[HPFGU-Feedback] More About TBAY

[Shaun Hately]

On 4 Dec 2003 at 19:34, lucky_kari wrote:

> 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.

No, it is about perception, because unless someone decides to analyse all 80,000 
posts in the archives, and work out what proportion of TBAY posts do not meet 
the standard of Canon discussion, *and* what proportion of posts in general do 
not, we don't have any facts.

My perception is that TBAY posts tend to contain at least 10 lines of fluff that have 
nothing to do with canon for every one line of actual canonical discussion. While 
very few posts to HPFGU are fluff free, I think TBAY posts have a general 
tendency to be much 'fluffier' than non-TBAY posts.

Your perception may not match that - but basically unless someone is prepared to 
do some sort of detailed textual analysis of a least a sizeable random sample of 
the list, we don't have anything approaching facts to deal with.

We're dealing with conflicting perceptions.
 
> 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. 

No, my emotional needs do not trump yours. However, yours do not trump mine 
either. And, frankly, what I see being used as the major argument for TBAY is "But 
I like TBAY". And that's a perfectly valid argument - HPFGU is primarily there for 
people to enjoy after all.

However, when that's the argument used, then I think those who *don't* like TBAY 
have a valid counterpoint and that's the point of view I am presenting.

I have no huge problem with TBAY being on HPFGU. I do have a problem with 
the apparent belief by some TBAYers that everybody should agree with them that 
it's a positive thing. I don't think it is. I think it's bad for the list. And I am going to 
say so.

I also have a real problem with people saying over and over again that TBAYs are 
canon discussion as if this is a proveable fact. Because I don't believe it is. I do 
read TBAY and I see a significant proportion of TBAY posts that seem to me to be 
nothing but an excuse for some roleplaying fun. I've no problem with that - I've 
been roleplaying for nearly 22 years. I just don't think it belongs on a discussion 
list.

I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone else. But it seems to me that some people 
on the list believe their opinions are facts - and anybody elses opinions are only 
opinions.

> 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.

Um - continue using? This is the first time I have used any language of 
'subsidisation'. And I used it response to your comment that you think TBAY 
needs the list to survive. 

I have referred to TBAY being 'privileged' before, because I honestly believe it is 
being privileged. I have been told to take posts I have made - posts about canon 
issues - to another list because they were too long.

My post was CANON DISCUSSION. My post took 12 solid hours of research to 
do. I put a lot of work into it, and I was extremely annoyed to be told to move 
related explicitly to a canon point. Yet I was told to move it because it was too 
long.

Yet any suggestion that the same should apply to TBAY posts is greeted with 
howls of outrage.

I'm asking that TBAY posts be held to the same standard as my post was - or my 
post be given the same privileged treatment TBAY posts are. One or the other.

If fluffy roleplaying based discussion of canon points is allowed on the main list, 
so should hard science based discussion of canon points be allowed on the list.

As for the fact that headers exist being evidence that something that doesn't 
belong on the list - personally I do think that is so. I don't think it's a circular 
argument at all.

Basically on internet mailing lists, generally headers are typically used for one of 
two purposes - to highlight posts that everybody should read. And to filter posts 
that are of limited interest. HPFGU seems to use headers in both ways - to try and 
get people to read ADMIN messages, and to 'warn' people of FILK or TBAY, as 
examples.

When you have a list with 11,000 members, I honestly do think that if you've 
acknowledged that some posts are of limited interest, then it is time to give them a 
list of their own - unless you're lucky enough to use listprocessing software that 
allows for header filtering, which yahoo doesn't.

> 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.

So because we're not going to ban everything, we shouldn't discuss banning (or 
rather moving) anything?  

The issue under discussion here is TBAY - not other forms of posting. Discussing 
those could be worthwhile, certainly, but I don't see that it's particularly relevant to 
this discussion. If the people in charge of this list want to raise other issues, I'd be 
happy to stick my oar in on those if I have any opinion. (-8
 
> 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!

No, there's no assumption that 'all newbies dislike TBAY'. I haven't made that 
assumption at all. In the absence of any evidence one way or the other, I would 
assume that about the same proprtion of newbies like it as on the list in general.  

> 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? 

More or less, yes (-8

No, it's not a game - but RPGs aren't the only form of Role Playing.

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

Yes, and I've been roleplaying for 21 years and writing fanfic for about 20, and to 
me, TBAY seems very much like roleplaying.  

Maybe you think roleplaying only refers to roleplaying games - it doesn't. RPGs 
are one form of roleplaying. Personally i don't see TBAY as that similar to 
fanfiction - but I do see an awful lot of reolplaying going on there, and I've seen 
numerous TBAYers describe it as such. Indeed, CARP (Cyber Action Role 
Playing) has, at times, been listed as a feature of TBAY.
 
> 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. 

That's your opinion - and you're entitled to it. I just don't think it's an unassailable 
fact.

  

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at ... | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia