[HPFGU-Feedback] An introduction from an extremely shy oldbie

[IggyMcSnurd]

> Hello all. I'm Rhiannon the RavenSlyth. I think I'm probably coming
> here with a pretty unique perspective; I've been a member since
> (IIRC) the spring of 2000 but have only made 10 posts to the main
> list and a couple more (probably less than 5) to OTC.
X-Original-Yahoo-Groups-Redacted-From: "IggyMcSnurd" <coyoteschild at ...>
X-Original-Yahoo-Groups-Redacted-X-Sender: CoyotesChild at ...
X-Original-Yahoo-Groups-Redacted-Return-Path: <CoyotesChild at ...>

Iggy here:

WB Rhiannon, so to speak...  *grin*


>>"Hebby Elf"
>> 
>>
>> If you could change one thing about HPfGU, what would it be?
>>

Well, I've said this one in a number of direct e-mails when posts of
mine have been blocked because I'm still on moderated status...

If the standards for posting are strictly enforced (citing canon,
staying strictly on topic, etc) for those who are on moderated status,
it's unfair to not try to hold the un-moderated people to the same
standards.  

I have had my posts blocked for not citing canon, but the person I was
replying to didn't cite canon either.  I have had posts blocked for the
potential to go off topic, yet many of the other posts from
non-moderated posters *do* go off topic and nothing is said about it.
Items I have sent in have been rejected for a few different reasons,
none of which has been commented on by the admin in public.

While I know that these issues would normally be addressed in private
e-mails, I have also suggested that the admin officially re-state the
posting standards and policies on the main list, and include the request
that people try to do a little better in keeping with them.  If you also
state that it's unfair to hold the moderated members to standards that
the non-moderated ones are not.

The people who post on the lists lead by example.  The newbies learn the
standards, what's acceptable to post, and how to post it.  If the older
members don't hold to the set standards as set up by the admin, then it
will take a lot longer for the newer members to learn what's expected of
them when it comes to posting.

You will also lessen the frustration levels of the moderated people,
such as myself, who are working hard to get themselves off of mod
status.  I have almost been willing to quit from the main group, and I
don't post nearly as much anymore, because of this.  I'm probably not
the only one who gets annoyed at the fact that one can post something,
and have it take up to 12 hours or more to hit the list.  In the
meantime, other people have posted their replies covering the same
material (making what one posted totally useless and redundant),
disproving what they've said (making one look stupid or inattentive), or
simply making someone look particularly slow on the uptake.

Ultimately, it boils down to the fat that you need to hold to the same
standards for both types of posters.  Either ease up on some of the
rules for moderated people (If it's a sound post, and is in line with
the way other accepted posts are being done, pass them through...) or be
much stricter with the rules for the people who are not on moderated
status.


> Hebby Elf again:
> > Should there be some formal recognition of good/long-time posters?
> >
> 
> Rhiannon the RavenSlyth:
> Ah, now here I'm conflicted. Recognition of "good" posters just
> smacks of favouritism-- who's to say what constitutes "good"? On the
> other hand, how would recognition of "long-time" posters be
> interpreted? By membership dates? In that case, I would likely be
> recognised, which sounds quite nice, but hardly fair, as I'm sure
> there are new members who produce both more posts and more in-depth
> posts than I do. Since neither option seems terribly fair to me, I
> think I'll have to go with "no" for now, although if someone proposed
> a great idea, I'd likely change my mind.

Iggy here:

I think I'd have to agree with Rhiannon here.  What would be the
recognition?  What constitutes a "good" poster?  (Your definition and
mine would probably not be the same.)  Unless a way was found to
designate someone as a "good" poster that didn't seem like the admin, or
even the more popular regular members, were playing favorites, then it's
not a good idea.

For one thing, it establishes a motivation for some that their only real
goal is to come up with "good" posts strictly for the recognition, not
because they want to post a quality letter.  Also, some people come up
with great ideas or questions that are very simple and aren't done in
the TBAY style or anything.  What's the standard of a "good" post?  (Is
it one that poses a good question or new idea?  Is it one that is a
prime example of following the set standards for posting?  Is it one
that's very creative and artistically oriented, a-la TBAY?)


> 
> Hebby Elf once more:
> > If past experience is any guide, we'll be getting a surge of new
> > posters next June when the PoA movie premieres. How should we deal
> > with it?
> >
> 

Iggy here:

IMHO, it's not the number of posters that's as much of a problem as how
things are dealt with regarding the members we have now.  Yes, we will
get an influx once the newest movie comes out, and when the next book
does, etc... but it can be easily coped with.  For one thing, I think
the main concern would be the hours needed in dealing with the moderated
newbies.  Well, for one thing, if you release some of the more able
posters from the moderated status, that's fewer people you have to deal
with in reviewing for moderated posts.  Other than that type of problem,
I don't see anything that would be a problem when the next surge of
people joins the list.


Iggy McSnurd