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