More About TBAY

[davewitley]

Shaun wrote:

> 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.

There is an underlying philosophical issue here: how can we know any 
fact, except through our perceptions?  IMO, it confuses the issue.

I retired about a week ago from the HPFGU admin team, after about 
two years.  During that time, I approved (and rejected) a number of 
pending messages , and as a team we discussed a great number of 
messages.

In my considered - I'm tempted to say professional - opinion, it is 
quite easy in the vast majority of cases to determine whether a post 
passes the canon test, and different elves come to the same answer 
in those cases.  That does leave a little room for perception, I 
grant you, but for all practical purposes that's as good a fact as 
they come in an uncertain world.

> 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 believe that what really *is* hard to perceive correctly is the 
motivation of a poster for posting to the list.  A TBAY post may 
well be an excuse for fun, whether it contains extensive canon 
discussion or little.  So may a 'straightforward' post.  I believe 
that any criterion for deciding what posts belong on the list should 
avoid consideration of motivation.

> 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.

I can understand the frustration here.  However, I don't believe 
this case advances the issue.  I'm afraid don't remember the case in 
question, and can't speak for the admin team any more, but I believe 
the canon criterion essentially stands on HPFGU.  I believe specific 
past cases, which may turn out to have been errors by the admin 
team - we have made them - can't serve as the basis for determining 
list policy.

David