clarification

quigonginger quigonginger at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 3 17:55:36 UTC 2005


In my post about Draco, I had said that the latter 1/4 were talking 
about redeemed!Draco and that this may be something to subcat in the 
future.

Just so anyone who has read the Draco file doesn't think I've been 
smoking something funnier than a Marlboro, let me clarify that.

Just about every post touches on whether Draco is evil, or bad, or 
redeemable, or some sort of ethical label.

The first ones more or less (and this is a very broad generalization) 
talk at length about an incident and have a comment as to the state 
of his morality now or in the future.  The latter ones go into detail 
about what is "good" and "evil" and just where on that scale he 
falls.  Specific incidents are referred to in passing to back up the 
statements. 

Oh, and by the way, if anyone is reviewing and sees a post and 
thinks, "Gee, this should be coded to Draco.", don't.  People 
reviewing Snape and Hermione will see Draco-less Draco posts in 
spades.  If you don't want them for your category, axe them.  I 
already did. ;)

On a different note- you know those random posts that weren't coded I 
talked about earlier?  I'm finding more.  About a half dozen aside 
from the batch of 100.  Are we missing these or is someone rejecting 
during a review and forgetting to add the reject coding?   I'm coding 
them as I go along, but so far they've all been rejects.  

Ginger, going to take a nap and then finish uncoding Draco.






More information about the HPFGU-Catalogue archive