anyone declines, then that person's work can simply be converted into an anonymously referenced post number. If a member doesnt respond at all, we can take it as a refusal and do the same. Anyways, I wrote up a draft of a letter along these lines a few weeks ago, and its pasted in at the bottom of this post. My idea is that if we save this letter (or a better version of one, as I'm not exactly skilled in writing PR-type letters) in the Files section of the FAQ list, then it shouldnt be a hassle at all to send it out once we have some written FP essays. Just plug in the variables and hit send. ;-) It's an extra step, yes, but one worth taking if we want to preserve the specific style and character of the FP site. Now, all of that was pretty easy. ;-) Again, it probably wont surprise you guys when I say that I - yes, even still - have a *ton* of things I want to talk about. However, as I wrote (and wrote, and wrote), I realized that bringing everything up in *one* letter would likely result in a tedious read for the recipients, not to mention that too much of Tom opining and waxing philosophical all at once and might actually be *counterproductive* to my aim. ;-) So, Ive split everything up into this post and another which hasnt been finished yet. I hope to post it later on, after weve had a chance to talk over the stuff I proposed in here, but figure that it's better to take things one step at a time. So, thats about it from me, -Tom PS: REQUEST FOR USE LETTER (Note: variables are preceded by an asterisk.) Dear *So-and-so, Hi there! Im *So-and-so, and Im contacting you on behalf of the HPforGrownUps Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them Team. As you know, the Fantastic Post Owls are responsible for compiling and writing the Fantastic Posts essays (located at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq), which are basically topical summaries of the very best that HPfGU has to offer on the many dimensions of the Harry Potter series, as well as on the theories written and discussed by HPfGUs members. Well, Im excited to let you know that were nearly finished with a new Fantastic Posts essay on *Such-and-such-a-topic! We think that your post *#12345 is excellent; it's exactly the kind of quality and thoughtful material that wed like to feature on the Fantastic Posts website, which is one of the ways that we promote HPfGU to the general public. The reason Im sending you this letter is to request your permission to include your name (or pseudonym), and possibly even a direct citation from your work on the public website. We understand that all members retain copyright to their work, and we completely respect your right to control the use of your writing. If you feel for any reason as though you dont want your name or work to appear on the website, then we completely understand. Just reply to this e-mail and tell us what youd prefer we not include on the website (your name, a citation, anything at all). In that case, well simply refer to your post without referencing you by name or including any direct quotes. If you dont reply to this e-mail, then well assume that you dont want to be mentioned specifically, and your name (along with any direct quotes from your post) will be omitted from the essay. We will, however, still provide the number of your post (but not the name or a direct quote), so that other members of HPfGU can take a look at your thoughts. Thanks for your contributions to HPfGU, and keep up the great work! Regards, *So-and-so (For the Fantastic Post Owls) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 14 00:34:24 2004 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:34:24 -0000 Subject: Non-Distorted Message Here (WAS Re: Some Ideas on Getting FAQ Up and Running In-Reply-To: <20040214002200.74942.qmail@web21325.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Uh, sorry for the horrible formatting with the punctuation... I'm not exactly sure how that happened, except that I sent it from my mail account. Here it is again as a direct post through webview. I'm also resending it to HpforGrownUps-owner since I'm not sure if the same distortions happened in the e-mail version. Apologies to everyone for the duplicate mails. -Tom ********** Hey everyone, I know that over a week ago I asked for a "day or two" to write up a response to Debbie's post of suggestions for getting FAQ back on target. Er, thanks very much for being patient with me. ;-) For the record, I've been extraordinarily busy in RL for the past two weeks; additionally, I've tried to dole out my limited online time to the answering of personal e-mails, which I felt took a higher priority. Of course, I'm still *very* behind on those, and still owe some responses. So, I haven't - until now - had enough time to convert my conglomeration of print-outs and notes into a post worthy of, uh, posting. However, I so hope that by the end of this letter you all will agree that the additional time it's taken me to put it together was worth it. It turns out, also, that I have inadvertently held up the progress on FAQ through my delay, and I am also sorry for that, as I recognize the need to get FAQ up and running again. Secondly, although I'm posting this to FAQ, I'm also mailing it to HpforGrownUps-owner in order to save the liaison a bit of time, and also because I think that this letter will necessarily have to be discussed by MEG anyways. I think that one way or the other decisions will have to be made regarding the contents here. As the letter progresses onward, I think that my reasons for doing this will become clear. Primarily, I'm writing this to address some of the issues that I believe require real change in order for FAQ to move forward and be productive. So, first off, I want to applaud the ideas in the post that Debbie sent on Abigail's behalf, and also the group of people who put it together. It may surprise some when I say that I actually agreed with large swaths of it, though it probably won't surprise anyone when I say that I disagreed with a few points as well. Generally, though, it got me thinking about what I have perceived to be both the strengths and weaknesses of the FAQ culture since I joined this summer, and then it got me thinking about how we can play to those strengths and smooth some of our problem areas away. Disclaimer here: I'm fairly confident that at least *some* of what I have to say here may annoy one or more people, although I am trying diligently to be as fair and sensitive as I can. However, I do ardently believe that it is by and large a very balanced assessment of the situation here, and that the suggestions for improvement are - overall - the best course of action for FAQ at the present. Please understand that ultimately, what I'm trying to do is get us to that "coherent plan of action" that was suggested. I just happen to feel that the plan needs more specifics. Consider this post a presentation of some specifics accompanied by suggestions for implementation. I want to start with what is probably the first contentious issue that I brought up this summer, notably that of "autonomy." You have to understand that when I first joined FAQ, I had no idea *how* many past and present members of MEG were present on this list. I recognized a lot of the names, sure, but that recognition sprung primarily from the knowledge that many of you guys were "veterans." I didn't realize just how many "veterans" were also Administrators. Of course, I never (until fairly recently) bothered to do an actual breakdown, and that was my mistake. As y'all probably know, I'm notorious for foot-in-mouth responses, and when I first brought up the idea of autonomy back in June or July, it was without the knowledge that I was a addressing a number of people who either had been, were presently, or were going to be on MEG. Furthermore, given the number of relatively vague statements to the effect that MEG wanted FAQ to be by and large a self-governing list, I was under the impression that FAQ mostly comprised a separate group of people. Looking back, I can see that this was an oversight on my part. Look at it this way: I thought (particularly after reading OoP) that the relationship between MEG and FAQ could best be analogized by the relationship between the Ministry and Hogwarts in the books. Namely, I believed that MEG's job was primarily to address the administration and governance aspects of HPfGU operations, whereas FAQ could better be described as either "the press," or "a school." In any case, I believed that the two were mostly independent of each other and that this meant that FAQ was free to determine its own fate and policies for itself (and that that was the preferable course of action), and that therefore I was free to propose what I did. It was this impression that fueled a great deal of my efforts ? which I now recognize as inherently flawed, given the symbiotic relationship that the two institutions share - to separate MEG and FAQ, as I believed that interference from MEG was in no small part connected to the lack of direction and order on FAQ (which had existed for months even before I joined). I still partially do feel that way, but now am much more prone to accept that there was a great deal of frustration and misunderstanding permeating the atmosphere here, and that most of what happened was the result of that vibe. Back to my point, however, subsequent attempts to discuss policy for FAQ nearly across the board resulted in calls to either defer to MEG, or else to adopt a policy that MEG already had in place. Further complicating the issue was the fact that in some cases, there was distinct leeway afforded so that FAQ could delineate its own policies and procedures. Essentially, I believe it is an understatement to point out that the relationship between the two lists was unclear, and that further attempts to pursue the subject were frustratingly mishandled by both sides. On the one hand, I concede that I was too fervent and insensitive in some of my posts. On the other, I do not feel as though anyone was actually hearing what I had to say. Maybe many people did, but it didn't feel that way. Before I go on, I should throw two of my *own* caveats in here. (For those who are uninterested in a brief explanation of some of my idiosyncrasies, feel free to skip the next two paragraphs.) ;-) First of all, many of you probably realize by now that I (in an unabashedly Percy-esque fashion) just *love* rules and order. I adore them. I learn rules quickly, and then assiduously abide by them. When peeved, I typically figure out what the loopholes and weaknesses in the rules are, and proceed to engage in pedantic discussions over what is and what is not permissible according to the rules "as they stand," or at least, "as I understand them." I do this not only with rules, but also very much with premises that involve canon and theories as well. Additionally, I am the kind of guy who *has* to tidy up my workspace before beginning any project, as the mere existence of alternative and unfinished clean-up stuff is enough to sidetrack me indefinitely until I have a clean and organized environment in which I can focus on my work. So, from my perspective (although many may understandably disagree) what I was trying to accomplish during the summer and early fall was *not* to make everyone's life more difficult, nor to mire y'all down in an inexhaustible series of complaints, questions and suggestions (although I do see how this impression could have been formed). Rather, my actions were an effort to adequately define my working relationship so that I could get to work. Figuratively, all of that was a miserably failed attempt on my part to tidy up my workspace. I hope - with a few lessons tucked under my belt - that I have a little more success this time `round. ;-) In that light, it may or may not surprise you guys when I tell you that after careful consideration of the present and possible problems that I perceive on FAQ, I truly feel that the only way to solve - and in the case of the possible problems, to circumvent - them is to start out by making it *as clear as possible* (especially for any new volunteers) that FAQ is firmly and unquestionably under the direct supervision and authority of MEG. IMHO, one of the pre-conditions for the genesis of the "latest round of unpleasantness" was the idea that there was maneuvering room for myself (and others) that would enable us to pitch in and help define our own policies and procedures. This, I believe, is a topic onto which many - not all, but certainly many - new FAQ volunteers (who may quite likely be "not sick of policy discussions" and also simultaneously "eager to help out in any way that they can") will naturally jump. For instance, *this* is why I tried to bring up autonomy in the first place; it's also the reason I tried to jumpstart the latest - and ultimately failed - round of discussion on new members. It's `cause I wanted to help. Having learned from that experience, I honestly feel that as long as such opportunities exist for FAQ to define its own policies, and as long as the policies and relationship remain vaguely defined, I will not be the only person willing or able to make use of that vagueness. If, hypothetically speaking, we were to announce tomorrow that FAQ would be taking applications for new members on a volunteer basis, I feel confident that within several weeks *someone* would notice a discrepancy and point it out. That's all it'd take for a few others to sign up on the topic and then we'd be in a needless and protracted policy discussion all over again. In short, I feel like a large part of the unpleasantness (for which I'm not at all interested in assigning blame onto anyone) was realistically due to the amount of leeway, coupled with a whole lot of policies which were indistinct. I think that one of the best things we can do right now is to eliminate as much of this vagueness before anyone comes in and catches on and we end up going in circles. Therefore, I would like to begin by proposing that any and all operational procedures and rules that MEG feels is relevant to FAQ first be defined here, and then implemented here. By this, I'm referring to stuff like (but not limited to): security procedures, the number of moderators (who should *all* be elves without exception, IMHO, to reinforce the fact that this is an HPfGU project), the leadership (and/or the need for a liaison) on FAQ, policies on discussing and voting on new members, and scrubbing. My take on this is simple: if MEG doesn't scrub, then neither should FAQ. If MEG has determined the optimal number of moderators, then FAQ should have the same number. And so on. Let me be direct: essentially, I am now of the mind that the *only* issues to which the general membership of FAQ should have any input are the writing of FP essays, team assignments, and *perhaps* voting on new members (I'm still kind of the mindset that we should vote on new members instead of automatically accepting everyone that applies, but opinion isn't steadfast or anything). Frankly, I don't see the need for any other issue or policy to be up for grabs or open to discussion around here. We're here to write FP essays. *That's* the priority. So let's make sure that - as a matter of precaution and prudence - there's nothing *else* outstanding that people could talk about. Anyways, after this review, MEG should decide which rules would best be applied here, and then should notify FAQ of the decisions, accompanying the additional rules with explanations for anything that may not be clear. My opinion is this: if it works on MEG, then it should be implemented here. Now, once that is done, the new rules need to be recorded in such a way as to make them conveniently available to all members at any time. Therefore, I'd further this by asking that all of this information be incorporated into the original Policy Statement (in message #2447, including answers to questions in messages #2497, #2498, and the additional statement of intent in #2499) on which I have previously requested clarification. And once that revision is complete, I believe that the Policy Statement should be saved in the "Files" section of the FAQ list so that anyone can refer to it at any time (instead of having to flip backwards through old threads in order to find the original post and subsequent thread). For the record, I did not request that the policy statement be revised in order to create "make work," as Abigail has - understandably, I think, given the prior tension in the air - suggested; rather, it was - and still is - an effort to tidy up my work space, to make it clear for myself and others (and now *especially* any for prospective volunteers that may sign up in the near future) exactly what the conditions are under which we'll be working. I'm not, though, trying to make more work for y'all, and I know that a clear policy statement could potentially take some time and effort. In that light, I would be glad to help with this task (even though I realize that it's not really my place to pen official policies), as I already have a draft of the policy statement with all sorts of arrows and scribbled notes which might be of use, if ? that is - you guys think that this is both an acceptable and worthwhile proposition. I can't stress how central I think this will be if we're going to generally open up FAQ to volunteers. I believe that a clear and defined policy and rules are absolutely *indispensable* if we're going to proceed along this route, as many of the potential volunteers will likely possess some - not all, I'm sure, but certainly some - of the same feelings that I and others experienced this summer. Namely, I'm betting that they'll probably want to learn the rules so that they can abide by them (and not look stupid), they'll probably be full of vigor and ready to help out, and also that they might want to discuss just about anything that looks like it's inviting their opinion. And when there's a lack of clarity coupled with a determination to reach clarity, questions and debate will naturally be the result. And those things aren't always helpful, particularly not if the purpose is to be writing FP essays and not discussing and formulating FP policies. Guys, if the rules aren't clear for everyone *before* the new people start coming in, I *guarantee* y'all that at some point nitpicking and policy discussion will emerge once more (especially if certain other aspects of the FAQ culture remain unaddressed), and that this will sidetrack the project all over again. Given the fact that FAQ is now - and has been for over a year - *extraordinarily* behind in its production, I do not think that we can afford to leave any sort of loopholes and uncertainty in our culture, lest we again get derailed. Therefore, I believe that it should be very clear to anyone who joins FAQ that, for example, this is not the place to discuss MEG history, policy, actions, or past conflicts, nor is it the place to express general complaints with List Admin or other members of HPfGU. A proper policy statement would probably also suggest alternatives to this, such as private e-mails, e-mails to -owner, or even the Feedback list (if the topic is considered appropriate). It should also be clear that this is not a staging ground for getting onto List Administration. Most significantly, it should be concretely obvious to everyone that everyday netiquette rules *still* apply and will *still* result in Howlers or Moderation if egregious violations occur and/or continue. On this note, I would encourage the elves with Moderator privileges (again, I think that realistically there is no reason for anyone *other* than elves to possess Mod privileges, and am more than happy to relinquish my own as I don't need and don't really use them) to exercise these powers if things *ever* start to get out of hand again. I concede - with a side dish of great hope - that stuff may never reach that point. But I also believe that we should prepare for it as though it were an eventuality. Just in case. Finally, it should be clear that it's not acceptable to join FAQ unless you intend in some way - even if that way is limited - to contribute to the effort here. Excessive lurking on the part of too many members of FAQ, IMHO, is not only unhelpful to our progress, but actually dispiriting for those who feel like they're doing a lot of work and not getting any help. This is something I will get to later on. Now, is all of this in contradiction with my many past proposals? I can see how it would be taken that way, although I feel that it is not. Why am I proposing this now? What are my motivations? That's simple. Given the events since this summer, I feel that it is only prudent that we make an effort to straighten up the FAQ situation in an honest attempt to ensure that those types of debates do not *ever* occur again, as they are clearly detrimental to FAQ's culture, its ability to produce new work, and most significantly, the *morale of its members,* particularly members who are not on List Admin. I.e. no one should have to undergo the series of Admin messages from this fall that prompted all hell to break loose. That should never have to happen again. Although this may seem pessimistic (and I do not consider myself a pessimistic person), I believe that it is *essential* for us to prepare ourselves for the eventuality that something like these past events might recur. Therefore, we must assure ourselves, before admitting anyone new, that we have done everything within our power to circumvent any possible future ugliness. Finally, (please forgive the non-sequitur here; smooth segues aren't exactly my forte) I have two briefer points to make regarding some other stuff that's been on my mind lately. First, the "Topical Essays" link on hpfgu.org.uk is still pointing to an expired file at the Lexicon. We are currently located at hpfgu.org.uk/faq, right? Could someone make sure that the link is fixed? Secondly, I read through Debbie's recent FAQ Guidelines file, and it is *excellent.* Nice work, Debbie... I'm amazed at how much information you managed to cram into a three page document. ;-) I'd like to talk a little more, though, about one piece of it, which we already brought up on Feedback, and that is how we should best go about citing members' work. Debbie wrote (in the Guidelines file): [Avoid direct quotes and using members' full names.] Tom again: I know that we touched on this on -Feedback, and so I know why you threw this in there. But part of me still really, *really* likes the way that the Snape FP is written. I'd be sad to see it changed in order to remove names and citations because personally, I think it's the best one we have, although no insult is intended for the authors of the other essays. So, hoping that we might find a way to *keep* that style intact while also abiding by the rules and general courtesy, I drafted a "Request for Use" letter that we might possibly employ (with minimal additional effort required) in order to get permission from members to use their work and/or names in FP essays. I figure it like this: By and large, most people probably won't take offense at the inclusion of their work on an FP essay. Frankly, I think that most people would be *thrilled* to have their stuff included. And from a logistical standpoint, we do not *have* to actually cite anyone's name or parts of the post in the actual essay. However, I do think that the inclusion of names and occasional citations does make the essay sound more personal, and also allows for more in-depth writing. So, what to do? What if we wrote our hypothetical FP essay the way we normally would (using names and citations if we so desire) and then, when the FP is done, we send out the "Request for Use" letter to anyone whose work/name we'd like to directly cite in the FP essay? This way, we can *get* actual permission to use the work and/or the name of the individual. If anyone declines, then that person's work can simply be converted into an anonymously referenced post number. If a member doesn't respond at all, we can take it as a refusal and do the same. Anyways, I wrote up a draft of a letter along these lines a few weeks ago, and it's pasted in at the bottom of this post. My idea is that if we save this letter (or a better version of one, as I'm not exactly skilled in writing PR-type letters) in the Files section of the FAQ list, then it shouldn't be a hassle at all to send it out once we have some written FP essays. Just plug in the variables and hit `send.' ;-) It's an extra step, yes, but one worth taking if we want to preserve the specific style and character of the FP site. Now, all of that was pretty easy. ;-) Again, it probably won't surprise you guys when I say that I - yes, even still - have a *ton* of things I want to talk about. However, as I wrote (and wrote, and wrote), I realized that bringing everything up in *one* letter would likely result in a tedious read for the recipients, not to mention that too much of Tom opining and waxing philosophical all at once and might actually be *counterproductive* to my aim. ;-) So, I've split everything up into this post and another which hasn't been finished yet. I hope to post it later on, after we've had a chance to talk over the stuff I proposed in here, but figure that it's better to take things one step at a time. So, that's about it from me, -Tom PS: REQUEST FOR USE LETTER (Note: variables are preceded by an asterisk.) Dear *So-and-so, Hi there! I'm *So-and-so, and I'm contacting you on behalf of the HPforGrownUps "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them" Team. As you know, the Fantastic Post Owls are responsible for compiling and writing the Fantastic Posts essays (located at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq), which are basically topical summaries of the very best that HPfGU has to offer on the many dimensions of the Harry Potter series, as well as on the theories written and discussed by HPfGU's members. Well, I'm excited to let you know that we're nearly finished with a new Fantastic Posts essay on *Such-and-such-a-topic! We think that your post *#12345 is excellent; it's exactly the kind of quality and thoughtful material that we'd like to feature on the Fantastic Posts website, which is one of the ways that we promote HPfGU to the general public. The reason I'm sending you this letter is to request your permission to include your name (or pseudonym), and possibly even a direct citation from your work on the public website. We understand that all members retain copyright to their work, and we completely respect your right to control the use of your writing. If you feel for any reason as though you don't want your name or work to appear on the website, then we completely understand. Just reply to this e-mail and tell us what you'd prefer we not include on the website (your name, a citation, anything at all). In that case, we'll simply refer to your post without referencing you by name or including any direct quotes. If you don't reply to this e-mail, then we'll assume that you don't want to be mentioned specifically, and your name (along with any direct quotes from your post) will be omitted from the essay. We will, however, still provide the number of your post (but not the name or a direct quote), so that other members of HPfGU can take a look at your thoughts. Thanks for your contributions to HPfGU, and keep up the great work! Regards, *So-and-so (For the Fantastic Post Owls) From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Feb 19 23:19:51 2004 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:19:51 -0000 Subject: Non-Distorted Message Here (WAS Re: Some Ideas on Getting FAQ Up and Running In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Tom, for your additional thoughts and ideas on the proposal to revitalize this list. I'm sorry it took so long to respond, but I wanted to give your ideas the time they deserved, and of course RL intervened as well. I agree with quite a few of them, as you'll see from the following comments. One caveat: These views are my own, and don't necessarily represent the views of anyone except myself. > I want to start with what is probably the first contentious issue > that I brought up this summer, notably that of "autonomy." > > You have to understand that when I first joined FAQ, I had no idea > *how* many past and present members of MEG were present on this > list. I recognized a lot of the names, sure, but that recognition > sprung primarily from the knowledge that many of you guys > were "veterans." I didn't realize just how many "veterans" were also > Administrators. Of course, I never (until fairly recently) bothered > to do an actual breakdown, and that was my mistake. As y'all > probably know, I'm notorious for foot-in-mouth responses, and when I > first brought up the idea of autonomy back in June or July, it was > without the knowledge that I was a addressing a number of people who > either had been, were presently, or were going to be on MEG. > Furthermore, given the number of relatively vague statements to the > effect that MEG wanted FAQ to be by and large a self-governing list, > I was under the impression that FAQ mostly comprised a separate > group of people. Looking back, I can see that this was an oversight > on my part. > Reflecting back, I think that the state of affairs on FAQ when you joined were unique. When I joined FAQ, all of the members of the FAQ list were on MEG except the new recruits (there were four of us, I believe), and the project was under the jurisdiction of the eight Mods. There was never any question that the project was under the Mods' jurisdiction and control. In contrast, you joined the FAQ list at a time when the list had just been placed back under the jurisdiction a former Mod who was no longer a member of MEG. Also, many of the FAQ members were no longer on MEG. I'm not surprised you were left with the impression that the list was completely independent, and the way it was run at the time fostered that impression. The FAQ list was in fact still under MEG's jurisdiction, but that was unfortunately not made clear to the new members. > First of all, many of you probably realize by now that I (in an > unabashedly Percy-esque fashion) just *love* rules and order. I > adore them. I learn rules quickly, and then assiduously abide by > them. When peeved, I typically figure out what the loopholes and > weaknesses in the rules are, and proceed to engage in pedantic > discussions over what is and what is not permissible according to > the rules "as they stand," or at least, "as I understand them." I do > this not only with rules, but also very much with premises that ?? involve canon and theories as well. ?? I'm not very Percy-esque at all, I'm afraid, and as a tax lawyer with long experience in reading and interpreting long complicated regulations (six volumes worth!) I'm acutely aware of the potential for exploitation of too-detailed rules. I'm more of an advocate of simplification of rules so that they enunciate broad principles with the explicit expectation that people will uphold the *spirit* of the rules (more on that below). I will readily admit, however, that many people, including some of my MEG colleagues, prefer your approach. > In that light, it may or may not surprise you guys when I tell you > that after careful consideration of the present and possible > problems that I perceive on FAQ, I truly feel that the only way to > solve - and in the case of the possible problems, to circumvent - > them is to start out by making it *as clear as possible* (especially > for any new volunteers) that FAQ is firmly and unquestionably under ?? the direct supervision and authority of MEG. ?? It won't come as a surprise that I agree with this. ;-) > I think that one of the best things we can do right now is to > eliminate as much of this vagueness before anyone comes in and > catches on and we end up going in circles. Therefore, I would like > to begin by proposing that any and all operational procedures and> rules that MEG feels is relevant to FAQ first be defined here, and > then implemented here. > > By this, I'm referring to stuff like (but not limited to): security > procedures, the number of moderators (who should *all* be elves > without exception, IMHO, to reinforce the fact that this is an HPfGU > project), the leadership (and/or the need for a liaison) on FAQ, > policies on discussing and voting on new members, and scrubbing. My > take on this is simple: if MEG doesn't scrub, then neither should > FAQ. If MEG has determined the optimal number of moderators, then > FAQ should have the same number. And so on. > > Let me be direct: essentially, I am now of the mind that the *only* > issues to which the general membership of FAQ should have any input > are the writing of FP essays, team assignments, and *perhaps* voting > on new members (I'm still kind of the mindset that we should vote on > new members instead of automatically accepting everyone that > applies, but opinion isn't steadfast or anything). Frankly, I don't > see the need for any other issue or policy to be up for grabs or > open to discussion around here. We're here to write FP essays. > *That's* the priority. So let's make sure that - as a matter of > precaution and prudence - there's nothing *else* outstanding that ?? people could talk about. ?? Absolutely, and perhaps this is why I was so perplexed why the FAQ members *wanted* to spend time talking about governance. When I was a non-MEG member of FAQ I didn't care how the list was governed as long as I had sufficient resources and support to carry out my assignments. > Now, once that is done, the new rules need to be recorded in such a > way as to make them conveniently available to all members at any > time. > Therefore, I'd further this by asking that all of this information > be incorporated into the original Policy Statement (in message > #2447, including answers to questions in messages #2497, #2498, and > the additional statement of intent in #2499) on which I have > previously requested clarification. And once that revision is > complete, I believe that the Policy Statement should be saved in > the "Files" section of the FAQ list so that anyone can refer to it > at any time (instead of having to flip backwards through old threads ?? in order to find the original post and subsequent thread). Yes to including the document in the files section. However, as I suggested above, I'd prefer the rules to be expressed as much as possible in simple, easily understood principles. It's too easy to become lost in the details, when principles accompanied by good judgment should suffice. In my mind, very little in the way of rules should be required. Ideally, the operating rules would be something like the following: (i) the rules of conduct in the HBfile apply to this list (in other words, be considerate: no flaming etc., no disparagement of HPFGU members not on the FAQ list); (ii) FPs are assigned on a first come, first served basis, except that coauthorship is encouraged (this avoids endless wrangling about how to decide what FPs to do and who will do what); (iii) the list will be moderated by a small number of elves who will be in charge of the project (and will be the only moderators, for security reasons); (iv) there will be a mechanism to address grievances, including a go-to person for interpersonal issues; (v) policy issues should be raised offlist or on the Feedback list (if appropriate for that list). I had also envisioned that new FAQ members would receive a welcome message generally explaining how things work. > Finally, it should be clear that it's not acceptable to join FAQ > unless you intend in some way - even if that way is limited - to > contribute to the effort here. Excessive lurking on the part of too > many members of FAQ, IMHO, is not only unhelpful to our progress, > but actually dispiriting for those who feel like they're doing a lot > of work and not getting any help. While I think the question of permanent lurkers does need to be addressed, there needs to be substantial flexibility. For example, I don't think those who have contributed in the past but are currently snowed under by RL should be forced to leave if they expect to return to the project within a reasonable amount of time; continuity is lost that way. Also, some apparent lurkers joined this list to fulfill specific functions, such as editing or html coding and other final preparation of FPs for release. Including a list of members and their roles in the database section would alleviate this issue. > > First, the "Topical Essays" link on hpfgu.org.uk is still pointing > to an expired file at the Lexicon. We are currently located at > hpfgu.org.uk/faq, right? Could someone make sure that the link is ?? fixed. One of our more technically skilled elves has been working on updating our links, so this is being taken care of. > > Secondly, I read through Debbie's recent FAQ Guidelines file, and it > is *excellent.* Nice work, Debbie... I'm amazed at how much > information you managed to cram into a three page document. ;-) I'd > like to talk a little more, though, about one piece of it, which we > already brought up on Feedback, and that is how we should best go ?? about citing members' work. Thanks! While I appreciate the praise, much of the document was cut and pasted from other documents prepared by Dicentra, Porphyria, and Penny, and they deserve equal credit. > Debbie wrote (in the Guidelines file): > [Avoid direct quotes and using members' full names.] > > Tom again: > I know that we touched on this on -Feedback, and so I know why you > threw this in there. But part of me still really, *really* likes the > way that the Snape FP is written. I'd be sad to see it changed in > order to remove names and citations because personally, I think it's > the best one we have, although no insult is intended for the authors > of the other essays. For the most part, I think this can be resolved simply by not using people's *last* names. We have permission to use their material, and not using last names is in recognition of the Google problem mentioned by so many on the Feedback list last month. Most people don't use their last names, anyway. > So, hoping that we might find a way to *keep* that style intact > while also abiding by the rules and general courtesy, I drafted > a "Request for Use" letter that we might possibly employ (with > minimal additional effort required) in order to get permission from > members to use their work and/or names in FP essays. I figure it > like this: We might want to use this letter for people who joined the list in the period when the HBfile didn't expressly grant permission to use the material. Fortunately, most of those people are still around and can be reached. With the older posts, it's likely that most of them won't be reachable at the same email addresses they used 2-3 years ago. Again, thanks for your thoughtful response. Hopefully some others will chime in with comments of their own. Debbie