More About TBAY

[lucky_kari]

Richard wrote:
> I think there's a basic misunderstanding between Shaun and Eileen. 
> The issue was about how TBAY (and TBAY posts) are *perceived*. Shaun 
> (and others, including myself) has explained his perception. It's 
> ever so slightly incorrect for Eileen to state that his perception is 
> wrong. 

No. It isn't actually. You see, Shaun changed the issue when he
suggested banning TBAY. From then on, it's not about perception. It's
about facts. And the fact is that TBAY as a category lives up to HPFGU
standard for canon discussion. Specific TBAY posts may not, but *any*
post to HPFGU may not live up to the HPFGU standards. So, to suggest
that the category is any less valid because someone hasn't followed
the rules of the category is a non sequitur to say the least.

Shaun wrote:
> Yes - but what I think may be being missed is that some people
actually *enjoy* 
> that 'plodding, pedantic, discussion', as you describe it. Some of
us don't think 
> there'd be anything particularly wrong with a list where people just
discussed 
> matters in a straightforward fashion and don't feel any great need
for flights of 
> whimsy.

Yes, and some of us would think there'd be something wrong. Are you
saying that your emotional needs somehow trump mine? Shouldn't we be
looking for an objective standard here? And we have one. HPFGU is
about canon discussion. TBAYs are canon discussion. 

Shaun wrote:
>My view is that if TBAY needs the list to survive, as you believe, 
>and the list doesn't need TBAY to survive, then TBAY is being 
>specially privileged by being on the list. If TBAY can't stand on 
>its own two feet, why is the entire list expected to 'subsidise' it?

I am baffled that you can continue using this language of
*subsidization*. TBAY is canon discussion. It belongs on the list as
much as any pedantic and Binns-like message belongs. The reason it has
a header is not because it is something different in essence. The
reason it has a header is for the convenience of people like yourself,
who don't like it. To use the fact that is has a header as some proof
that it doesn't belong on the list is a circular argument.

Shaun wrote:
>For somebody who is only on HPFGU and is already feeling overwhelmed
>by the number of posts - and I think there are people in that
>situation - I'm not sure TBAY is a help.

There are several faulty assumptions here. Number one, of course, is
the idea that HPFGU has a duty to cater to the feelings of each and
every member (well, except for the TBAYers, obviously.) Some people
are always going to feel overwhelmed by HPFGU. A lot of them feel
overwhelmed by long and pedantic posts. Others feel overwhelmed by
intelligent posts. Should we ban anything but the most obvious
discussions about thestrals and the gleam in Dumbledore's eye for
their convenience? There really must be some other reason than "It
might make someone uncomfortable!" for banning a form of canon discussion.

The second faulty assumption is that all newbies dislike TBAY. TBAY's
on-going popularity gives the lie to that. Most everyone on the Bay
today is new. They came along as newbies and the Bay tickled their
fancy sooner or later. For the average TBAY post I make, I get emails
from several newbies saying how much they enjoy the Bay. And rare is
the TBAY thread in which there isn't a TBAY newbie posting. This may
not be apparent to some listies since we are very friendly and
welcoming on the Bay and greet people with familiarity that really has
no basis in their being long-time TBAY posters!

Saintana wrote:
>My basic stand is: if you want to role-play,
>go somewhere and role-play, it's not what I
>joined HPfGU for and I REALLY don't thing it
>belongs there.

How is TBAY role-playing, may I ask? It's canon discussion using the
time-tested methods of dialectic and the metaphorical setting. Is
Boethius's "Consolation of Philosophy" now a role-playing game? 

I RP and I write fanfiction, and honestly, they are nothing similar to
TBAY.

Sandy wrote:
>(And it's a very, very long toss from "don't think there'd
>be anything particularly wrong with a list where people just
>discussed matters in a straightforward fashion" to "take anything
>that isn't straightforward discussion and ban it, or move it *over
>there*.")

Amen! 

TBAY is not here, as some members seem to think, on sufferance. TBAY
is here because it has a right to be here, as long as the rules of
HPFGU remain that the relevant standard a post must live up to is its
discussion of canon. 

Eileen