More About TBAY

[msbeadsley]

Shaun wrote:
> 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 dicussion.
<snip>
> I think TBAY posts have a general tendency to be much 'fluffier' 
> than non-TBAY posts.
<snip>
> unless someone is prepared to do some sort of detailed textual 
> analysis
<snip>

You went from discussing posts to discussing *lines* in posts (yeah, 
I noticed); so what you want is not just an analysis of *posts*, but 
a line-by-line examination? And who is going to set up the criteria 
for whether or not any individual line of any individual post 
is "fluffy" or "canon-based," anyway? (This concern with "facts" just 
gets better and better.)

> 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.

It might be useful to remember that basic emotional needs generally 
concern a need or desire one has for oneself to be *included*; I 
think a desire to *exclude* other persons or things must be somewhat 
more complicated. Those wanting to exclude/partition off TBAY, 
granted, probably are somewhat concerned with wanting to devote more 
bytes/seconds on those things they're more interested in; they don't 
want to "waste" time or computer resources. But I *suspect* that a 
large part of what bothers some people about TBAY is that it *is* 
whimsical. As in, maybe, it's bad enough to be so involved in a 
series of *children's books* without also having the added 
embarrassment of admitting (even to oneself) that one is spending 
large chunks of time somewhere people dare to be *silly* in their fun 
with it. (Ring any bells, anyone?)

> 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.

The difference, again, is inclusion vs. exclusion. Those who like 
TBAY are not asking for anything (press "delete" or "next" is closer 
to nothing than anything, IMO) from those who don't other than to be 
ignored; (some of) those who don't are after *a change in the status 
quo*, based on *their* idiosyncrasies.

> 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.

Do you honestly think anyone is trying to change your mind? I don't. 
I think they *are* trying to make sure that your opinion and those of 
like-minded folks are not the ones which prevail.

> 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.

Absent the analysis we know is not going to happen regarding whether 
or not TBAY posts are disproportionately lacking in canon, your 
opinion is just that (and has no more and no little weight than 
those, like mine, which oppose yours). Anyway, what "belongs on a 
discussion list" is what membership consensus (or majority) says 
belongs (with a little input from ADMIN, of course <g>).

> 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.

Yep, you are. And it seems to me that you, and I, and most everyone, 
generally state(s) their opinion(s) pretty flatly (as if they were 
fact).

> 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.
<snip>

You are *really* stuck on this, aren't you?

> 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.

So...one elf may have (we have not seen evidence and are being asked 
to rely on your ah, perception? memory?) judged a perfectly 
acceptable post of yours as not. Once. One stipulated and anonymous 
(as you not only don't have the message, but haven't identified an 
individual) elf. And you are basing your philosophy about all past 
and future TBAY posts and posters on that one experience. (Okay. Just 
so we're clear here.) And others here are supposed to be convinced by 
that. (BTW: didn't work for me.)

Do you still have that post? How 'bout if you were invited to 
resubmit it? At least provisionally? (Or is that a *really bad* idea?)

> 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.
<snip>

Of course it should. I think it's obvious to everyone (?) that the 
facts as you present them indicate that one elf once made one bad 
call. I confess I forget if you mentioned this: did you ask for 
clarification?

> 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.

You have a right to that opinion. Not only do I not agree with it, my 
meta-opinion is that you will not prevail. (All posts are of limited 
interest, since we are all interested in difference things to some 
degree or other; it's just that not all of them are as easy to "lump 
together" (or acknowledge) as, for instance, TBAY. Me, if I see one 
more "fill-in-the-blank," I'm gonna take an axe to my keyboard!)

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

I thought that's what we were doing.

> 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

IMO, it is entirely relevant to bring the other prefixed sorts of 
messages into this discussion as it relates to ghetto-izing (ouch; 
sorry) any one sort of prefixed messages. (If you don't think so, go 
google "First they came for the Jews." Apologies to anyone who might 
be offended by my choice of analogies; I do not mean in any way to 
trivialize anything related to the Pastor's very evocative prose.) 
This isn't just about TBAY, per se. For me, it boils down to: Does 
the value TBAY (FILK, FF) has to those who value it outweigh the 
antipathy of those who don't? As far as I can tell, leaving it in 
penalizes fewer people to a far lesser degree than kicking it out 
would.

Sandy