From tim_regan82 at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 8 09:19:42 2004 From: tim_regan82 at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:19:42 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: List Elf Email Addresses Message-ID: Hi All, Kelley Elf recently sent out a useful set of email addresses of the current and the pending list elves. Although it's hard to guess sex from pseudonym (no matter what I do, I cannot stop thinking of GlumPlum as a woman, though he isn't) it looks as if only 1 of the 28 elves listed is a man. That's less than 4%. Has that always been the proportion? Is it representative of the membership? I also wonder why it is. I could believe that most adult men have less time to dedicate to HP than most adult women; but I know that many of the Elves are professional women, so that can't be it. Perhaps it's a skill thing, do women make calmer negotiators than men? Although I didn't go, I understand Nimbus 2003 was mainly attended by young women. What is it about HP fandom that's caused this? Is it healthy? Should we fix it or celebrate it? (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.) Cheers, y-chromosomly Dumbledad. From abigailnus at abigailnus.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 8 16:55:15 2004 From: abigailnus at abigailnus.yahoo.invalid (abigailnus) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:55:15 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: List Elf Email Addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" wrote: > Hi All, > > Kelley Elf recently sent out a useful set of email addresses of the > current and the pending list elves. Although it's hard to guess sex > from pseudonym (no matter what I do, I cannot stop thinking of > GlumPlum as a woman, though he isn't) it looks as if only 1 of the > 28 elves listed is a man. That's less than 4%. Has that always been > the proportion? Is it representative of the membership? Not that I have actual numbers or anything, but just looking at the posters on Main, it's clear that most HPfGU members are female. That's been the case for as long as I can remember. This is clearly not the pattern for fandom in general. Hardcore SF fandom and a lot of fantasy fandom (LOTR, D&D, etc.) tends to skew towards male audiences. Most TV fandoms that I'm aware of are fairly evenly split between the genders. The one thing that might explain it is the fact that HPfGU, and HP fandom in general, tends to have a large overlap with fanfic circles, and fanfic is written (and read?) predominantly by women. Abigail P.S. We could have a fascinating discussion about the demographics of HP fandom and the reasons for them, but may I suggest that if we do, we move it to OTC? From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 8 23:26:25 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:26:25 -0000 Subject: gender balance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dumbledad: > > Although it's hard to guess sex > > from pseudonym (no matter what I do, I cannot stop thinking of > > GlumPlum as a woman, though he isn't) it looks as if only 1 of the > > 28 elves listed is a man. That's less than 4%. Has that always been > > the proportion? Is it representative of the membership? Abigail: > > Not that I have actual numbers or anything, but just looking at the > posters on Main, it's clear that most HPfGU members are female. That's > been the case for as long as I can remember. I will just add: During my membership of the admin team as one of the small male minority I never felt that the gender ratio mattered. I confirm that (to the best of my knowledge!) Grey Wolf is indeed the only male on the list published by Kelley. Finally, I think male membership of the admin team is at a historic low at the moment. When I joined, there were four moderators, of whom only one was a woman. When the moderators disbanded there were two men out of eight. No doubt it will fluctuate in the future. David From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 9 01:23:24 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:23:24 -0000 Subject: gender balance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dumbledad: > Although it's hard to guess sex from pseudonym (no matter what I do, I cannot stop thinking of GlumPlum as a woman, though he isn't) >>> Haha, wow. Interesting; never did I have *any* sense of GulPlum as anything other than male... > it looks as if only 1 of the 28 elves listed is a man. That's less than 4%. Has that always been the proportion? >>> No. Like David says below, it's always fluctuated. And, I should add, there *are* other men on the List Admin Team, they're just not welcome elves or pending elves. We have Paul -- our Technowizard, Steve Vander Ark -- the Lexicon master and HPEF Board member, Mike Gray -- Aberforth's Goat, creator of The Goat Pad, which has morphed into QuickQuotes at TLC, and Jim Ferer -- former welcome elf. And of course, there've been lots of wonderful men who've stepped down from list administration -- Neil (Flying Ford Anglia), John (Queerasjohn), Jim Flanagan (Moderator Emeritus), Simon (aka Dr. Branford), Luke (caliburncy), Andrew MacIan (Drieux) and David himself. Plus, there've been other men that have been invited over time to join the team but have had to decline for various reasons. > Is it representative of the membership? >>> Don't really know, but like Abigail said, the great majority of list members are female. I am curious about the data on this actually (how many males, how many females in the group), but not enough to go through the membership list and count. ;-D David: > During my membership of the admin team as one of the small male > minority I never felt that the gender ratio mattered. >>> Yes, I've never noticed any significance from the gender ratio, either, fwiw. > I confirm that (to the best of my knowledge!) Grey Wolf is indeed > the only male on the list published by Kelley. >>> Lol. Okay, I confess, I'm actually a guy, too. ;-P > Finally, I think male membership of the admin team is at a historic > low at the moment. When I joined, there were four moderators, of > whom only one was a woman. When the moderators disbanded there were two men out of eight. No doubt it will fluctuate in the future. >>> Yep, as it fluctuated a bit between the former and latter, too. But yeah, we are heavy on the estrogen right now... --Kelley From jkusalavagemd at jkusalavagemd.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 9 05:15:45 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at jkusalavagemd.yahoo.invalid (Haggridd) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 05:15:45 -0000 Subject: gender balance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: > > Don't really know, but like Abigail said, the great majority of list > members are female. I am curious about the data on this actually > (how many males, how many females in the group), but not enough to go > through the membership list and count. ;-D > > David: > > During my membership of the admin team as one of the small male > > minority I never felt that the gender ratio mattered. >>> > > Yes, I've never noticed any significance from the gender ratio, > either, fwiw. > --Kelley I don't think it matters a bit what the demographics of the various segments of the ADMIN team are, so long as the team is simply runnning the list, and not making it into some kind of clique. What is important is the expertise and effort they bring to the tasks at hand. The rest is all political nonsense. Thank you all for making it possible for the rest of us to lurk, to post, to filk or to TBAY as we please, without hindrance or much effort. Whether you are women or all left-handed redheaded Armenian hermaphrodites is irrelevant. Haggridd From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sun Jan 11 01:16:00 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:16:00 -0000 Subject: gender balance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Haggridd: > I don't think it matters a bit what the demographics of the various > segments of the ADMIN team are, so long as the team is simply > runnning the list, and not making it into some kind of clique. >>> Agreed! > What is important is the expertise and effort they bring to the > tasks at hand. The rest is all political nonsense. Thank you all > for making it possible for the rest of us to lurk, to post, to filk > or to TBAY as we please, without hindrance or much effort. >>> Thanks, Haggridd, it's very appreciated! > Whether you are women or all left-handed redheaded Armenian hermaphrodites is irrelevant. >>> LOL, well said! --Kelley From abigailnus at abigailnus.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 07:25:52 2004 From: abigailnus at abigailnus.yahoo.invalid (abigailnus) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:25:52 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings Message-ID: Dear Feedback members, It's that time again - time to pick your brains about policy issues, that is. An idea has been floated among the elves that we think might have great potential for making HPfGU easier to use and friendlier for new members. It's a bit of a change from the way we've done things until now - so much so that it's taken us this long to think about it, when in fact it might seem obvious. Quite simply, we'd like to open the list archives to non-members. Posting would still require joining the group, and new posters would still be moderated, but anyone would be able to read messages posted by members. As far as we can tell, the following are the pros and cons of this idea. Pros: 1. Right now, despite the moderating system, the Humongous Bigfile, and the various posting guides, the best way to teach new members how to post on HPfGU is to allow them to learn from the examples of older members. By opening the archives to all visitors, these potential members would have a longer learning period before they post for the first time. Clearly, this won't prevent the phenomenon of drive-by posting - members who join, ask one question, and are never heard from again - but it might reduce it. 2. There are no doubt many visitors who come to the site, see that they have to join the group in order to read messages, and leave. We believe that allowing them a taste of HPfGU before they join might help to convince them otherwise - once they've lurked for a while, they might find that they have something to say. By the same token, allowing visitors to read the archives might show them that HPfGU isn't the place for them. In short, we believe that opening the archives to all visitors will help HPfGU get the kind of members who suit us - members who are truly interested in the kind of discussions that we enjoy. Instead of buying a cat in a bag, we'll have informed customers, and hopefully that will translate to a better signal-to-noise ratio. 3. Most exciting, in our opinion, is the fact that opening the archives to all members would make HPfGU Google-able. No more dickering around with the Yahoomort search engine. Simply head over to Google, restrict the search to the message archive (we might be able to create a link that does this automatically) and search the archives to your hearts content. Multiple search terms, author and date search (not exact ones, of course, but pretty close), the works. Cons: 1. First, the obvious - HPfGU would become Google-able. Anything that any of us have posted would now be visible not only to the 11,000 members of HPfGU but to anyone online. This does not include our e-mail addresses, to those of us who are concerned about spammers - Yahoo automatically shields them - but it might include personal information. There's also the issue of copyright - anyone can access the posts and copy them at will. Right now, we feel that there is no significant difference between exposing yourself to 11,000 strangers and to the entire internet, but some of you may feel otherwise. 2. HPfGU is, fundamentally, a group for adults. That means that some of our discussions might touch upon issues that are inappropriate for children. By opening the archives to all visitors, we might be exposing ourselves to possible legal issues, as children will be able to access the messages. Since, at this point, any child who wants to can sign up to the group - we have no way of verifying that a person is truly over 18 - this seems like a moot point to us, but a lawyer might feel otherwise. We'd like to hear how significant you think each of factors might be, and whether you can think of any others. Plus, what do you think of the idea? Do you love it, hate it, want to canonize the person who thought of it? Let us know. Abigail, aka Bookish Elf For the List Admin From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 07:35:22 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:35:22 +1100 Subject: (Fwd) Re: [HPFGU-Feedback] ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main Message-ID: <4002E8EA.3604.78F6EF1@localhost> On 12 Jan 2004 at 7:25, abigailnus wrote: > 1. First, the obvious - HPfGU would become Google-able. Anything > that any of us have posted would now be visible not only to the 11,000 > members of HPfGU but to anyone online. This does not include our > e-mail addresses, to those of us who are concerned about spammers > - Yahoo automatically shields them - but it might include personal > information. There's also the issue of copyright - anyone can access > the posts and copy them at will. Right now, we feel that there is no > significant difference between exposing yourself to 11,000 strangers > and to the entire internet, but some of you may feel otherwise. I'm one who does. There's nothing incredibly sensitive in my posts (though there are some things I'd prefer weren't readily accessible to anyone who searched for my name, nothing is going to wreck my life if it gets out), but there may well be in the posts of other people - including people who have left the list and so won't know their information is suddenly becoming more accessible, and who there is no practical way to inform of this. Personally I think there is a big difference between exposing yourself to 11,000 people and to the entire net, *because* of the presence of search engines like google. In my job, occasionally, we have to gather information about people - and tools like google and their ability to get into public discussion groups are an incredibly valuable to us. I hope we only use the information responsibly and we have checks to try and ensure we do - many people are *not* as scrupulous. You can be talking about ex-lovers, private investigators, government investigators, employers, etc - apparently casual statements made in web groups and usenet groups are used against people sometimes. The *major* problem I see is the existence of messages by people no longer on the groups - those who are still on the groups can be informed of this change and given the nature of the archives could delete their posts (though that would cause further problems for those who set up things like the Fantastic Posts pages - quite a few of the message links in that no longer seem to refer to the message they originally did). Those who are no longer on the list may find information they assumed was relatively private (and remember - the list hasn't always had 11,000 members - some of those people may have joined and posted on a list with only 1000 members, so it may have seemed relatively private), now potentially accessible to anyone who types their name into a search engine. 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 From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 18:54:19 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:54:19 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Abigail asked: > An idea has been floated among the elves that we think > might have great potential for making HPfGU easier to use and > friendlier for new members. It's a bit of a change from the way > we've done things until now - so much so that it's taken us this > long to think about it, when in fact it might seem obvious. Quite > simply, we'd like to open the list archives to non-members. > Posting would still require joining the group, and new posters > would still be moderated, but anyone would be able to read > messages posted by members. I have snipped the pros (which I agree with) and the legal con, for which, presumably, you need a legal opinion. I want to comment on this issue: > 1. First, the obvious - HPfGU would become Google-able. Anything > that any of us have posted would now be visible not only to the 11,000 > members of HPfGU but to anyone online. This does not include our > e-mail addresses, to those of us who are concerned about spammers > - Yahoo automatically shields them - but it might include personal > information. There's also the issue of copyright - anyone can access > the posts and copy them at will. Right now, we feel that there is no > significant difference between exposing yourself to 11,000 strangers > and to the entire internet, but some of you may feel otherwise. I have to admit this is my big worry. Taking the last point first, I think there is a difference, because the 11,000 are people who have already made a commitment to HP, however slight. Even if it's only psychological comfort, it gives me a come-back on anyone who tries to criticise me: "How do *you* know? Takes one to know one, etc." The sort of situation I envisage is where someone Googles my name in a work-related context (I have done this myself, in order to help understand where a customer or a colleague from another organisation might be coming from in preparation for a technical discussion). At the moment, such a search yields up a short piece by me on FA and another on the Lexicon. I don't mind that. Were the archives public, potentially dozens (over 350, according to the hall of fame, actually) could come up, and while I'm reasonably confident of my own mental balance and focus, I can see how that could be either misunderstood or misrepresented. I can't tell if my posts would be found from a search based on my name, but it seems a distinct possibility. One could argue that I should have signed up with a greater effort at pseudonymity - but, first, HPFGU has been a private list, and second, at the time of signing up I had no great intention of posting anything. I therefore support the concept of a list where the archives are public, but not making the existing private archive public, at least not in a hurry. If the concept of a public list has general support, one possibility would be to migrate to a new list, which would give members a chance to hide their RL identity if they so wish. This is likely to cause a degree of confusion and carry the risk of losing members, even those who actively lurk or post. I suppose you could start HPFGU-public now, and let people post interchangeably between the main list and that one, and see how things develop. There is also the possiblity of combining such a move with a move from Yahoo, if that were desirable on other grounds. This has the disadvantage, of course, that the existing archive would remain private, but it would allow prospective members to assess the group. The same would be true for other variants of this idea, such as copying the archive into a private list and then deleting it before making the group public-access. David, who thinks this *has* been discussed by the admin team in the past From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 19:54:34 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:54:34 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c3d945$e70e9810$4e60bf44@Einstein> Iggy de-cloaking for a second: Fortunately, I am one of those people out there who only posts under an alias. (I also happen to have a first and last name combination in RL that, when I did a Google search of my name, it turned up over 900,000 entries... so there's no way you can be sure that you are actually reading something about me... and you're most likely not since I use aliases all the time.) I did a search of my alias from here, and only got 4 entries, all directing people to filks I have done... which I have no problem in people knowing about. *grin* This also indicates that, currently, there's no way to Google someone's posts on here, since I didn't find any of the 1k+ posts I have probably done in the mere 4 months I have been here. *chuckle* That's as the issue relates to me personally. As it relates to others, I would probably recommend that settings be kept (whenever possible) so that Google can't look up people's names. Enough people out there have jobs and such that are sensitive enough in some ways that they would be better off with random searches pulling up some of their comments. (For example: Let's say Bill is a minister at a Southern Baptist church. Personally, he sees nothing wrong with HP, but his congregation and much of the rest of the church admin does. If someone finds out that he is an active member of an HP list, and supports a lot of the theories, then it could go against him in his job.) It may seem innocent to most, but unfortunately there are some people who could have their lives made a little more difficult if certain people read some of their posts. Also, to a certain degree, it's an invasion of privacy in its own way. While we may have 11k or so members on the group, it is still a private group where you have to jump through hoops and obey rules to participate in. If access to our posts are made public knowledge, they can be twisted, in some cases, to be used against them or simply misinterpreted. (Lord knows what people could get out of my post on prejudices from a couple of months back... And if I apply for a secured government job when I get out of school, some of the opinions voiced could be twisted to imply that I am a prejudiced bigot... even though my best friend, aside from my wife, is a gay, black, pagan...) That, BTW, is one of the reasons I use aliases. So, while it's easy to join the HPfGU groups, the fact that you *need* to join helps to protect the members. (For one thing, there is an implied condition that you will not join a group for the sole purposes of dredging up information to use against people. And if it's in the HB file, or any of the rules that we are required to read, then it is accepted as a contract that the member agrees to abide by... whether they bother to read the files or not... and can be used against them in court if they try to use anything said here against someone.) Just my herd of centaurs worth. Iggy McSnurd (*pulls his Invisibility Cloak about himself again and vanishes.*) From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 21:37:08 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:37:08 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <000301c3d945$e70e9810$4e60bf44@Einstein> References: Message-ID: <4003AE34.8750.1FC3630@localhost> On 12 Jan 2004 at 13:54, Iggy McSnurd wrote: > So, while it's easy to join the HPfGU groups, the fact that you *need* > to join helps to protect the members. (For one thing, there is an > implied condition that you will not join a group for the sole purposes > of dredging up information to use against people. It's not always just implied either - as I said in my previous post, sometimes in my line of work, we're assigned to check people out and we use the net for that purpose. We work under very specific rules as to what information we can and cannot gather under particular conditions - on their own authority my subordinates can gather anything returned by standard websearch methodologies - if they want to join something like a closed yahoogroup, though, they need my approval (and I have to satisfy myself as to certain things before I can give it). The rules get stricter, the further we go up the chain - eventually we're dealing with needing to use court orders, etc. Also - a lot of the time, it's messages that probably seemed quite innocent, that get people into trouble because they get interpreted through certain lenses - Iggy's mention of a southern Baptist Minister isn't really an uncommon scenario. I know personally of a case where a SciFi fan temporarily (fortunately sanity prevailed) lost custody of her children because she'd written a post about getting ready to watch the start of a new season of her favourite show, and totally tongue in cheek, had written a post to a mailing list that referred to 'tying up and gagging the kids so I could have some peace and quiet.' You might be surprised at what can potentially be used against you. 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 From przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 22:17:44 2004 From: przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid (Przemyslaw Plaskowicki) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:17:44 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40031D08.7070102@...> On 2004-01-12 08:25, abigailnus wrote: [...] >Pros: > >1. Right now, despite the moderating system, the Humongous >Bigfile, and the various posting guides, the best way to teach new >members how to post on HPfGU is to allow them to learn from the >examples of older members. By opening the archives to all visitors, >these potential members would have a longer learning period >before they post for the first time. Clearly, this won't prevent the >phenomenon of drive-by posting - members who join, ask one >question, and are never heard from again - but it might reduce it. > > I'm afraid that the impact of opening archives might be just the opposite. When I first found Fantastic Posts via Google, I went to the list Web Page on Yahoo and after finding out that lists are private lost interest in it. Only after few months I revisited it, and this time chosen to subscribe. So, I think, we may have more subscribers, not less by this move. >2. There are no doubt many visitors who come to the site, see that >they have to join the group in order to read messages, and leave. >We believe that allowing them a taste of HPfGU before they join >might help to convince them otherwise - once they've lurked for a >while, they might find that they have something to say. By the same >token, allowing visitors to read the archives might show them that >HPfGU isn't the place for them. In short, we believe that opening the >archives to all visitors will help HPfGU get the kind of members who >suit us - members who are truly interested in the kind of discussions >that we enjoy. Instead of buying a cat in a bag, we'll have informed >customers, and hopefully that will translate to a better >signal-to-noise ratio. > > I agree with that. See my previous statement. >3. Most exciting, in our opinion, is the fact that opening the archives >to all members would make HPfGU Google-able. No more dickering >around with the Yahoomort search engine. Simply head over to >Google, restrict the search to the message archive (we might be able >to create a link that does this automatically) and search the archives >to your hearts content. Multiple search terms, author and date search >(not exact ones, of course, but pretty close), the works. > > > I'm not sure if we can restrict Google search to only our Archives. But nevertheless, the results would be superb. >Cons: > >1. First, the obvious - HPfGU would become Google-able. Anything >that any of us have posted would now be visible not only to the 11,000 >members of HPfGU but to anyone online. This does not include our >e-mail addresses, to those of us who are concerned about spammers >- Yahoo automatically shields them - but it might include personal >information. There's also the issue of copyright - anyone can access >the posts and copy them at will. Right now, we feel that there is no >significant difference between exposing yourself to 11,000 strangers >and to the entire internet, but some of you may feel otherwise. > > > Let me be blunt here. If someone posts to a list that contains over 10 000 users and believe that she/he can be anonymous, that someone is seriously mistaken. Virtually nothing (beside not having famous yahoo archive downloading app), can stop me, or anybody else for that matter, from downloading archives and publishing it on any other, google'able site. Why do we need to protect others from their own stupidity? If admins would like to be nice to people who want their names removed (which I view as totally unnecessary), they might want to issue warning asking them to withdraw their messages from archive or to anonymize them. Regarding copyright, it does not matter here. Copyright is, very basically, "right to copy". It does not matter if the copyrighted work is google'able or not. If NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com does not worry about unauthorized copying, neither should we. >2. HPfGU is, fundamentally, a group for adults. That means that some >of our discussions might touch upon issues that are inappropriate for >children. By opening the archives to all visitors, we might be exposing >ourselves to possible legal issues, as children will be able to access the >messages. Since, at this point, any child who wants to can sign up to >the group - we have no way of verifying that a person is truly over 18 >- this seems like a moot point to us, but a lawyer might feel otherwise. > > > Sometimes I feel that owners are too much afraid of lawyers. Content of this list are for sure suitable for anybody. I understand that some parents would likely to hide from their children that humans are created by sex, some humans are evil, and Santa Claus does not exists. But for Merlin's beard, there is something called 'free speech', and it usually is in the Constutions of almost all countries. Specifically, since I think you are afraid of US Lawyers, let me point you to US Supreme Court case Reno v ACLU (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html). We can read in J. Stevens' opinion: 'The District Court categorically determined that there "is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is accessing material through e mail, mail exploders, newsgroups or chat rooms."' That case struck down law prohibiting transmitting obscene and indecent material to minors. See also my message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/250 for further discussion of that matter. (As a side note, I just can not understand, why some HP fanfics where two teenagers are just hugging and kissing are classified as NC-17. But then again, I'm a European -- our women sunbathe topless...) While I do have Master degree in Law (in Polish law, mind you), and technically I could practice, I don't -- take my opinions with prejudice. Regards, -- Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki Let the fear of danger be a spur to prevent it; he that fears not, gives advantage to the danger. (Francis Quarles) From SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 22:35:58 2004 From: SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid (SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:35:58 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings Message-ID: <4A725289.3AE7A43F.4B073798@...> In a message dated 1/12/2004 2:54:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, CoyotesChild at ... writes: > Fortunately, I am one of those people out there who only posts under an > alias. (I also happen to have a first and last name combination in RL > that, when I did a Google search of my name, it turned up over 900,000 > entries... so there's no way you can be sure that you are actually > reading something about me... and you're most likely not since I use > aliases all the time.) Well, I use an alias too but most people I know know what it is (I *really* need to get more creative...). I'm lucky because most people in my school already thinks I'm completely nuts so I can get away with it. > It may seem innocent to most, but unfortunately there are some people > who could have their lives made a little more difficult if certain > people read some of their posts. I have mentioned my school and people I know in posts before -- never by name, but the name of my school has been mentioned once or twice. It wouldn't really be that hard for someone I go to school with to put two and two together... (well, actually, knowing us it would -- see, there I go again!) I don't really like the idea of the HP haters being able to get to my posts... I think I have written some...interesting stuff that I don't really want random Interneters to get their hands on. I mean, I *cringe* when my friend and I Google search and find our crappy Newsies site from 8 billion years ago. So, all in all, I'm not really a fan of that. There *is* a solution I can think of. What if we had posts (that the posters approved) able to be viewed by potential members? Just to show them what they're like? And I'm not sure that not having posts viewable turns people away. I joined without having much knowledge about the group (and what a shock I was in for... *grin*). Oryomai From dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 22:59:02 2004 From: dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid (Dicentra spectabilis) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:59:02 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <40031D08.7070102@...> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Przemyslaw Plaskowicki" wrote: > Sometimes I feel that owners are too much afraid of lawyers. We have reason to be, unfortunately. There is a severe overpopulation of lawyers in the U.S., and some of them have a tendency to go looking for ways to make work for themselves. Furthermore, some people are just plain combative and won't hesitate to raise a stink just for the sake of raising one. And some of *those* people are lawyers to boot. We get threats from people like that more often than you'd think. To make matters worse, the U.S. is infamous for frivolous lawsuits. A thief who breaks his leg while looting someone's house can sue the owner of the house he broke into and WIN. That's insane, but that's the Land of Emotional Distress and Home of the Big Settlement for you. Don'tcha love America? So fearing lawsuits and nonsensical interpretations of documents is unfortunately a very sensible precaution. HPfGU can't survive a lawsuit, even if we win. We just don't have that kind of money in petty cash, and we *certainly* don't have the emotional stamina to go through a lawsuit over a book discussion list, for heaven's sake. --Dicentra, speaking unofficially From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 23:00:00 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:00:00 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4003C1A0.17007.2481517@localhost> > 3. Most exciting, in our opinion, is the fact that opening the archives > to all members would make HPfGU Google-able. No more dickering > around with the Yahoomort search engine. Simply head over to > Google, restrict the search to the message archive (we might be able > to create a link that does this automatically) and search the archives > to your hearts content. Multiple search terms, author and date search > (not exact ones, of course, but pretty close), the works. Question - is this actually possible? I run a yahoogroup that does have publically accessible archives - the group has been sitting on yahoogroups since 1998, the archive contains about 1600 messages - nowhere near as high traffic. The archives have *always* been publically accessible. I just tried a google search limited to the message archive of that group, searching for a word I know appears in the groups archives - my first name. Absolutely nothing was returned by the google search. I'm not sure that simply making the HPFGU archives publically accessible, will render them googleable. If you want to test this, the group is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dragwars/ Try doing a google search limited to that groups archives - and see if you get any results. Google certainly sometimes returns results from publically accessible yahoo archives - but I do not believe it does this with every single message, or anything close to that, which it would really need to do for this to be a 'pro'. Now I could be wrong - there may be a way of setting this search up so it does work, but I think it would be worth the HPFGU moderators checking out and demonstrating this actually works before they make decisions based on it - feel free to make use of my group for testing this search - just because I know for a fact it's archives are, and have been for five years, publically accessible. 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 From dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 23:26:05 2004 From: dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid (Dicentra spectabilis) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:26:05 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <4003C1A0.17007.2481517@localhost> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > I just tried a google search limited to the message archive of that > group, searching for a word I know appears in the groups archives - > my first name. > > Absolutely nothing was returned by the google search. And I just Googled "jakub s tomalak" and turned up exactly four hits: all of the posts that Mr. Tomalak has posted to your site. My real name contains a dictionary word, so Googling my name turns up more than 3400 entries (many related to my namesake hurricane), and there are 41 of me listed in Yahoo's white pages. And if you look up Dicentra spectabilis, you get lots and lots of botany sites. :D But that's not the case for most people, so I understand the concern. --Dicentra, unofficial again From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 12 23:39:26 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:39:26 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: References: <4003C1A0.17007.2481517@localhost> Message-ID: <4003CADE.23980.26C3144@localhost> On 12 Jan 2004 at 23:26, Dicentra spectabilis wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" > wrote: > > > I just tried a google search limited to the message archive of that > > group, searching for a word I know appears in the groups archives - > > my first name. > > > > Absolutely nothing was returned by the google search. > > And I just Googled "jakub s tomalak" and turned up exactly four hits: > all of the posts that Mr. Tomalak has posted to your site. Yes, that will work - but can the search be limited *specifically* to the site. That's the bit I can't see how it would work. I've tried searches limiting to the domain http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dragwars/messages and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dragwars Neither return anything - even when we *know* they are returned on a base google search like you did. My question isn't so much whether google can search publically accessible archives - it's whether there is anyway to *limit* such searches to a particular publically accessible archive, which seems to be what the 'pro' point is implying. There might be - I'm just concerned at the possibility that people are assuming there is, and haven't actually checked. 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 From heidilist at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 13 00:36:45 2004 From: heidilist at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (Heidi Tandy) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:36:45 -0800 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <4003C1A0.17007.2481517@localhost> References: <4003C1A0.17007.2481517@localhost> Message-ID: <1073954208.1B4DD0E3@...> If you sign up for Google to be the search engine for your site, like we have on fictionalley at http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark, they do spider through your site with regularity and incorporate you into the search engine itself. Heidi On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 6:04pm, Shaun Hately wrote about google searches From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 13 00:40:26 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:40:26 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just a few comments from me... This isn't a new idea that's been batted around by the list admins, fwiw; it's come up many times over the list's life, and most times people have expressed the same sorts of concerns and potential negative consequences as what has been expressed here. And, actually we *have* already taken the step once in making the archives of one group public -- the Announcements list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Announcements/message/624 This was almost a year ago now, and so far no one has reported any problems with it. More from me below... Shaun: >>I just tried a google search limited to the message archive of >>that group, searching for a word I know appears in the groups >>archives - my first name. >> >>Absolutely nothing was returned by the google search. Dicey: > And I just Googled "jakub s tomalak" and turned up exactly four hits: all of the posts that Mr. Tomalak has posted to your site. >>> Okay, I was testing this the other day with the goal of getting Announcement hits; I know very little of how to properly do searches, particularly advanced searches, so most certainly that factored in to the results I got. Here's what I did: I used Google's advanced search option. Chose English as the language, any format, anytime, and anywhere in the page. For Domain I chose 'only' and entered groups.yahoo.com as the domain. The terms I searched (that I can remember) were Death Eaters, DEs, HPEF, aberforth, dissendium, Caius Marcius, and psychic_serpent (Caius and Barb, hope y'all don't mind). Now, these brought up hits from Yah groups, and most included hits from Announcements (Heidi, lots of hits from Chapter Owls and FAWA, btw). When I tried to narrow the search to the Announcements list by extending the domain from groups.yahoo.com to groups.yahoo.com/groups/HPFGU-Announcements, I kept getting error messages. Was this due to trying to make an improper search? (I'm assuming it must be.) How can you narrow a search to a specific Yah group? Anyway, aside from all that, much as I love the idea of being able to use Google for our group's search function, my opinion is that our members' privacy always comes first. Hm...any techy types here know of some way to be able to use Google technology to search the archives *without* making the archives public? I also believe this is the main benefit to making our archives public -- the use of Google for searching. Other factors -- people lurking before joining/posting, the effect on the level of work for the elves (welcoming people, handling pending messages, etc.) -- are quite insignificant, imo. In other words, I personally do not see any ways in which making the archives open to the public would significantly increase *or* decrease the work load of the admin team. So, I do see the potential search benefits as the biggest reason to do this, but again, my feeling is that privacy comes first. Just one elf's opinion... --Kelley From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 13 01:00:00 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:00:00 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4003DDC0.11879.2B5F87F@localhost> On 13 Jan 2004 at 0:40, Kelley wrote: > Now, these brought up hits from Yah groups, and most included hits > from Announcements (Heidi, lots of hits from Chapter Owls and FAWA, > btw). When I tried to narrow the search to the Announcements list by > extending the domain from groups.yahoo.com to > groups.yahoo.com/groups/HPFGU-Announcements, I kept getting error > messages. Was this due to trying to make an improper search? (I'm > assuming it must be.) How can you narrow a search to a specific Yah > group? That's the precise problem I'm seeing - using google, it's not hard to get hits on a publically archived group by searching the entire net - it's not hard to get hits by searching all of yahoogroups. But the method that would most logically be used to search only a specific publically archived yahoogroup doesn't seem to me to work - that's doesn't mean it can't be done - but it may not be as simple as some people think. > Anyway, aside from all that, much as I love the idea of being able to > use Google for our group's search function, my opinion is that our > members' privacy always comes first. Hm...any techy types here know > of some way to be able to use Google technology to search the > archives *without* making the archives public? I don't *think* that would be very easy - if the group isn't public, I can't see how google could search it. 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 From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 13 02:49:09 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:49:09 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <4003DDC0.11879.2B5F87F@localhost> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > Kelley wrote: > > How can you narrow a search to a specific Yah group? Shaun: > That's the precise problem I'm seeing - using google, it's not hard > to get hits on a publically archived group by searching the entire > net - it's not hard to get hits by searching all of yahoogroups. > But the method that would most logically be used to search only a > specific publically archived yahoogroup doesn't seem to me to work > - that's doesn't mean it can't be done - but it may not be as > simple as some people think. >>> Hm, okay...I'll look into this some more. > > Kelley: > > Hm...any techy types here know of some way to be able to use >Google technology to search the archives *without* making the >archives public? Shaun: > I don't *think* that would be very easy - if the group isn't > public, I can't see how google could search it. >>> Agh, that's what I'd figured. Ah well, so much for that. ;-) Heidi: >> If you sign up for Google to be the search engine for your site, like we have on fictionalley at http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark, they do spider through your site with regularity and incorporate you into the search engine itself. >> Huh. So, Heidi, does this work for Yah groups, too, do you know? I mean, aside from personal sites, on your own server, etc. My immediate thought is that no way would Yahoo go for this, though of course I don't know what's involved in listing your site with Google, whether Yah would even be aware of some groups being listed with Google, etc. Plus, would the archives *have* to be public to do this? (I'm guessing yes.) Hang on, remembering something... Okay, found it -- a thread from another group I'm in discussing that Yahoo (not specified to groups, but Yahoo.com) was contracting Google as its search engine, but has been developing its own search engine (to compete with/take business from Google). So, hm, maybe someday when Yah finally presents us with the option of "premium" (pay) groups we may get better search features with that. Anyone ever use Yahoo search before? (I always use Google, myself). If so, does this look new to you (advanced search at Yahoo.com)? http://search.yahoo.com/search/options?fr=fp-top&p= No idea how good this engine is at all; bound to be better than what the Groups currently have, though. Someday, someday... ;-) --Kelley From carolynwhite2 at a_reader2003.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 13 10:46:13 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at a_reader2003.yahoo.invalid (a_reader2003) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:46:13 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" wrote: Quite > simply, we'd like to open the list archives to non-members. > Posting would still require joining the group, and new posters > would still be moderated, but anyone would be able to read > messages posted by members. > Carolyn: A couple of thoughts on this, prompted by responses so far: (1) If the main purpose is to attract in new, interested members, a compromise could be to make a selection of past posts available for general public consumption on our own site. These could be anonymous if necessary, but mainly picked for their interesting ideas and good posting style. Any casual browser who liked the tenor of the discussion might then be encouraged to join the group. (2) If the secondary purpose is to enable better searching of the archive for list members through using Google technology, I'm hopeful that we could achieve this another way through the indexing project which I suggested way back at the start of this Feedback group (I think it was post no 11 from memory). Kelley has been in touch with me about this, and I have done quite a lot of work over the last week on it which I hope to send to Kelley and the rest of the admin team for review in the next week. It should enable people to find and follow threads of discussion on all the topics we have discussed. I must admit, having spent quite a lot of time recently speed-reading through old emails, I think there is quite a lot of stuff on the list which people might not necessarily want searchable by the whole wide world ! Apart from anything else, in the early posts at least, there is a lot of chat about the way the list works, who people really are behind their aliases etc. I am only marking posts for inclusion in my index which really discuss the contents of the books, which sometimes represent only 1 in 10 of the posts put up. From erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 13 17:50:46 2004 From: erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid (erinellii) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:50:46 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Kelley": > Anyone ever use Yahoo search before? (I always use Google, myself). If so, does this look new to you (advanced search at Yahoo.com)? > > http://search.yahoo.com/search/options?fr=fp-top&p= > > No idea how good this engine is at all; bound to be better than what the Groups currently have, though. Someday, someday... ;-) Erin: I always use Yahoo when I want to search, and I've actually found it to be better than Google, for me, anyway. The actual regular Yahoo search has *nothing* in common with the group searches. It hasn't been updated in the last couple months that I'm aware of. Erin From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 13 18:43:17 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:43:17 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kelley wrote: > Hm...any techy types here know > of some way to be able to use Google technology to search the > archives *without* making the archives public? I think this question is narrower than it need be. Carolyn's index project shows there are other possibilities. Another, which would require a bit more work from members (as well as the admins), would be to keep the zip files in the archive lists up to date, and link to suitable software. Members could download the files and the software and then conduct their own offline searches. For example. Responding to some other comments: I think it's worth remembering there is a distinction between the idea that someone with access to the lists can work out personal information, and someone knowing only your name can link you to all your activity on HPFGU and its satellite lists. The former is not a problem for me or, I suspect, most others. The latter is. David From koukla_es at neith_seshat.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 14 10:22:34 2004 From: koukla_es at neith_seshat.yahoo.invalid (neith_seshat) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:22:34 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" > wrote: > Quite > > simply, we'd like to open the list archives to non-members. > > Posting would still require joining the group, and new posters > > would still be moderated, but anyone would be able to read > > messages posted by members. > > > > Carolyn: > > A couple of thoughts on this, prompted by responses so far: > > (1) If the main purpose is to attract in new, interested members, a > compromise could be to make a selection of past posts available for > general public consumption on our own site. These could be anonymous > if necessary, but mainly picked for their interesting ideas and good > posting style. Any casual browser who liked the tenor of the > discussion might then be encouraged to join the group. I'm with you and Oryomai on that one. I think there are many posts that represent clearly the style and purpose of this group, and once shown can help possible new members to decide. I would suggest that some of the essays (Fantastic posts, or Penny's, to mention a few) could be also displayed. > (2) If the secondary purpose is to enable better searching of the > archive for list members through using Google technology, I'm hopeful > that we could achieve this another way through the indexing project > which I suggested way back at the start of this Feedback group (I > think it was post no 11 from memory). Kelley has been in touch with > me about this, and I have done quite a lot of work over the last week > on it which I hope to send to Kelley and the rest of the admin team > for review in the next week. It should enable people to find and > follow threads of discussion on all the topics we have discussed. I would like to know more about this; sounds really interesting. > I must admit, having spent quite a lot of time recently speed- reading > through old emails, I think there is quite a lot of stuff on the list > which people might not necessarily want searchable by the whole wide > world! Nuff said! Hope it helps, Neith From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 14 14:17:47 2004 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:17:47 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think, myself (as a strictly unofficial myself) that the advantages of having the site public breaks down into two main points. Firstly people could read posts without joining. Secondly, we could use a better search engine. But those advantages are both possible by other means. There are other Yahoo groups who have a public/private life. Mostly they have a private Yahoo group, and a public website. What's on the website depends on how much effort you want to put into it. The static form is like our 'Fantastic Posts' - we select good posts, put them up as a sample, leave it as is for much of the time. The active form is where the site is updated most days, with particularly good posts, maybe from recently, or maybe posts months old that, with hindsight, seem particularly relevant/sparked off major theories. I don't know an HP one, but there's a Buffyverse site that follows that pattern http://teaattheford.net/ A private Yahoo group, and a frequently updated public site. I love the public site; not only do I get to be a lurker without joining yet another group, but someone's even picking out the good posts for me. In both types of site, you ask people if they want their posts transferred, and can 'anonymise' them if necessary. The search engine problem: as Caroline has pointed out, there's already a project on hand that may solve that without opening the group up to public searches. Or, as Kelley pointed out, we could move to a paying group if a)Yahoo ever offers that option and b) the advantages seem worthwhile. So it isn't an either/or thing. There are other ways of getting the advantages of opening up the group to public view/search. We might like to consider whether those alternatives are closer to what we *really* want. Pip [finally delurking on Feedback] From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Sat Jan 17 02:18:12 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:18:12 -0000 Subject: gender balance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David observed: > When I joined, there were four moderators, of > whom only one was a woman. When the moderators disbanded there were > two men out of eight. Bwahahahaha! Our evil plan worked. Now to get rid of all the right- handed, brown-haired non-Armenians! Amy Z From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Sat Jan 17 02:40:24 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:40:24 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <000301c3d945$e70e9810$4e60bf44@Einstein> Message-ID: Iggy wrote: > It may seem innocent to most, but unfortunately there are some people > who could have their lives made a little more difficult if certain > people read some of their posts. I agree. I have had times in the past when the difference between posting to a private (albeit open and large) group and posting to the internet at large would have been very significant for me. As it is, though my life would not be substantially affected were someone to Google my HPfGU posts, I speak differently to the group than to the public. For one thing, in public life I try to maintain enough dignity not to drool openly over fictional characters. When people post now, they are posting to a community. Some may not know that their words aren't Googlable; most, I'm sure, don't care one way or another. But the few who do know and care should not have the terms changed after the fact. So I think the stuff currently in the archives should be members- only. I'm all for having open archives from now on--or, better, starting from a date a month or two hence, for people to get used to it and so that people who wish to alter their writing for the public eye won't have old stuff quoted out in the open. (There's still a chance that a very old post will be quoted and thus Googlable, but such occurrences are very rare.) My 2 Knuts, Amy Z From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Sun Jan 18 03:20:45 2004 From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:20:45 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" wrote: > I'm all for having open archives from now on--or, better, > starting from a date a month or two hence, for people to get used to > it and so that people who wish to alter their writing for the public > eye won't have old stuff quoted out in the open. I don't think this is possible. You can set the archives to be open to anyone, to members only, or to moderators only. There's no date- related setting. The only way to do this would be to move to a new group or to archive all the old posts somewhere and then delete them all from the main group, either of which would be a huge undertaking. FWIW, I've always liked the idea of making the archives open to the public. I have nothing to lose but my already-bad reputation. --Joywitch From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 20 23:02:36 2004 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:02:36 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" wrote: > Dear Feedback members, > > Quite simply, we'd like to open the list archives to non-members. > Posting would still require joining the group, and new posters > would still be moderated, but anyone would be able to read > messages posted by members. >> > 2. Instead of buying a cat in a bag, we'll have informed > customers, and hopefully that will translate to a better signal- to-noise ratio. Talisman: It's awfully easy to subscribe/unsubscribe to any group. I would be surprised if the burden of subscription is keeping many people away. You've already got the advertisement value of the size of the group. If they decide it's not for them, freedom is only an email away. > > > Cons: > > 1. First, the obvious - HPfGU would become Google-able. Anything > that any of us have posted would now be visible not only to the 11,000 members of HPfGU but to anyone online. This might include personal information. There's also the issue of copyright - anyone can access the posts and copy them at will. Right now, we feel that there is no significant difference between exposing yourself to 11,000 strangers and to the entire internet, but some of you may feel otherwise. Talisman: I feel otherwise. And, I agree with others who have noted the inappropriateness of switching terms on posters ex post facto. If you want to reserve extant posts to a members only archive, as older posts are now stored (and which currently requires separate subscription) that's fine. If I post anything in the future I'll know it is subject to the new terms. Also, posters do retain all rights to their work, including copyright. Should an original HPfGUs theory unexpectedly turn up in a new Harry Potter guide at the local book store, a list of identifiable members gives the copyright holder some chance of protecting their rights, via discovery of the connection between a listed poster and the person exploiting the work. This is much harder when uncountable anonymous viewers can access the ideas. If work product posted to a private group were to be made public, without the author's agreement, and copyright infringement followed, there might be further legal ramifications for the Admin. From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 21 21:43:25 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Thomas Wall) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:43:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings Message-ID: <20040121214325.30622.qmail@...> DISCLAIMER: First time posting from my e-mail account here - I usually use webview - so, er, advance apologies in case I'm doing something wrong. ;-) Now... Talisman wrote: And, I agree with others who have noted the inappropriateness of switching terms on posters ex post facto. If you want to reserve extant posts to a members only archive, as older posts are now stored (and which currently requires separate subscription) that's fine. If I post anything in the future I'll know it is subject to the new terms. Tom: I'm with Talisman (and those others) here. When I signed up for HPfGU, it was with the understanding I was exposing myself and my ideas exclusively to a group of like-minded people in a semi-private situation; I did not sign up with the idea that I'd be posting for the whole internet to see, nor am I certain that I'd be very thrilled about that possibility. The hbfile didn't - and doesn't - say anything about that, and those - along with the Yahoo Guidelines and TOS - are the rules that I agreed to when I became a member here. Period. End of story. And really, I'm quite surprised that some may think that there's no substantive difference between exposing one's work and thoughts to eleven thousand people and exposing them to the internet-using public at large. IMHO there's not only a difference, but that difference is *exponential* in nature: Thousands vs. Millions. I'd say that counts as substantial. Nevermind the basic differences between 'relatively private,' as these lists are, and, er, being "Google-able," which in all worlds consists of a very different ball-game. On a related note, I've been thinking lately that this could possibly affect the situation over on "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them" as well, because there is nothing included in the hbfile which necessarily precludes the releasing of copyright for use by the FAQ team; presently, to my knowledge, there is no specific process in place for acquiring this permission from members, who, like me, are probably working under the basic rules presented in the hbfile and the Yahoo Guidelines and TOS. All the hbfile states is that FP *exists,* not that everyone's work is subject to inclusion there. I'd suggest that the Admin/FAQ team look into updating the hbfile to include a clause of this sort, that is, *if* the FAQ team is to continue perusing the lists' content and selecting what they want for use on that already publically-accessible website. If I understand the copyright regulations accurately, then unless permission to use a member's work has been received - and ostensibly in an explicit (and not loophole-esque) way - by the Admin/FAQ team, then I'm afraid that we may already be *currently* in violation, should someone choose to complain about it. Nevermind any possible changes that are being discussed at present. Again, I'd have to confess surprise here that there are people who think that this even *might* be okay, as IMHO all of my practical experience with the internet suggests that reasonable people know that you generally need permission to use another person's work. For example: this summer, a member who was presenting a paper at Nimbus contacted me and asked for permission to use a part of one of my posts in her paper. Naturally, I granted it, and was glad to do so, but I believe that the member wrote to me based on the idea that even citing me properly isn't enough: this list is not in *any way* in the public domain - although just about anyone may join - and therefore even proper citations don't necessarily mean that there isn't copyright-violation involved in the arbitrary use of another's work. She wanted to use my stuff, so she asked. That's what you do. I note that Steve also seems to be following this procedure over at the Lexicon, which does occasionally employ material gleaned from HPfGU: every citation there is used with explicit permission from the author or source (as he also has permission from Scholastic to use Mary GrandPre's art on the Lexicon). I doubt that Steve feels entitled to take *any* work and use it - even with proper citations - without first consulting the author. Such an action would, naturally, jeopardize the Lexicon. And let's forget the rules for a second: for me, this *still* basically boils down to simple academic courtesy. Talisman wrote: Also, posters do retain all rights to their work, including copyright. Tom: Agreed, obviously. ;-) Additionally, in light of recent - and past - "banning of members" efforts by the Admin team (however few these are in number), I think that this is an issue that will eventually need to be revisited, as banned members technically no longer retain the rights to their work once they are banned. Banned members, subsequently, also have been denied the rights of *control* over that work; at present, any member may delete his or her own posts to the lists at any time; a banned member has been denied that right. And honestly, I'm not sure that that's entirely in sync with what Yahoo had in mind when it wrote its Guidelines and TOS. Since banned members have never officially or formally relinquished the copyrights - and I sincerely doubt that they'd do so - there could, again, *already* be a problem with copyright violations if HPfGU continues to use their work in any official capacity. So, for all intents and purposes, the present discussion is basically rendered irrelevant in light of the already pre-existing situation. Talisman: If work product posted to a private group were to be made public, without the author's agreement, and copyright infringement followed, there might be further legal ramifications for the Admin. Tom: Again, agreed entirely. >From my perspective, this discussion, while interesting, essentially amounts to a big fat non-starter. This is not something that can be decided by the Admin team, as they do not retain the copyrights to others' work. Whether or not they're the stewards for the list is irrelevent; this is not a decision that they can make, again, unless the rules are formally changed and go into effect for all posts *after* a certain date. IMHO, there is basically nothing that can be done about all the posts that have been written in the past. Furthermore, the way I see it, it's not even something that could even be decided by a majority-vote of all members - assuming such a mobilization would even be possible, to completely ignore the concept of "likely" - since "all members" do not retain the copyrights to others' work, either. So, unless it looks like - and I'm considerably confident that it does not - absolutely everyone who has ever posted here will concede this issue and grant the list the right to post their work publically, then a change of this sort cannot be made with reference to the archives and all past posts. As Talisman points out, however, the Admin team *would* - theoretically - possess the right to distill out all of the old posts in some way and start with some new rules at any point they chose, provided the changes in the rules, and the date on which the changes go into effect, were announced and clearly understood by the general list membership. I understand that the Admin team reserves the right to alter the hbfile without informing the general list membership, but IMHO this is not one of those cases. People need to know under what conditions they'll be posting. -Tom, who commiserates with Joywitch on the subject of "bad reputations," and who also admits that whether or not he's playing Devil's Advocate for the time being, he would probably allow his work to be made publically available anyways. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus From przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 21 23:18:22 2004 From: przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid (Przemyslaw Plaskowicki) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:18:22 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <20040121214325.30622.qmail@...> References: <20040121214325.30622.qmail@...> Message-ID: <400F08BE.3080700@...> Thomas Wall wrote: >And really, I'm quite surprised that some may think >that there's no substantive difference between >exposing one's work and thoughts to eleven thousand >people and exposing them to the internet-using public >at large. > > > I respectfully dissent. The relative secrecy of this list is based only on the integrity of over 11,000 people. Very poor protection, I might add. >I'd say that counts as substantial. Nevermind the >basic differences between 'relatively private,' as >these lists are, and, er, being "Google-able," which >in all worlds consists of a very different ball-game. > >On a related note, I've been thinking lately that this >could possibly affect the situation over on "Fantastic >Posts and Where to Find Them" as well, because there >is nothing included in the hbfile which necessarily >precludes the releasing of copyright for use by the >FAQ team; presently, to my knowledge, there is no >specific process in place for acquiring this >permission from members, who, like me, are probably >working under the basic rules presented in the hbfile >and the Yahoo Guidelines and TOS. > > > [...] >If I understand the copyright regulations accurately, >then unless permission to use a member's work has been >received - and ostensibly in an explicit (and not >loophole-esque) way - by the Admin/FAQ team, then I'm >afraid that we may already be *currently* in >violation, should someone choose to complain about it. > > No. Ideas themselves are NOT copyrightable, but the expression of those ideas IS. As far as I know, Fantastic Posts uses other listees ideas not their expression of them. Regards, -- Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki Men are wise in proportion, not to their experience, but to their capacity for experience. (James Boswell, Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791) From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 21 23:25:28 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:25:28 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <400F08BE.3080700@...> References: <20040121214325.30622.qmail@...> Message-ID: <400FA518.31581.899DA0@localhost> On 22 Jan 2004 at 0:18, Przemyslaw Plaskowicki wrote: > I respectfully dissent. The relative secrecy of this list is based only > on the integrity of over 11,000 people. Very poor protection, I might add. To me, the difference is that currently posts to the list will not come up in a *random* websearch just on a person's name. Yes, anybody can get relatively easy access to a person's posts on HPFGU - but to do so, they have to know or suspect the person is on HPFGU. Understand, doing searches like this is part of my job at times - a list like HPFGU having public archives makes that job an order of magnitude easier in many cases, if you are trying to gather information on a person. And there are *lots* of reasons some people do this - some good and justified, some not. 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 From przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 21 23:58:02 2004 From: przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid (Przemyslaw Plaskowicki) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:58:02 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <400FA518.31581.899DA0@localhost> References: <20040121214325.30622.qmail@...> <400FA518.31581.899DA0@localhost> Message-ID: <400F120A.1080508@...> Shaun Hately wrote: >On 22 Jan 2004 at 0:18, Przemyslaw Plaskowicki wrote: > > > >>I respectfully dissent. The relative secrecy of this list is based only >>on the integrity of over 11,000 people. Very poor protection, I might add. >> >> > >To me, the difference is that currently posts to the list will not >come up in a *random* websearch just on a person's name. Yes, >anybody can get relatively easy access to a person's posts on HPFGU >- but to do so, they have to know or suspect the person is on >HPFGU. > > > Good point. I didn't thought about that. >Understand, doing searches like this is part of my job at times - a >list like HPFGU having public archives makes that job an order of >magnitude easier in many cases, if you are trying to gather >information on a person. > >And there are *lots* of reasons some people do this - some good and >justified, some not. > > > Nevertheless, it never have been a concern for me. My full name gets over 400 hits on Google Web and 500 hits on Google Groups, all (or almost all) are my posts to various fora. I just don't care, and I guess some people on HP4GU don't care either. Regards, -- Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. (Marie Ebner von Eschenbach, Aphorisms, 1905) From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 22 00:16:53 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:16:53 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <400F120A.1080508@...> References: <400FA518.31581.899DA0@localhost> Message-ID: <400FB125.4579.B8B122@localhost> On 22 Jan 2004 at 0:58, Przemyslaw Plaskowicki wrote: > Shaun Hately wrote: > Nevertheless, it never have been a concern for me. My full name gets > over 400 hits on Google Web and 500 hits on Google Groups, all (or > almost all) are my posts to various fora. I just don't care, and I guess > some people on HP4GU don't care either. Some people almost certainly don't care - but some people do - and some may have very real concerns. Personally speaking, there are things I have said on HPFGU that I would *prefer* that children I work with don't see. Mainly because they go into personal issues about my own childhood that they don't need to know about in any more detail than I have already told them. There's nothing there that would be a disaster for me if they found out - but there is stuff that would make me uncomfortable. Other people may have even greater concerns - I know of cases where people's posts to various internet newsgroups (which are generally publically archived) have cost them jobs, and have even put the custody of their children at risk. In some cases, they should have been more careful and the posts raised real concerns. In other cases, the problems have occurred because innocent posts were taken seriously out of context. When I join any internet forum (and I've been on such forums now for... well, 14 years or so) I check its accessibility, and I do sometimes choose to post certain things to some groups and nother others based on that accessibility. In the case of HPFGU, if the list had had public archives at the time I made certain posts, I would not have made those posts because I don't want them coming up in google searches. Now, I'm still on the list - so I will know about any change - and I can go back through the archives and delete those posts now if I want to. So I'm not overly concerned for *myself* whether or not the list archives are open. What really concerns me is those people who have been on HPFGU in the past and who no longer are on the list. Who posted to a list that had closed archives (and may have only had 1000 or members at the time they joined it) - and who will have no way of knowing that their messages have suddenly become much more publically accessible, until one of them is put in front of them by their manager, or their spouse, or their child, or a lawyer. Because they won't know this change has happened, they cannot protect against it. There's another issue that I think the admins need to consider - that of legal liability. I discussed this briefly with a lawyer at work - it's complex because we're dealing with so many potential jurisdictions here - but if a person sent a message to 'closed archives' HPFGU two years ago, and after the archives were opened - without their knowledge, such a message was used against them in some way, this lawyer could not rule out the possibility that that person would have a legal case against the HPFGU admins. He felt that such a case would *probably* be unlikely to succeed - but there were circumstances in which it might. When you change the rules, you start to run risks like that - especially in a case where there is no practical way of letting many people know about the change. Seriously - if HPFGU admins do decide to open the archives, I think it would be very wise of them to announce that change fairly widely in other places former members are likely to hang around in. My preference is that the archives not be opened - but if they are, I think you'd be well advised to make sure you've made all reasonable efforts to try and ensure that anyone with messages in those archives is informed of the change. 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 From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 22 00:43:32 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Tom Wall) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:43:32 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <400F08BE.3080700@...> Message-ID: I (Tom) wrote: If I understand the copyright regulations accurately, then unless permission to use a member's work has been received - and ostensibly in an explicit (and not loophole-esque) way - by the Admin/FAQ team, then I'm afraid that we may already be *currently* in violation, should someone choose to complain about it. My alliterated interlocutor Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki replied: No. Ideas themselves are NOT copyrightable, but the expression of those ideas IS. As far as I know, Fantastic Posts uses other listees ideas not their expression of them. To which I (Tom) respond: I'm not sure that I see your reasoning here, Przemyslaw, and think that you may be confusing a person's actual *posts* with the *ideas* that those posts represent or attempt to articulate. For instance, using your example: The *idea* that Snape is a vampire is not copyrightable. Okay. *That* I can see, and agree with. In a similar light, none of the hypotheses, i.e. "That Snape Might Have Loved Lily," or "That There is Something *Up* with Trevor the Toad" - included in "Hypothetic Alley" *themselves* are copyrightable. But there is a big difference between talking generally about the idea, and using members' personal expressions of that idea to elucidate the argument. "That Snape Might Have Loved Lily," as an idea, is not a copyrightable thing. But again, *Tabouli's* personal take on the matter, and her posts and expressions discussing it, are. In other words, *my* personal take on this idea, and *my* formulations for and expression of that idea *are* copyrightable. And therefore, the use of *my* posts to express that idea without my permission would fall completely into your own distinction for what is copyrightable. Therefore, according to your line of reasoning, "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them" would not be in violation for pointing out that there is the idea that Snape may be a vampire. It wouldn't even be in violation for claiming that many members of the list support the idea. It *would* possibly be in violation for using - without the author's prior permission - that person's idiosyncratic expression of the issue as an example for others to read publically and off the lists. You can make any *idea* you want public. You can't make *my* expression of that idea public unless I grant permission. -Tom From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 22 03:56:23 2004 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 03:56:23 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <400FB125.4579.B8B122@localhost> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > What really concerns me is those people who have been on HPFGU in > the past and who no longer are on the list. Who posted to a list > that had closed archives (and may have only had 1000 or members at > the time they joined it) - and who will have no way of knowing that > their messages have suddenly become much more publically > accessible, until one of them is put in front of them by their > manager, or their spouse, or their child, or a lawyer. Because they > won't know this change has happened, they cannot protect against > it. There is also another consideration: defunct e-mail addresses. To delete a post, don't you have to sign in under the same address you originally created it on for Yahoo to recognise you as the author? I know there are quite a few people who have had to change theirs. Of course, this would only apply if the existing archives were made public, but it's another good reason not to. Annemehr From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 22 05:57:33 2004 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 05:57:33 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Dicentra spectabilis" wrote: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Dicentra spectabilis" wrote: > > > We have reason to be, unfortunately. There is a severe overpopulation of lawyers in the U.S., and some of them have a tendency to go looking for ways to make work for themselves some people are just plain combative and won't hesitate to raise a stink just for the sake of raising one the U.S. is infamous for frivolous lawsuits. That's insane, but that's the Land of Emotional Distress and Home of the Big Settlement for you. > Don'tcha love America? >> So fearing lawsuits and nonsensical interpretations of documents is unfortunately a very sensible precaution. HPfGU can't survive a > lawsuit, even if we win. We just don't have that kind of money in > petty cash, and we *certainly* don't have the emotional stamina to go through a lawsuit over a book discussion list, for heaven's sake. > Talisman: There is a steady stream of anti-lawyer propaganda emanating from certain groups in the U.S, and it has been unfortunately effective. The fact is, all of the rights that Americans enjoy have been won, preserved and/or defended by lawyers. To put it another way, without lawyers you have no rights. Law is a human arena, and in the legal history of any country you can no doubt find examples of questionable reasoning. However most of the "horror stories" put out by the anti-lawyer side are the stuff of Urban Legend, or at best, missing crucial facts (as well as specific citation). We are all allowed our opinion, but the ground rules printed on the face of this site provide that: "Personal attacks or insulting comments about individuals or groups will *not* be tolerated. Messages of this sort will be deleted and may result in moderation." Of course, if no one enforces the rule it is meaningless. Just as fairness is unattainable if bullies don't fear the courtroom. From erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 22 06:37:52 2004 From: erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid (erinellii) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:37:52 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tom Wall wrote: "Fantastic Posts and > Where to Find Them" would not be in violation for pointing out that > there is the idea that Snape may be a vampire. It wouldn't even be > in violation for claiming that many members of the list support the > idea. It *would* possibly be in violation for using - without the > author's prior permission - that person's idiosyncratic expression > of the issue as an example for others to read publically and off the lists. > > You can make any *idea* you want public. You can't make *my* > expression of that idea public unless I grant permission. Erin: But Fantastic Posts doesn't have the whole of each post up on the website. What they do is provide a link to it. And, I may be wrong, but I think that in order to actually view the post, you'd have to be a member of HPfGU. Erin From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 22 18:47:26 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:47:26 -0000 Subject: FPs and HBF Message-ID: Tom: > All the hbfile states is that FP *exists,* not that everyone's work is subject to inclusion there. I'd suggest that the Admin/FAQ team look into updating the hbfile to include a clause of this sort, that is, *if* the FAQ team is to continue perusing the lists' content and selecting what they want for use on that already publically-accessible website. < Actually, the HBF does already have this, Tom: "1.4 Legal Issues Further, in so posting, you also grant the HPFGU LIst Administrators the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt and publicly display such post(s) for the purposes of providing and promoting the various HP4GU groups and sites." Erin: > But Fantastic Posts doesn't have the whole of each post up on the website. What they do is provide a link to it. And, I may be wrong, but I think that in order to actually view the post, you'd have to be a member of HPfGU. >>> Thank you, Erin; yes, this is exactly right. --Kelley From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 23 01:13:41 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Thomas Wall) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:13:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings Message-ID: <20040123011341.24885.qmail@...> Just to note here, I am following all of the rules laid out in the -Feeback rules file and on the -Feedback homepage. I am not insulting, attacking, or criticizing individuals in this post. No ad hominems to be found here. But I will candidly discuss list policy, which, as far as I understand, is not only allowed on -Feedback, but is actually the reason why this list was created in the first place. If I do not understand the -Feedback guidelines accurately, please advise. Kelley, quoting the *new* hbfile, wrote: Further, in so posting, you also grant the HPFGU LIst Administrators the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt and publicly display such post(s) for the purposes of providing and promoting the various HP4GU groups and sites." Tom replies: Just so we're all on the same page, here: I downloaded a copy of the hbfile on 03-December-2003... about six weeks ago. According to *that* version of the document, the file had last been updated on 20-November-2003. The clause that Kelley is citing is *not* in the copy of the hbfile that I have from this past December, which means that this clause was not in existence when I, and most of my peers here signed up for HPfGU. (For the record, I signed up last January, under the terms of the old hbfile.) Just so we all know what this signifies, pasted below is the section of the hbfile, dated 03-December-2003, that I have stored in my account. In my copy, it consists of one paragraph. The clause that Kelley cited in her reply to me is *not* in this copy of the hbfile. --start quote-- 1.4 Legal Issues By posting on any of the HPFGU lists, you agree to adhere to the Yahoo Terms of Use located at http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/. Links to electronic texts (etexts) of any Harry Potter book and any file containing the audio versions of the books or the movie(s) may violate the Yahoo TOU, so please do not post any or we'll have to delete the post. It's also a copyright violation to reproduce substantial portions of any article or book, but you can post links to them. --end quote-- The new clause is a very recent addition that was put into effect (on 05-December-2003, according to the new hbfile) without notifying us or consulting the list membership. Therefore I do not believe that my terms of membership can be affected this substantially, involving my own copyright, without my permission, or at the very least, without my notification. So, I guess the most logical questions are, "Why was that quote added to the hbfile on 05-December-2003," and "How did the List Admin come to decide that 'in its discretion' it did not have to notify the list membership that a major change in copyright rules had just been put into effect?" Succinctly: "Why weren't we told about it?" IMHO, that single clause is a *highly* significant change, and I find it hard to believe that it would be added surreptitiously without notifying the general list membership in one way or another. Mistakes happen, of course, but I'm not certain that the addition of a calculated clause such as this can accurately be classified as a "mistake." As you can see from this discussion, people are fairly concerned about their copyrights and their availablity to the general internet-going public, hence the discussion we're having now. IMHO, a change of that sort constitutes a massive alteration of the rules that we agreed to when we signed up. I may be wrong, by I never saw any Admin messages to that effect. I noted yesterday that the HPfGU Admin team reserves the right to make alterations to the hbfile without notifying the list membership. It says so in the hbfile. "We will make changes to anything written here from time to time as needed, and will notify list members of those changes at our discretion." In actuality, this clause *itself* is also a relatively new change, as it is not included in a copy of the hbfile that I have stored that is dated 29-August-2003. However, quibbling over that change aside, I also suggested yesterday that *this* - the discussion over copyright - was not one of those acceptible situations in which changes could be made without permission, or at least, again, notification. In many cases, I understand that the Admin team may make small adjustments that do not affect the general list membership too much. I'm not interested in a semantic debate involving which pronoun is more appropriate to use, and correcting typographical errors. However - big however here - again, access to and copyright of my work is not a matter that the Admin team has sole right to determine, and it is inappropriate, IMHO, to make a change of this nature without telling everyone about it. I would earnestly suggest that in the future, changes of this magnitide be relayed to the general community in some form or another. Furthermore, since this was not a rule that I signed up under, I also believe that I am not subject to the change, as I was not consulted about it. In effect, I believe that I - and everyone else who joined prior to 12-05-2003 - am grandfathered out of this clause because this is a substantial change that I was not consulted on. Nor, for that matter, was this right ever expressly granted by me or by the other members of this list. So again, we return to the basic discussion point: in order to use my work, you must have my permission. If I signed up today, then as Talisman pointed out, I would understand that this applied to me. However, since I did not, I do not believe that it does apply to me, nor do I believe that it is fair-play to try to make me acquiesce to a rule that was put into effect without my knowledge. If you don't mind the question, again, "why weren't we notified about that change, since it concerns such a major issue as copyright infringement?" And in a more academic sense, since the change was made without either the approval or notification of the general list membership, what are we going to do about that now? On the topic of "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them," Erinelli wrote: But Fantastic Posts doesn't have the whole of each post up on the website. What they do is provide a link to it. And, I may be wrong, but I think that in order to actually view the post, you'd have to be a member of HPfGU. Tom: Yes, I agree that for most of the site, you're absolutely correct and this is the case. However, Hypothetic Alley, at least, does have direct quotes from posts that were placed on the list. There are quite a few quotes from members' material, actually. And at least one of the FP essays directly cites members' real names, Yahoo ID's, and/or pseudonyms, and makes those names - as well as the canon positions ascribed to them - accessible to the public. Are we sure that those people want everyone who accesses that site to know what their canon positions are; for instance, do you think that an individual would like the internet-going public to know that he or she believes that Snape could be described as the "Hebrew Satan?" Is all of FP in violation. No way. Are there possible problems? Absolutely. -Tom __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 23 01:18:36 2004 From: dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid (Daniel R. Tobias) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:18:36 -0500 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <1074806077.2624.46983.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4010301C.14357.13FDD538@localhost> On 22 Jan 2004 at 05:57, "Talisman" wrote: > Law is a human arena, and in the legal history of any country you > can no doubt find examples of questionable reasoning. However most > of the "horror stories" put out by the anti-lawyer side are the > stuff of Urban Legend, or at best, missing crucial facts (as well as > specific citation). A site that recounts some *true* stories of outrageous lawsuits, as well as debunking some of the false ones, is here: http://www.stellaawards.com/ -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 23 03:01:28 2004 From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb2) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:01:28 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <20040123011341.24885.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, Thomas Wall wrote: > I am not insulting, attacking, or criticizing > individuals in this post. No ad hominems to be found > here. But I will candidly discuss list policy, which, > as far as I understand, is not only allowed on > -Feedback, but is actually the reason why this list > was created in the first place. > Agreed. > > Kelley, quoting the *new* hbfile, wrote: > Further, in so posting, you also grant the HPFGU LIst > Administrators the license to use, distribute, > reproduce, modify, adapt and publicly display such > post(s) for the purposes of providing and promoting > the various HP4GU groups and sites." > > Tom replies: > Just so we're all on the same page, here: I downloaded > a copy of the hbfile on 03-December-2003... about six > weeks ago. According to *that* version of the > document, the file had last been updated on > 20-November-2003. > > The clause that Kelley is citing is *not* in the copy > of the hbfile that I have from this past December, > which means that this clause was not in existence when > I, and most of my peers here signed up for HPfGU. (For > the record, I signed up last January, under the terms > of the old hbfile.) > Actually, the clause *was* in existence when you joined HPFGU. It was inadvertently deleted from the revised HBfile and then reinserted after it was noticed that it was missing (probably just after your last download), which is why members were not notified. If you look at the old version of the HBfile (which is still in the Files section of the main list here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/ ) under section 1.5, you'll find the language. So the rule has always been here in one version or another. > On the topic of "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find > Them," Erinelli wrote: > But Fantastic Posts doesn't have the whole of each > post up on the website. What they do is provide a link > to it. And, I may be wrong, but I think that in order > to actually view the post, you'd have to be > a member of HPfGU. > > However, Hypothetic Alley, at least, does have direct > quotes from posts that were placed on the list. There > are quite a few quotes from members' material, > actually. True, but there are no names attached, and the quotes are short and correctly attributed via links, so I think (with a HUGE disclaimer that I am not an intellectual property lawyer and do not purport to be giving legal advice) they are like any short quotation from a copyrighted work. > > And at least one of the FP essays directly cites > members' real names, Yahoo ID's, and/or pseudonyms, > and makes those names - as well as the canon positions > ascribed to them - accessible to the public. Are we > sure that those people want everyone who accesses that > site to know what their canon positions are; for > instance, do you think that an individual would like > the internet-going public to know that he or she > believes that Snape could be described as the "Hebrew > Satan?" > This is a good point. I'm currently writing an FP and have been going back and forth on whether to cite people by the names they use on the list. I think this has persuaded me to go the anonymous route, or to make sure that only first names are used, if they can be googled. It would probably be a good idea to delete any last names from the Snape update. Debbie speaking for myself From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 23 03:52:32 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:52:32 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <20040123011341.24885.qmail@...> Message-ID: Tom: > Just to note here, I am following all of the rules > laid out in the -Feeback rules file and on the > -Feedback homepage. > > I am not insulting, attacking, or criticizing > individuals in this post. No ad hominems to be found > here. But I will candidly discuss list policy, which, > as far as I understand, is not only allowed on > -Feedback, but is actually the reason why this list > was created in the first place. > > If I do not understand the -Feedback guidelines > accurately, please advise. >>> Your post is fine, Tom; has someone accused you of doing otherwise?? > Tom replies: > Just so we're all on the same page, here: I downloaded > a copy of the hbfile on 03-December-2003... about six > weeks ago. According to *that* version of the > document, the file had last been updated on > 20-November-2003. >>> Debbie has already clarified this, so I won't repeat her here. > The clause that Kelley is citing is *not* in the copy > of the hbfile that I have from this past December, > which means that this clause was not in existence when > I, and most of my peers here signed up for HPfGU. (For > the record, I signed up last January, under the terms > of the old hbfile.) >>> According to main list memberships, you joined on 20 Jan 03 (happy anniversary!); I've just uploaded to the Files section here on Feedback a copy of the HBF that was in effect at that time, in fact it had just been updated on 5 Jan 03. > The new clause is a very recent addition that was put > into effect (on 05-December-2003, according to the new > hbfile) without notifying us or consulting the list > membership. >>> Incorrect, Tom, sorry. It is *not* a new clause, and it is *not* a "very recent addition". I've also uploaded copies of the 29 May 03 HBF which is still available on the main list, titled "oldhbfile.html". These can be found in the Files section, in the Admin Files folder. Further, I've also uploaded the oldest copy of the HBF that I can find in my many folders , one dated 28 April 02. Please see section 1.5 in each of these, Tom. > Therefore I do not believe that my terms > of membership can be affected this substantially, > involving my own copyright, without my permission, or > at the very least, without my notification. > > So, I guess the most logical questions are, "Why was > that quote added to the hbfile on 05-December-2003," > and "How did the List Admin come to decide that 'in > its discretion' it did not have to notify the list > membership that a major change in copyright rules had > just been put into effect?" > > Succinctly: "Why weren't we told about it?" > > IMHO, that single clause is a *highly* significant > change, and I find it hard to believe that it would be > added surreptitiously without notifying the general > list membership in one way or another. Mistakes > happen, of course, but I'm not certain that the > addition of a calculated clause such as this can > accurately be classified as a "mistake." > > As you can see from this discussion, people are fairly > concerned about their copyrights and their availablity > to the general internet-going public, hence the > discussion we're having now. IMHO, a change of that > sort constitutes a massive alteration of the rules > that we agreed to when we signed up. I may be wrong, > by I never saw any Admin messages to that effect. > > I noted yesterday that the HPfGU Admin team reserves > the right to make alterations to the hbfile without > notifying the list membership. It says so in the > hbfile. "We will make changes to anything written here > from time to time as needed, and will notify list > members of those changes at our discretion." In > actuality, this clause *itself* is also a relatively > new change, as it is not included in a copy of the > hbfile that I have stored that is dated > 29-August-2003. > > However, quibbling over that change aside, I also > suggested yesterday that *this* - the discussion over > copyright - was not one of those acceptible situations > in which changes could be made without permission, or > at least, again, notification. In many cases, I > understand that the Admin team may make small > adjustments that do not affect the general list > membership too much. I'm not interested in a semantic > debate involving which pronoun is more appropriate to > use, and correcting typographical errors. > > However - big however here - again, access to and > copyright of my work is not a matter that the Admin > team has sole right to determine, and it is > inappropriate, IMHO, to make a change of this nature > without telling everyone about it. I would earnestly > suggest that in the future, changes of this magnitide > be relayed to the general community in some form or > another. > > Furthermore, since this was not a rule that I signed > up under, I also believe that I am not subject to the > change, as I was not consulted about it. In effect, I > believe that I - and everyone else who joined prior to > 12-05-2003 - am grandfathered out of this clause > because this is a substantial change that I was not > consulted on. Nor, for that matter, was this right > ever expressly granted by me or by the other members > of this list. So again, we return to the basic > discussion point: in order to use my work, you must > have my permission. > > If I signed up today, then as Talisman pointed out, I > would understand that this applied to me. However, > since I did not, I do not believe that it does apply > to me, nor do I believe that it is fair-play to try to > make me acquiesce to a rule that was put into effect > without my knowledge. > > If you don't mind the question, again, "why weren't we > notified about that change, since it concerns such a > major issue as copyright infringement?" And in a more > academic sense, since the change was made without > either the approval or notification of the general > list membership, what are we going to do about that > now? >>> I believe what I've said above has rendered the rest of this moot. > On the topic of "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find > Them," Erinelli wrote: > But Fantastic Posts doesn't have the whole of each > post up on the website. What they do is provide a link > to it. And, I may be wrong, but I think that in order > to actually view the post, you'd have to be > a member of HPfGU. > > Tom: > Yes, I agree that for most of the site, you're > absolutely correct and this is the case. > > However, Hypothetic Alley, at least, does have direct > quotes from posts that were placed on the list. There > are quite a few quotes from members' material, > actually. > > And at least one of the FP essays directly cites > members' real names, Yahoo ID's, and/or pseudonyms, > and makes those names - as well as the canon positions > ascribed to them - accessible to the public. Are we > sure that those people want everyone who accesses that > site to know what their canon positions are; for > instance, do you think that an individual would like > the internet-going public to know that he or she > believes that Snape could be described as the "Hebrew > Satan?" > > Is all of FP in violation. No way. > Are there possible problems? Absolutely. >>> Debbie has already addressed this as well. --Kelley From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 23 22:36:48 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:36:48 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Talisman wrote: > Law is a human arena, and in the legal history of any country you > can no doubt find examples of questionable reasoning. However most > of the "horror stories" put out by the anti-lawyer side are the > stuff of Urban Legend, or at best, missing crucial facts (as well as > specific citation). Also, even the true stories are cases of really bad judgment and not things one really has to fear, any more than one should fear getting struck by lightning. Bringing a frivolous lawsuit is a gamble, and if you (the lawyer bringing the suit) have the misfortune to get a good judge it will get you in trouble, not to mention make you look like a prizewinning ass. Still, HPfGU has been threatened with legal action before (frivolously), and as anyone knows who has had someone shake a fist and say "I'm taking you to court for this!," even an empty threat is not fun to receive. I hope that courts do know that people are human and that through the inevitable sloppiness of life, no organization will adhere to every jot and tittle at every moment. Nevertheless, the Admins still have to pay attention to the real possibility of being sued. As you say, if bullies don't fear the courtroom then the law has no power. And if people don't care about the way a community perceives them, then the rules that truly govern a community--which are unwritten and unenforceable--cannot protect it from them. It really is not difficult to stay in a community being obnoxious. Most people just don't do it because who wants to be perceived as obnoxious? I guess I'm getting on to my main topic, so I'll post a new thread. Amy Z From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 23 22:41:35 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:41:35 -0000 Subject: ah, forget it In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Never mind, I've made my point. Or not. ;-) Amy Z From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 23 23:07:39 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Tom Wall) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:07:39 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Replies to both Debbie and Kelley are in this post, but I didn't categorize by author or anything, so it's all jumbled together. Er, sorry 'bout that. Kelley asked: Your post is fine, Tom; has someone accused you of doing otherwise?? I (Tom) reply: Nah, not *this* time. ;-) But I have been accused of stuff before, so I'm just covering my bases. Debbie wrote: Actually, the clause *was* in existence when you joined HPFGU. It was inadvertently deleted from the revised HBfile and then reinserted after it was noticed that it was missing (probably just after your last download), which is why members were not notified. If you look at the old version of the HBfile (which is still in the Files section of the main list here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/ ) under section 1.5, you'll find the language. So the rule has always been here in one version or another. /END QUOTE And Kelley added: Incorrect, Tom, sorry. It is *not* a new clause, and it is *not* a "very recent addition". I've also uploaded copies of the 29 May 03 HBF which is still available on the main list, titled "oldhbfile.html". These can be found in the Files section, in the Admin Files folder. Tom, blushing profusely, replies: You know, I compared three copies of the hbfile to each other (the August one, the one I got on 03-December, and the latest version), and not *once* did it cross my mind to check out the very oldest one... Since the clause wasn't in my August or December 3rd copies, I just assumed - and we all know what happens when one does that - that it was a new addition. Apologies to all for my inept research. ;-) I (Tom) wrote previously: > However, Hypothetic Alley, at least, does have direct > quotes from posts that were placed on the list. There > are quite a few quotes from members' material, > actually. Debbie replied: True, but there are no names attached, and the quotes are short and correctly attributed via links, so I think (with a HUGE disclaimer that I am not an intellectual property lawyer and do not purport to be giving legal advice) they are like any short quotation from a copyrighted work. Tom: I'm not sure that that's the case... I *think* that permission may still be needed, particularly in certain cases - like the banned member, whose work appears all over the place. I plan to bring this up in another post later on, but as I don't have all of the details at present, I'll hold off. Oh, and I'm not a lawyer either, so I can't be sure. Kelley wrote: According to main list memberships, you joined on 20 Jan 03 (happy anniversary!) Tom: Thanks! I didn't realize that it'd already come. A whole year... that's kind of weird, now that I think about it. ;-) I (Tom) wrote previously: > And at least one of the FP essays directly cites > members' real names, Yahoo ID's, and/or pseudonyms, > and makes those names - as well as the canon positions > ascribed to them - accessible to the public. Debbie responded: This is a good point. I'm currently writing an FP and have been going back and forth on whether to cite people by the names they use on the list. I think this has persuaded me to go the anonymous route, or to make sure that only first names are used, if they can be googled. It would probably be a good idea to delete any last names from the Snape update. Tom adds: Yeah, I went through the same dilemma on my FP, and came to the same conclusion, as well. Maybe we want to look into making this a policy thing, just to be safe... -Tom From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Sat Jan 24 04:06:04 2004 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:06:04 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings References: Message-ID: <00d101c3e22f$63ab0b00$3a59aacf@...> Talisman: > We are all allowed our opinion, but the ground rules printed on the > face of this site provide that: > > "Personal attacks or insulting comments about individuals or groups > will *not* be tolerated. Messages of this sort will be deleted and > may result in moderation." > > Of course, if no one enforces the rule it is meaningless. Just. My. Personal. Opinion. Not anything official. My take as a longtime reader of the list who has seen *genuine* attacks on and off list. She didn't say "All lawyers are ambulance-chasing squid," she said "there's a lot of lawyers and some are out looking for a fight." I personally didn't really take that an attack. Or insulting. It wasn't a categorical classification or statement about an entire group, it wasn't pointed--and honestly, I don't think it's untrue, either. Some of them *are,* even if most of them aren't. I know lots of lawyers, have worked for and with them, and they are people just like everybody else. Some of them have great senses of humor, some are as dry as toast, some of them are ethical, some aren't. I thought the statement that was made was an expanded version of "some of them aren't." I can understand how a lawyer might be sensitive to this issue, but I really don't think lawyers as a group have been attacked here. If you really feel offended by this, it'd be my suggestion to contact whoever posted it (I've already deleted that post, sorry) and try to get them to clarify their meaning; perhaps if they restate what they were trying to say it might lessen the perception you have? ~Amanda, stunned at the amount of email you have pending when you're too busy at work to download your home inbox for, oh, about six days From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Sat Jan 24 04:27:40 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Tom Wall) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 04:27:40 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <00d101c3e22f$63ab0b00$3a59aacf@...> Message-ID: Amanda wrote: She didn't say "All lawyers are ambulance-chasing squid," she said "there's a lot of lawyers and some are out looking for a fight." Tom here: I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that Talisman might have been referring to a post from a few weeks ago that involved a soapbox and general grumpiness which was, er, quite ostensibly of an ad hominem nature and is still present on the list. But again, I could be wrong. That wouldn't be a surprise at all. ;-) -Tom From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat Jan 24 10:18:51 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:18:51 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tom: > Nah, not *this* time. ;-) But I have been accused of stuff before, so I'm just covering my bases. >>> Well, okay, then. :-) Tom, blushing profusely, replies: > You know, I compared three copies of the hbfile to each other (the > August one, the one I got on 03-December, and the latest version), > and not *once* did it cross my mind to check out the very oldest > one... Since the clause wasn't in my August or December 3rd copies, I just assumed - and we all know what happens when one does that - that it was a new addition. > > > > Apologies to all for my inept research. ;-) >>> Ha, oh, not at all, Tom. :-) > Kelley wrote: > According to main list memberships, you joined on 20 Jan 03 (happy > anniversary!) > > Tom: > Thanks! I didn't realize that it'd already come. A whole year... > that's kind of weird, now that I think about it. ;-) >>> Time sure flies, huh? --Kelley From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Sat Jan 24 14:41:25 2004 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:41:25 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings References: <00d101c3e22f$63ab0b00$3a59aacf@...> Message-ID: <002401c3e288$2f5d9e40$4158aacf@...> Clarification of my post of yesterday--In my suggestion to Talisman about how to respond to a post she objected to, I said > If you really feel offended by this, it'd be my suggestion to contact > whoever posted it (I've already deleted that post, sorry) I just realized that could sow confusion, given that I am an admin (even though I wasn't speaking as one in this post). What I meant was, I've deleted it from my home inbox (as I was wading through days and days of posts) and couldn't easily look back to find who sent the original she was responding to. I haven't done anything to the list archive. ~Amanda From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Sat Jan 24 19:04:27 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:04:27 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amanda wrote: > She didn't say "All lawyers are ambulance-chasing squid," she > said "there's a lot of lawyers and some are out looking for a fight." Tom wrote: > I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that Talisman might have been > referring to a post from a few weeks ago that involved a soapbox and > general grumpiness which was, er, quite ostensibly of an ad hominem > nature and is still present on the list. Confused...was there an anti-lawyer post a few weeks ago? Because I missed it if so (v possible--I've missed plenty of posts here). By my reading Talisman's post was quite specifically referring to the quoted post of Dicentra's, in which (according to Talisman's reading, not according to Amanda's nor apparently to yours) she slammed lawyers as a group. If there's a post on here that you believe does that, there's no need to be cagey--the point of this list is to give opinions on list policies and the enforcement thereof, right? So just give the message number so those of us to whom the reference is not obvious can see what you mean. Thanks, Amy Z From erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid Sun Jan 25 03:29:07 2004 From: erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid (erinellii) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:29:07 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > (Tom) wrote previously: > > However, Hypothetic Alley, at least, does have direct > > quotes from posts that were placed on the list. There > > are quite a few quotes from members' material, > > actually. > > Debbie replied: > there are no names attached, and the quotes are short and > correctly attributed via links, so I think (with a HUGE disclaimer > that I am not an intellectual property lawyer and do not purport to > be giving legal advice) they are like any short quotation from a > copyrighted work. > > Tom: > I'm not sure that that's the case... I *think* that permission may > still be needed, particularly in certain cases - like the banned > member, whose work appears all over the place. I plan to bring this > up in another post later on, but as I don't have all of the details > at present, I'll hold off. Oh, and I'm not a lawyer either, so I > can't be sure. Erin says: I'm sure that permission was given at that time; she and the people most frequently quoted in Hypothetic alley at present are the ones who actually wrote it! Erin From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Sun Jan 25 04:46:33 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:46:33 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3e2fe$38a0d1e0$18667144@Einstein> > > Tom: > > I'm not sure that that's the case... I *think* that permission may > > still be needed, particularly in certain cases - like the banned > > member, whose work appears all over the place. I plan to bring this > > up in another post later on, but as I don't have all of the details > > at present, I'll hold off. Oh, and I'm not a lawyer either, so I > > can't be sure. > > > Erin says: > > I'm sure that permission was given at that time; she and the people > most frequently quoted in Hypothetic alley at present are the ones > who actually wrote it! > > Erin > Iggy here: A few points I'd like to make. 1: If you write an article *for* an organization, and at their request (or volunteer to do so), then you are giving them full rights to the material. In other words, if someone like Cindy (to pick a random example of someone I know has left the list) wrote something for Fantastic Posts, rather than simply posting a letter or writing there, then she has transferred rights for the material to them. It's similar to a commissioned work, paid or not. This is similar to someone writing a screenplay that's bought by Warner Brothers. If you sell the script outright, then you lose all say in it from there on out. This also applies to a screenplay you write for free because they asked you to. 2: On the other hand, if you simply post something to a list, like most of our posts, then you are merely lending the rights to the group, and still retain full ownership. To give an example - My lengthy post I did a while back on the nature of prejudice. People on the list can quote me all they want, since I have lent the rights to the list and the Admin of said list. However, as I retain full ownership over that writing, I can revoke the lending of those rights at any time, and the quotes based from it would have to be pulled from any official documents within a reasonable time frame. (72 hours is usually the rule of thumb for on-line publication. For print material, it must be pulled in the next edition... with a minimum leeway time if the next edition is in print process and shipping.) If the material from that "banned member" is all over the place, then the question is which of those two categories *each* quote falls under. Anything under level 2, and they can still request the quoted material to be pulled, giving a reasonable deadline. If it's under level 1, then they're out of luck, since they're not the ones who own the rights anymore. The tricky part, though, is that if the quoted material is based on "common knowledge" or "common intellectual property", then all the admin would need to do is remove the direct quotes, and would be in full rights to paraphrase. If the material is based on things discussed on the lists, and aren't purely an original theory or idea, then it's "common intellectual property." Here's the other fun part: If the quotes are derived from the HP series of books themselves, then they are considered common property until JRK herself revokes the rights.... and I don't think she will. So, in summary, I can almost guarantee that the most that the admin would need to do to deal with the quoted material from the "banned member" is to simply paraphrase and remove the actual quote itself. Unless, of course, that "banned member" can *prove* that their idea was a completely original one. (In which case, they would also have to go through every single post on all the HP based lists, and web sites, and newsgroups... and prove that they came up with it before anyone else.) I'd also like to point out that they can only pull the quotes from the official documents. If they want any quotes pulled from posts by list members, then they will have to locate each and every post, and appeal to each list member that quoted them... All in all, a lot more work than it's worth at this time... especially when you take into consideration that, in working with copyright law, you would have to initiate legal action against the offending publications or individuals, and also reveal each and every instance in which you were quoted. This also would leave that "banned member" open to countersuit on a number of different counts... not the least of which would be harassment... And they would be legally required to give their real identity, as trying to file a lawsuit under an alias is not only illegal, but would get you laughed out of a lawyer's office for even asking them. It should also be pointed out that ISPs also keep records of what account links up to them... even when checking something like a Hotmail account. So, let's say the "banned member" has logged onto a poll, for example, under 20 different fake e-mails, then if legal action is filed against the HPfGU groups, then the admin would be able to have the courts subpoena all related documentation relating to the 20 e-mail accounts that were used to mess up a poll... this would be linked to Hotmail, for example, who would then track down the ISP account used to access the web site and create those accounts, and then the lawyers go to that ISP and track down the individual's account information. Then, not only can the HPfGU admin countersuit the individual(s), but Yahoo and Hotmail would be able to sue the person for using their services to not only misrepresent themselves (especially over state lines, a federal offense) but also for harassing one of their clients. So, unless these people care for a lot of work and (if they haven't conducted themselves honorably and legally with the group admin) possible legal counter action, then they would be well advised to drop the issue, as it would be in their best interests. (Not to mention in the best interests of their supporters.) I, for example, as one who has always conducted myself fairly with the groups, along with many other members out there who have done the same, could probably work something out to have quotes of ours removed from official posts if we saw the need to. On the other hand, if someone else has not conducted themselves fairly with the list and its admin, then they're probably outta luck. For one thing, the honorable ones can request compliance with removal of quotes and have the request filled out of respect. If you don't act honorably with the group, then you won't get the respect that will lead to the fulfillment of your requests. That's just a bit of advice from a fellow list member... (Who has also had discussions at length with professional writers from many different fields about "intellectual property rights.") Iggy McSnurd From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Sun Jan 25 15:50:13 2004 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:50:13 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: <000201c3e2fe$38a0d1e0$18667144@Einstein> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Iggy McSnurd" wrote: > > > That's just a bit of advice from a fellow list member... Talisman responds: I realize some people may take this as a "threat," and break out their cyber pitch-forks and torchs, but they could also take it as VERY friendly, as if someone stopped them from running headlong over a cliff by pointing out the existance of the abyss. I am not acting as anyone's attorney, nor do I intend to give anyone legal advice, nor create any legal relationships. But I will share some information, which you can verify yourselves or discuss with an attorney of your choosing, should it interest you to do so. Everyone who posts on HPfGU joined a members only literary discussion group. This, in my personal opinion, is strong evidence of members' intent at the time, regarding where their work would be published. If some members now want to post in a non-member forum, I reiterate my belief that they need to establish a seperate forum--either to conserve extant posts, or to go forward on a different basis. There are many considerations that come into play when a court determines whether an implied non-exclusive license has been granted, and if so, what the limits of that license are. In the U.S., at least, what the putative licensor was actually aware of, intended to grant and received in return for any rights granted are some considerations. Personally, I think it would be quite strange for any trier to find that, in exchange for being allowed to post in a members only environment, the poster was granting the right to be re-posted in non-member environments. The entire "benefit" to the poster being the particular members only environment. Whatever language may have been nestled, intermittently, in the self- named humungous big file, would likely be considered "belt and suspenders" for the idea that, if you posted to HPfGU, meaning the group substantially as you joined it, you should expect to see your work published there. Posting work to the site is an act of trust that your work will be used for the purposes intended and not mistreated. As long as the administrators continue to administrate the list substantially as it existed when people joined, things are likely to hum along smoothly. But if anyone, admin or otherwise, begins to view the extant posts as a resourse for various projects or wants to substantially change the nature of the group, again, I say they are heading toward an abyss. Let's re-explore copy right issues. It is safe to assume that members of the list, Admin and posters alike, are citizens of countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention. Certainly those in 154 countries, including the U.S., U.K., Norway, Germany, Poland, Fiji, Togo, the Holy See and Liechtenstein, are. Under the Berne Convention, each citizen is accorded the rights of the copy right laws of his or her own country. Just think about it. As I recall, in the U.S., there is no statute of limitations for prosecution of copy right infringement. That's enough to keep you up at night. I'm not saying that the Admin aren't delightful folks, but in the time I've been a member, I've seen evidence of more than one scuffle. One guy even has a web site detailing how he feels he was mistreated. Only a small percentage of members participate in Feed Back, but within that small group you've heard from a number of people who don't want the changes to occur as proposed. Apply that percentage to the list and you've got a lot of potential trouble. Forget the lawsuits, enough threat letters from attorneys and the site would likely be deleted. Authority always comes with responsibility. I can understand the impulse to creativity, but when you reach for the work of 11300 odd people as your resource, an abundance of caution is a virtue. Do you want to create a book? Set up a sister "book project" site and let posters donate their own work, if they will. Do you want to make posts non-member? Split off and leave those who don't want to go, behind. It's just so much better to ask, than to force. Just my obnoxious thoughts, Talisman From arrowsmithbt at arrowsmithbt.yahoo.invalid Sun Jan 25 19:33:03 2004 From: arrowsmithbt at arrowsmithbt.yahoo.invalid (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:33:03 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings Message-ID: Not really up to speed with this thread, Feedback isn't my preferred environment. As I understand it, ADMIN want an expanded come-on to catch the eye of potential members and there is a possibility of some sort of omnibus publication - have I got that right? And some are warning about copyright complications. OK. Off-the-cuff suggestion - it's probably already been considered, but... How big would this 'book' be? 2-400 pages maybe? Involving how many posts and posters? Say 3-500 posts and 100-150 posters (if that, the best posts seem to come from a smallish group of members IMO). Select your posts (with a few in reserve, just in case) and get permission from the chosen authors to publish those *specific* posts. Use a selection of the same posts for the come-on. Expand as time or necessity may dictate. Even if the 'book' never happens (and I have doubts about publishers being interested, myself), you'll still have permission for posting some of the better ones in the public domain. Is this feasible and do you think it would be acceptable? Kneasy From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 26 00:14:49 2004 From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:14:49 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > Select your posts (with a few in reserve, just in case) and get permission from the chosen authors to publish those *specific* posts. Use a selection of the same posts for the come-on. Expand as time or necessity may dictate. Even if the 'book' never > happens (and I have doubts about publishers being interested, myself), you'll still have permission for posting some of the better ones in the public domain. > > Is this feasible and do you think it would be acceptable? > > Kneasy Talisman: That strikes me as a very laudable idea, Kneasy. I don't see how anyone could complain about that. From carolynwhite2 at a_reader2003.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 26 15:51:44 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at a_reader2003.yahoo.invalid (a_reader2003) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:51:44 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > > Not really up to speed with this thread, Feedback isn't my preferred environment. > OK. Off-the-cuff suggestion - it's probably already been considered, but... > How big would this 'book' be? 2-400 pages maybe? Involving how many posts and > posters? Say 3-500 posts and 100-150 posters (if that, the best posts seem to come > from a smallish group of members IMO). > > Select your posts (with a few in reserve, just in case) and get permission from the > chosen authors to publish those *specific* posts. Use a selection of the same posts > for the come-on. Expand as time or necessity may dictate. Even if the 'book' never > happens (and I have doubts about publishers being interested, myself), you'll still > have permission for posting some of the better ones in the public domain. > > Is this feasible and do you think it would be acceptable? > > Kneasy Carolyn: I think a selection of posts, put up with the permission of their authors, is the only way forward, although it is still problematic in that some of the good posts may contain references to, or quotes from, other posts/themes which for various reasons, their authors don't want to see used. I guess some judicious editing would be required to get round this, hopefully with the active participation/permission of the authors of the posts you do want to use (many of whom are still active on the list). It would mean some amusing posts and ideas got left out of the discussion, but that can't be helped. As for the book idea containing hundreds of posts (see post 11, second part - if that's what you are referring to), I'd personally given up on it as a project. It couldn't work without a lot of hard work and goodwill. From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 26 20:09:41 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:09:41 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: arrowsmithbt wrote: > As I understand it, ADMIN want an expanded come-on to catch the eye of potential > members and there is a possibility of some sort of omnibus publication - have I got > that right? No, I don't think so. This thread isn't about book publication and I'm not sure who introduced that idea. A_areader suggested it back in message 11, and Talisman has just talked about the copyright issues involved in publishing a book, but has anyone from the admin actually suggested such a thing? Not that I recall. I certainly would be stunned if the Admin want to catch the eye of potential members. Yikes. Low membership is NOT a problem around here. Admin, can you speak to this? Anyway. The issue was about whether to make public the archives of a list that has been open to members only. While it is so easy to join HPfGU that the difference may seem much of a muchness, there is an important distinction: one cannot find information contained in members-only archives from an external Google search. I, for one, would strongly object to something I had said in a conversation, even a conversation among thousands, being opened up to anyone who might Google "Amy Z" to see where I've been. (And let's be serious--the vast majority of our members are not active, and heaven knows how many don't ever check the website nor even remember that they belong to a group called HPfGU, so the rhetoric of "you've already said this to a roomful of 11,000 people!" doesn't cut much ice. Also, since I joined just before the begining of 2001 and posted most actively during that year, many of my comments were made to a group that was much, much smaller. However, I don't think size is really the issue. There is a difference between a community of HP fans [or those looking in on them to see what they're talking about, *cough*Abanes*cough*] and the whole world wide web.) Tom also raised the question of the FAQs/Fantastic Posts (or perhaps someone else raised it and Tom commented on it). It is true: that compilation takes quotes from a members-only site and puts it on a public site. Even if the existence of the FAQs and the way they were to be structured was publicized very thoroughly on HPfGU (I know the former was and I'm pretty sure the latter was), that does raise a question in my mind about whether we should in fact have the Fantastic Posts be public. After all, they could and probably do quote people who weren't around on HPfGU anymore when they were created, so that those people didn't have an opportunity to object. OTOH, perhaps it has been clear in the admin files from the beginning that one's posts might be quoted in a more public forum--in which case all of this is moot. If I posted to the list without paying sufficient attention to the possibility that I might one day be cited in a more public forum, then that is my responsibility. Amy Z From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 26 20:34:35 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Tom Wall) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:34:35 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Amy Z wrote: If there's a post on here that you believe does that, there's no need to be cagey--the point of this list is to give opinions on list policies and the enforcement thereof, right? So just give the message number so those of us to whom the reference is not obvious can see what you mean. Tom replies: Well... I agree with your stance on this, but the Feedback rules also specifically mention that there are to be no criticisms or attacks of other members on this list. So, naturally, I tried to point y'all in the right direction without risking violation of the rules and a subsequent ban from Feedback. Besides, I'm fairly surprised that it was allowed to remain at *all,* since, er, I'm aware that there were off-list consequences for the post anyways. I actually just realized the other day that it was still up. So, since you brought it up, it's message 277. Thanks for asking for a direct response. ;-) I nearly always prefer directness to roundabout discussions. But still, one can never be sure. -Tom From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Mon Jan 26 21:55:16 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:55:16 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c3e457$195ae1e0$18667144@Einstein> > > Tom replies: > Well... I agree with your stance on this, but the Feedback rules also > specifically mention that there are to be no criticisms or attacks of > other members on this list. So, naturally, I tried to point y'all in > the right direction without risking violation of the rules and a > subsequent ban from Feedback. Iggy here: Tom, with all due respect, I think that we're all intelligent enough to understand when something is meant as an attack, and criticisms (if presented politely and diplomatically) are usually accepted as well intended. (Trust me, I've had to take a diplomatic approach in critique a few times on here. It's simply pointing out inconsistencies, errors, or other mistakes or contrary opinions in a respectful manner.) While the admin of the list has had to make their authority known on occasion and has had to flex their collective muscles, they are by no means tyrants. If I said something to the effect of: "We have had some interesting situations arise on the lists since I have joined. The controversy around Cindy comes most easily to mind as an example," then I don't think they'll see that as breaking the rules. On the other hand, if I said something like (and this is picking a name out of my head.. I apologize if it IS someone's alias, as any link is unintentional): "You know, Benny is a complete moron. He loved to stir things up, take revenge when he was disciplined, backstab anyone who disagreed with him, was completely two-faced, and tried to completely *&@# over the list after he left," then I think everyone would agree that what I had said would be a breach of the rules. The main objective of the Feedback list (and the admin will correct me on here if I'm wrong) is to give people more latitude to express their opinions about the list and how it's run, compared to the stricter guidelines on the main lists. So long as you are diplomatic and respectful, then be direct. If you have to name names specifically to make sure what you are saying is made clear, then do so. Just be respectful about it... even if you disagree with them. You can criticize me, for example, on here if you wish, and I won't have a problem with it... so long as you respect me, my views, and my feelings even as you are disagreeing with me. If you want an example of how I have done something like this in the past, just look at my post where I pointed out some inconsistencies that I saw with Cindy's post on the main list... (or was it on OTC?)... anyhow... I don't quite have the post number (and don't have a clue on how to find it) but I'm sure it'll be easy enough to track down. > Tom: > > Besides, I'm fairly surprised that it was allowed to remain at *all,* > since, er, I'm aware that there were off-list consequences for the > post anyways. I actually just realized the other day that it was > still up. > > So, since you brought it up, it's message 277. Iggy here: Is this the post you were surprised still remains? > > Thanks for asking for a direct response. ;-) I nearly always prefer > directness to roundabout discussions. But still, one can never be > sure. > > -Tom Iggy here: As I stated earlier... Rule #1 - Be respectful Rule #2 - Be direct Rule #3 - If you can't do both, then follow Rule #1 Rule #4 - If you can't abide by Rule #1, don't say it. (And that's not just directed at you, Tom... that's for everyone, even me. *grin* And trust me, Rule #4 has zipped my lip more than you can imagine at times.) Iggy McSnurd From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Tue Jan 27 10:02:25 2004 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:02:25 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Decision on opening the Main List Archives Message-ID: Thanks for all your input. It's been very useful to hear the perspectives of other list members. As well as giving us a lot of new information about copyright issues ;-) you've confirmed some of the misgivings we expressed in our original Admin. The tenor of Feedback has been overwhelmingly against opening existing archives to general view. Whilst Feedback is a small section of the whole membership, we suspect that you are probably pretty representative of the membership on this. We've therefore decided against opening the existing archives. Pippy Elf for the Administration Team From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 00:50:57 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Tom Wall) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:50:57 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: <000401c3e457$195ae1e0$18667144@Einstein> Message-ID: Iggy wrote: Tom, with all due respect, I think that we're all intelligent enough to understand when something is meant as an attack, and criticisms (if presented politely and diplomatically) are usually accepted as well intended. Tom: Oh, Iggy, I'm not talking about anyone's *intelligence.* Not at all. I'm talking about the way decisions are occasionally made according to the Admin team's *personal feelings.* I have no doubt that we're all intelligent people. But intelligence and emotional control aren't the same thing at all. Just ask them about what happened in April, or what happened on FAQ. Or about the way that at least three elves have abruptly cut off personal communication with me without any attempt at explanation. One of these elves actually *invited* me to throw some vitriol her way. I write back in good faith, and get stone-cold silence in response. Why do you think I'm starting to pipe up here after weeks of silence? The fact of the matter is that some people just let personal feelings get in the way of Admin business. Some people think that criticisms of the Admin team - or pet theories - are the same thing as criticisms of *them.* It's happened before, and it's happening at present. But you wouldn't necessarily see that, so I'll cut you some slack on this count. (On that note, I'm still waiting for those responses, guys... you know who you are.) This is the reason I've been prefacing my statements lately... I want it made publicly clear that I'm following the rules to the letter. Like I said before, you can never be too careful. Iggy wrote: While the admin of the list has had to make their authority known on occasion and has had to flex their collective muscles, they are by no means tyrants. Tom, laughing: Iggy, my man, keep it up! You are well on your way to being invited onto the Admin team... comments like this have a long history of getting people in. And criticism has a long history of keeping people off. Just ask some of them. ;-) Or. Even better, why don't you ask some of the ex-FAQ-members who are still lurking around here; they can relate to the Admin-related debacles that took place over there a few months ago. Frankly, I'd bet that the lurking members could cite even better examples than I can; unlike me, however, they probably won't talk about it on-list. Rest assured, history demonstrates that the members of the Admin team don't behave the same way on the support lists as it tries to on the public ones, for starters. You'd probably be surprised at some of the bombs that get levied behind the scenes. Really surprised. Iggy wrote: On the other hand, if I said something like (and this is picking a name out of my head.. I apologize if it IS someone's alias, as any link is unintentional): "You know, Benny is a complete moron. He loved to stir things up, take revenge when he was disciplined, backstab anyone who disagreed with him, was completely two-faced, and tried to completely *&@# over the list after he left," then I think everyone would agree that what I had said would be a breach of the rules. Tom, quoting message 277, replies: "Considering that your post consists of the same old prententious, elitist, self-centered blather you always spew, I find that hard to believe." And also: "But I hate the way you prance onto center stage once in a blue moon, make your divisive, ill-tempered little pronouncements, and then flounce back into your dressing room." Tom again: Iggy, I feel like we're very much on the same page here, sans the cleverly referenced vulgarism. This post (#277), which strikes me as very much in line with the tenor of your hypothetical example, should have been deleted according to the Admin team's rules. It should have been deleted because it's a direct and personal assault on another member. Now, whether or not that other member might be pretentious, and whether or not she included veiled assaults on elder members who aren't around to defend themselves is off the point. That other member didn't allow her onlist behavior to devolve. And the author of post #277 did. Not to mention that the author of post number #277 is actually *on* the Admin team. But that's not a total surprise. I could also cite about ten cases off the top of my head in which the Admin team has afforded leeway to their own members when the rules were violated. I even suppose that doing that publicly on Feedback would be allowed, as long as I had a pleasant tone. Hey ? when you're the ones enforcing the rules, it's easier to cut your buds some slack. I understand how that works. Believe me. Iggy: You can criticize me, for example, on here if you wish, and I won't have a problem with it... so long as you respect me, my views, and my feelings even as you are disagreeing with me. Tom: Thanks for the permission; I'll be sure to do that. ;-) -Tom From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 04:19:40 2004 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:19:40 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) References: Message-ID: <001a01c3e555$f3bdf800$9a5baacf@...> Drive-by because a couple things in Tom's post caught my eye, and Tom's are some of the few I make time to read these days. [Apologies, I don't have any idea what happened to my in-line carets for quoted material, and I don't have time to go in adding them.] I am speaking as Amanda only and not in any official capacity. Contents may settle in shipping. Your mileage may vary. Toy not shown to scale. Tom: Or about the way that at least three elves have abruptly cut off personal communication with me without any attempt at explanation. One of these elves actually *invited* me to throw some vitriol her way. I write back in good faith, and get stone-cold silence in response. Why do you think I'm starting to pipe up here after weeks of silence? (On that note, I'm still waiting for those responses, guys... you know who you are.) Amanda: Oh, no, am I one of them? I've had some amazing real life difficulties lately; we had an injury in November and a sudden resignation in December and the team I work on is now at half-staff. It just seems to get worse and worse. I've been working 11-hour days and doing laundry at 1 a.m. I'm sorry if I'm one of your Bad Elves (Bad Geists? isn't that an oxymoron?), I haven't been keeping up with *anything,* including my family. Know any editors in the San Antonio area, anyone? I have a good lead on a job... Tom, laughing: Iggy, my man, keep it up! You are well on your way to being invited onto the Admin team... comments like this have a long history of getting people in. And criticism has a long history of keeping people off. Just ask some of them. ;-) Amanda: Nah. He'd lose his ability to speak freely; the admin team must always consider the worry of being misrepresented or misunderstood, either by accident or design. Whether we state in big clear terms: "just my personal opinion, unofficial" or not. And I don't think the team's in the market just now anyway. Tom: Rest assured, history demonstrates that the members of the Admin team don't behave the same way on the support lists as it tries to on the public ones, for starters. You'd probably be surprised at some of the bombs that get levied behind the scenes. Really surprised. Amanda: I'm sorry, I really can't resist when a superb writer makes a slip. It's like catching a LOON in a canon mistake. Bombs aren't levied. Bombs are lobbed (thrown). Taxes are levied. Tom: Not to mention that the author of post number #277 is actually *on* the Admin team. Amanda: No she's not. That was Joywitch, she hasn't been on the admin team since about July 2003. Iggy: You can criticize me, for example, on here if you wish, and I won't have a problem with it... so long as you respect me, my views, and my feelings even as you are disagreeing with me. Tom: Thanks for the permission; I'll be sure to do that. ;-) Amanda: I second that; I've taken worse on and offlist. Sorry for lack of substance, but I'm in a hurry, I just wanted to apologize if I were one of the people who you feel cut you off, and to clarify about Joywitch. And be an editor, I can't help it, it's a curse. ~Amanda (who was *teasing* Tom, who *likes* Tom, who hopes Tom doesn't take offense at the "levied" thing because honestly none was intended, my God, I'm getting so goosy about these things) From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 07:15:38 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:15:38 -0600 Subject: RE-SEND - - RE: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks In-Reply-To: <001a01c3e555$f3bdf800$9a5baacf@...> Message-ID: <000401c3e56e$8b4453a0$18667144@Einstein> > Iggy wrote: Iggy here: I apologize if this comes through twice. I am resending it because 45 minutes after the first send, it still hasn't hit the list. So I'm trying again. > Iggy: > > Tom, with all due respect, I think that we're all intelligent enough > to understand when something is meant as an attack, and criticisms (if > presented politely and diplomatically) are usually accepted as well > intended. > > Tom: > Oh, Iggy, I'm not talking about anyone's *intelligence.* Not at all. > > I'm talking about the way decisions are occasionally made according to > the Admin team's *personal feelings.* I have no doubt that we're all > intelligent people. But intelligence and emotional control aren't the > same thing at all. Just ask them about what happened in April, or what > happened on FAQ. Iggy here: Ok, why don't we agree on two things here. 1: Intelligence doesn't always guarantee objectivity. Trust me, I know quite a few people (doctors, scientists, engineers, lawyers) who are very intelligent, but can't keep their emotions from altering their perceptions and decisions. 2: Nobody has the ability to remain objective all the time. It's human nature, at times, to skew things in their own favor (even if it's in their own mind) in order to feel that the decisions they are making are right. The best we can do is attempt to make the right decisions with what we know, and how we feel. > Tom: > > Or about the way that at least three elves have abruptly cut off > personal communication with me without any attempt at explanation. One > of these elves actually *invited* me to throw some vitriol her way. I > write back in good faith, and get stone-cold silence in response. Why > do you think I'm starting to pipe up here after weeks of silence? Iggy here: I don't know why you're piping back up, since I am unaware of what you said in your letters, or what they said in their original e-mails. All I know about your motivations are what I read in your letters, both I the words and the tone. > Tom: > > The fact of the matter is that some people just let personal feelings > get in the way of Admin business. Some people think that criticisms of > the Admin team - or pet theories - are the same thing as criticisms of > *them.* It's happened before, and it's happening at present. But you > wouldn't necessarily see that, so I'll cut you some slack on this > count. Iggy here: I most humbly thank you for cutting me slack in my perceived ignorance. Why don't we do this to correct some of this situation, and enlighten everyone who might not know what you are referring to: In your reply to this post, inform us as to exactly what you know about the Admin team decisions you are referring to, and how you see them happening again. Feel free to inform me as to what happened on the FAQ list, and what happened last April. I'm sure that, since a member of this list is specifically requesting illumination, that they will not have any serious enough objections. Then, perhaps the Admins (and former Admins) you are referring to can reply and we can make sure that everyone involved in this discussion knows where everyone stands and why. I would also like to point out that everyone has their own side of the story, and their own pet theories that they try to prove... even if it's something that they don't realize one. It's how one's perception of situations tend to work. If they have a feeling or perception that they wish to prove is right, on either side of an equation, then that's one of their pet theories... especially if they feel strongly about it. We all have them. > Tom: > > This is the reason I've been prefacing my statements lately... I want > it made publicly clear that I'm following the rules to the letter. > Like I said before, you can never be too careful. > Iggy here: To be honest, and I'm not saying that it applies here (but it's something to think about), prefacing or post-commenting on posts doesn't always make things ok or in the clear. I am currently in a situation where a teacher in my on-line schooling tried to politely preface discriminatory statements against me. He's currently under review and will most likely lose his job. (No, it's not simply because he said something I didn't like... He actually expressed a personal bias and discrimination against a learning disability I have... which not only breaks a federal law, but also pretty much shows that the man should not be teaching.) The best you can do is don't worry about the preface, be more concerned with what you actually say and how you say it. Also, it's not always the letter of the law that's important... the spirit of it is also something to always keep in mind. If the intent is to keep things respectful, it's more important to have that understood than listing each and every things that can and can't be done. > > Iggy wrote: > While the admin of the list has had to make their authority known on > occasion and has had to flex their collective muscles, they are by no > means tyrants. > > Tom, laughing: > Iggy, my man, keep it up! You are well on your way to being invited > onto the Admin team... comments like this have a long history of > getting people in. And criticism has a long history of keeping people > off. Just ask some of them. ;-) Iggy here: I've already been an Admin on MUDs, lists, groups, and run RPGs... I know what it entails, and I'm not interested in getting involved in it right now. Besides, I have too many of my own opinions and can be just as bull-headed as anyone else. I'd rather not have to fight over how to run a place like this, since I'd stop liking being here if it became a struggle. I'm satisfied enough with how the lists are being run, even if I might not agree with everything. I am also one of those people who's self aware enough to know what happens to me and my personality sometimes when I am placed in a position of power or authority. Usually I'm a good and objective guy, but on some occasions, I've wanted too much autonomy or control... and that doesn't work in an Admin group. > Tom: > > Or. Even better, why don't you ask some of the ex-FAQ-members who are > still lurking around here; they can relate to the Admin-related > debacles that took place over there a few months ago. Frankly, I'd bet > that the lurking members could cite even better examples than I can; > unlike me, however, they probably won't talk about it on-list. Iggy here: *shrug* Like I said before, I'm all ears. They can feel free to tell me their side of it, and the admin can tell me theirs as well. I'll just state in advance a few things: 1 - I quite often am more aware of many things than people often think. (Usually this is because I have some skill at not only reading what people are saying, but how they're saying it, or even what they aren't saying.) 2 - I am open to hear what people say, and for them to relate their side of the story, but I'm not going to get involved in politics. Don't like them, won't play them, just give the facts as you see them and let me make my own decisions. That goes for both sides. > Tom: > > Rest assured, history demonstrates that the members of the Admin team > don't behave the same way on the support lists as it tries to on the > public ones, for starters. You'd probably be surprised at some of the > bombs that get levied behind the scenes. Really surprised. Iggy here: Tom, to be quite honest, I hear you alluding to many instances that have happened, to events happening in a certain way, and telling me to trust you... but you're not giving me any information or examples... If you wish for me to "rest assured," then you need to do more than just hint at things. History doesn't demonstrate squat to me if I don't know the history. I, unlike most people, want as much information as I can gather before I make a decision. Allusions, fourth party information, rumor, conjecture, and hints don't work for me. I approach things like this as a judge: Objective, direct, and as well informed as possible. > > > Iggy wrote: > On the other hand, if I said something like (and this is picking a > name out of my head.. I apologize if it IS someone's alias, as any > link is unintentional): "You know, Benny is a complete moron. He loved > to stir things up, take revenge when he was disciplined, backstab > anyone who disagreed with him, was completely two-faced, and tried to > completely *&@# over the list after he left," then I think everyone > would agree that what I had said would be a breach of the rules. > > Tom, quoting message 277, replies: > "Considering that your post consists of the same old prententious, > elitist, self-centered blather you always spew, I find that hard to > believe." > > And also: > > "But I hate the way you prance onto center stage once in a blue moon, > make your divisive, ill-tempered little pronouncements, and then > flounce back into your dressing room." Iggy here: *nod* I have actually received posts like this, both on this list and others. While I don't expect the offending posts to be removed, subsequent posts in the same thread will show that people stepped in and reprimanded the offending parties. I have also been informed on some occasions that the person making the offensive remarks had been dealt with off list as well. > > Tom again: > Iggy, I feel like we're very much on the same page here, sans the > cleverly referenced vulgarism. This post (#277), which strikes me as > very much in line with the tenor of your hypothetical example, should > have been deleted according to the Admin team's rules. > > It should have been deleted because it's a direct and personal assault > on another member. Now, whether or not that other member might be > pretentious, and whether or not she included veiled assaults on elder > members who aren't around to defend themselves is off the point. Iggy here: Like I said, I don't expect the posts to be deleted, but I expect the posters to be reprimanded as appropriate. If you delete the posts, then you'd have to delete all posts that refer to it directly, not to mention possibly having to delete the rest of the thread. This would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention an unreasonable thing to expect, IMHO. Also, if you require the Admin to remove these (and consequently, all related posts) you will have an even greater cry of censorship and accusations of the Admin as tyrants than some might think they are guilty of now. IIRC, the rules state that usage of inappropriate language and disrespect of others will result in reprimands, possible howlers, potential re-moderation, and ultimately banning. I saw nothing that stated that one's posts would be required to be deleted. (You or the Admin can feel free to cite passage and edition of the rules if I am wrong here.) After I posted the WARP from the Breakfast Club (which contained a good amount of swearing), I was reprimanded and issued an apology to the group for my oversight. To my knowledge, however, the post itself has not been removed. (Of course, since it's a stand-alone post and the only reply was from me as the apology, then if those two posts had been removed, I would understand.) As to the issue of "being around to defend themselves," I don't worry about that too much. I have seen some rather disrespectful posts aimed directly at me, and I have also seen others step up to my defense before I even got a chance to read the original post against me. If you've made friends on these lists, you will know it by how they some to your support in whatever comes along. > Tom: > > That other member didn't allow her onlist behavior to devolve. And the > author of post #277 did. > > Not to mention that the author of post number #277 is actually *on* > the Admin team. But that's not a total surprise. I could also cite > about ten cases off the top of my head in which the Admin team has > afforded leeway to their own members when the rules were violated. I > even suppose that doing that publicly on Feedback would be allowed, as > long as I had a pleasant tone. Iggy here: Hmmmm... If my information is correct, the Admin who wrote that post was Joywitch, and she hasn't been on the team since they stepped down about 6 or more months ago. When the post was written, she wasn't an Admin. I would also humbly suggest that you also re-read the post, as it was a reply to Gwen that was made (at least, as far as I can see) in the same manner as Gwen's original post. I will concede that Joywitch could have phrased things differently, but the same could be said about Gwen's original post. A couple of examples from her post: > Okay, so on the subjects of TBAY, FILK, and similar things. > > First off, those folks who are on the Admin Team (whatever the heck > you call it now): another quote: > What am I saying here? I'm saying that TBAY was preserved because > moderators on the mod team wanted it to stick around, and because > they defended it maniacally, almost to the point of hysteria, when it > was attacked. A third quote: > You might think that all this is leading up to another diatribe on > why filk shouldn't be allowed. Wrong. I detest HP filk because so > much of it, forgive me Caius, absolutely stinks. And a final example: > Most people cannot write anything worth the cyberspace it's published > in. All of these are excerpts from Gwen's post that fit right along with your complaints about Joywitch's post, and are included in the now infamous Post #277. Do you wish Gwen's original post removed as well? A good piece of advice, if I may, would be to present the information in a complete manner, rather than selected snippets. If you wish to convince people that your cause is in the right, or that your point is correct, making sure that people are fully informed as to the situation will aid your cause more than it would hurt it. For one, it would show that you are paying attention to all of the facts, and that you also are not trying to sway the audience simply by omission of information to show yourself in a slanted light. Benefit of the doubt, however, will consider that this is merely an oversight on your part. It's always best to do as much research as possible and double check your post to avoid such oversights. > Tom: > > Hey - when you're the ones enforcing the rules, it's easier to cut > your buds some slack. I understand how that works. Believe me. Iggy here: Yes, that unfortunately happens at times, and cannot always be avoided. I would also like to point out that any of us would be guilty of such a bias on occasion in the same position, whether intended or not. Me, you, the list elves, Cindy, Gwen, Joywitch. It's human nature and, unfortunately, unavoidable. The best we can do is strive to be objective and see things in a clear light, unclouded by our emotions when neutrality is called for. But, you also need to realize that the authority of being an Admin is not without it's price. The main thing is blame and accusation when something doesn't go the way a non-Admin (or, a fellow Admin at times) wants it to go. No matter what decision you make, someone's going to get their feelings hurt, be disappointed, take it personally, and blame you for their woes. Believe me, as a former admin in many other situations, I know this routine all too well. This can lead to festering resentment, backbiting, dissention, and any other number of problems that can overtly or covertly cause difficulty for the group... > > > Iggy: > You can criticize me, for example, on here if you wish, and I won't > have a problem with it... so long as you respect me, my views, and my > feelings even as you are disagreeing with me. > > Tom: > Thanks for the permission; I'll be sure to do that. ;-) > > -Tom > Iggy here: So long as you can take as well as you give, then we won't have a problem. *grin* Iggy McSnurd From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 07:59:48 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:59:48 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tom wrote [brackets added by Amy Z for clarification]: > That other member [Gwen] didn't allow her onlist behavior to devolve. And > the author of post #277 [Joywitch] did. Well, Joywitch's was a stupendous case of devolution, that's for sure, but Gwen's (#251) was not up to a very high standard of evolution. IMO, her tone throughout was very snide, and this passage in particular was extremely rude: "I'm saying that TBAY was preserved because moderators on the mod team wanted it to stick around, and because they defended it maniacally, almost to the point of hysteria, when it was attacked. It seemed to me that the more logical our arguments against it became, in fact, the more emphatically those moderators insisted that TBAY was the be-all and end-all of posting." One can disagree on what transpired in that first heated conversation on the Admin list (I was there and view it quite differently than Gwen does), but to refer to one's opponents in an argument as maniacal and almost hysterical is an ad hominem attack. And characterizing them as taking an extreme position such as "insist[ing] that TBAY was the be-all and end-all of posting" is a classic straw-man setup: make your opponents sound like foaming-at-the-mouth maniacs, when in fact most of them, most of the time, are simply arguing that the posting style in question is legitimate and enjoyable. Not the standard of debate I would hope for here, any more than I wanted it to be on the Admin list when I was there. FWIW, I think both posts 251 and 277 should've resulted in Howlers at least (though Gwen and Joywitch are both notoriously impervious to them). I am loath to see any post deleted unless it's really necessary--just my packrat's desire to hang onto every scrap of history--but if Gwen wishes for 277 to be deleted because it is embarrassing to her, or any of the people attacked by Gwen in 251 wish for it to be deleted because it is embarrassing to them, I hope the Admin team would seriously consider removing these posts, since both are (again IMO) over the line. Those of us who want to keep one or both for framing, therefore, might want to act quickly. Oh, and thanks for clarifying which post you were referring to, Tom. I thought #277 must've been the one . . . it was rather, ah, memorable. I still don't get the connection to Talisman's post, which, again, was in defense of that much-maligned class of people, Lawyers. Gwen is an actress. Joywitch is a curmudgeon. Neither one is a lawyer, and any insults aimed at them will therefore have to be couched in different terms than lawyer jokes. I think the worry that you would get into trouble with the Admin simply for expressing the opinion that a post on here breaks the rules and ought to be deleted is ungrounded. I can't recall knowing any member of the Admin team to be punitive about any such thing, and frankly I think your suggestion that they would be comes dangerously close to an ad hominem attack itself--as does the suggestion that they reward those who agree with them with Elfhood. The latter doesn't even make any sense, since the Elves are seldom unanimous on policy matters themselves, so if they wanted to give out goodies to those who agreed with one Elf, they would be rewarding people who disagreed with another Elf. For that matter, IMO, your snideness about Iggy's opinion that the Admin team does a pretty good job is coming uncomfortably close to an accusation of brown-nosing. What most bothers me about it is that it is very difficult to have a constructive conversation if simple praise for someone's POV is automatically interpreted as brown-nosing, troublemaking, or what have you. I would hope we could grant one another the assumption that when we state an opinion it is because we actually hold that opinion. (And honestly, who could give a crap? Sure, it's nice to be invited to be on the Admin team, but who on earth cares about it enough to kiss up? It's not like the job pays big bucks, or even earns one a heck of a lot of respect.) Amy Z From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 08:12:10 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 02:12:10 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3e576$71c0d3b0$18667144@Einstein> > Amy: > > For that matter, IMO, your snideness about Iggy's opinion that the > Admin team does a pretty good job is coming uncomfortably > close to an accusation of brown-nosing. What most bothers me > about it is that it is very difficult to have a constructive > conversation if simple praise for someone's POV is > automatically interpreted as brown-nosing, troublemaking, or > what have you. I would hope we could grant one another the > assumption that when we state an opinion it is because we > actually hold that opinion. Iggy here: No worries here. I'm of much thicker skin than to take such an implication seriously. (Heck, I've been hearing much worse since I was a kid... so it doesn't bother me all that much anymore. I give such things all the worth they deserve, and not a bit more.) > Amy Z > > (And honestly, who could give a crap? Sure, it's nice to be invited > to be on the Admin team, but who on earth cares about it enough > to kiss up? It's not like the job pays big bucks, or even earns one > a heck of a lot of respect.) > Iggy here: *laugh* Besides, I think I made it pretty clear in my last post that I'd turn the Admin down flat if such a post was offered to me anyhow. Amanda had a good point, and I don't want to give up the freedom I have now for a demanding, involved, and often thankless job. (If I want that, all I need to do is keep being a stay-at-home dad while I keep going to school on-line. Oh, wait... I'll be doing this for the next 2 years at least...) Iggy McSnurd From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 06:24:46 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:24:46 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c3e567$6d698550$18667144@Einstein> > Iggy wrote: > Tom, with all due respect, I think that we're all intelligent enough > to understand when something is meant as an attack, and criticisms > (if presented politely and diplomatically) are usually accepted as > well intended. > > Tom: > Oh, Iggy, I'm not talking about anyone's *intelligence.* Not at all. > > I'm talking about the way decisions are occasionally made according > to the Admin team's *personal feelings.* I have no doubt that we're > all intelligent people. But intelligence and emotional control > aren't the same thing at all. Just ask them about what happened in > April, or what happened on FAQ. Iggy here: Ok, why don't we agree on two things here. 1: Intelligence doesn't always guarantee objectivity. Trust me, I know quite a few people (doctors, scientists, engineers, lawyers) who are very intelligent, but can't keep their emotions from altering their perceptions and decisions. 2: Nobody has the ability to remain objective all the time. It's human nature, at times, to skew things in their own favor (even if it's in their own mind) in order to feel that the decisions they are making are right. The best we can do is attempt to make the right decisions with what we know, and how we feel. > Tom: > > Or about the way that at least three elves have abruptly cut off > personal communication with me without any attempt at explanation. > One of these elves actually *invited* me to throw some vitriol her > way. I write back in good faith, and get stone-cold silence in > response. Why do you think I'm starting to pipe up here after weeks > of silence? Iggy here: I don't know why you're piping back up, since I am unaware of what you said in your letters, or what they said in their original e-mails. All I know about your motivations are what I read in your letters, both I the words and the tone. > Tom: > > The fact of the matter is that some people just let personal > feelings get in the way of Admin business. Some people think that > criticisms of the Admin team - or pet theories - are the same thing > as criticisms of *them.* It's happened before, and it's happening at > present. But you wouldn't necessarily see that, so I'll cut you some > slack on this count. Iggy here: I most humbly thank you for cutting me slack in my perceived ignorance. Why don't we do this to correct some of this situation, and enlighten everyone who might not know what you are referring to: In your reply to this post, inform us as to exactly what you know about the Admin team decisions you are referring to, and how you see them happening again. Feel free to inform me as to what happened on the FAQ list, and what happened last April. I'm sure that, since a member of this list is specifically requesting illumination, that they will not have any serious enough objections. Then, perhaps the Admins (and former Admins) you are referring to can reply and we can make sure that everyone involved in this discussion knows where everyone stands and why. I would also like to point out that everyone has their own side of the story, and their own pet theories that they try to prove... even if it's something that they don't realize one. It's how one's perception of situations tend to work. If they have a feeling or perception that they wish to prove is right, on either side of an equation, then that's one of their pet theories... especially if they feel strongly about it. We all have them. > Tom: > > This is the reason I've been prefacing my statements lately... I > want it made publicly clear that I'm following the rules to the > letter. Like I said before, you can never be too careful. > Iggy here: To be honest, and I'm not saying that it applies here (but it's something to think about), prefacing or post-commenting on posts doesn't always make things ok or in the clear. I am currently in a situation where a teacher in my on-line schooling tried to politely preface discriminatory statements against me. He's currently under review and will most likely lose his job. (No, it's not simply because he said something I didn't like... He actually expressed a personal bias and discrimination against a learning disability I have... which not only breaks a federal law, but also pretty much shows that the man should not be teaching.) The best you can do is don't worry about the preface, be more concerned with what you actually say and how you say it. Also, it's not always the letter of the law that's important... the spirit of it is also something to always keep in mind. If the intent is to keep things respectful, it's more important to have that understood than listing each and every things that can and can't be done. > > Iggy wrote: > While the admin of the list has had to make their authority known on > occasion and has had to flex their collective muscles, they are by no > means tyrants. > > Tom, laughing: > Iggy, my man, keep it up! You are well on your way to being invited > onto the Admin team... comments like this have a long history of > getting people in. And criticism has a long history of keeping > people off. Just ask some of them. ;-) Iggy here: I've already been an Admin on MUDs, lists, groups, and run RPGs... I know what it entails, and I'm not interested in getting involved in it right now. Besides, I have too many of my own opinions and can be just as bull-headed as anyone else. I'd rather not have to fight over how to run a place like this, since I'd stop liking being here if it became a struggle. I'm satisfied enough with how the lists are being run, even if I might not agree with everything. I am also one of those people who's self aware enough to know what happens to me and my personality sometimes when I am placed in a position of power or authority. Usually I'm a good and objective guy, but on some occasions, I've wanted too much autonomy or control... and that doesn't work in an Admin group. > Tom: > > Or. Even better, why don't you ask some of the ex-FAQ-members who > are still lurking around here; they can relate to the Admin-related > debacles that took place over there a few months ago. Frankly, I'd > bet that the lurking members could cite even better examples than I > can; unlike me, however, they probably won't talk about it on-list. Iggy here: *shrug* Like I said before, I'm all ears. They can feel free to tell me their side of it, and the admin can tell me theirs as well. I'll just state in advance a few things: 1 - I quite often am more aware of many things than people often think. (Usually this is because I have some skill at not only reading what people are saying, but how they're saying it, or even what they aren't saying.) 2 - I am open to hear what people say, and for them to relate their side of the story, but I'm not going to get involved in politics. Don't like them, won't play them, just give the facts as you see them and let me make my own decisions. That goes for both sides. > Tom: > > Rest assured, history demonstrates that the members of the Admin > team don't behave the same way on the support lists as it tries to > on the public ones, for starters. You'd probably be surprised at > some of the bombs that get levied behind the scenes. Really > surprised. Iggy here: Tom, to be quite honest, I hear you alluding to many instances that have happened, to events happening in a certain way, and telling me to trust you... but you're not giving me any information or examples... If you wish for me to "rest assured," then you need to do more than just hint at things. History doesn't demonstrate squat to me if I don't know the history. I, unlike most people, want as much information as I can gather before I make a decision. Allusions, fourth party information, rumor, conjecture, and hints don't work for me. I approach things like this as a judge: Objective, direct, and as well informed as possible. > > > Iggy wrote: > On the other hand, if I said something like (and this is picking a > name out of my head.. I apologize if it IS someone's alias, as any > link is unintentional): "You know, Benny is a complete moron. He > loved to stir things up, take revenge when he was disciplined, > backstab anyone who disagreed with him, was completely two-faced, > and tried to completely *&@# over the list after he left," then I > think everyone would agree that what I had said would be a breach of > the rules. > > Tom, quoting message 277, replies: > "Considering that your post consists of the same old prententious, > elitist, self-centered blather you always spew, I find that hard to > believe." > > And also: > > "But I hate the way you prance onto center stage once in a blue > moon, make your divisive, ill-tempered little pronouncements, and > then flounce back into your dressing room." Iggy here: *nod* I have actually received posts like this, both on this list and others. While I don't expect the offending posts to be removed, subsequent posts in the same thread will show that people stepped in and reprimanded the offending parties. I have also been informed on some occasions that the person making the offensive remarks had been dealt with off list as well. > > Tom again: > Iggy, I feel like we're very much on the same page here, sans the > cleverly referenced vulgarism. This post (#277), which strikes me as > very much in line with the tenor of your hypothetical example, > should have been deleted according to the Admin team's rules. > > It should have been deleted because it's a direct and personal > assault on another member. Now, whether or not that other member > might be pretentious, and whether or not she included veiled > assaults on elder members who aren't around to defend themselves is > off the point. Iggy here: Like I said, I don't expect the posts to be deleted, but I expect the posters to be reprimanded as appropriate. If you delete the posts, then you'd have to delete all posts that refer to it directly, not to mention possibly having to delete the rest of the thread. This would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention an unreasonable thing to expect, IMHO. Also, if you require the Admin to remove these (and consequently, all related posts) you will have an even greater cry of censorship and accusations of the Admin as tyrants than some might think they are guilty of now. IIRC, the rules state that usage of inappropriate language and disrespect of others will result in reprimands, possible howlers, potential re-moderation, and ultimately banning. I saw nothing that stated that one's posts would be required to be deleted. (You or the Admin can feel free to cite passage and edition of the rules if I am wrong here.) After I posted the WARP from the Breakfast Club (which contained a good amount of swearing), I was reprimanded and issued an apology to the group for my oversight. To my knowledge, however, the post itself has not been removed. (Of course, since it's a stand-alone post and the only reply was from me as the apology, then if those two posts had been removed, I would understand.) As to the issue of "being around to defend themselves," I don't worry about that too much. I have seen some rather disrespectful posts aimed directly at me, and I have also seen others step up to my defense before I even got a chance to read the original post against me. If you've made friends on these lists, you will know it by how they some to your support in whatever comes along. > Tom: > > That other member didn't allow her onlist behavior to devolve. And > the author of post #277 did. > > Not to mention that the author of post number #277 is actually *on* > the Admin team. But that's not a total surprise. I could also cite > about ten cases off the top of my head in which the Admin team has > afforded leeway to their own members when the rules were violated. I > even suppose that doing that publicly on Feedback would be allowed, > as long as I had a pleasant tone. Iggy here: Hmmmm... If my information is correct, the Admin who wrote that post was Joywitch, and she hasn't been on the team since they stepped down about 6 or more months ago. When the post was written, she wasn't an Admin. I would also humbly suggest that you also re-read the post, as it was a reply to Gwen that was made (at least, as far as I can see) in the same manner as Gwen's original post. I will concede that Joywitch could have phrased things differently, but the same could be said about Gwen's original post. A couple of examples from her post: > Okay, so on the subjects of TBAY, FILK, and similar things. > > First off, those folks who are on the Admin Team (whatever the heck > you call it now): another quote: > What am I saying here? I'm saying that TBAY was preserved because > moderators on the mod team wanted it to stick around, and because > they defended it maniacally, almost to the point of hysteria, when it > was attacked. A third quote: > You might think that all this is leading up to another diatribe on > why filk shouldn't be allowed. Wrong. I detest HP filk because so > much of it, forgive me Caius, absolutely stinks. And a final example: > Most people cannot write anything worth the cyberspace it's published > in. All of these are excerpts from Gwen's post that fit right along with your complaints about Joywitch's post, and are included in the now infamous Post #277. Do you wish Gwen's original post removed as well? A good piece of advice, if I may, would be to present the information in a complete manner, rather than selected snippets. If you wish to convince people that your cause is in the right, or that your point is correct, making sure that people are fully informed as to the situation will aid your cause more than it would hurt it. For one, it would show that you are paying attention to all of the facts, and that you also are not trying to sway the audience simply by omission of information to show yourself in a slanted light. Benefit of the doubt, however, will consider that this is merely an oversight on your part. It's always best to do as much research as possible and double check your post to avoid such oversights. > Tom: > > Hey - when you're the ones enforcing the rules, it's easier to cut > your buds some slack. I understand how that works. Believe me. Iggy here: Yes, that unfortunately happens at times, and cannot always be avoided. I would also like to point out that any of us would be guilty of such a bias on occasion in the same position, whether intended or not. Me, you, the list elves, Cindy, Gwen, Joywitch. It's human nature and, unfortunately, unavoidable. The best we can do is strive to be objective and see things in a clear light, unclouded by our emotions when neutrality is called for. But, you also need to realize that the authority of being an Admin is not without it's price. The main thing is blame and accusation when something doesn't go the way a non-Admin (or, a fellow Admin at times) wants it to go. No matter what decision you make, someone's going to get their feelings hurt, be disappointed, take it personally, and blame you for their woes. Believe me, as a former admin in many other situations, I know this routine all too well. This can lead to festering resentment, backbiting, dissention, and any other number of problems that can overtly or covertly cause difficulty for the group... > > > Iggy: > You can criticize me, for example, on here if you wish, and I won't > have a problem with it... so long as you respect me, my views, and my > feelings even as you are disagreeing with me. > > Tom: > Thanks for the permission; I'll be sure to do that. ;-) > > -Tom > Iggy here: So long as you can take as well as you give, then we won't have a problem. *grin* Iggy McSnurd From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 20:10:41 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:10:41 -0000 Subject: Just FYI, folks... Message-ID: >From the Yahoo link: Dear Yahoo! Groups Members, Due to a recent outbreak of computer viruses being transmitted via email messages, Yahoo! Groups is experiencing delays in delivering group messages. To improve performance, and to help reduce the spread of viruses, Yahoo! Groups has had to temporarily reject some messages. Based on an advisory posted by a leading anti-virus company, Groups will temporarily reject messages with the following subject lines: test hi hello Mail Delivery System Mail Transaction Failed Server Report Status Error If you have attempted to post a message to Yahoo! Groups and have received a rejection notice with a link to this page, your computer may have been infected. If you are confident that your computer is not infected but your message was rejected, please try posting a new message with a subject line which is different than those listed above. We can assure you that this is only a temporary measure and hope to restore message delivery to normal as soon as possible. The Yahoo! Groups Team *** So, this is why some folks are seeing delays. Make sure your AV is up to date... --Kelley From dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 20:11:59 2004 From: dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid (Dicentra spectabilis) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:11:59 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have mixed feelings about posting some of this information because I don't want to reignite an old firestorm. OTOH, I see a need for clarification; there are enough veiled (and not-so-veiled) references to the backstage conflicts that I fear that the A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing principle will come into play and unfair assumptions will be made. I really hope that IF the past is to be rehashed here that it's done in the spirit of analysis, not in the spirit of fighting the same battles again and landing the same blows. --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall" wrote: > I'm talking about the way decisions are occasionally made according > to the Admin team's *personal feelings.* Unless you're a skilled legilimens, I think it's best not to attribute motives or intentions to other people. Unless you are privy to the thoughts of the admin team -- or at the very least to our conversations during the decision-making process -- you should probably give us the benefit of the doubt. Or at least find out what we say our intentions are before deciding what to believe. > Or about the way that at least three elves have abruptly cut off > personal communication with me without any attempt at explanation. > One of these elves actually *invited* me to throw some vitriol her > way. I write back in good faith, and get stone-cold silence in > response. I'm one of those elves to whom you refer. Indeed, I did tell you that it was OK for you to rant. I did that because I know that people who feel frustrated and angry need to be heard. I heard you. I stopped corresponding with you for several reasons. If you'll recall, at the time during which we were corresponding I was visiting my sister. I spent *hours* pounding out those replies to you, desperately trying to help you understand where I was coming from. That was time I should have spent visiting my relatives, but I was so upset about the crisis du jour that I had to take care of things *right then*. Eventually, I began experiencing some scary anxiety. When that happens, I have to back off or risk losing it entirely. I've also been struggling with extreme fatigue for the past year; I quit my job last June and am still not working because of it. Hypothyroidism, anemia, and apnea conspired to turn me into a chronically sleep-deprived zombie. I just plain haven't had the energy to correspond with someone who was so obviously angry with me -- or at least with the team I was on. Leading to the third reason: I didn't feel that you were really listening to me. Maybe I was wrong, and maybe the feeling was mutual. I don't know. I just couldn't handle it anymore, not even enough to write to you to say why. I apologize if my silence gave offense. I'm feeling a little better lately, but not *that* much better, so I'm afraid I can't continue our correspondence right now. I'm answering this publicly because the question was raised publicly. (I didn't know, though, that corresponding with me would mean that much to you. ::blushes madly::) > Some people think that > criticisms of the Admin team ... are the same thing > as criticisms of *them.* It's happened before, and it's happening at > present. But you wouldn't necessarily see that, so I'll cut you some > slack on this count. Tom, we get criticized every day. We can take it, though. We're adults. Sticks and stones and all that. You seem to insinuate that we banned Cindy because she was criticizing us on FAQ and OTC, but you don't really know that for a fact. You didn't see the discussions on HPfGU-Mod that led to that decision. You didn't see which issues were considered or which factors went into the decision. The short answer to why we tend to quash criticism of the admins was best expressed by Cindy herself, actually, on June 19th, in a message both you and I received. She said that a conversation with a "sane member" of the admin team convinced her that the worst thing that could happen would be that admin conflicts leak onto OTC, resulting in a smackdown that could cause HPfGU to implode or split.? The "sane member" that Cindy references is I, and I still maintain that backstage conflicts *must* stay off the public lists (main, OTC, Movie). It was to prevent excessive on-list conflict that topics such as current politics, the Holocaust, and Richard Abanes's anti-Potter book were banned for a time. It's also why we summarily banned Ken McCormick (an anti-Potterite) in March 2002 without warning or explanation: Elkins told us that he had destroyed another discussion list she'd been on with his divisive rhetoric. I suppose we could have attempted to persuade him that HP isn't satanic, but after reading his online articles it became clear that he was fairly set in his opinion. > Rest assured, history demonstrates that the members of the Admin > team don't behave the same way on the support lists as it tries to > on the public ones, for starters. You'd probably be surprised at > some of the bombs that get [lobbed] behind the scenes. Really > surprised. I believe you're referencing the infamous FAQ ADMINs, which some have compared to the two planes hitting the World Trade Center, right? Maybe the readers of Feedback *would* be surprised by those ADMINs; maybe they wouldn't. They also might be surprised by many of the posts that led up to those ADMINs, most of which were not written by members of the admin team. [For the curious, the first admin addressed the question raised on FAQ about what exactly is the relationship between the FAQ list and the admins. The second informed the members of FAQ (most of whom had moderator privileges) that the power to delete the list, change others' mod powers, ban members, and other drastic powers had been taken from all members (including me and other elves) and given to a few people as a security measure.] The climate of the FAQ list was highly charged at the time, so those ADMINs were interpreted by some as acts of elf-on-non-elf hostility. Whether they actually were as horrific as the Sept. 11 attacks is a matter of opinion. > But that's not a total surprise. I could also cite > about ten cases off the top of my head in which the Admin team has > afforded leeway to their own members when the rules were violated. Are you also aware of the dozens of times we grant leeway to other list members? People whom we don't know from Adam? Newbies and oldbies and lurkers and regulars and irregulars? If it were possible to count the number of times that list rules are violated (and *lots* of those are judgment calls that could go either way) and compare them with the number of times we don't throw the book at the offenders, you'd find that regular listies get off the hook all of the time. Further, we don't inform the list of who has been sent a reminder or a howler and who has not. It's a little hard to infer bias when your sample consists of a small percentage of total incidents. Sometimes, Tom, it seems that you are holding us to a standard that really doesn't exist and never did. We're moderating an online discussion group; the stakes in the Grand Scheme of Things are low. We want it to be fun and interesting for those people who find HP fandom an entertaining *hobby*. The rules in the HBF are there to help people know what kind of posts belong on HPfGU. It's not a penal code. We do try to be consistent with how we enforce those rules, but perfect compliance is not the Prime Directive. It never was. The elves' purpose is *not* to make sure that everyone always colors inside the lines; it's to keep the list going in a general direction. When a thread or a post or list member starts straying off into areas where HPfGU doesn't go, our job is to *nudge* things back into line, not to Correct With Extreme Prejudice. You can point to dozens of individual posts that violate the rules to one degree or another, but the *general* direction of the main list has remained fairly consistent. The only way we could achieve perfect compliance would be to put *everyone* back on moderated status and either edit out all imperfections ourselves (tons of work for the elves plus listie unhappiness at having their posts messed with) or reject most of the posts (people either quit posting for fear of breaking the rules or they quit the group because they can't stand that degree of perfectionism). What those who aren't on the admin team might not know is that for every list member who gripes about non-compliant posts on the lists, there's another who accuses us of being a bunch of anal-retentive dictators. ("Moderator tart" and "mindless, thick-headed prat" are a few of our favorite epithets.) We go for the middle ground, which means that things aren't going to be perfect. They can't be. There are too many definitions of perfect floating around. More than 11,300 of them, at last count. --Dicentra ? Paraphrase is fair use of off-list communications. From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 21:01:09 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Thomas Wall) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:01:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ad hominem attacks Message-ID: <20040128210109.82719.qmail@...> Replies to Amanda, Iggy, and Amy Z are in this post. Amanda wrote: Oh, no, am I one of [the bad elves who start conversations and then stop replying without an explanation]? I've had some amazing real life difficulties lately; we had an injury in November and a sudden resignation in December and the team I work on is now at half-staff. It just seems to get worse andworse. I've been working 11-hour days and doing laundry at 1 a.m. Tom: Nah, I wasnt referring to you... the fact that you even asked illustrates that, especially given Dicey's reply. The three elves know who they are. On the other hand, you always get back to me, even if its a little late. And thats much appreciated, too. Amanda: I'm sorry, I really can't resist when a superb writer makes a slip. It's like catching a LOON in a canon mistake. Bombs aren't levied. Bombs are lobbed (thrown). Taxes are levied. Tom, chuckling: That editorial instinct kicks right in, eh? You know, I *knew* there was something wrong with levied when I used it, but the other word was eluding me entirely. Thanks for the correction... ;-) Amanda: No [the author of post #277 is] not. That was Joywitch, she hasn't been on the admin team since about July 2003. Tom: Doh! Apologies to both Joywitch *and* Admin!Joy (the Help Desk Diva); I got those two confused. As we can all see, I make mistakes frequently. But I'm not afraid to own up to them. ;-) Iggy wrote: Like I said, I don't expect the posts to be deleted, but I expect the posters to be reprimanded as appropriate. If you delete the posts, then you'd have to delete all posts that refer to it directly, not to mention possibly having to delete the rest of the thread. This would be a logistical nightmare, not to mention an unreasonable thing to expect, IMHO. Tom, citing the Feedback homepage, writes: Personal attacks or insulting comments about individuals or groups will *not* be tolerated. Messages of this sort will be deleted and may result in moderation. Tom, speaking for himself now: Unfortunately, the rules that have been laid out dont talk about Howlers and moderation as a *first* step, although I think that the rules to which youre referring do exist in a general way for the entire family of lists, ala the HBfile. However, on Feedback, Moderation is offered as a second step, with deletion of post being the first. As for it being a logistical nightmare, I can empathize with that, but frankly, someone should have thought of that before the extensive list of rules for Feedback was written. Since, however, the rules are already written, Id advise either adhering to them, or revising them. Thats just my two cents. Iggy wrote: All of these are excerpts from Gwen's post that fit right along with your complaints about Joywitch's post, and are included in the now infamous Post #277. Do you wish Gwen's original post removed as well? Tom: (In reply to your question, no, I don't think Gwen's post needs to be deleted. But #277 should be.) As for whether or not Gwen's post is in line with #277, no. It's not. I think that Amy Z slipped on this as well, so we need to clarify ad hominem. An ad hominem statement is one in which the prevailing sentiment is primarily an attack on a persons character rather than a response to the issue or topic at hand. That's a Tom definition, there, but Im fairly confident that thats the spirit of ad hominem. Gwens complaints, if you reread them, are about *topics,* i.e. Whatever the heck the Admin team is called now, TBAY was defended maniacally, FILKING stinks, and so forth. Gwen did not call the defenders of TBAY maniacs. She said that TBAY was defended maniacally. Gwen did not say that FILKERS stink but that a great many of FILKS stink. Perhaps these are contentious statements, but they're not ad hominems. Post #277, however, engaged in direct insults against Gwen *personally.* i.e. ...blather *you* always spew. I'll save us all the tedium of rehashing each statement. My point is that post #277, in contrast with Gwens original post, contains direct assaults on Gwens *character,* and Gwen *personally.* There is a big, Big difference here, guys. Just so were all on the same page. Relatedly, Amy Z wrote: One can disagree on what transpired in that first heated conversation on the Admin list (I was there and view it quite differently than Gwen does), but to refer to one's opponents in an argument as maniacal and almost hysterical is an ad hominem attack. Tom: No, Amy, Im sorry, you are incorrect here. Again, Gwen stated that TBAY was *defended* maniacally. She did not say that the defenders of TBAY were maniacs. Perhaps thats nitpicky, but its tangible. Gwen never directly attacked anyone, and if there were veiled references, well, at least they were veiled. Joywitchs post, on the other hand, directly assaulted Gwen personally. On that note, you are also incorrect when you suggest that I was bordering on ad hominem attacks with my references to Iggys potential for Admin candidacy... I never suggested that he was brown-nosing. I never talked about *his* intent at all when that passage was written, nor did I suggest that he wrote that in *order* to get himself invited. What I said was that statements like that would improve his likelihood of being invited. And whether the elves agree or not behind closed doors is, frankly, off the point. "We love the moderators" posts like that *do* have a tendency to get people invited to the team. Amy Z: I still don't get the connection to Talisman's post, which, again, was in defense of that much-maligned class of people, Lawyers. Tom, puzzled, responds: Talisman quoted the same rule on the Feedback homepage that I cited above. Im not sure how lawyers got involved. I think that was another thread in this discussion. I was never referring to lawyers, thats for sure. When I chimed in, I was talking about post #277. The whole lawyer thing must be related to something else. Amy Z wrote: I am loath to see any post deleted unless it's really necessary... Tom replies: Well, since I have a proclivity for, er, packrat-icity as well, not to mention an ardent respect for history, I would normally concur with you here. However, if these posts are to remain, Id suggest a revision of the Feedback rules to account for this. Iggy wrote: Hmmmm... If my information is correct, the Admin who wrote that postwas Joywitch, and she hasn't been on the team since they stepped down about 6 or more months ago. When the post was written, she wasn't an Admin. Tom: Yes, yes, we all read Amandas post and know that. Again, apologies to both *Joy* and *Joywitch,* as I got them confused. -Tom, who has to dash right now, but who will certainly follow up on this later, what with Iggys request for information and Diceys interesting account of what happened behind the scenes. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ From jkusalavagemd at jkusalavagemd.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 21:12:18 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at jkusalavagemd.yahoo.invalid (Haggridd) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:12:18 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tom wrote: > > > I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that Talisman might have been > > referring to a post from a few weeks ago that involved a soapbox > and > > general grumpiness which was, er, quite ostensibly of an ad hominem > > nature and is still present on the list. I object to the gender bias of the term "ad hominem attack". In this day when pieces of furniture-- chairs-- preside over meetings instead of chairmen, and there are no more actresses, only actors, why can we not use the more specific term, "ad feminem" attack when we are gunning for a human being with a 46XX chromosomal complement? Haggridd From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 22:35:39 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:35:39 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks In-Reply-To: <20040128210109.82719.qmail@...> Message-ID: You are correct--I took the term "ad hominem" and ran with it, but I should have paused. In a polite conversation about contentious matters, it is not enough to rule "ad hominem" attacks out of bounds. It is also important to eschew rudeness. That is why I contend that Gwen's post was way out of bounds: because it was rude. If you disagree, well, that's fine. What constitutes rudeness is often a judgment call. The call is for the Admins to make, after you and I have contributed all the Knuts we desire to spend. I personally think the deletion rule is not necessary and I'd have worded it "the post MAY be deleted," but again, it's really hard for me to get all worked up about it. Feedback was set up at a rather tense time in the life of the lists, and perhaps the extra-firm language (is that like extra-firm tofu?) reflects that. As Dicey said, this isn't a penal code. It is a rule by volunteers, for volunteers, in a community to which no one is forced to belong. Of course we all want the rules to be reasonable and enforced fairly, but I really think the matter can rest once one has spoken up. One says one's piece, the admins make the final call. In this group they have the courtesy to explain their reasons. (The only cases I have known where someone just stopped responding to a list member were when the list member didn't seem to be engaging in honest debate, seemed to be spoiling for a fight, or simply didn't accept the premises of the group or its fundamental rules--e.g., some people cannot tolerate that HPfGU doesn't allow policy discussion on lists other than support lists [such as this one]. In other words, when the conversation was no longer a conversation but simply a harangue.) If we don't like a ruling, we generally shrug and say "oh well"; if we *consistently* dislike the management of the group, we go find another one whose rules we prefer. For my part, I care much more about the spirit of the rules than the letter. Amy Z From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 22:37:18 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:37:18 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Haggridd wrote: > I object to the gender bias of the term "ad hominem attack". In > this day when pieces of furniture-- chairs-- preside over meetings > instead of chairmen, and there are no more actresses, only actors, > why can we not use the more specific term, "ad feminem" attack when > we are gunning for a human being with a 46XX chromosomal complement? Why, Haggridd, you've turned into an ad feminist. Will wonders never cease. :-P Amy Z From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Wed Jan 28 23:21:18 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:21:18 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks In-Reply-To: <20040128210109.82719.qmail@...> Message-ID: <000401c3e5f5$74c67fe0$18667144@Einstein> Iggy here: Ok... I'll be snipping out a lot of things from this letter, since some of the items were directed at specific individuals, and need to be addressed by them. > Tom, citing the -Feedback homepage, writes: > "Personal attacks or insulting comments about > individuals or groups will *not* be tolerated. > Messages of this sort will be deleted and may result > in moderation." Iggy here: I stand corrected. > > Tom, speaking for himself now: > Unfortunately, the rules that have been laid out don't > talk about Howlers and moderation as a *first* step, > although I think that the rules to which you're > referring do exist in a general way for the entire > family of lists, ala the HBfile. Iggy here: Howlers and moderated status have been a long standing understood rule, from everything I have both read and heard. And yes, they do exist via the HBfile (IIRC) that sets the underlying guidelines for all the lists. > Tom: > > However, on -Feedback, Moderation is offered as a > second step, with "deletion of post" being the first. > > As for it being a logistical nightmare, I can > empathize with that, but frankly, someone should have > thought of that before the extensive list of rules for > -Feedback was written. Since, however, the rules are > already written, I'd advise either adhering to them, > or revising them. That's just my two cents. Iggy here: I would recommend, as it has been brought up then, that the Admin look at the guidelines for the list, and the progression of penalties. A revision to eliminate the "deletion of posts" punishment would be my suggestion. For one thing, it would show that the lists are honest and that we recognize that things don't always run smoothly on these lists. Not only that, but the removal of an "offending post" can quickly cascade into a bigger problem. (This will be illustrated later in this letter...) I would suggest that the deletion of posts only occur if the post includes profane language and widely recognized derogatory terms. (like the "N" word for blacks, the "B" word for women, the "AH" words for anyone, the "F" word... etc...) If it is anything else, then I would recommend warnings, howlers, and re-moderation. Call it a support of freedom of speech and our right to disagree and voice strong opinions. Think of this as being a public street with the cops nearby. You can say what you want, but use profanity or get out of hand, and expect the cops to step in to restore the peace. > > > Iggy wrote: > All of these are excerpts from Gwen's post that fit > right along with your complaints about Joywitch's > post, and are included in the now infamous Post #277. > Do you wish Gwen's original post removed as well? > > Tom: > (In reply to your question, no, I don't think Gwen's > post needs to be deleted. But #277 should be.) > > As for whether or not Gwen's post is in line with > #277, no. It's not. I think that Amy Z slipped on this > as well, so we need to clarify "ad hominem." > > An "ad hominem" statement is one in which the > prevailing sentiment is primarily an attack on a > person's character rather than a response to the issue > or topic at hand. That's a Tom definition, there, but > I'm fairly confident that that's the spirit of "ad > hominem." > > Gwen's complaints, if you reread them, are about > *topics,* i.e. "Whatever the heck the Admin team is > called now," "TBAY was defended maniacally," "FILKING > stinks," and so forth. Iggy here: I would like to point out the quote you made earlier from the rules. "Personal attacks or insulting comments about > individuals or groups will *not* be tolerated. > Messages of this sort will be deleted and may result > in moderation." You are wishing that the Joywitch post be removed since it makes a personal attack on an individual: Gwen. One of the points I am trying to make is that I can counter that one can legitimately demand that Gwen's post be removed because she can be easily perceived to be making attacks (veiled as they may be) on groups. I will illustrate and explain. (And I am explaining how these things may be perceived, I am not necessarily stating my personal opinions.) **First off, those folks who are on the Admin Team (whatever the heck you call it now)** This statement implies that the Admin team is so disorganized that they can't even decide on what to be called as a team. Some can perceive the underlying tone as snide, inflammatory, and insulting. **I'm saying that TBAY was preserved because moderators on the mod team wanted it to stick around, and because they defended it maniacally, almost to the point of hysteria, when it was attacked. It seemed to me that the more logical our arguments against it became, in fact, the more emphatically those moderators insisted that TBAY was the be-all and end-all of posting.** This can be perceived as a statement that the only reason that T-Bay is around is not because people want it around, but because the Admin has a collective bias towards it and will retain it, whether or not the rest of the list wants it. This is an assumption of motive that is unknown to Gwen (unless she was an Admin at the time... and if she was, the entire post would be deleted as deliberately bringing Admin disputes to the lists... which is a no-no...) and a public attribution of such a negative motivation can easily be perceived as inflammatory or an attack. I'd also state that, if she was an Admin and these lists are like most others, then publicly making statements like she made would usually result in immediate removal from the Admin teams, and possible banning from the list itself. It's a fairly standard rule when you join admin teams. "No derogatory remarks about the Admin are allowed on any channels." Also, stating that it was defended "maniacally" or defended to the point of "hysteria" is an implication of irrational and extreme behavior on the part of the admin. Something that can be seen as a direct attack on the Admin team itself. And a final example: **Most people cannot write anything worth the cyberspace it's published in.** This can easily be seen as an insult to the vast majority of the Filker's out there. This is also worded in such a way as to be easily perceived as deliberately insulting. As good as a writer as Gwen is (as illustrated by much of the rest of that same post) it could easily be argued that it wouldn't come across that way unless she meant it to. This is how such a demand to have one post cascade into a mass censorship. You demand that Joywitch's post be removed (on Gwen's behalf, apparently... Is she no longer with us?), and then Joy demands that Gwen's post be removed for the reasons I cited... then I demand that two of the earlier posts by two individuals be removed... then someone demands that my post on the nature of prejudice be removed... then someone else demands that Eileen's posts against me be removed from the OTC list... and so on and so on. My suggestion would be to consider the deletion of posts (unless they have particularly foul language, as noted earlier) an unfeasible and un-viable solution. There is no real way to begin deleting any posts without causing major havoc in all camps... with the bystanders suffering the most. I don't think any of us want that. (Unless, one's goal is actually the disruption and destruction of the lists. *laugh* But one would have to be a petty little git to have that as their goal in life... and I don't think any of us qualify there... Right? *grin*) > Tom: > > Gwen did not call the defenders of TBAY "maniacs." She > said that TBAY was defended maniacally. Gwen did not > say that "FILKERS stink" but that a "great many of > FILKS stink." Perhaps these are contentious > statements, but they're not ad hominems. > > Post #277, however, engaged in direct insults against > Gwen *personally.* i.e. "...blather *you* always > spew." I'll save us all the tedium of rehashing each > statement. My point is that post #277, in contrast > with Gwen's original post, contains direct assaults on > Gwen's *character,* and Gwen *personally.* > > There is a big, Big difference here, guys. Just so > we're all on the same page. Iggy here: Ahhh... but it's a difference in perception only, to be honest. As I illustrated earlier, Gwen's comments can be perceived as an assault on the qualifications and mental stability of the Admin team... or on the worthiness of most of the Filkers out there to bother posting... etc... Joywitch directed her comments to a person. Gwen directed hers to groups. Both can be seen as breaches of both the spirit and the letter of the rules. > Relatedly, Amy Z wrote: > One can disagree on what transpired in that first > heated conversation on the Admin list (I was there and > view it quite differently than Gwen does), but to > refer to one's opponents in an argument as maniacal > and almost hysterical is an ad hominem attack. > > Tom: > No, Amy, I'm sorry, you are incorrect here. > > Iggy here: Oooohh... Semantics... Goody. I love semantics! (especially the chocolate covered ones with coconut.) > Tom: > > Again, Gwen stated that TBAY was *defended* > maniacally. She did not say that the defenders of TBAY > were maniacs. Perhaps that's nitpicky, but its > tangible. Gwen never directly attacked anyone, and if > there were veiled references, well, at least they were > veiled. Joywitch's post, on the other hand, directly > assaulted Gwen personally. Iggy here: Yes, but as I stated before, perception is at least 50% of the equation... and if someone wishes to perceive the insult from Gwen, and can defend that perception reasonably enough, then they have a case. That's one of the main points here. And the rules state "attacks on"... they do not state that "veiled" or "thinly veiled" attacks are acceptable. And, since we're having fun with semantics here: You stated that "Gwen never directly attacked anyone, and if there were veiled references, well, at least they were veiled." The first part of your statement can also be interpreted as a recognition by yourself of indirect attacks upon certain groups of people. (Semantics, not personal opinion, remember.) The second part of your statement can be interpreted as a statement that veiled references and attacks are acceptable forms of insult and attack. > Tom: > > On that note, you are also incorrect when you suggest > that I was bordering on "ad hominem" attacks with my > references to Iggy's potential for Admin candidacy... > I never suggested that he was "brown-nosing." I never > talked about *his* intent at all when that passage was > written, nor did I suggest that he wrote that in > *order* to get himself invited. > > What I said was that statements like that would > improve his likelihood of being invited. And whether > the elves agree or not behind closed doors is, > frankly, off the point. "We love the moderators" posts > like that *do* have a tendency to get people invited > to the team. Iggy here: When you get down to it, it's not your intent of the statement that takes priority, it's my perception of it that does. If I chose to see it as you making an accusation of "brown nosing," then all I would have to do is complain to the Admin and state my case. This is not due to any favoritism, rather it's due to the overall spirit of the rules so far as attacks and insults go. You may have also made the comments with a grin on your face and humor in your voice, but on line, nobody can see or hear you. Therefore, you need to choose how to present what you say, or... rather... how you say it, with much more caution than when speaking to a group in person... or even on the phone. (Here's a section of the HBfile, as quoted by another listmember in the policy based posts I've been reviewing lately: from Attic Lights >And *this* is what the HBfile says about 'courtesy': >BE COURTEOUS. Do not flame, send obscenities or spam, engage in other >discourteous, disrespectful or illegal behavior or discuss list policy >onlist (send comments to HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com instead). >Before posting, consider how other members of our diverse international >community might react to your post. Remember that sarcasm can be difficult >to convey in written form, and that expressing opinions as fact is a sure >way to provoke Snape-like responses. When in doubt, save your message >overnight and reread it in the light of dawn. It is a great illustration, within the quote, of being aware of how people will perceive how you say things on the list, and such... Although a later comment of his can be perceived as an insult to the admin: >From an outsider's perspective, it looks like Cindy here had some >legitimate concerns about the way that this list is run... who ever would >have thought that there was backstabbing, betrayal, and power-mongering >here at HPfGU? Aside from that, he does seem to be moderately astute and surprisingly aware of the rules for a newbie. I don't recall having seen him post at all lately, so I don't know if he's still around, since he seems like someone that I could have some fun discussions on the lists with.) Anyhow, back to the more immediate commentary: Your statement can also be seen, by the Admin as a direct accusation of bias and favoritism... if the choose to see it as such. Granted, people will naturally gravitate towards inviting in people that they feel they can work well with, but that doesn't mean that they will only invite those who agree with them completely. (And trust me, the admin KNOWS I don't agree with them on a number of things... so they also know that they shouldn't invite me in unless they're prepared for an interesting working situation... to put it mildly.) BTW: Just out of curiosity, but can you give specific examples of when people have been put on the Admin team because they do a lot of "We love the moderators" posts? (You can just give me the names and a few sample post numbers for each...) I'd like to see how those compare to mods that have been on the Admin team who have given them problems before they were invited on. (For one thing, it would give you a chance to prove your point to an impartial investigator... namely, me.) > Amy Z wrote: > I am loath to see any post deleted unless it's really > necessary... > > Tom replies: > Well, since I have a proclivity for, er, > "packrat-icity" as well, not to mention an ardent > respect for history, I would normally concur with you > here. However, if these posts are to remain, I'd > suggest a revision of the -Feedback rules to account > for this. Iggy here: See my earlier comments and suggestions for how this review and revision could viably be done. Please remember, above all else, my comments are made with neutrality and are not intended to convey any feelings or conclusions on my part. In some cases, I am playing the Devil's Advocate for one side or another, and in some cases I'm asking for information I need to make a decision. I would also state again that things I point out (like about Gwen's post) are statements of possible perceptions, not personal views. Iggy McSnurd From SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 29 02:59:54 2004 From: SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid (SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:59:54 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) Message-ID: <5BF6EDDF.1B350BDD.4B073798@...> Are we talking about attacks on this list or the other lists? I've gotten them confused... RL has been taking up alot of time. *coughs* Um...I don't have alot of room to talk about personal attacks on-list -- I'm quite guilty of it, so I don't comment about other people's attacks... But *is* there any set list of what's an attack and what's not? Or is it only me that cannot see the difference between critiques and bashing? (This could be the eighteen year old in me talking... she's a little nuts!) Only asking if there's some general consensus because I was kicked off Slytherins_Severus_Snape for some comments about a specific group. I'm a talk now, think later kinda gal. Um...and was Haggridd serious about the "ad feminem" thing? I was going to say something...but I'm afraid it'll be an attack.... Oryomai --Who thinks that being on the ADMIN team would be far too hard. Especially because she doesn't have patience at all and would go Howler crazy... Hm...Howler crazy sounds like fun *grin* From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 29 11:15:00 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:15:00 -0000 Subject: Tangled threads (was Ad hominem attacks) In-Reply-To: <20040128210109.82719.qmail@...> Message-ID: > Amy Z: > I still don't get the connection to Talisman's post, > which, again, was in defense of that much-maligned > class of people, Lawyers. > >Tom, puzzled, responds: > Talisman quoted the same rule on the ?Feedback > homepage that I cited above. I'm not sure how > "lawyers" got involved. I think that was another > thread in this discussion. > > I was never referring to lawyers, that's for sure. > When I chimed in, I was talking about post #277. The > whole lawyer thing must be related to something else. The crucial misunderstanding is in message 384, in which Tom was replying to Amanda (383), who *was* talking about lawyers. Here's 384 in full: ******************* Amanda wrote: She didn't say "All lawyers are ambulance-chasing squid," she said "there's a lot of lawyers and some are out looking for a fight." Tom here: I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that Talisman might have been referring to a post from a few weeks ago that involved a soapbox and general grumpiness which was, er, quite ostensibly of an ad hominem nature and is still present on the list. But again, I could be wrong. That wouldn't be a surprise at all. ;-) -Tom ******************* Talisman's post was message 373, which was quite plainly about lawyers, in response to an earlier post by Dicentra. I think everybody else had long forgotten the exchange between Gwen and Joy, which, quite frankly, I think it pointless to discuss here. I have every confidence that the admin team handled that matter offlist, and would expect to see no onlist evidence of it. I think it's also worth reflecting for a moment on the original purpose behind this whole thread. The admin team suggested opening the main list archives to the public, with two main aims in mind. The first was to allow prospective members to get a better impression of the list than they do now (Kneasy, Amy - not to catch their eye but to help them make better decisions, e.g. one could then be a lurker and never join at all); the second was to provide more options for searching the archive flexibly and efficiently. Can I suggest that there are likely plenty of options for pursuing both these aims while keeping the existing archives private, and it would be interesting to hear people's creative thoughts for doing so? David From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 29 22:00:20 2004 From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:00:20 -0000 Subject: My two knuts Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > I think everybody else had long forgotten the exchange between > Gwen and Joy, > which, quite frankly, I think it pointless to discuss here. I have > every confidence that the admin team handled that matter offlist, > and would expect to see no onlist evidence of it. David's right, but I have a few things to say. First of all, I found Tom's whole argument to be pointless. You used passages of my post to illustrate your argument that my post was rude. What does that prove? I know it was rude, you know it was rude, we all know it was rude. I even said in the post: "And yes, I know I'm being extremely rude and intolerant and I'll probably get howlered." And, yes, I did get a howler, and I apologized to the admin team for being rude in public, but you can only put up with someone who does nothing but insult and attack for so long....but, anyway, David's right, there's no point in rehashing all that. Back to Tom's post. Tom seems to be using my rude post to prove that rudeness does indeed exist on HPfGU and that the admin team doesn't always respond to it exactly as the HBfile says they will. So what? What the hell is the point of that sort of nitpicky, fine-print reading? If he actually had some evidence that, say, the rules are applied arbitrarily ? that some posts have been removed because they were rude and others weren't, or that some rude posts result in howlers and others don't, then he would have an argument. But he doesn't have evidence of any of those things. He seems to be harping on this to try and prove that the admin team is, in some vague undefined way, a bunch of bad people. Why would Tom do this? Does he really care that my post wasn't deleted? I doubt it, frankly. I would bet the farm that Tom doesn't give a flying Firebolt whether that post is deleted or not. What this is all about is, once again, is Cindy. Tom, it seems to me, is holding a grudge against the admin team for banning Cindy, and as a result spends all his time on this list walking up and back in front of Hexquarters with a picket sign reading "Unfair!" ? all for Cindy's benefit. Tom, I can't prove that you are the one who is sending Cindy posts from this (or other) HPfGU lists, but someone obviously is because she has been unashamedly sending offlists to people with direct references to current HPfGU discussions. And I can't prove that you are in constant contact with Cindy, or that you are posting things that she has written, but your writing style sure seems schizophrenic, and often very, very familiar to me. Cindy was banned from HPfGU because she was divisive and disruptive and created months of havoc and heartache. All of us believed her "I was wronged" act, and all of us eventually realized it was ridiculous. You are just one in a long line of people who is doing her bidding, Tom, and I have a word of advice for you. Cindy will drive you away the same way she has driven away every friend she's ever had on HPfGU. One of these days you'll disagree with her about something, or refuse to do something she wants you to do, and you'll wind up on her shitlist with the rest of us. And, just to reiterate Amanda's point, I am NOT a member of the admin team, although I was until about 7 months ago. Also, I haven't discussed this with the admin team and I don't know, or care, if they approve or disapprove of what I have to say. Maybe I am risking have this, and all my other posts deleted, or even being banned from this list. That would be the admin team's decision, and they would be entitled to do it. But I can't stand people who don't have the courage to just come out and say what they mean, and I can't stand people who lie, and manipulate, and try to destroy an otherwise pleasant community for their own bizarre purposes. --Joywitch From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 29 22:09:25 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Tom Wall) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:09:25 -0000 Subject: Back to That Copyright Clause. Message-ID: Hey all, Well, I started thinking about this whole copyright discussion that we were having a few days ago, and about this clause that I remarked on back then, and about my response to what Debbie and Kelley said about it. It probably won't surprise most of you to hear that even after I wrote that response the other day, something about it just didn't sit right with me... I couldn't articulate exactly what that is at first, and I'm not entirely sure that I can right now, either. Not that I'm reversing my concession on poor research... I *should* have caught that, after all. ;-) Also, I don't want it suggested that I'm presenting confusing, ever-shifting positions on policy, although this may actually be the case. But truth be told, I don't really have a specific position one way or the other on this or most - not all, as I have definite positions on *some* - issues; but on the whole I am much more interested in hearing a lot of viewpoints, and reaching a conclusion or some kind of consensus, than being personally vindicated as "right." So I figured I'd throw out my brainstorming ideas and see what we can make of them. I started by going back to the ADMIN message (on HPforGrownUps, message #60580, dated 16-June-2003) in which the Administrative Team announced the changes to the old HBfile and the contest to rename the whole thing. In that message, one of the paragraphs read thusly: "So, please read the new Humongous Bigfile so we're all up to speed. If you have any questions or comments, please send them to your List Elf or HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com. Thanks!" This is what I'm thinking: I understand that when I signed up for HPforGrownUps, under the terms of the old HBfile, that this contentious clause (see my message #376 on the Feedback board) that I talked about *was* there. Here's the clause, for everyone who is just checking in: "Further, in so posting, you also grant the HPFGU LIst Administrators the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt and publicly display such post(s) for the purposes of providing and promoting the various HP4GU groups and sites." This clause *was* in effect until 16-June-2003, at which point it was removed ? inadvertently or not - from the HBfile. This clause then didn't go *back* into effect until 05-December-2003, when it was re-added to the new HBfile. But the Admin message dated 16-June told us to get "up to speed" on the new document. So, once the HBfile was updated, and everyone read it and got up to speed, well, doesn't that change all of that? Let me explain. I may be wrong, again, but once the *new* HBfile was released, it became the new operational document for members of HPforGrownUps, right? I mean, if you go and reread the ADMIN message #60580, there's nothing in there about the *old* HBfile still being valid, or applying to us any longer in any way, is there? So, in other words, when the new file was released, it became the new set of rules. And it - not the old HBfile - was sent to everyone who joined after it came into effect, right? Now, this clause that I'm talking about was *not* in the new version of the HBfile that went into effect on 16-June. Again, I may be incorrect here, but doesn't that mean that from that point forward, it didn't apply any longer? Debbie wrote: Actually, the clause *was* in existence when you joined HPFGU. It was inadvertently deleted from the revised HBfile and then reinserted after it was noticed that it was missing (probably just after your last download), which is why members were not notified. So the rule has always been here in one version or another. /END QUOTE Tom's thoughts: Well, I think I see where Debbie is coming from here. But the more I think about it, the more I can't get around the fact that that's not a properly accurate statement, is it? This rule hasn't *always* been here in one version or another. In point of fact, the rule was *not* here from 16-June until 05- December. How many new people joined during that time? I mean, once the *new* rules went into effect on 16-June, the *old* rules just became a historical document, and a historical document which had no real consequence for members any longer. Right? So, extrapolating from that, everyone who was *presently* a member of the list when the new rules went into effect on 16-June-2003 was, if I'm not mistaken, *inadvertently released* from the old rules when the new HBfile became the standard set of rules for HPforGrownUps. But then, we have a whole slew of people who joined in between 16-June and 05-December of 2003. So, all of *these* people, who were never constrained by the rules in the *old* HBfile at all, signed up under new rules which did *not* include that clause on releasing copyright to HPforGrownUps. So, in effect, whether or not the rule *used* to matter is sort of irrelevant now, isn't it? Old members were released from that rule once the new rules went into effect on 16-June. New members who joined between 16-June and 05-December were *never* held accountable to this rule. Kelley wrote: It is *not* a new clause, and it is *not* a "very recent addition". Tom replies: Well, as with Debbie, I think I can see where you're coming from. This rule *used* to be in effect. It was *inadvertently* deleted. From your perspective, this rule has basically always been in effect. I can totally understand that from an experienced Admin perspective this is a cut-and-dry case, and that you'd all feel at liberty to just put that clause right back in once you'd realized your mistake. But the way I see it at present when the Admin team Inadvertently forgot to include that clause, it also Inadvertently released everyone from the responsibility to adhere to it. Which means that when the rule was returned to the HBfile on 05-December, we *still* should have been notified of it, because even if the rule *used* to be in effect, it is *still* a new addition to the hbfile, since it *wasn't* in the hbfile for about six months. This is why. Whether or not the rule *used* to be in effect, well, that doesn't really matter any more, does it? I mean, once the new HBfile became law, the old one ceased to apply, right? So, when members who joined before 16-June read the new file and started working from those rules, then they were under the impression that these were the rules that were in effect. And when new members joined after 16-June, they didn't know anything about the old rules, and therefore the clause we're talking about didn't apply to them ever, presumably until 05-December. I mean, after a little more thought, I still don't think it's entirely appropriate for the Admin team to cry "Oops" on this one. I know people make mistakes, like I said before, and in this case I think I can safely revise my earlier point and suggest that the *deletion* of the clause (and not the *readdition*) was the mistake. The deletion was an oversight. Whoever revised the HBfile forgot to include it somehow. But IMHO, I'm not sure that this makes the version of the HBfile (that was released on 16-June) any less binding. An error is an error, but *we* can't be held accountable for the errors that the Admin team makes, right? I can't see how *I'm* responsible for this, nor can I see how *I'm* obligated to just let clandestine changes to the rules be binding on me. Unfortunately, I think it may possibly be the case that because of this error, the Admin team actually might have accidentally released everyone from their obligations under that clause. So then, even if the clause *used to* be in effect before 16-June, it ceased to apply after that, and therefore for all intents and purposes it *is* a major change once it was reinserted on 05-December without telling everyone - and particularly the new members who joined from June to December - about it. So, this is one way to look at it: Everything posted between 16-June and 05-December is not subject to this rule, and therefore use of any of this material is prohibited without explicit permission from the author. Another - admittedly more stringent - take on the issue would be to suggest that once the new HBfile went into effect on 16-June, *all* members (and their posts dating back to the beginning) were inadvertently released from this clause. Another possible interpretation would be that the rule was in effect until 16-June, and then ceased to be in effect. Therefore, in order to change the copyright rules *again*, the Admin team should have consulted the general list membership, and particularly those who joined after 16-June and who were never obligated under the terms of the old HBfile. In such a case, that clause might have to be subtracted from the latest version of the HBfile, since even if it *was* pertinent in the *old* HBfile, it's not so in the version that went out in June. Briefly, how might this connect to the banned member situation? If a member was banned in between 16-June and 05-December, then that member was banned according to the rules that were in effect at the *time,* not the rules that *used* to apply or the ones that *later* applied. This means that all of that material is still under her own copyright, as she was only bound by the version of the HBfile that came out in June and cannot be expected to abide by rules that went into effect after she was banned. I.e. None of Cindy's work has been ceded to HPfGU formally, which means that she still has the rights to all of it. Just wondering what y'all are thinking about this. -Tom, who wants desperately to apologize for any formatting issues, as he's having problems with apostrophes today, and who wants everyone to know that since he doesn't have internet access at home, he tends to work the old-fashioned way with pen on paper; that he has a stack of notes that he's compiling on the matter of Full Disclosure and is not in any way dodging the question; and that since this was already mostly written, he figured he'd get it out of the way first. From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 29 23:03:38 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:03:38 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Back to That Copyright Clause. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c3e6bc$24cde7e0$18667144@Einstein> > > I.e. None of Cindy's work has been ceded to HPfGU formally, which > means that she still has the rights to all of it. > > Just wondering what y'all are thinking about this. > > -Tom, who wants desperately to apologize for any formatting issues, > as he's having problems with apostrophes today, and who wants > everyone to know that since he doesn't have internet access at home, > he tends to work the old-fashioned way with pen on paper; that he > has a stack of notes that he's compiling on the matter of Full > Disclosure and is not in any way dodging the question; and that > since this was already mostly written, he figured he'd get it out of > the way first. > Iggy here: Tom, I hate to do this... I really do, but I'm about to blast three rather large holes in your arguments here. (As always, please understand that this is not personal in any way. It is my objective observations and input.) 1: You yourself have pointed out a recognition that in all of the HB files and other guidelines, the Admin states up front that they have the right to revise the terms and rules of the lists and guideline files themselves at will and without the need to notify the list members. This means that the argument against the changes in the rules and when they happen become basically moot. This is similar to the "at will employment" issues. (If you take a job at will, and they fire you, there's not much you have in the way of recourse unless you can PROVE that it was in violation of federal or state laws... and even that is next to impossible unless you can establish a trend of discrimination.) With a list where you join and accept that they can change the rules and guidelines at will, and without notifying the membership, then you're pretty much in the same boat... whether you read the rules or not. (And since you brought up Cindy in this one, as a lawyer, she should know to read all these things, since they are binding.) 2: There has been an established precedent from much earlier HBfiles that the free use of posts is granted for promotion, etc. Because of this, adding it back in (even when it was accidentally omitted in an intervening edition) is completely valid and acceptable. This is due to the prior existence of that clause within the rules. It is widely accepted that things may get lost in revision, and that if it existed in a previous edition, it can still be accepted as binding. 3: A set of rules is like a contract, and the contract you sign when you JOIN, not the one that exists when you leave, is the one that takes precedence, since that's the one you accepted. Now, also, clauses can be added at will to the rules, as well as removed, per the overruling clause that says that things can be changed without notice. If someone joins the group under a set of rules, and some new rules are added, then all of them apply. If a given rule is removed as an acceptable editing error, but replaced in the next version, than the rule is still considered to be binding. (Especially since it existed when the individual joined.) So, to use your example of Cindy, the agreement that was in effect allowing the admin to use her posts at will, is the one that's binding since it was in effect when she joined the list. Any and all of her posts may be used by the admin, even though she appears to be gone from the groups. Now, if it wasn't in at first, and the Admin announces that it will be added as a completely new clause in a week, then the people on the list who do not accept the addition may leave within that week. If they do so, then the new clause will not be binding to them, as it was not in effect at any time during their membership in the list, and was declined by them by virtue of them leaving the list. Ultimately, your arguments of it being omitted from a single version of the rules don't pan out. In a court of law, the ruling would be in favor of the Admin due to how the rules have been constructed. This is primarily because Cindy came INTO the list with the clause in effect, and accepted it. This is in addition to the acceptance of editing errors in revisions from one edition to another... especially since it was put back in when the next edition of the rules was released. Now, even if the court ruled even on a less favorable level for the Admin of these lists, the only thing they could legitimately do is state that any post between the June 16 through Dec 5th dates would not be usable. (But, like I said, they would be a lot less inclined to decide that way, since they would look more at the rules in effect when the individual joined the lists.) Also, so far as your comment about "none of Cindy's work have been formally ceded to the HPfGU list Admins..." Wrong. It has. If she signed up under a set of rules that stated that the Admin has full rights to use her works. If it's something that was created FOR the HPfGU lists, then she never had the rights to them in the first place. As I've also stated, the point is also moot, because unless she can prove beyond a doubt that all the material she has sent in here is completely original (and I've already listed what that would entail) all the Admin would have to do is paraphrase her statements and it would be acceptable as "common intellectual property" (except the copyrights retained by JKR herself) and would be freely usable on the lists after that. I've been thinking about the name Attic Lights (as I quoted him in my last major post), and it led me to thinking about the Shel Silverstein book "A Light in the Attic." This all essentially means that there's a light on upstairs and that someone is really thinking about what's going on. A few bits of advice: Attic Lights seems to be well versed in how to research rules and policies, as well as myself and yourself course, and you might want to talk to him as well. He may be able to show you where you might not be seeing things, or overlooking bits of information that tend to counter your case. I'd probably recommend dropping this particular line of debate, as it is not only pretty much a losing fight that will only succeed in drawing out the inevitable, but it has another effect as well. Since you are dwelling on situations oriented around Cindy, it makes things appear to some that you are trying to champion her cause as your own for some reason, even though she was formally expelled from the lists. Not only that, but it appears as though you are carrying a grudge against the admin, which I would find surprising for a man of your apparent intellect. Not that some people don't, but more that I would like to think that you are a wise enough person to realize that there are two sides to every argument, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. (Keeping this fact in mind is what allows me to remain as neutral and unbiased as I am.) I am not saying not to be friends with Cindy or anything (if you still are off-list). I am merely trying to state that if you attempt to defend someone too hard, especially someone who is credited (accurately or not) with causing as much trouble as she is credited with, it will more likely than not close people's eyes and ears to what you have to say. They will slate you simply as a "surrogate troublemaker" because of that earned association. I don't think you want to earn that title, and I don't really think you should earn it. But most people tend to think of it as "guilt by association" which is, sadly enough, unavoidable if you keep on the path you're on. (Some may end up saying that it puts you in the same boat regarding Cindy, as Gwen's accusations of the Admin regarding T-Bay. That's, of course, if you protest much more than you are now. I don't want to see that happen to anyone, since it's an ugly thing to think about someone.) I wouldn't bother giving you this advice, BTW, if I didn't think that you could basically be a likable fellow with a lot of potential. Iggy McSnurd From przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid Thu Jan 29 23:37:17 2004 From: przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid (Przemyslaw Plaskowicki) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:37:17 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Back to That Copyright Clause. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4019992D.8010402@...> Tom Wall wrote: >"Further, in so posting, you also grant the HPFGU LIst >Administrators the license to use, distribute, >reproduce, modify, adapt and publicly display such >post(s) for the purposes of providing and promoting >the various HP4GU groups and sites." > > > Is this clause was ever used? >Unfortunately, I think it may possibly be the case >that because of this error, the Admin team actually >might have accidentally released everyone from their >obligations under that clause. > > > No. Such thing must be stated explicitly. >So, this is one way to look at it: Everything posted >between 16-June and 05-December is not subject to this >rule, and therefore use of any of this material is >prohibited without explicit permission from the >author. > > > With an exception of so called "fair use" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use >This means that all of that material is still under her >own copyright, as she was only bound by the version of the HBfile >that came out in June and cannot be expected to abide by rules that >went into effect after she was banned. > > If banned members feels that her (or his) Intellectual Properties rights have been violated, it would be advisable to contact an attorney, and settle this controversy in the court of law. This list is by no means suitable to such problems. >I.e. None of Cindy's work has been ceded to HPfGU formally, which >means that she still has the rights to all of it. > > > But she sent them to me and many other people. They've got those letters in my inbox. I can do whatever I'd like with them within Fair Use doctrine. >Just wondering what y'all are thinking about this. > > What are you trying to achieve, Tom? Regards, -- Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki Force without wisdom falls of its own weight. (Horace, Odes) From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 03:55:47 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Tom Wall) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:55:47 -0000 Subject: My two knuts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Joywitch penned: He seems to be harping on this to try and prove that the admin team is, in some vague undefined way, a bunch of bad people. What this is all about is, once again, is Cindy. Tom, it seems to me, is holding a grudge against the admin team for banning Cindy, and as a result spends all his time on this list walking up and back in front of Hexquarters with a picket sign reading "Unfair!" ? all for Cindy's benefit. /END Tom: That's about enough of that... You know, I said this on FAQ and I'll say it here, too: you wanna post charged invective against me? You have something you want to say? Can't hold your tongue? Then write me an e-mail, okay? What happened to civility? Why do you think you're entitled to act this way? Up until this point, we were talking about whether or not your *last* post was in violation of the Admin team's rules, never mind your latest foray into the Sans-civility-verse. I wasn't insulting you, and I wasn't being rude; I was talking about the facts and the rules. I was being honest. I stated my opinion, and then defended it. Calmly. Fairly. When I made a mistake, I apologized for it. That's what constitutes civilized discussion. You, however, evidently think it's fine to insult me and whoever else crosses your path on a cloudy day. You wanna leak at the mouth? Fine. But you're the one who looks bad, not me. But you probably already know that. In fact, part of me thinks that you're actually proud of it. Secondly, I never suggested that the Admin team were bad people. In fact, you probably won't be surprised that I have to repeat this over and over again to people who have simplistic, black and white worlds in which they pigeon-hole anyone who disagrees with them into the "evil, muckraking, anarchist dissenter" category. No. I'm sorry. No. It's called nuance, people. *Subtlety.* Succinctly, I'm talking about Real Life, okay? We don't live in a black and white world, and I readily admit that I am frustrated by people who like to paint in two-tones. There are so many other colors out there... why don't you try some of them? Shades of Grey, anyone? I have never said that the Admin team was full of bad people. I haven't even implied it. And I certainly don't think that that's the case. In fact, I quite candidly like - and have had great off-list discussions with - many of them; I am, however, afraid that several members of the Admin team can't distinguish between criticism of *them* and criticism of their *policies.* They take my disagreement *personally.* Well guys, that's your problem, not mine. What I *said* in relation to your last post was that the Admin team should either abide by the rules that they set forth, or change the rules. Simple enough. And let's be clear on this: it was *Talisman* who pointed out that the rules weren't being adhered to, *not* me. What I did was provide an example of that, which was, unfortunately, your own post. You don't like it? Why don't you try moderating your temper? Maybe then we'll be able to have a discussion instead of a shouting match. As for the ban on Cindy, yes, I disagree with it, and yes, I'm trying to get it dealt with. And no, I don't see the point in dropping it just yet, as I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation for why it happened. But you want me to just *let it go?* To what end? For whose benefit? I'm allowed to disagree with the Admin team without *hating* them, you know. In this case, I believe that a good group of people made a terrible mistake. And as far as I see it, the way that mistakes get rectified is through a) admission, and b) efforts to actually solve the problem instead of hiding it in order to save face. You should know all about that, Joywitch, as you were involved with the mudslinging in April, weren't you? You saw all of the festering resentment that boiled over the top on the FAQ list more than once because people wanted to just drop the subject because it was too "upsetting," instead of trying to solve it. I'm not going to pander to people's hypersensitvities here. If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. People want to make controversial decisions? Then they have to accept that there will be, oh, I don't know, *controversy* over them. You know, the truth is that good people make mistakes and bad decisions all of the time. There doesn't have to be Ever So Evil Behavior or actual malintent. Sometimes good people make these decisions because they think that the choice will make a problem go away, or that it will solve or hide a political scandal, or that it will satisfy disgruntled parties or something. But that's not the case. These decisions boil down to a basic theme of Harry Potter: the choice of "what is easy" over "what is right." And I'll just casually mention the utterly delicious irony of the fact that one of OoP's central themes concerned Umbridge's constant attempts at *banning* stuff and how It. Does. Not. Work. Banning doesn't solve problems. Banning creates and exacerbates them. The decision to ban Cindy is a concrete case of choosing "what is easy" over "what is right." Frankly, I don't see how the ban on Cindy is helping the lists. I don't see how the ban on Cindy has *anything* to do with the well-being of the lists at all. Cindy didn't do anything wrong except talk about policy on OTChatter and send a bunch of mails to -owner. Is talking about policy on OTChatter breaking the rules? Sure. But guys, the *elves* talked about policy on OTChatter too in that thread and others, and I don't see any banned elves. I just see a banned Cindy. She didn't screw with polls. She didn't stalk or threaten anyone. She didn't delete the lists, or even threaten to do so. No volumes of anti-Potter sentiment. No harassment. No spam, no viruses, no vanishing databases or photos. None of that happened. Cindy was not a threat to HPfGU. All she did was disagree with and occasionally annoy the elves, who are clandestinely self-selected and owe nothing to anyone. And that got her banned. What I see is that Cindy frequently disagreed with the Admin team - as did several of us on FAQ, although I suppose you'd probably call us "Cindy's Cadre" or something even more creatively demeaning - and that she had the guts to tell them that she disagreed with them, to articulate a position, and defend it. Cindy, you'll remember, was *rarely* alone in the debates on the FAQ list. What I see is that the ban on Cindy has been perpetrated in order to make the Admin team happy, not to help any of us. How am I or anyone else benefiting from the ban on Cindy? You tell me that, if you're so certain that this was the right decision to make. In fact, Cindy has a lot of positive qualities, like making new people feel welcome, like her substantial contributions to HPfGU's culture (which, quite arguably, are unparalleled by anyone else except *perhaps* Elkins), like her extensive experience with being an administrator, like being willing to dedicate her time and effort to this community and its component members, like juggling about thirty Admin tasks at once and *still* managing to post polite, thought-provoking and funny posts to the lists. So in light of all that, remind us all again how the ban on Cindy is helping anyone other than the Admin team? Answer: it's not. It was the *easy* choice to ban Cindy. What would have been right? Suspending her? Keeping her on permanent moderated status? Ignoring her? Anything other than *banning* her. You want to classify me as one of Cindy's brainless little *minions?* You wanna classify me a a loony who just can't get a grip? Get real, alright. That's just an attempt to diminish the value of my words because you disagree with the position that I have taken. You think it's easier to proclaim: "Tom must be brainwashed by Cindy in order to have come to this conclusion, because obviously no sane person could *possibly* think that banning a member for disagreeing with the Admin team is a bad thing to do." I'm not the only one who disagreed with this decision... what about the six people who resigned in *disgust* from the Fantastic Posts list over this and other Admin-related issues and smackdowns over there? Are you suggesting that *they're* crazy too? What, do you think that Cindy egged *them* on? That she orchestrated their resignations just to make the Admin team look bad? Please, Joywitch. I'm laughing. Who do you think you're fooling? Maybe the people who haven't seen what you behave like offlist. Maybe the people who were kept in the Dark about Modgate, about The Old Crowd, and about the chaos, disorganization, and tyrannical clampdowns that happened on the Fantastic Posts list. Maybe you've got *those* people fooled. But not me, that's for sure. -Tom, who honestly wrote this himself under zero pressure from anyone, who doesn't bother with ghostwriters because this is an internet community (and what would be the point?), who reserves the right to disagree with people who make bad decisions, even if they're good people, and who promises to respond to Iggy and Przemyslaw as soon as possible. From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 04:23:18 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:23:18 -0000 Subject: My two knuts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I strongly object to the question of whether Cindy should have been banned being raised here. IMO, if someone is banned, she is BANNED. She may not continue to make her case, nor may others make it in her stead. Banning is an instrument for protecting the community from someone who is violating the community peace by, e.g., spamming, or, in Cindy's case, being deliberately divisive, dishonest and destructive. When the admin has determined that someone is in such profound or persistent violation of the rules that lesser steps are not enough, they are the final court of appeal. Why not be free to keep discussing it, you may reasonably ask? ***Because the very way Cindy did her damage was to carry on the kind of debate that she is now carrying on by proxy*** (because yes, it's unprovable, but to anyone who is familiar with their styles, it's obvious that Cindy is ghostwriting through Tom as a way to get around the ban). TO ALLOW THE DEBATE TO CONTINUE ON HER TERMS IS TO NULLIFY THE BAN. > -Tom, who honestly wrote this himself under zero > pressure from anyone, who doesn't bother with > ghostwriters because this is an internet community > (and what would be the point?) The point is to get around a ban. That seems obvious. And did Tom honestly think Joywitch was on FAQ? Because she never has been. Nor has she ever had offlist conversations with Tom. (I know because I just asked her.) So what the hell is "he" talking about citing all the ways she behaves in those contexts? Can it be that "he" is actually someone who has had many offlist conversations with Joywitch (because she was one of those Cindy supporters who later came to learn just what happens to someone who dares to disagree with her)? Can it be that "he" is in fact someone who shared an administrative list with Joywitch last April, when things got bad, not on FAQ, by the way, but on the Admin list? Can it be that "he" says "FAQ" instead of "the Admin List" because Tom was on FAQ but never on the Admin list, so "he" is tortuously trying to make it sound as if Tom, not Cindy, is writing? Just curious. Amy Z From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 04:37:52 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:37:52 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: My two knuts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c3e6ea$d83d5620$18667144@Einstein> > Tom: > > You, however, evidently think it's fine to insult me and > whoever else crosses your path on a cloudy day. You wanna > leak at the mouth? Fine. But you're the one who looks bad, > not me. But you probably already know that. In fact, part of > me thinks that you're actually proud of it. > Iggy here: *sigh* Tom, I hate to say it, but the entire content and tone of that post just made you look bad. Might I suggest that, in the future (if you wish to preserve the respect some people have for you, and the image you value having with others) that you write a letter in the manner you did... then immediately delete it (since you have gotten the frustration or anger out of your system). After that, let it alone for 12-24 hours, and then compose a new letter when you're not feeling as emotionally charged as you were when you wrote this one. Then, when you're done, shine the light of reason onto it and be objective. Review it for tone and such. Make sure that you have the neutral and respectful attitude you have sought to maintain all this time. If need be, you can also write a letter with the pen and paper, as you prefer, then put it in your attic (if you have one) and keep it there for a day or two out of your sight and mind. Hopefully, the hostility you feel will stay in that attic where it belongs... away from the light of day. As they say: Always strive to keep yourself beyond reproach, and never sink to the level of the gutter when dealing with others. Let us hope that this incident doesn't do too much damage to the opinion others have of you, and lose respect for you or your cause. If you take the advice I give, then it's possible people will chalk this up to you simply not letting yourself cool your temper down before you sent this letter in. Best wishes. Iggy McSnurd From heidilist at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 15:58:40 2004 From: heidilist at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (heiditandy) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:58:40 -0000 Subject: Back to That Copyright Clause. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: First, nothing I say here is legal advice. You might call it legal analysis, but I'm giving advice to no party. --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall" wrote: > Hey all, > > Well, I started thinking about this whole copyright > discussion that we were having a few days ago, and about this > clause that I remarked on back then, and about my > response to what Debbie and Kelley said about it. It > probably won't surprise most of you to hear that even > after I wrote that response the other day, something about > it just didn't sit right with me... I couldn't > articulate exactly what that is at first, and I'm not > entirely sure that I can right now, either. I'm not sure you can either, for the simple fact that copyright law in the US, which is where most of the mods of HPFGU, as well as Yahoo, are located, is never as simple as it looks. I am writing this post without consultation with any of the listmods, and I'm not speaking for the mods individually or as a collective, as I'm not one. But I was an elf, and I was one of the elf/mod team that created the Terms of Use for HPfGU. And I wrote the clause you've placed at issue here. First, a little personal note. You seem to imply in your posts that it may not have been an iniadvertent error that left the clause out of the June Revision, but it most certainly was. I was on leave from late May onward, basically until I left the Mod Squad in late July, due to the fact that I had a baby on June 2, and I never looked at the ToU before it was uploaded. I did, however, notice it was missing in the autumn, once I had semi-regular web access again, and suggested to the mods that they add it back in then; they did so not too terribly long thereafter (although it was at least two weeks, but that was over Thanksgiving, when I think a lot of people were traveling). Yes, clearly, someone should have noticed that in editing the excess verbage out of the ToU, that section was trimmed down much more than it should've been. And, believe it or not, I do think that anyone who joined between the June Revision and the December Revision did not have that section of the ToU apply to their posts made *during that time period*. However, that's only for people who joined during that time, and, again, only for posts made during that time period. Any posts that were already in the message database, the archival databases or the archives that the mods oversaw the creation of in case someone deleted the lists again, as was done in March, 2002, or incorporated into the FAQ, can remain there, as a matter of law, pursuant to the ToU in existence when those messages were created. The license regarding use of messages actually has existed since at least January 16, 2001, per the post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/9338 which said: <> Obviously, the language changed slightly thereafter, but all posts after January 16, especially by anyone who was a member on January 16, were made by those who knew or should have known that their posts might be used in the FAQ, as that post explicitly stated one purpose, and reserved the right to add additional purposes. Actually, let me rephrase that - the Welcome Message from January 13 until the first revised bigfile was posted contained that language, per this post from John on January 13, 2001 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/9141). Tom alleged: > If a member was banned in between 16-June and > 05-December, then that member was banned according to > the rules that were in effect at the *time,* not the > rules that *used* to apply or the ones that *later* > applied. > > This means that all of that material is still under her > own copyright, as she was only bound by the version of the HBfile > that came out in June and cannot be expected to abide by rules that > went into effect after she was banned. > > I.e. None of Cindy's work has been ceded to HPfGU formally, which > means that she still has the rights to all of it. > > Just wondering what y'all are thinking about this. I know that, based on what I've said above, I am thinking, Tom, that you are incorrect in your assertion that all of that material is still under her own copyright, for the simple reason that the Bigfile was not, and was never intended to be Nunc Pro Tunc, and thus invalidate the copyright license that had existed for approximately 29 months by that date. I would also like to point out that for a long time, Cindy was a member of the Mod Squad and the Admin Team; she was on the Mods' List even after being removed as an Admin. It is possible that under the Work for Hire doctrine, she had a vested interest in the success of the list, and created posts specifically to ensure the contineud success of HPfGU. Thus, any posts made on any of the HPfGU lists, especially on the FAQ list, where she was the Mod/Admin Rep, were done pursuant to the Work for Hire doctrine. In a work for hire situation the creator of the work never has the copyright, and thus, Cindy would not own the copyright in anything she posted to any HpfGU list after she became a member of the Admin Team, and possibly while she was on the Mod Squad, and anything she posted on the FAQ list while she was on the Admin Team, and while she was the Mod Squad rep. > So, extrapolating from that, everyone who was > *presently* a member of the list when the new rules > went into effect on 16-June-2003 was, if I'm not > mistaken, *inadvertently released* from the old rules > when the new HBfile became the standard set of rules > for HPforGrownUps. There's actually no such thing as an inadvertent release from a license, at least not retroactively. Copyright licenses can only be created and/or modified via a writing, and a click-wrap license or agreement that is conceptually similar to the one on HPfGU's lists has been deemed a sufficient writing (Hotmail Corp v Van Money Pie, Inc (1998) 47 U.S.P.Q. 2D (BNA) 1020, 1025 (N D Cal)). However, said license cannot be retroactively voided, which is what Tom is asking for, by dint of a subsequent change in the terms of the license. > > But then, we have a whole slew of people who joined > in between 16-June and 05-December of 2003. So, all > of *these* people, who were never constrained by the > rules in the *old* HBfile at all, signed up under new > rules which did *not* include that clause on releasing > copyright to HPforGrownUps. Correct. They simply gave a license to Yahoo, not to HPfGU. > So, in effect, whether or not the rule *used* to > matter is sort of irrelevant now, isn't it? Only for those who joined between 16 June and 5 December. > Old members were released from that rule once the new > rules went into effect on 16-June. No, as I've said above, you can't retroactively nullify a granted license without specific language releaseing the licensor. I think we can all agree that such language has never been promulgated by HPfGU. > Which means that when the rule was returned to the > HBfile on 05-December, we *still* should have been > notified of it, because even if the rule *used* to be > in effect, it is *still* a new addition to the hbfile, > since it *wasn't* in the hbfile for about six months. Actually, I'd say that it is a "known or should have known" for anyone who (a) was a member of the lists on December 5, and (b) accesses the list via Webview, as the front page of the Yahoogroup has said, specifically, that the LIst Admin section was updated on December 5, 2003, which should induce any member to check it out and see what was updated. I also found a post from December 28 announcing the revised Bigfile, so from that point forward, all list members who'd been members before December 5 but not before June 16 (as well as those who'd been on since before June 16) knew or should have known to review the Bigfile to see what changes there were regarding their continued use of the HpfGU family of lists. > > Another - admittedly more stringent - take on the issue would > be to suggest that once the new HBfile went into effect on 16- June, > *all* members (and their posts dating back to the beginning) were > inadvertently released from this clause. Even if they were, I think that HPfGU would have a very strong argument, pursuant to the Kelly v. Arriba case, that any usage of the posts on and to HPfGU for purposes of creating FAQs, administrative documents and/or preserving the integrity of the list would qualify as Fair Use. What is Fair Use? Fair use prevents "rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster." Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, per Kelly v Arriba). The four factors a court would look at in assessing Fair Use are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. ? 107. Let's put aside the concept of a book containing HPfGU posts for the purpose of this post; the list admins haven't suggested such a thing in years. I think we can all agree that at least as far as the main list and the movie list go, as well as the Feedback FAQ list and the Mods' lists, the posts to HPfGU lists are for nonprofit educational purposes. It's possible that posts to OTC wouldn't be deemed educational, although some clearly are, but they are certainly not commercial in nature, at least as far as the lists themselves are concerned (and anyone who thinks Yahoo's ads make it commerical should get an ad-blocking program). The copyrighted works are, as a general rule, educational, informative or engaging in criticism and discource, so factor #2 would tip towards a determination of Fair Use. If only sections of larger works were used in the compilation by others of FAQs and the like, then factor three would tip towards a fair use determination. And while HP-centric books are popular in the bookstores and libraries of the world, the actual value of sections of any given post by any given user is small, especially as said sections are only a small part of the whole work that is created. Accordingly, even if the license did not exist, using snippits of posts made to the list in the Fantastic Posts series would likely qualify as Fair Use. And per my discussion of Work For Hire above, I think that any FAQs and FP's written specifically to be hosted among HPfGU's FP collection would certainly be work for hire, as a work for hire copyright situation happens by operation of law when someone creates a work as part of his/her employment duties, even if those duties are performed on a volunteer basis. No written document is needed, but a written contract can exist where the writing is limited to emails wherein one person takes responsibility for writing things for the group. So that's an overview of Fair Use, Work for Hire and copyright licenses, which I hope make it clear where claims of copyright license and ownership lie. But before I dash off to finish a software license agrement, one last thing. Were Cindy or any other member to sue for copyright infringement, the COpyright Laws would protect the HpfGU mods from being forced to pay treble damages, unless the copyrightable works were registered with the copyright office within three months of publication. She would also be statutorily unable to collect any attorney's fees if there was to be a suit. Heidi, speaking for nobody but herself, and even then, only in an analytical posture, and without giving any legal advice From heidilist at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 16:05:31 2004 From: heidilist at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (heiditandy) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:05:31 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: <001a01c3e555$f3bdf800$9a5baacf@...> Message-ID: Tom wrote, earlier this week: > I write back in good faith, and get stone-cold silence in > response. Why do you think I'm starting to pipe up here after weeks > of silence? I hope this won't be read as an ad hominem attack on Tom here, and if I had any expectation that he'd reply to me offlist, I would send it offlist. I admit that I'm posting here because he was nonresponsive to the emaisl I sent directly to him last fall. Tom, I find it a little disengenuous that you're complaining about nonresponsiveness here to the whole list when I sent you at least two emaisl back in the autumn - one in November and the other in either late October or early November - explaining some aspects of list history. You never replied to either of those emails, and at the time, I simply assumed you were too busy with other things; it happens. We are probably all guilty of not responding to emails at some time or another - I know I've done it myself, either because I had nothing else to say in response to something said by the person who'd emailed me, or because I didn't want to continue a fight, or because I knew the person wouldn't listen to me, or a myriad of other reasons. It happens. But please, don't act like you've never done it yourself by criticizing others who've done something that isn't far afield (if it's afield at all) from what you have done. Heidi From heidilist at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 16:09:54 2004 From: heidilist at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (heiditandy) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:09:54 -0000 Subject: Back to That Copyright Clause. (yes, I know I should be combining) In-Reply-To: <4019992D.8010402@...> Message-ID: Oh, thwap me for not combining. Yahoo's been acting weird, and I didn't even see this until I'd replied to the other posts. --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Przemyslaw Plaskowicki" wrote: > Tom Wall wrote: > > >"Further, in so posting, you also grant the HPFGU LIst > >Administrators the license to use, distribute, > >reproduce, modify, adapt and publicly display such > >post(s) for the purposes of providing and promoting > >the various HP4GU groups and sites." > > > > > > > Is this clause was ever used? Yes, this clause has been used. Providing the groups/sites is covered by the existence of the Archive groups, and promoting the groups & sites is covered by the existence of the Fantastic Posts series. > But she sent them to me and many other people. They've got those letters > in my inbox. I can do whatever I'd like with them within Fair Use doctrine. Actually, in the states, you as a user are only able to print those posts and save them to your hard drive, and reply to them on the HPfGU family of lists. The Mods have more rights than that, but a regular user can't, say, incorporate the text from someone else's post into a book that you sell for your own profit. There are, per my earlier post, some allowances for news/feature news reporting, criticism, educational purposes, etc., but you can't turn someone's TBAY into a Broadway play just because said TBAY has been posted to the main list. Silly example, I know, and not very realistic, but I hope it's illistrutive. Heidi From Ali at alhewison.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 16:14:42 2004 From: Ali at alhewison.yahoo.invalid (Ali) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:14:42 -0000 Subject: Another tup'ny-ha'penny worth Message-ID: I have to issue the normal caveats here: I'm writing in my own capacity on behalf of myself and only myself. I've been reading and taking in the messages, and have become more and more convinced about the benefits of the Feedback system. I have to say that I was doubtful to start with, as I was afraid that this list would be reduced to mud-slinging. What I find reassuring is, that although mud-slinging has indeed taken place, the group itself have made it clear that this is not how people want the list to be conducted. To me, this group is for people who care about HPfGU and want to contribute to the good of the group. For me, HPfGU is for the 11,000 members. It's not for the List admin team or any individual, however gifted and talented. The Admin team has made mistakes in the past, and as we're human, I'm sure that we will do again - although I hope we won't. What I believe the Admin Team try and do, is develop rules and guidelines for the good of the group as a whole. We are not a national government or a police force. But, on the whole, our members seem to like our rules and the way we try to enforce them. We force nobody to stay, so if they find our systems unpalatable, they are free to walk away. Some have, but many more have stayed. There are times when we have had to make unpalatable or difficult decisions. I'm fully aware that not everyone agrees with them. Sometimes though, you have to make the right decision rather than the easy decision, and from everything I have witnessed since, I cannot believe that on any recent, major decisions, we have got it wrong. I don't know who deleted and corrupted our files, who spammed our polls, who got an admin list deleted. If that person or persons unknown thinks that's the kind of action suitable for membership of a group for "grown ups", then I would respectfully disagree. In terms of the polemical post which Tom complained about, I don't understand the need to discuss that post now. I don't like the post, I don't support the post. I do like and support the person who wrote it, and the person about whom it was written. I deeply regret the fact it was written. But, I also believe that time has passed since then, and I'm not convinced that discussing it now will be to anyone's benefit. It was dealt with at the time, and other than use that time-turner I would dearly love to own to prevent it from being written, there is not much more that we can do *now*. I don't think it's sweeping our rubbish under the carpet, to say move on, please. I note that Tom complained members of the admin team have stopped writing to him. I openly confess that I must be one of those naughty elves. I do have to wonder though, why Tom felt it necessary to state publicly that communication had ceased, when he has not sought to correspond privately? Perhaps it is because he realises that there can come a time when communication is not what is actually sought? Perhaps when the objective of an e-mail is to engage in point by point deliberation and to object to another's interpretation, then there can come a stage when dialogue becomes pointless. If that time coincides with difficult periods in one party's RL, I personally believe that RL and not legalistic and circular discussions is what must take priority. You will have to believe me that I am saddened by this. But, I have been saddened by a number of things have happened on the list. We must now move on. I fully appreciate that members might find the banning of one member, unusual and difficult to understand. All I can say is that a decision was only reached after a long period of worsening relationships. To borrow a phrase from English Law, it is possible for relationships to reach "irretrievable breakdown", and this one had. I respect the views of Tom, but I disagree with them. If anybody thinks that I or indeed any other member of the List Admin team would make such a decision without thinking about the good of HPfGU, then they would be wrong. I have thoroughly enjoyed HPfGU, and I wish to continue to do so. I want others to be able to share in my enjoyment. I would ask that if anybody has any influence over the vexatious person or persons who appear to wish to sabotage HPfGU that they urge them to stop now. I note that there are many other high quality discussion groups for Harry Potter, and I'm sure that talents would be better utilised on those groups rather than trying to ruin this one. Ali From dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 17:02:34 2004 From: dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid (Daniel R. Tobias) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:02:34 -0500 Subject: My two knuts In-Reply-To: <1075462501.236.8151.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <401A47DA.5528.269D0C24@localhost> On 30 Jan 2004 at 04:23, "Amy Z" wrote: > I strongly object to the question of whether Cindy should have been > banned being raised here. And I strongly object to the implication that any otherwise on-topic discussion be banned simply because it pertains to a person who was banned. Are banned people to be "unpersons" in the Orwellian sense, to be treated as if they never existed and purged retroactively from history? Since the specific topic of this list is to discuss policy issues regarding the entire HPFGU group of lists (an issue that's off topic in the other lists), I'd say that discussing whether a past ban was justified or not, and whether that person should be "unbanned" now, was perfectly on-topic. It's subject, of course, to objections from other participants against beating dead horses, but it would be best off left to die out by itself than forcibly banned. I've been around electronic discussion forums for over 20 years now, including campus networks, FidoNet BBSs, Usenet, e-mail lists, web forums, etc., and I know that one of the most divisive things any moderator can do is to issue a flat ban on discussion of some topic that, other than for this edict, would seem otherwise to be perfectly within the forum's charter. People don't like to be censored in this way (as Umbridge found out on OOtP), and they find ways around it, which sometimes includes starting alternative forums on their own which split the group. Sometimes years of fighting ensues. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 18:16:53 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:16:53 -0000 Subject: Declaring a debate settled (was My two knuts) LONG In-Reply-To: <401A47DA.5528.269D0C24@localhost> Message-ID: Daniel wrote: > I strongly object to the implication that any otherwise on-topic > discussion be banned simply because it pertains to a person who was > banned. Are banned people to be "unpersons" in the Orwellian sense, > to be treated as if they never existed and purged retroactively from > history? Not at all, and ironically, the only person who has so much as hinted at the idea that Cindy's posts ought to be deleted has been Tom, who presumably means they would be deleted *at her request.* We have banned members before, reluctantly and only after extremely destructive behavior (or evidence of the same on previous lists, as in the case of Ken McCormick), and we do not retroactively delete their posts. No one on Admin has suggested any such thing, nor have I. I understand your discomfort with banning a topic. I share it and have long advocated opening up topics that have been deemed too controversial, e.g. politics. I certainly don't want to treat anyone as persona non grata, and it would be cutting off our nose to spite our face to ignore Cindy's contributions to these lists. My point is that the circumstances that partly led to Cindy's being banned suggest that the debate that preceded Cindy's banning should not continue. Why? I repeat: the exact way Cindy has sowed chaos on the lists is to stage these debates. Neither reason, nor listening, nor patient conversation will resolve them, because she does not act like someone who wishes them to be resolved--unless they are resolved entirely in her favor. She writes one long, legalistic post after another, and whatever one responds is met with another long, legalistic post unless one has completely capitulated to her POV and given her what she is seeking (in this case, reinstatement on the lists). Please see my post on OTChatter (message #19660) for a history of what happens when another set of reasonable, pleasant, non-Orwellian people like yourself get sucked in to the maelstrom that Cindy has created on one HPfGU list after another. It began with the Moderators group (translation: the group of Moderators only, as distinct from the Admin list, which includes Elves & Geists--that Moderator-only group no longer exists) and moving outwards to the Admin list, the FAQ list, and OTC. She was banned from all HPfGU lists before Feedback was created, so the information she is getting from Feedback is either coming to her secondhand, or she is reading the list under a false ID (very easy to do, as we all know. It may surprise you to learn that my real name is not Lupinesque ). And thus the very debate that caused Cindy to be finally banned continues here--thus handing her the victory she sought, at the cost of the well-being of a community that has thousands more members than this one troubled person. I won't repeat my entire OTC post, but will just insert the link here to make that section of my argument: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/19660 Ready? OK, I'll continue. The story I see unfolding is this: 1. After over a year of struggles, attempts to placate her, attempts to work with her, etc. by several groups, and after Cindy has taken her case to one of the non-support lists (OTC) to continue the battle there, the admin group (sorrowfully, since most of the members are or were friends of Cindy's) reaches the conclusion that Cindy must be banned. 2. Cindy (and this goes for other banned member) can, of course, join the lists under false IDs, and there is no way to stop her. So be it. The point is that she not be allowed to continue the behavior, because it has been destructive to the lists. If anyone else continues that behavior, regardless of their ID, I am suggesting that the thread be ended. The shorthand for ending threads based on their contentiousness is "banned threads," but if that idea rankles with you, we'll just say the admins can call a halt to any thread they think exemplifies the problematic behavior, which of course they can. 3. Cindy can also enlist friends to post her arguments, or for that matter, her very words. As long as they don't admit that they are simply pasting her words into their posts, there is no way to stop this either. Again, so be it--as long as they are not essentially repeating the behavior that finally resulted in her being banned. If they do, they should be asked to stop and if they do not stop, the usual consequences follow. Does that clarify my point? We have spent several posts now on the question of Cindy's copyrights, which is a question that she can surely take up with the admin list if she wishes to. (If they have been ignoring her e- mails, and I would if I were them, they will still of course respond to a summons if she decides to sue them.) There is no reason to debate it here. Anyone else who wants to clarify the copyright laws for themselves may of course do so. Most people don't give a hoot about their posts being used, quoted, etc. in non-commercial ways on a voluntary list, and we don't even know that *Cindy* gives a hoot. It seems that she does, because as I said, it is very obvious to me that many of the posts coming from Tom's Yahoo ID are written by Cindy and posted to this list by Tom on her behalf, in which case it seems that she does. No matter. It is a legal issue between Cindy and the administrators of the list and not something we can debate usefully here. Now Tom has raised the question of whether Cindy should have been banned and said that he is trying to get that "dealt with." I cannot understand why the HPfGU lists should continue to "deal with" a question that was settled two months ago. This is like a court being forced to hear appeal after appeal of a case that has already been decided by the final court of appeal. The courts do not have to do that--they can say "it's been settled," and the plaintiff has to go away. He can't say, "the Constitution guarantees me the right to redress grievances"--he has already had his day in court. He can vent his frustration to the letters-to-the-editor page for the rest of his days but he cannot be heard in court unless he has a complaint on a substantially different point. Were these limits not set, our courts would be filled with people with too much money and not enough respect for the community, and would be badly distracted from the business of the rest of the community. I do not consider that Orwellian, nor, from what I know of Orwell, would he have done so. Rules are a necessary part of any community--even an anarchistic commune has unspoken rules of behavior, such as "don't burn down the buildings," or it ceases to exist. A list is not, nor should it be, obligated continually to discuss a specific question that was settled by the administrators of the list. *If new information arises* that substantially affects the decision, then I would certainly hope that Cindy could reopen it by making this information available to the admins. In the absence of such information, repeatedly raising the subject constitutes a nuisance and an act of harassment, as far as I'm concerned. (NB: I am not a lawyer and am not using these terms in their legal sense, but in the common-sense vernacular of the layperson. My courts analogy is just that, an analogy.) Now, we could say that Feedback can remain a free zone to discuss even old issues like whether we can talk about Richard Abanes's book (he was another person who showed up to pick fights and so the topic of his book was banned, to my sorrow because I love discussing HP and religion). The question of Cindy's banning can remain an open question here forever. I don't recommend it, but it's up to the admins. As long as the topic remains banned on other lists (and it is, since it comes under policy discussion, which is directed over to Feedback just as movie discussion is directed to -Movie), I personally will go enjoy those lists, and I may participate in Feedback discussions that have nothing to do with Cindy. Considering how tireless she is, and the myriad ways for her to continue to participate undetected, but only suspected, by the admins, I wonder how many discussions will remain untouched by her. I also wonder whether it makes sense for someone who has declared her aim to be revenge against those who kicked her out of power (paraphrase of offlist communication) to be allowed to continue to make her case on the list they are administering. But again, that's for the admins to decide. My concern is this. Any list, any community, can be destroyed by one determined member as long as other, well-meaning people insist that that person has a right to an infinite number of hearings. It seldom happens, because most people want to abide by the community's guidelines, or seek to change them by reasonable argument (as many of us wish to do from time to time, which is why we join a list like Feedback). If they really dislike the guidelines, they join another community (we're not talking towns, here, we're talking voluntary associations). Occasionally, however, there are people who cannot rest with that. They will not be happy until the community is in shreds. The only way to protect the community is to make it impossible for their actions to continue. Good people hate to take that step, and I honor you for balking at it. But I believe it is sometimes a necessary one. Amy Z From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 18:21:40 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:21:40 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: My two knuts In-Reply-To: <401A47DA.5528.269D0C24@localhost> Message-ID: <000201c3e75d$eb051720$18667144@Einstein> > On 30 Jan 2004 at 04:23, "Amy Z" wrote: > > > I strongly object to the question of whether Cindy should have been > > banned being raised here. > > And I strongly object to the implication that any otherwise on-topic > discussion be banned simply because it pertains to a person who was > banned. Are banned people to be "unpersons" in the Orwellian sense, > to be treated as if they never existed and purged retroactively from > history? Iggy here: Nobody stated in any way that Cindy was going to be purged and treated as if she never existed. In fact, one of the things some of us here are arguing for is that posts NOT be purged or deleted from the archives. I also don't feel that Amy was saying that the issue of Cindy's banning should be raised on the list at all, rather I feel that she meant "here" to mean "in this particular instance or conversation." There's also the fact that there is the desire by many, that discussions relating to Cindy not still make her a constant presence on the list after she has been banned from it. Banning someone from a list is virtually always a last resort effort, and is never easy. (I have had to do it myself as a list owner.) One of the main reasons that someone is banned is because they are a strong and constant disruptive force on the list, and need to be removed for the greater good of the list. This is much like the need to put people in prisons in real life. Sometimes you're eligible for parole (being moderated), and sometimes you're not (being banned). The primary reason that many people don't want the Cindy banning argued over and over is because it's been hashed out repeatedly in other areas of these groups... be they public or private lists. > Dan: > > Since the specific topic of this list is to discuss policy issues > regarding the entire HPFGU group of lists (an issue that's off topic > in the other lists), I'd say that discussing whether a past ban was > justified or not, and whether that person should be "unbanned" now, > was perfectly on-topic. It's subject, of course, to objections from > other participants against beating dead horses, but it would be best > off left to die out by itself than forcibly banned. Iggy here: Agreed. The purpose of this list IS to discuss policy and how the list is run. And yes, discussing a past ban can be considered to be on topic. On the other hand, you also say that it is best to let the subject die off on its own. The problem here is that it will never die off if certain people insist on bringing the topic out of the attic and back to light. This would be much like the owners of a ranch needing to put a horse down because it's too worn out to live, and a group of activists insisting that the horse be put on life support at the joint expense of the ranch owners and the town they live in. > Dan: > > I've been around electronic discussion forums for over 20 years now, > including campus networks, FidoNet BBSs, Usenet, e-mail lists, web > forums, etc., and I know that one of the most divisive things any > moderator can do is to issue a flat ban on discussion of some topic > that, other than for this edict, would seem otherwise to be perfectly > within the forum's charter. People don't like to be censored in this > way (as Umbridge found out on OOtP), and they find ways around it, > which sometimes includes starting alternative forums on their own > which split the group. Sometimes years of fighting ensues. > Iggy here: It's funny... I've been around the same type of electronic discussion forums for at least as long, and while issuing a flat ban has caused more problems than it's solved about 50% of the time, the other 50% of the time it's actually solved the problem. One reason it doesn't work is when nobody got to discuss the situation in the first place. One reason it can work is because it calls a final end to a debate or discussion that has been hashed out far too long and is only serving to divide the group even further over time. I should also state that in those same groups, you will find individuals or small factions that are hell-bent on causing disruptions in an effort to seize some control over the groups (I have seen this happen a number of times... some successful, some not), cause general dissent within the groups, or merely for malicious pleasure or revenge. There have been many times when banning those people is the only option. The only problem you run into then is that some people will find ways to log in under new aliases and such, and keep up the disruption of the groups. You also point out that people don't like to be censored in this way. Well, there's a few comments I'd like to make about this: 1 - People aren't being censored. They are objecting to something, as you yourself claimed earlier in this same post that they have a right to do. What people ARE trying to say is that the subject has pretty much been closed, a decision has been made, and the continued pressure from people is only more likely to keep the ban in effect. By trying to apply that pressure, they are cutting off the flow of blood to their own cause. 2 - You state that people who don't like the censorship can leave and form their own group. By all means, let them if they feel the need. This isn't Hogwarts, where the students are required to stay and don't have much choice in the matter. This is more like Hogsmeade, a town where you can move if the laws don't suit you. Population will rise and fall, but it will always find its balance point. 3 - I have visited your personal web-site, and I must admit that it's well constructed. (Stop in and see it to learn more about Dan, if you wish... the URL is http://dan.tobias.name/ .) I have noticed one thing about your site, however, and that's your crusade against censorship. This is a commendable cause, and one I also support... but it only really applies to sites and such on the web as a whole. If you join a site, use a service, participate in a newsgroup, or interact on a group like this, you agree to abide by the rules, regulations, and guidelines of the owners and admin of said group. A group, site, etc, is not a free democracy (as one owner of an old list I was on put it), rather it is a beneficent dictatorship. Like it or not, the decisions made by the admin, in an attempt to preserve the good of the group as a whole, are binding and accepted by you in agreeing to those overlying rules when you join. By all rights, there are a great many posts that can be banned, purged, or otherwise censored (and I have seen a lot of them), yet the admin here don't do that. All they are simply asking is that, as a member of this community, you respect their decisions, and while you are free to dispute them, you need to listen when they tell you that the subject is done with. As always, these posts by me may or may not portray my actual opinions. They are an attempt to discuss the addressed topics in an objective, rational, and clear manner. Iggy McSnurd "Critical thinking is the ability to learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff, or pan gold from the river's silt." From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 19:26:00 2004 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:26:00 -0000 Subject: My two knuts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Speaking for myself alone: Tom said: >>As for the ban on Cindy, yes, I disagree with it, and yes, I'm trying to get it dealt with. And no, I don't see the point in dropping it just yet, as I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation for why it happened. But you want me to just *let it go?* To what end? For whose benefit?<< If the purpose of a group is community, then what benefit can possibly result from pressing an issue past the point where people feel alienated? I won't say I've never lost sight of that myself (cough*vampires*cough). But there's an alternative. Make your argument to the best of your ability, and let people decide for themselves whether to believe you. Let events take their course. The consequences will speak for themselves. If the consequences bear you out, then everyone will be able to see that you were right and the other guys were wrong. You will have the great personal pleasure of nobly refraining from saying "I told you so." Your reputation for wisdom and restraint will increase to Dumbledorian proportions. People will be begging for your advice on how to put things right again and prevent further screwups in the future. All without any pressure at all. And if the unfortunate consequences do not materialize, well, that's all the better, isn't it? Tom said: >>She didn't screw with polls. She didn't stalk or threaten anyone.<< Are you just stating a presumption here? Or do you know who's doing this stuff? Pippin From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 20:38:18 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:38:18 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: My two knuts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c3e771$04c92e40$18667144@Einstein> Iggy here: A few quick things I'd like to point out, since issues of the courts, the law, and censorship have been brought up in this whole situation. 1: As stated before, a list is a community with an agreed upon set of rules that are enforced by the list admin, and are consented to by the members of said community when they join the list under those understood rules. Ultimately, freedom of speech (in this community or any other) is regulated by the leaders of that community. Even the American government can regulate such materials if they feel it is for the common good, such as where and how pornography can be displayed with relation to its view-ability by the public. When you get down to it, our freedom of speech manifests in two ways... it's what we can say within the guidelines of the rules established by our accepted leadership, and in the other way, it's the freedom to leave a community when we don't agree with those rules. (It's either that, or you lock yourself in the attic, shut off the light, and lay in the corner under a blanket... sucking your thumb and trying to ignore the world. That way, you don't have to talk to anyone, or hear what anyone else has to say.) 2: The Admin is, effectively, the governmental leaders we have on the list. The Elves act as police officers and advisors to the community as a whole. To liken the lists to our RL communities, we have the ability to say what we wish, and how we wish to. But, if we become obnoxious or overbearing about it, or persist when people ask us to stop, then the police have the ability to arrest us. (The grounds under which they can do this usually are: "being a public nuisance," "disturbing the peace," or "harassment.") Now, on the upside, we tend to be grateful when the police deal with someone in our favor, but we also tend to get upset or cry "harassment" by the police when we're the ones getting in trouble. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either accept the protection across the board, or don't complain when your rights aren't defended. 3: Being put on moderated status is very similar to being put under house arrest or low security prison. You have some access to the rest of the community, but you're under a watchful eye when you interact with others. Being banned can be likened to having a restraining order put out against you. You are not allowed to approach, harass, talk to, or contact in ANY way, the people who took out that order against you. When a restraining order is taken out on you, you are not even allowed to contact the group or individuals by proxy. (Such as what some people have accused Cindy and Tom of doing. I am not voicing my opinion, just pointing out an example.) Ultimately, what this means is that, if someone is acting on the restrained person's behalf, they are also in violation of the order, and can either have the order extended to them, or be arrested themselves as being in violation of said order. (This is because they are voluntarily aiding in violating the restraining order.) 4: The list Admin isn't trying to censor anyone. They are merely trying to do their jobs and do their best to look out for the common good of the group. This includes dealing with people who either work to undermine the harmony of the community, or seek to harass the individuals or admin of the list itself. This is, ultimately, no different than the authority that can be exercised by an ISP when a valid enough argument (in their opinion) has been made for disciplinary action against a subscriber who causes problems for others.) So long as you comply with the terms of usage, you get to use the ISP. Break them, and you can lose access to internet service. It's no different on these lists. (Also, by accepting the rules when you join, you are effectively agreeing to a contract. If you do not adhere to those rules, or try to get around the rules or a ban, you can be found to be in breach of contract. Be this in RL, or on a list like this.) Just my neutral two centaur's worth. (As always, these statements are objective relating of observations, facts, or advice and do not always represent my personal views or opinions.) Iggy McSnurd From msbeadsley at msbeadsley.yahoo.invalid Fri Jan 30 22:03:18 2004 From: msbeadsley at msbeadsley.yahoo.invalid (msbeadsley) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:18 -0000 Subject: From Lurkdom to (Way Too) LONG; One View, aka She-Who Message-ID: Once upon a time a single, penniless mother penned, or dreamed, a lovely fable about a very sweet but unappreciated little boy named Harry Potter, who discovered that he had both a magical birthright and an impending doom. People all over the planet, children to elders, genius to savant, scholar to only just literate, liked this story so much that thousands and thousands of them elected to sit around and talk and debate and dream at each other about it for hours and hours over years and years (in between repeatedly rereading the story), and the formerly out of work mother (henceforth to be known as "JKR") found herself rich and famous and beloved and downright beleaguered by her readers. One of the communities which sprang up around JKR's efforts was a computer email group. Most of the people who found it were simply glad to have such an opportunity as membership in this community, a place to share their love of things Potter. Most shared their inspirations as they occurred and were content with the responses they in their turn inspired. Some became like images of JKR herself, providing the community with material it happily added (just basted on, usually, in case it needed removing later) to the tapestry which was Potter. Eventually (and inevitably), so many people wanted to participate, so eagerly and enthusiastically, and in so many different ways, that it was necessary to attempt to organize the group somehow, and to create a set of rules concerning what constituted reasonable participation. Someone had to create the rules; someone had to enforce them. And so a group of cadre was created. And now there was a group which existed not only for the sake of enjoyment and inspiration, but which accepted *responsibility*, and the adjurations of power. Where all had once been "Once upon a time" and "What if" and "Well, this is what I think it means," and "Wouldn't it be cool if?" it became, "Yes, that's alright," and "No, that's unacceptable," and "Why didn't you *say* that if that's what you meant?" And an "us" and "them" was born: those who held the reins, and those who pulled the wagon (with many very acrobatic endeavors for many who did both). Meanwhile, somehow, what began as an urge to share (and compare) for the sheer delight of doing so turned (for some members) into a taste, then hunger, and finally a *demand* for things the community had never actually been intended to provide. Some members of the group began to perceive that an *obligation* existed on the part of the community to provide the things they'd become accustomed to (which had previously been produced only incidentally), like admiration, affection, acclaim. (Those things which had originally been inspired by and directed at JKR, who was (and is) much too busy continuing the fable (and trying to have a life) to receive, much less acknowledge, the vast wealth of attention at large.) Worst of all was the feeling of betrayal inspired in a member of the cadre when she began to fail to receive that regarded-as-rightful allotment of aggrandizement. To that member, the group had become nonfunctional and needed fixing. (Notwithstanding that the majority thought it was fine.) The former cadre member met resistance. So the former cadre member began a long, dedicated campaign to correct the group one person or subgroup at a time. The majority still thought it was fine, overall...then certain of the majority's members began to notice that the disaffected member was having some success convincing other members and/or subgroups that it (the group) wasn't, after all, overall, fine. It also appeared to many that the most convincing arguments in play against the fine-ness of the group were, at best, semi-truthful. The shared reality developed holes where it was impossible to determine just what the truth was (or had been). And what had been generally functional (regardless of how "right" it was) and beloved began to come apart. The general belief in its solidarity and functionality began to fray. And the disenfranchised cadre member approved, as what she noticed about the process was that *she* was garnering support. And the remaining cadre, perceiving the former member as a threat to the overall group's welfare, began to take steps to try to alleviate that threat. Those cadre members who remained addressed the person they perceived as a threat, requesting that she cease and desist. Some of them pleaded. Some of them cajoled. Some of them threatened. Some admonished sympathetically. But none were able to prevail. Ultimately, those who met the threat were united in their belief that allowing her to continue her efforts to change that core reality would accomplish little other than to further damage the fabric which held the community together; nor did they perceive her will as reflecting that of the group (which the cadre generally took as its guide). Yet, her arguments were eloquent, precise, and logical...sometimes even insidious--and most of all they were adamant. The community was not meeting her needs. It had, once, and then it had stopped. And so it must be a failure on the part of the community. (She had been such a central part of it. She had put so much of herself into it. It reflected her heart in so many ways. How could it continue without her, much less continue *in opposition* to her?) Gradually, it became clear that nothing anyone could say would penetrate her absolute certainty that she had the right to wield whatever tools she considered necessary to "fix" what she perceived as broken. Those with the authority to do so felt they had no choice but to protect the community by excluding her from it. Shortly after, the cadre expressed to the group at large that the community was under attack and implied very strongly that the banned member, or someone working at her behest and on her behalf, was responsible. And the community generally thought itself well rid of one who cared so little for it that its failure to bend to one will inspired that one to violence against it. But there were those who sympathized. Who wondered. Who believed that the rights of each and every individual must be preserved, regardless of the rights of or cost to the community, regardless of how an individual might abuse those rights. Others had secret nightmares in which they found *themselves* banned, and were so disturbed that such a thing could happen to anyone that they refused to believe it reasonable that it happen to *anyone*. Still others of those still listening were convinced by the ex-member's unceasing (if truncated in venue) arguments. They spoke out. Some of those who heard believed that those who spoke out were nothing but tools in the hand of She- Who-Would-Fix-Or-Destroy-the-Group. And those of the cadre found themselves faced with a threat to the welfare of the group again. Should they ban those who supported She-Who? Should they ban discussion of whether or not She-Who should have been banned? Should they ban discussion of whether or not the ban on She-Who should be lifted? Around the time of the banning (and possibly even in response to having noticed a possible failure to meet certain other needs), the cadre created a new way for the community to express itself--to complain, to discuss, to question--en masse and nearly in situ. (It might occur to some that this could be perceived as a memorial to the (perhaps not entirely) departed. (Hmmm...what was it, again, that Sir Nicholas said about those who elect to hang about as ghosts?) Debate is good. Community consensus-building, and opportunities for same, are precious. Personally, I'd rather have those aiming brickbats out in public than have them lob them from out of the shadows (regardless of whose brick it is, if everyone sees it coming at the same time, they can step out of the way or wave a wand at it or something). And if, eventually, the will of the community changes*, then that, also, is how it should be. Everything I have seen of the cadre tells me that they, also, know this. Sandy, smearing dust and cobwebs from that dern soapbox *IMO, not gonna happen From fc26det at sehandel.yahoo.invalid Sat Jan 31 02:31:09 2004 From: fc26det at sehandel.yahoo.invalid (Potterfanme) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:31:09 -0000 Subject: The Current Debate Message-ID: Hi all, This is my opinion regarding the Cindy debate and only my opinion. I personally am tired of it. When this started on OTC it was very confusing to me to begin with as I was only reading one side....Cindy's. There were times when I felt she may be right in what she was saying. Then there was the explanation by one of the persons involved and I wondered. But I realize there are always three sides to the story. It was disturbing to me when Cindy was banned. I hate for that to happen to anyone but I was not involved in it and did not know the actual facts so was not able to determine what the true story was. All of this debate is moot as far as I am concerned. The general list is not involved. Period. If the admins feel that they are being harassed or if their lists are being deleted or whatever, they can notify law enforcement and they can determine exactly which computer the offenses came from... I know this for a fact as I have worked with Federal agencies that do this. If Cindy feels that she has truly been wronged and there is a legal stance to take....do it. Continually trying to involve those of us who are not part of the original parties is unproductive and very disruptive. Susan From thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 1 20:55:04 2004 From: thomasmwall at thomasmwall.yahoo.invalid (Tom Wall) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:55:04 -0000 Subject: Some Replies and a Conclusion... Message-ID: Hey all, It's Superbowl Sunday, so I'm writing this fairly quickly. The reason I'm writing it is primarily to address some of the questions and allegation-esque statements that have been posed and made over the past few days. I would have let it rest until tomorrow, but I wanted to clear the air, and felt it couldn't reasonably be pushed off. Replies to Joywitch, Amy Z, Pippin, and Ali are in this post. Joywitch wrote: Tom, I can't prove that you are the one who is sending Cindy posts from this (or other) HPfGU lists, but someone obviously is because she has been unashamedly sending offlists to people with direct references to current HPfGU discussions. And I can't prove that you are in constant contact with Cindy, or that you are posting things that she has written, but your writing style sure seems schizophrenic, and often very, very familiar to me. Tom: Well, since there were a few insinuations in there, I'll have to do a point-by-point (even though I know that some don't appreciate that) and respond to each. As Amy Z realizes, there are several ways of subscribing to and reading these lists. I am not sending Cindy information from this, - main, FAQ, or any other HPfGU list. As for constant contact, I'd say that that's an inaccurate statement at best. Firstly, being in contact with Cindy is not a crime or a ban-worthy offense, nor does it strike me as an egregious violation in any way. I am in contact with Cindy, though, and we e-mail on average about once a week. Furthermore, and we're on other lists together. As for my writing style, I'll address this in my next responses to Amy Z. Amy Z wrote: ***Because the very way Cindy did her damage was to carry on the kind of debate that she is now carrying on by proxy*** (because yes, it's unprovable, but to anyone who is familiar with their styles, it's obvious that Cindy is ghostwriting through Tom as a way to get around the ban). Tom: Oh, Amy. *Now* this is starting to make a little sense. *This* explains why Joywitch suggested that my posting style had been schizophrenic lately. That made very little sense to me at first, but now I see what you're talking about. Thank you for stating this plainly. Now let me debunk it. ;-) Are you referring to the way I commandeered Cindy's propensity for putting periods After. Every. Word. For. Emphasis? Guilty as charged. I stole it because I think that it's an effective way of accenting a phrase or part of a phrase every now and then. Perhaps you're referring to the way I've started capitalizing the first letters in phrases that represent Ideas That I'd Like To Highlight, the way that not only Cindy but also Elkins and others have done? Yeah. That, too, is shamelessly siphoned from others' work. Or maybe you think that because I've employed the word "smackdown" (which is certainly a Cindy-ism) Cindy is ghostwriting through me. Well, no, it's just a case of me not wanting to use and reuse the word clampdown. I do try to avoid redundancy if I can. The use of "er" instead of "uh" is not only something Cindy employs, but also JKR, but that is a stylistic thing that I've adopted recently as well. Additionally, you might be referring to... ...my recent use of TBAY-isms like that in posts and letters? I can explain that, too. It's cause I'm trying to acquaint myself with the TBAY style so that I can feel more comfortable participating in those threads. So, now I can see why you and Joywitch might think that Cindy is posting through me. But honestly, guys, you are way off base here. *Way* off base. First of all, you may or may not know that I aspire to be a professional writer, and therefore quite actively pilfer stylistic touches ? not material, just stylistic stuff and vocabulary ? from others' work all of the time. Writing is not something that comes out of the void, guys, it's a matter of taking what you like, and filtering out what you don't in an effort to forge something new; it's a process of distilling one's own voice out of the hodgepodge of opinions that're out there. Not only has my style changed over the last year, it will continue to do so. Cindy is not ghostwriting through me, and I am not posting ? and have not once posted ? anything that Cindy wrote independently in its entirety. I am nobody's proxy. Our vocabularies, by and large are completely different; for instance, I've never seen Cindy use the words "ardently," "succinctly," or "sans," (and I love those words and try to get away with them as frequently as I can), nor does she make use of the Latin phrases ("ad infinitum," "ad nauseam," "in situ," etc.) that I enjoy so much. Our use of punctuation and accents is very distinct: for instance, I don't use **double- asterisks** (okay, I just did, but that was as an example) in posts, whereas Cindy usually employs them about once per post. Finally, despite my best efforts, I seem to manage at least one typo per post, whereas Cindy's posts and letters *rarely* have any typos at all. On that note, I will confess that there was *one* time I co-wrote a post with Cindy, (yes, it was called "(TBAY) Umbridge: The Truth Will Get You Detention") and the reason I didn't cite her co- authorship is because I knew that someone else had already had a post deleted because it cited Cindy as an author. So, naturally, since I think the post had not only a valid canon point, but also because I personally have been harping on the Ministry-thing for months. If you'd like to request that it be deleted, that would be fine by me. And as for the rest of my most recent post, I was talking about Umbridge and the Ministry and the simplicity of ? and almost invitation to ? comparisons to the Admin team's actions back in November (right down to the Hopkirk-ian way that some Howlers and Cindy's banning letter were written); Dicey can back me up on that, `cause I wrote it to her in a private e-mail. I wrote about that, about how HPfGU can now be described as a "Cindy-free zone," and how the Admin team thinks that "a lifetime ban ought to do the trick." Nevermind Dicey's reference to the two Admins on FAQ (which is only half the story, as there was also one more which was *way* more contentious, and then the ban itself) and how they have "Educational Decree Number Whatever" written all over them. So, the comparison between the Admin team and the Ministry is not Cindy's, it's *mine.* Also, at least six paragraphs of that post were shamelessly taken (and only slightly revised) directly from an e-mail that I wrote to Wendy about two months ago, so she can attest to that. Now - in a case of perfect twenty-twenty hindsight - it has occurred to me that this quite possibly is *the* worst time for me to yank stylistic flourishes from Cindy; from your perspective, I can only imagine that I sound like an echo of her, or even her personally. But truthfully, I am the one writing. I will make an effort to not use those flourishes for the purposes of this post, just so that this is clear. On this note, I have to say that it might or might not be obvious that one of the things that bothers me about this whole situation (and has done so since day one when the conflict began its escalation) is that somehow a lot of people have decided that I *represent* Cindy in my posts on just about *any* subject nowadays. I could talk about *toothpaste* and someone would suggest that it was an oblique reference to ? or from ? Cindy. It's as though in the eyes of some I have no opinion of my own any more; everything I write, any complaint or critique that I make is immediately assumed to be coming from Cindy, or at the very least, is attributed to Cindy's *effects* on me. Which is ludicrous. Cindy doesn't ask me to do things. Okay, once she did, and that was to remove two pictures of her from the FAQ list, but apparently Dicey did that for her. And I disagree with her frequently. In fact, as Amy Z pointed out, it's not in Cindy's interest to have all of her posts deleted, nor is it likely that she would really want that done. *I* continued the copyright discussion of my own volition. But I'll tell y'all, my disagreements with Cindy have never resulted in the stuff that you're talking about. Guys, I'm still me. And I *personally* disagree with some of the things that the Admin team has done in the past. But as I said before, I don't hate any of you. And again, Wendy can back me up on this... in that same mail, I told her that by and large I believe that the Administrators are doing a fine job of running the public lists, and I'll publicly state that I do think that y'all are doing a great job Moderating and running the public lists in the community. I will further than by stating that I think there could be a lot of improvements on internal policy and on the administration of the supports lists as well. But on the whole, yes, I think you all do a great job. But I am allowed to disagree from time to time. And I will. Amy Z wrote: Nor has [Joywitch] ever had offlist conversations with Tom. (I know because I just asked her.) So what the hell is "he" talking about citing all the ways she behaves in those contexts? Tom: Oh, Amy, let's not be na?ve, here. We're dealing with the internet. Posts and e-mails can be copied, forwarded, mailed, and even reposted in other forums. Just because I wasn't on the Admin team in April doesn't mean that I haven't seen what went on there, and it also doesn't mean that that stuff never happened. Honestly. I know you're not going to talk about it publicly, but just so we're on the same page. Pippin, quoting my earlier post: >>She didn't screw with polls. She didn't stalk or threaten anyone.<< Pippin: Are you just stating a presumption here? Or do you know who's doing this stuff? Tom: *Sigh* (stylistic flourish borrowed from Iggy and countless others.) No Pippin, I think you might have misunderstood me there: my point was that none of that stuff happened *before* the ban. And since that basically comprises the list of acceptable, "bannable" offenses, I brought it up to demonstrate that the ban was an errant ? and ostensibly personal ? course of action from day one. You may not agree, and I respect your right to your own opinion. But for the record, I don't know whose doing this stuff. I can state with complete honesty that I have no idea *who* is doing anything, and that I have personally have conducted none of the disruptive activities that have been described in the series of Admin messages (the deleted databases, the poll disruption, etc.) that have occurred recently. I know that any investigation conducted by Yahoo will exonerate me completely in that regard. So if you want to investigate it, then I say go right ahead. Furthermore, I honestly don't believe that Cindy is responsible for these things, although I know that many people do; for my part, I don't think she's responsible because she promised a bunch of people privately that she would do nothing of the sort, and I believe her. In fact, from what I see, Cindy is as flummoxed as everyone else as to the source of the poll-spamming and the deleted files and so forth, and she's also steaming because she knows that she's being blamed and that because of the ban she has no way of defending herself against the accusations of others. Truthfully, she has never, ever said anything to me in private e- mail or on a list to that effect. Additionally, I personally sent the Admin team two e-mails describing how I have recently been sent a virus ? twice ? by someone, and the first time it was under the guise of an HpfGU: Movie post. So, anyone think that Cindy is sending me viruses? Okay then. Looks like we'll have to deal with the fact that there *are* other people out there who don't like HPfGU or the people who run it, or the people *on* it, or the *subject matter* or whatever, and that those people could easily be responsible for this. For instance, there was a guy sending out viruses this fall who as far as I can tell is distinct from the person that *I* got the viruses from more recently; and that was before Cindy was banned in the first place. Ali wrote: I don't know who deleted and corrupted our files, who spammed our polls, who got an admin list deleted. If that person or persons unknown thinks that's the kind of action suitable for membership of a group for "grown ups", then I would respectfully disagree. Tom: Well, as I just said, I don't know anything about the files or polls. And I don't know *who* reported that deleted-then-later- restored list to Yahoo, but I do know *why* it was reported, and I've already relayed that information to an elf in a long but earnest private e-mail in an attempt to explain my situation and my perspective. I *also* gave her permission to use excerpts for the rest of y'all so that this miscommunication could be nipped in the bud. I don't know if that's happened, so since you brought it up... The list in question is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU, and it was reported to Yahoo because it originally stated on the homepage that it was a "storage facility," which placed it squarely in violation of Yahoo's Guideline Number Ten: "You may not use Groups solely for the purpose of storing and archiving files." I believe that this is why none of my questions were answered when I asked them a while ago on this list: it's because that group, which evidently is an HPfGU auxiliary list, actually *was* in violation of the Yahoo Guidelines. But since y'all wouldn't actually admit that a group you were running was in violation ? heck, and I can't blame you; I'm not sure that I would do so either ? I bet that some just thought that it was better to ignore my questions, which is what happened. Now, the group has been restored, and the homepage reads: "Administrative discussion group for the HPfGU List Admin Team." That's fine, except I'd wonder how a "storage facility" becomes a "Discussion Group," over night. Probably it doesn't, and probably it is *still* a storage facility, but I don't expect anyone to admit that, either. I'd also wonder what kind of discussion is going on there, since I know that you guys already have your own separate Admin discussion list, and according to the homepage of the deleted-then-restored group there have been only five messages for the entire month of January. So whatever discussion is going on, it's certainly not substantive. But I'm not inclined to push the issue. The group is back, and that's fine by me. Anyways, everyone, I understand that this Ban is a very contentious issue. So, as a further sign of good faith (like the letters I wrote to those elves, like my earlier restraint on the Feedback list regarding the Ban and the Fantastic Posts list debacles, and like the letters I've written to ?owner about the viruses in an effort to ensure that these lists are protected), and a course of action that most of you seem fairly certain that Cindy wouldn't do, I will voluntarily stop this discussion of the ban. This is not to say in any way that I don't believe a discussion should be had. I still believe that the ban was an unscrupulous action, and until I hear an explanation that *makes sense* I will continue to do so. But I am not willing to stand up here, by myself, and paint an enormous bulls-eye on my chest for individuals to aim at. I can't possibly respond to all of the questions, comments, and sly references that have been posted, there's just not enough time to do it, and in the long run it is not worth it. If others are willing to have the talk, then I'll have it. But Tom vs. a big group of people is not what I had in mind when I brought this up. It's what I got though, and I suppose it was deserved. I hope that you take this sign of good faith for what it is and shift your attitudes a little bit regarding me and the positions that I take on this list and others. I hope that Ali will live up to her repeated promises to respond to my e-mails and do so (instead of suggesting that I should just keep sending letters into the void and getting no responses), and that Dicey (when she feels better) and that last elf ? who I think is a very cool person who I hope is just very busy with her RL ? will continue their discussions with me sooner rather than later. Silence does not make the heart grow fonder; it makes one wonder why one is being ignored. Thank you to Debbie, Kelley, and Amanda (particularly Amanda, who I am so often at loggerheads with on so many issues, despite the fact that I like her and that she was one of the very first people to reach out to me when I joined HPfGU last year), who despite the tension in the air, *have* treated me very fairly and responded to my off-list mails and on-list posts in a respectful and friendly way. I genuinely apologize to anyone who may have been offended by this discussion, or by anything that I've said during the course of it. If you'd like to know more, I'd be glad to talk about it off-list. -Tom PS: GO PATRIOTS! From jkusalavagemd at jkusalavagemd.yahoo.invalid Sun Feb 1 21:38:37 2004 From: jkusalavagemd at jkusalavagemd.yahoo.invalid (Haggridd) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:38:37 -0000 Subject: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" wrote: > Haggridd wrote: > > > > I object to the gender bias of the term "ad hominem attack". In > > this day when pieces of furniture-- chairs-- preside over > meetings > > instead of chairmen, and there are no more actresses, only > actors, > > why can we not use the more specific term, "ad feminem" attack > when > > we are gunning for a human being with a 46XX chromosomal > complement? > > Why, Haggridd, you've turned into an ad feminist. Will wonders > never cease. > > :-P > Amy Z Hast thou not heard of the concept "reductio ad absurdum?" Haggis From msbeadsley at msbeadsley.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 2 18:13:17 2004 From: msbeadsley at msbeadsley.yahoo.invalid (msbeadsley) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:13:17 -0000 Subject: The Current Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Potterfanme" wrote: > If the admins feel that they are being harassed or if their lists > are being deleted or whatever, they can notify law enforcement and > they can determine exactly which computer the offenses came from... > I know this for a fact as I have worked with Federal agencies that > do this. Can someone else please address this? I live with a computer nerd and asked him, "Is it possible to tell where in cyberspace messages, etc., originate from, i.e., the originating computer or ISP?" and he said, "Er, usually...at least sometimes." I imagine it would be harder to determine who was doing things like deleting files (no audit trail, I'm guessing) or siccing Yahoo on the group for infractions of their terms of use agreement (real, imagined, or somewhere along the spectrum of opinion as to what constitutes infraction). The other thing that occurred to me in response to Susan's post is that while "the Federal agencies that do this" likely do have the resources/ability to track down terrorists, or saboteurs, or cyber-stalkers...well, is that a suggestion that we "make a Federal case out of" this? In other words, it may be nontrivial to entities not so well equipped as the Bureau (or Department or whatever it is) of Homeland Security. This here stuff is extremely small potatoes; I can't imagine law enforcement getting very motivated to find HPfGU's, er, vandal. > Continually trying to involve those of us who are not part of the > original parties is unproductive and very disruptive. But I'm guessing that's all that's left for those who feel a wrong has been committed. (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here and leaving out the "Hulk SMASH!" option.) They exhausted the administrative and/or judicial appeal process, such as it was, and so were left with the option of trying the case in the court of public opinion. On another note, I got a couple of very interesting offlist responses to my pseudo-fable ramble about what happened, how, and why. Evidently I got one core theme (ego, at least as I was interpreting "ego," in the common vernacular...in spite of (hmmm) using the word itself nowhere, iirc). Apparently there is a need here for delicacy (not a dialect of my mother tongue) of which I was not previously aware, so I'm mulling over how to go about addressing it online--in my copious *#$! free time (RL can be SO intrusive). Sandy, reflecting on the fragility of the human psyche...and making the ungainly (and possibly tacky) leap to wondering about the fragility of the human psycho, as well P.S. Was chat just hosed yesterday? From msbeadsley at msbeadsley.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 2 18:25:55 2004 From: msbeadsley at msbeadsley.yahoo.invalid (msbeadsley) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:25:55 -0000 Subject: The Current Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "msbeadsley" wrote: > Evidently I got one core theme (ego, at least as I was > interpreting "ego," in the common vernacular...in spite of (hmmm) > using the word itself nowhere, iirc). This should read "Evidently I got one core theme _wrong_." Oops. Sandy, thoroughly shutting up now From CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 2 18:36:15 2004 From: CoyotesChild at iggymcsnurd.yahoo.invalid (Iggy McSnurd) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:36:15 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: The Current Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3e9bb$716115d0$18667144@Einstein> > -----Original Message----- > From: msbeadsley > > Can someone else please address this? I live with a computer nerd and > asked him, "Is it possible to tell where in cyberspace messages, > etc., originate from, i.e., the originating computer or ISP?" and he > said, "Er, usually...at least sometimes." Iggy here: It can be traced, if you have the resources and care to take the time. In addition, if it ever comes down to a lawsuit, the court can subpoena all routing records from Yahoo, and from there, through the original ISPs once hose locations are discovered. In some cases, you might not be able to find the physical address used in a set incident, but you can get the billing address of that given account. > MsB: > >I imagine it would be > harder to determine who was doing things like deleting files (no > audit trail, I'm guessing) or siccing Yahoo on the group for > infractions of their terms of use agreement (real, imagined, or > somewhere along the spectrum of opinion as to what constitutes > infraction). The other thing that occurred to me in response to > Susan's post is that while "the Federal agencies that do this" likely > do have the resources/ability to track down terrorists, or saboteurs, > or cyber-stalkers...well, is that a suggestion that we "make a > Federal case out of" this? In other words, it may be nontrivial to > entities not so well equipped as the Bureau (or Department or > whatever it is) of Homeland Security. This here stuff is extremely > small potatoes; I can't imagine law enforcement getting very > motivated to find HPfGU's, er, vandal. > Iggy here: Actually, it already can be considered a Federal Offense. It's harassment, computer vandalism, destruction of records, and misrepresentation... normally these would only be a state addressed thing, but since this group not only crosses state, but international lines, that does raise it to the level of a Federal case. (Any crime committed across state lines becomes a Federal Offense... if it happens across international lines, it can optionally be raised a higher level than that if you wish, but that would require the person/people in question be committing these offenses directly against someone in another country.) > MsB: > > > > Continually trying to involve those of us who are not part of the > > original parties is unproductive and very disruptive. > > But I'm guessing that's all that's left for those who feel a wrong > has been committed. (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here > and leaving out the "Hulk SMASH!" option.) They exhausted the > administrative and/or judicial appeal process, such as it was, and so > were left with the option of trying the case in the court of public > opinion. Iggy here: There's a problem when you go to the "Court of Public Opinion," and that's you shoot yourself in the foot if common opinion is against you. There's also the fact that if you're rational up to a point, and then lose it, you will suffer a public opinion backlash against you that is more severe than if you were annoying but direct and honest from the outset. This backlash happens because people will often feel that you were either playing yourself up for the sympathy vote and misrepresenting yourself to them, or that you're unstable and irrational. (I'd rather know that a person's a jerk or a nut-job up front, rather than find out about it later. That way, it doesn't feel like they betrayed my trust.) > MsB: > > On another note, I got a couple of very interesting offlist responses > to my pseudo-fable ramble about what happened, how, and why. > Evidently I got one core theme (ego, at least as I was > interpreting "ego," in the common vernacular...in spite of (hmmm) > using the word itself nowhere, iirc). Apparently there is a need here > for delicacy (not a dialect of my mother tongue) of which I was not > previously aware, so I'm mulling over how to go about addressing it > online--in my copious *#$! free time (RL can be SO > intrusive). Iggy here: One word - Huh??? (That was a very confusing paragraph... or is it just me?) > MsB: > > Sandy, reflecting on the fragility of the human psyche...and making > the ungainly (and possibly tacky) leap to wondering about the > fragility of the human psycho, as well > > P.S. Was chat just hosed yesterday? > Iggy here: I popped into the chat room for a little while last night. There were shots of conversation, and then long periods where all there was to do was watch the cyber-tumbleweeds blow through the room. Iggy McSnurd (Who finally thinks he located where MsBeadsley got her name, and wonders if she used to watch "A Family Affair" a lot... at least, I think that was the one with the little girl who had the doll named MsBeadsley.) From fc26det at sehandel.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 2 18:55:24 2004 From: fc26det at sehandel.yahoo.invalid (Potterfanme) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:55:24 -0000 Subject: The Current Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "msbeadsley" wrote: big snip... > The other thing that occurred to me in response to > Susan's post is that while "the Federal agencies that do this" likely > do have the resources/ability to track down terrorists, or saboteurs, > or cyber-stalkers...well, is that a suggestion that we "make a > Federal case out of" this? In other words, it may be nontrivial to > entities not so well equipped as the Bureau (or Department or > whatever it is) of Homeland Security. This here stuff is extremely > small potatoes; I can't imagine law enforcement getting very > motivated to find HPfGU's, er, vandal. another big snip.. > Sandy, reflecting on the fragility of the human psyche...and making > the ungainly (and possibly tacky) leap to wondering about the > fragility of the human psycho, as well Susan: Well, pretty much that depends on how you look at it. For each of the general list members it probably doesn't have much of an effect. But if the Admin is getting a lot of individual complaints or whatever plus the aggrivation and work it takes to repair what has been damaged , it might be more than small stuff. I don't know. I do know that it was important enough for Admin to address on the lists and for part of this debate to be based on and several accusations to be made about. Also, this is a group of over 11,000 people (I know, not all are active ; ) ). And it covers several different countries. So like I say, there is something both parties can do if they feel the situation warrants it. Susan---who is not sure she used the right word--effect / affect From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 2 21:20:11 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:20:11 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: The Current Debate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <401F59BB.19523.14CFF7@localhost> On 2 Feb 2004 at 18:13, msbeadsley wrote: > Can someone else please address this? I live with a computer nerd and > asked him, "Is it possible to tell where in cyberspace messages, > etc., originate from, i.e., the originating computer or ISP?" and he > said, "Er, usually...at least sometimes." I imagine it would be > harder to determine who was doing things like deleting files (no > audit trail, I'm guessing) or siccing Yahoo on the group for > infractions of their terms of use agreement (real, imagined, or > somewhere along the spectrum of opinion as to what constitutes > infraction). The other thing that occurred to me in response to > Susan's post is that while "the Federal agencies that do this" likely > do have the resources/ability to track down terrorists, or saboteurs, > or cyber-stalkers...well, is that a suggestion that we "make a > Federal case out of" this? In other words, it may be nontrivial to > entities not so well equipped as the Bureau (or Department or > whatever it is) of Homeland Security. This here stuff is extremely > small potatoes; I can't imagine law enforcement getting very > motivated to find HPfGU's, er, vandal. Simple answer, given time and resources it isn't that hard to trace most activity on the internet back to a single computer - there are steps people can take to make it harder, but it can still generally be done. I don't do it myself, but I do work with people who have to do that on occasion, and I know a lot of the methods. However, it tends to require a significant amount of resources - and also, often, requires things like court orders to do it. It is generally anything but a trivial matter. 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 From risako at otaku_risako.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 2 21:56:21 2004 From: risako at otaku_risako.yahoo.invalid (Melissa McCarthy) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 17:56:21 -0400 Subject: Definition? WAS Let's table this discussion References: Message-ID: <017301c3e9d7$656d2cc0$8a01a8c0@vaio> Dicentra wrote: > I can't imagine that MEG is any fun at all >these days." I'm all for tabling the discussion, and I'm not trying to stir anything up, but I'd like to know what MEG is. Moderators...? I tried searching on Yahoo and came across several mentions of the acronym but no expanded version. Abbrevs.txt at the main HPFGU site doesn't list it either. Melissa, hoping this question isn't quite as stupid as it seems From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Mon Feb 2 22:38:12 2004 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:38:12 -0000 Subject: Definition? WAS Let's table this discussion In-Reply-To: <017301c3e9d7$656d2cc0$8a01a8c0@vaio> Message-ID: Melissa: > I'm all for tabling the discussion, and I'm not trying to stir anything up, > but I'd like to know what MEG is. Moderators...? I tried searching on > Yahoo and came across several mentions of the acronym but no expanded > version. Abbrevs.txt at the main HPFGU site doesn't list it either. > > Melissa, hoping this question isn't quite as stupid as it seems Not at all stupid. This is an admin usage that has come to seem so common to us that we forget it's not universal. It stands for Moderators, Elves, Geists, and it dates from back when there was a Moderator team of about 6-8 people who were the decision-making body for the lists. Since about last April (I think? My time sense is less than reliable if it was more than a week or so), the Moderator team dissolved and decisions are made by the Elves and the Geists. No Ms remain. But we *really* didn't want to be EGs and in any case, the usage was established. "MEG" is currently shorthand for both the admin team, and the list where admin issues are discussed. ~Amanda From lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 3 21:35:03 2004 From: lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:35:03 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear HPFGU, I somewhat object to the idea of opening the archives. I know it'll be wonderful for search purposes, but I must admit that I used my ordinary email address *because* HPFGU posts can't be found via Google. Stupid? Yes. But at the time, it seemed a sensible thing. See, I don't like the idea of people Googling for me and coming on HPFGU. Eileen From hebrideanblack at hebridean_black_dragn.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 3 22:10:08 2004 From: hebrideanblack at hebridean_black_dragn.yahoo.invalid (Wendy) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:10:08 -0000 Subject: Goodbye, farewell and adieu (Forwarded from GulPlum) Message-ID: Note from Hebby: I received this message from GulPlum (AKA Richard) today, and he asked me to forward it to this list. ***************** Folks, Over the last week or so, several people have contacted me, wondering about my prolonged silence on the HPFGU lists. It transpires that a message I posted to the feedback list on 17th December didn't appear (or has been removed, something which I sincerely hope isn't true) which explains my absence. What follows is that message (unamended) and it will become apparent to you why I'm not posting it myself. -- ORGINAL MESSAGE -- There's a reason I've not said anything for several days (despite being involved in threads here, on the main list and OT-C). I'm shocked, confounded and disgusted and I can't get beyond it to enjoy HPFGU. I found Amy's levity in her sig after msg #284 at Joywitch's outburst quite out of place. For a regular list member to admit that they know they're being deliberately rude and offensive is bad enough. For an established poster and (ex?) member of the Admin team to end a post with "I know I'm being rude but I don't care" is, frankly, unforgivable. Amy's one-sided attack on Gwen's language (note, we're talking about a single word here) whilst quietly brushing the tone and language of Joywitch's comments under the carpet is quite disgusting, to be honest. I don't care a fig about the behind-the-scenes personal politics which have brought about these exchanges and have no desire to take sides. However, those politics have now been brought out into the open and whist I can avoid watching the mud-slinging, the fact that it's going on has permeated the atmosphere on this list, and it's only a matter of time before the other lists are affected. I will, however, make one comment on the *content* rather than tone of these exchanges. I happen not to agree with some of what Gwen said in msg #251. I don't think that there is any causal connection between the decay of TBAY and the general degradation of post quality. I do. however, consider both to be symptoms of the same cause: thoughtlessness. And one thing I do *not* expect of a list created and run by adults is the degree of wooly thinking and lack of common civility which has characterised this community of late. The way I read Gwen's perception of those discussions among the Admins is that TBAY was being defended maniacally - she did not actually describe anyone as maniacal, which is the charge that has been put against her. I don't know about other people, but for me there's a huge difference. As it happens, whilst I'm not in a position to comment on Gwen's perceptions of the Admins list, I can say that the defence of TBAY on THIS list has been replete with hyperbole, and yes, a certain level of maniacal devotion which refuses to see reason, so I can understand where she's coming from. We've recently talked about metaphors for this list. Right now, it's neither David's party nor symposium, nor is it my "letters to the editor". The only metaphor I can see is a children's playroom where a minority of the kids are throwing a tantrum not because their toys are being taken away, not even because they're being *threatened* with having their toys taken away. They're throwing a tantrum because they're being asked to tidy up the toys they have. I'm too old for the playroom, and I'm getting a headache from the tantrums. I'm therefore taking the only option available to me, so I'm getting out. I will now be unsubscribing from all HPFGU lists and the way I feel right now, I don't see myself ever coming back. For the last week, every time I see "HPFGU" (or variants) I get a sick feeling to my stomach and want to scream. I might just come back to the Movie list when the PoA movie comes out because I enjoy exchanging ideas with a few of the people there. There's five months to go, so I might just get over my utter distate to a small degree. Enjoy the playroom, children! -- GulPlum AKA Richard, signing off From lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 3 22:56:11 2004 From: lucky_kari at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:56:11 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Possible Change to the Main List Settings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "lucky_kari" wrote: > Dear HPFGU, > > I somewhat object to the idea of opening the archives. I know it'll be > wonderful for search purposes, but I must admit that I used my > ordinary email address *because* HPFGU posts can't be found via > Google. Stupid? Yes. But at the time, it seemed a sensible thing. See, > I don't like the idea of people Googling for me and coming on HPFGU. > > Eileen ARGGGHH! I didn't know this had all been discussed and done with. I am *so* behind. I beg your forgiveness. Eileen, backing out a very humble Tigger From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid Tue Feb 3 23:08:41 2004 From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:08:41 -0000 Subject: Goodbye, farewell and adieu (Forwarded from GulPlum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm rather dismayed by GulPlum's taking off and citing my post #284 as the last straw. Had he posted to me or to the list that he found my post "disgusting" and then stuck around to hear my response, he would have heard an apology. It seems unlikely that that would have made him want to stay, but still, if someone is that upset by my words I certainly want him to know that I have heeded him. (I'll forward him this post.) Richard is right, and I apologize. I was making light of a blatant violation of list rules, and that is irresponsible and, in the circumstances, unfair. By this note, I am *not* apologizing for criticizing Gwen's post. I thought its tone was unacceptable. However, I clearly undermined my point, and as I say, it was not an appropriate kind of levity. Thanks, Richard, for calling me on it. Amy Z From dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 4 01:14:37 2004 From: dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid (Dicentra spectabilis) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:14:37 -0000 Subject: Let's table this discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Dicentra spectabilis" wrote: > First, I'm going to apologize in advance to the admin team if in this > message I reveal too much or if I'm too strident in making my case. > This message is my own, not a statement from the team. However, the team is concerned that some of the allegations I made in my last post were inappropriate for this list because they concern internal matters, they are not all 100% provable, and the target of those allegations is not here to defend herself. I have therefore deleted that post from this forum, and I offer my apologies to Tom: I hadn't read his post wherein he offered to table the subject already. I have also been informed that Cindy's ban is not appropriate for this list because it is not a policy matter but rather a personnel matter. --Dicentra, who has said quite enough as it is From joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 4 18:41:49 2004 From: joym999 at joywitch_m_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_m_curmudgeon) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:41:49 -0000 Subject: Goodbye, farewell and adieu (Forwarded from GulPlum) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Wendy" wrote: > Note from Hebby: I received this message from GulPlum (AKA Richard) > today, and he asked me to forward it to this list. > ***************** > > I found Amy's levity in her sig after msg #284 at Joywitch's > outburst quite out of place. For a regular list member to admit that > they know they're being deliberately rude and offensive is bad > enough. For an established poster and (ex?) member of the Admin team > to end a post with "I know I'm being rude but I don't care" is, > frankly, unforgivable. Amy's one-sided attack on Gwen's language > (note, we're talking about a single word here) whilst quietly > brushing the tone and language of Joywitch's comments under the > carpet is quite disgusting, to be honest. [snip] Well, I am sorry if my rudeness caused anyone to leave, but I never said "I know I'm being rude but I don't care." I *do* care, actually, but I did what I felt was necessary, and was willing to suffer the consequences of my rule-breaking. It seems to me that for someone to be angry at me is reasonable, but to be angry at Amy for *not* being angry at me is not so reasonable, and to stomp off out of HPfGU altogether is a bit of an overreaction. But anyway, I am sorry for my public rudeness. It *is* rule- breaking, and it causes sweet, pleasant, kind people like Ali to be upset. I will now go and open the soundproof cabinet where I keep my (rather large) collection of Howlers, and let them all scream at me for a while. --Joywitch From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 18 20:46:23 2004 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:46:23 -0000 Subject: It's too quiet over here Message-ID: so I think we should restrict the main list to only discussions about how Snape is not a vampire. ~not Amanda, really From SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 19 00:19:44 2004 From: SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid (SnapesSlytherin at talia_dawn_3.yahoo.invalid) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:19:44 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] It's too quiet over here Message-ID: <02314EBE.04ACA4D0.4B073798@...> We could broaden it a bit -- how about we make it a Snape-Only list? *grin* Aah...my dream. A HP4GU caliber list that's all about Severus... Oryomai "There's only us There's only this Forget regret Or life is yours to miss" From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 19 12:11:37 2004 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:11:37 -0000 Subject: It's too quiet over here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > so I think we should restrict the main list to only discussions about > how Snape is not a vampire. > No, that's not interesting to me. However, I would like to strictly enforce the rule, that all posts from me must be responded to by *everyone.* All responses to include an admiring opening paragraph (one or more). From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Thu Feb 19 22:11:40 2004 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:11:40 -0000 Subject: It's too quiet over here In-Reply-To: <02314EBE.04ACA4D0.4B073798@...> Message-ID: Never mind how Snape isn't a vampire. How about a list where Rule One is 'Dumbledore does *so* lie! Through his teeth, he lies!' Pip!Squeak > Oryomai: > "There's only us > There's only this > Forget regret > Or life is yours to miss" No other road No other way No day but today! From editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid Sat Feb 21 22:00:17 2004 From: editor at mandolabar.yahoo.invalid (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:00:17 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] It's too quiet over here References: <02314EBE.04ACA4D0.4B073798@...> Message-ID: <00a601c3f8c7$f8d513c0$ed5aaacf@...> Oryomai: > We could broaden it a bit -- how about we make it a Snape-Only list? *grin* Aah...my dream. A HP4GU caliber list that's all about Severus... Actually, that is how Snapefans began its life; it was the first spinoff list of HP4GU, pre-OTC. It became entirely separate. ~Amanda From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Wed Feb 25 19:27:09 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:27:09 -0000 Subject: Chat help for a blind list member? Message-ID: Hi, everyone-- A list member has written to us with some questions about accessing chat; she's blind and uses a text reader to follow the groups, but her text reader doesn't work in chat. Does anyone know if you can access Yahoo chats with Microsoft Chat 2.5? Cheetah Chat is not accessing Yahoo chats right now (the programmers are apparently working on an update to address this -- the changes Yahoo's been making affected chat, and so Cheetah doesn't work with Yahoo chat now). Perhaps there're some other similar programs that could be used? Any ideas or advice are greatly appreciated! --Kelley From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Tue Apr 13 22:04:27 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:04:27 -0000 Subject: Just curious... Message-ID: I'm wondering -- how many folks here also own / mod / help run a Yahoo group? Or used to? I know plenty have and do; just wondering if there's a significant number of 'mods' here on Feedback, I suppose in comparison to the proportion on the main list. Also curious, in how many groups are people here typically active? I mean, I belong to a jillion, but am only really active / actively lurk on about a dozen or so. What's sparked my curiosity is that I belong to a few groups specifically for people who mod Yahoo groups, for the sharing of info, advice, etc. One group in particular (well organized, tightly run, very active) sends out their group rules in a file the same way we do the HBF, and it's unbelievable how similar the rules are to ours. I mean *stunningly* similar. They state straight out that they do not copyright the wording of their rules, and in fact they encourage folks to lift them directly for use in their own groups, so I'll upload a copy here for any who are interested. At the moment, there's been quite a discussion in one of those groups about "digest readability" (basically "snipping") and "top posting vs. bottom posting" (top posting -- new comments placed at the top; bottom posting -- our convention of quoted material first with new comments following). Not surprisingly, there are as many opinions as there are list members, , but there are decent points made about both options. The basic sentiments seem to boil down to how easy or not is it to determine who said what, that people hate trying to decipher the out of control chevrons/carets (whatever people call them -- >, >>, > > >, etc.) and that no one likes to wade through loads of text they've already read to see a one-line response. (There are probably other general consensus thoughts; those are just the ones occurring to me now.) Anyway, considering how many times the list elves have discussed these issues, it's just kind of amusing to me that so many others are having the same discussions. Also reinforces that attentive moderation and posting rules can be Good Things. ;-) --Kelley From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Tue Apr 13 22:21:31 2004 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:21:31 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Just curious... References: Message-ID: <004501c421a5$ace49b00$01fea8c0@...> Kelley wrote: I own about twenty and mod three, not including my smart groups. Plus I volunteer help several others for new owners. Fifty, give or take a lord of the rings list. Saitaina **** Inside my mind that tiny little voice that tells me when I'm being stupid is flipping right out. You do not pin the princess of all of Hyrule up against a wall and threaten her. Unfortunately I have this awful habit of ignoring that little voice . . . http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina "No, one day I'm going to look back on all this and plow face-first into a tree because I was looking the wrong bloody way. And I'll still be having a better day than I am today." From HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com Tue Apr 13 22:39:03 2004 From: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com) Date: 13 Apr 2004 22:39:03 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HPFGU-Feedback Message-ID: <1081895943.2039.84324.w82@yahoogroups.com> Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPFGU-Feedback group. File : /List Rules Uploaded by : kelleyscorpio Description : from a Yah group for mods of Yah groups You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/files/List%20Rules To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, kelleyscorpio From jjjjjulie at jjjjjuliep.yahoo.invalid Wed Apr 14 11:17:33 2004 From: jjjjjulie at jjjjjuliep.yahoo.invalid (jjjjjuliep) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:17:33 -0000 Subject: Just curious... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: > I'm wondering -- how many folks here also own / mod / help run a > Yahoo group? Or used to? I know plenty have and do; just > wondering if there's a significant number of 'mods' here on > Feedback, I suppose in comparison to the proportion on the main > list. I'm an owner and/or moderator on 2 Yahoo groups, but they are very small private groups where we really don't need to do any admin stuff and we don't have any formal guidelines. I also a list owner of a 10-11 year old mailing list run on the majordomo list software which has approximately 400 members. On this list I do take an active admin role, and have created a set of guidelines. It's a different situation vis-a-vis the HPFGU list as the previous list owner did absolutely nothing about behavior or guidelines, so my attempt to impose order is slow progress indeed. > Also curious, in how many groups are people here typically active? > I mean, I belong to a jillion, but am only really active / actively > lurk on about a dozen or so. I am probably active in about 4 or 5 mailing lists and 1 USENET newsgroup, due to limited time (for example, I'm about 45 digests behind in HPFGU as I've been on vacation for most of the last 10 days! ;-) ). > What's sparked my curiosity is that I belong to a few groups > specifically for people who mod Yahoo groups, for the sharing of > info, advice, etc. One group in particular (well organized, > tightly run, very active) sends out their group rules in a file the > same way we do the HBF, and it's unbelievable how similar the rules > are to ours. I mean *stunningly* similar. They state straight out > that they do not copyright the wording of their rules, and in fact > they encourage folks to lift them directly for use in their own > groups, so I'll upload a copy here for any who are interested. Thanks for doing so--I've read them and they're actually very similar to the ones I have for my group (which I lifted from another group I'm on). I'm not surprised by the overlap--I think the problems list owners/moderators face are pretty much universal: how to keep the list on-topic, pleasant, and easy to read so as to invite discussion. > The basic sentiments seem to boil down to how easy or not is it to > determine who said what, that people hate trying to decipher the > out of control chevrons/carets (whatever people call them -- >, >>, > > > >, etc.) and that no one likes to wade through loads of text > they've already read to see a one-line response. (There are > probably other general consensus thoughts; those are just the ones > occurring to me now.) I say this with a good deal of humility, as I'm a very new member to HPFGU, but what has struck me about that list is the incredible amount of posts with very involved quoting. I've never seen a list where so many quotes from so many other people are regularly consolidated into responses. Has this always been a feature of the culture of this list? I will admit it's quite daunting to me to read a long post which quotes the arguments of several different people, instead of just replying to one (or maybe two) people. Thanks! jujube From dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid Wed Apr 14 12:22:37 2004 From: dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid (Daniel R. Tobias) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:22:37 -0400 Subject: Just curious... In-Reply-To: <1081927407.2238.81317.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <407CF4CD.16663.2861E8E@localhost> On 13 Apr 2004 at 22:04, "Kelley" wrote: > I'm wondering -- how many folks here also own / mod / help run a > Yahoo group? Or used to? I know plenty have and do; just wondering > if there's a significant number of 'mods' here on Feedback, I suppose > in comparison to the proportion on the main list. I run several, myself. > At the moment, there's been quite a discussion in one of those groups > about "digest readability" (basically "snipping") and "top posting > vs. bottom posting" (top posting -- new comments placed at the top; > bottom posting -- our convention of quoted material first with new > comments following). Not surprisingly, there are as many opinions as > there are list members, , but there are decent points made about > both options. I have some pages on these subjects in my site: http://mailformat.dan.info/quoting/ -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Wed Apr 14 12:34:19 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:34:19 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Just curious... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <407DBC6B.17414.47A869@localhost> On 13 Apr 2004 at 22:04, Kelley wrote: > I'm wondering -- how many folks here also own / mod / help run a > Yahoo group? Or used to? I know plenty have and do; just wondering > if there's a significant number of 'mods' here on Feedback, I suppose > in comparison to the proportion on the main list. I own about five, help to run another three or so - plus being a mod on three other non-yahoo based e-mail lists. > Also curious, in how many groups are people here typically active? I > mean, I belong to a jillion, but am only really active / actively > lurk on about a dozen or so. I'm on about 250 groups - active on about 50 of them. It helps that I only sleep three hours a night (-8 Actually, that's one of the reasons I joined groups - it helps to fill in dead hours and I have a lot of them. > At the moment, there's been quite a discussion in one of those groups > about "digest readability" (basically "snipping") and "top posting > vs. bottom posting" (top posting -- new comments placed at the top; > bottom posting -- our convention of quoted material first with new > comments following). Not surprisingly, there are as many opinions as > there are list members, , but there are decent points made about > both options. There can't be! Top-posting is inherently evil and cannot be justified under any circumstances on a list. (-8 > Anyway, considering how many times the list elves have discussed > these issues, it's just kind of amusing to me that so many others are > having the same discussions. Also reinforces that attentive > moderation and posting rules can be Good Things. ;-) I've been seeing discussions like these for well over a decade now in different forums - it is amusing to me as well, that people keep going over and over these things in dozens of different forums. 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 From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Thu Apr 15 23:55:58 2004 From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:55:58 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Missing Messages Message-ID: Greetings from Hexquarters! Apparently, Yahoomort has vaporized messages that were sent to group lists approximately 16-19 hours ago via webview, so if you've sent a message to this list some time ago and it hasn't shown up, please try re-sending it again via webview or sending it via e-mail instead. We are experiencing the same problem with individuals on moderated status, as we approve their posts via webview. If you are on moderated status and sent a message some time ago that has not yet appeared on this list, please try sending it again via e-mail or webview. Thank you! ~Poppy Elf for the HPfGU List Administration Team From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Apr 21 11:24:10 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:24:10 -0000 Subject: Tangled threads (was Just curious...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: jujube wrote: > I say this with a good deal of humility, as I'm a very new member to > HPFGU, but what has struck me about that list is the incredible > amount of posts with very involved quoting. I've never seen a list > where so many quotes from so many other people are regularly > consolidated into responses. Has this always been a feature of the > culture of this list? I will admit it's quite daunting to me to read > a long post which quotes the arguments of several different people, > instead of just replying to one (or maybe two) people. I think it has been. Are you thinking of the long multiple-subject posts where a number of unrelated topics are dealt with in a single post with a title such as 'Farmer Hagrid; metathinking; Sinistra's gender; why I hate OOP', or those which draw together a number of posts from a single thread? I like the latter, because they generally indicate that the poster has taken a big-picture view of the entire thread and is trying to advance the topic. I find the multiple quotations helpful because they mean I don't have to go back to other posts to check what views are being addressed. David From jjjjjulie at jjjjjuliep.yahoo.invalid Thu Apr 22 23:26:57 2004 From: jjjjjulie at jjjjjuliep.yahoo.invalid (jjjjjuliep) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:26:57 -0000 Subject: Tangled threads (was Just curious...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Are you thinking of the long multiple-subject posts where a number > of unrelated topics are dealt with in a single post with a title > such as 'Farmer Hagrid; metathinking; Sinistra's gender; why I hate > OOP', or those which draw together a number of posts from a single > thread? > > I like the latter, because they generally indicate that the poster > has taken a big-picture view of the entire thread and is trying to > advance the topic. I find the multiple quotations helpful because > they mean I don't have to go back to other posts to check what views > are being addressed. I like the latter too and I definitely concur with the directive to related consolidate posts. That makes a lot of sense to me and it's SOP on a number of mailing lists I am on (on one of them we call them "omnibus posts" ;-) ). I'm little bit less convinced personally about the idea of consolidating unrelated posts, but I also can understand the reasoning that it's better to have one good-sized post than a bunch of smaller ones. In either case, I would respectfully suggest that one of the things which would make the posts to the list easier to read (I'm on the digest, and currently about ~50 digest behind as I have been traveling a bit) would be if folks could be encouraged to use the ">" method whenever possible. First, let me also say that I understand that many email packages don't allow for that kind of quoting, so it is not going to be universally possible. But I would offer that it makes reading multi- or one-topic omnibus posts so much appealing and easier. This is just my personal preference, and I offer it humbly as such, but I find some like this: -------------------------- HagridTheDragonDad said: >text text text text text text text text text text text text >text text text text text text text text text text text text >text text text text text text text text text text text text >text text text text text text text text text text text text >text text text text text text text text text text text text but I think that you'd definitely need at least a heat lamp to successfully care for a dragon egg. Umbridge'sBridge wrote: >more text more text more text more text more text more text >more text more text more text more text more text more text >more text more text more text more text more text more text and I would add that I think Peeves just needs a good hug. ---------------------------------- easier to read than: ----------------------- HagridTheDragonDad said: <> but I think that you'd definitely need at least a heat lamp to successfully care for a dragon egg. Umbridge'sBridge wrote: <> and I would add that I think Peeves just needs a good hug. ------------------------- as for me and my eye it definitely sets off the "old" text from the "new" text and helps me engage with whatever the poster has to say. Part of what works against things for me as well is the length of a lot of the consolidated posts, but at the same time you can't really put a limit on posts (I mean you can--the list I run has that feature, but that's mainly to make sure that if someone top posts on a digest that it won't come to the list. The 7000 character limit for a post is known to the list members, and they compose long posts with that in mind, usually breaking them up into smaller chunks. What is interesting about this (and this is coming from someone who would rather read long posts for the most part) is that it has led list members to hone their thoughts a bit and to also, at least for the better writers, to introduce some dramatic tension into their broken up post). But I'm merely digressing, not suggesting, in this case. jujube From hpfgu_list_elves at hpfgu_list_elves.yahoo.invalid Tue May 18 00:01:27 2004 From: hpfgu_list_elves at hpfgu_list_elves.yahoo.invalid (hpfgu_list_elves) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:01:27 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Call for Elves Message-ID: The HPfGU Admin Team is looking for A Few Good Elves. All elves are expected to perform one or both of the following duties: ? Welcoming new list members -- Send personal welcome e-mails to all of the people who join the list on your assigned day and enter related information in a database. ? Participation in the list-reading rota -- Read every message posted to HPforGrownups (the main list) on your assigned day, check for compliance to posting guidelines, and note the non-compliant posts in a database. ADDITIONAL TASKS In addition, if you are interested in assisting with the following additional (optional) tasks, please note this in your Elf Enslavement Application: ? Pending Messages -- Approve, reject, or edit moderated posts from new members and explain why a message was rejected or edited. ? Help Desk -- Those who have problems with grammar, spelling, and punctuation (non-native English speakers, people with dyslexia or visual impairments, etc.) submit their messages for editing before they post them to the list. ? Technical Support -- Please have one or more of the following skills: knowledge of the mysterious inner workings of Yahoomort, HTML markup, using or writing scripts (Perl, Java, SQL, etc.), security measures, or other Internet technologies. ? Public Relations -- Respond to messages sent to the HPforGrownups- owner account. ? Database Maintenance -- Clear out old entries, ensure the accuracy of database entries, and cull relevant information. (We use the databases provided by YahooGroups.) ? Monitoring HPfGU Sister Lists -- Check OT-Chatter, Movie, and other HPFGU lists for spammers, flame wars, and other irregular or illegal behavior. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS An elf candidate must ? Have been a member of HPfGU in good standing for at least 6 months -- "Good standing" means that you are not on permanent moderated status. (Those few who are permanently moderated have been notified.) ? Have a good sense of HPfGU's posting conventions -- You understand the basic HPfGU standards of snipping, attribution, and courtesy. (You don't need to have the rules memorized, though.) ? Have good spelling, punctuation, and grammar skills -- You don't have to be a Master Linguist, but you should know the difference between a semicolon and a hole in the ground. :-) Non-native English speakers are welcome to apply. ? Have good communication skills -- It is important that you know how to express your ideas (especially disagreement) courteously and with clarity. ? Have good interpersonal skills -- Your fellow List Elves will come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of communication styles. You'll need to know how to get along with people you may not particularly like or understand, how to go along with decisions with which you don't necessarily agree, and how to be discreet (not reveal confidential list business to non-admins). ? Be reasonably level-headed -- You should be slow to react when insulted, slow to jump to conclusions, and quick to forgive misunderstandings. If you are in the habit of responding in anger (instead of waiting before posting), this might not be the job for you. Patience is definitely a virtue in HPFGU list admin; a sense of humor (especially in the face of the absurd) is mandatory. ? Score respectably well on the Percy scale -- If you have some perfectionist tendencies, you'll fit right in! ? Have no life -- Just kidding! However, we do ask that your real life not be so full as to prevent you from performing your elfly duties. (You can negotiate how many elfly duties you have.) We prefer that you commit to a minimum of six months in List Admin; however, you can don clothing sooner if the need arises. The ability to keep the rest of the Team supplied with eclairs is a bonus but is not required. :-) BENEFITS Becoming an HPfGU List Elf allows you to ? Blow your Harry Potter Obsession score through the roof. ? Imbibe all the butterbeer you want (except when on duty). ? Become the target of bitter and sometimes delicious insults, e.g., "Moderator Tart." ? Acquire a stylish new wardrobe of colorful tea cozies, lurid pillowcases, and violently mismatched socks. ? Get immediate first aid for ears-in-the-oven-door slammings, hand ironings, foot-in-blender jammings, and other self-inflicted punishments. If a large number of candidates apply, it may not be possible to accept every qualified candidate right away. Every application will be acknowledged, and we'll keep the applications on file for future consideration unless you notify us otherwise. You can find the Elf Enslavement Application (EEA.txt) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/ The application includes instructions on where to send the application. The deadline for sending in applications is Friday, May 21, 2004, at 00:00 (midnight) GMT. Best regards, The HPfGU Admin Team From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 16 21:46:57 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:46:57 -0000 Subject: New poll for main -- thoughts? Message-ID: Hi everyone! We're putting together some informative polls for main, one of which will ask list members how they learned of HPfGU. I'd like to have the best options to give (there's a limit of 25; I have 9), but feel there are certainly ones I'm overlooking. So, thought I'd check with everyone here -- any options we're missing, any that we have which are too vague and can be narrowed a bit more? I appreciate any help on this. Here's what we have so far: How did you learn about HPfGU (how did you find this group)? Searched Yahoo groups for an HP group A link from The Lexicon A link from Fiction Alley The Fantastic Posts / hpfgu.org.uk site A mention on HPANA Heard about it from a friend A link from another Yahoo group (tell the elves which one -- HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com) A mention in another forum (tell the elves which one -- HPforGrownups- owner@ yahoogroups.com) Saw it mentioned in an online article (Salon.com, NYTimes Online, etc.) Any ideas? Thanks, everyone. --Kelley From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 17 09:47:41 2004 From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:47:41 -0000 Subject: New poll for main -- thoughts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Any ideas? > > Thanks, everyone. > > --Kelley Don't forget Google! Typing in 'Harry Potter' and 'adult' (or grownup) brings up the HPfGU Yahoo homepage. Pip!Squeak From v-tregan at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 17 09:51:23 2004 From: v-tregan at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan (Intl Vendor)) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:51:23 +0100 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] New poll for main -- thoughts? Message-ID: <502C27106D99DB478C13DEDBFD185E15D64ADE@...> Hi All, Kelley asked: >>> ask list members how they learned of HPfGU [snip] there are certainly ones I'm overlooking <<< I learnt of the existence of HPfGU through a post on news:alt.fan.harry-potter (NB http://groups.google.com/groups?group=alt.fan.harry-potter will be an easier URL if you do not have a newsreader installed and configured) Cheers, Dumbledad. From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Mon Jul 19 19:09:42 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:09:42 -0000 Subject: New poll for main -- thoughts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Oh! A new thread! Kelley asked: > We're putting together some informative polls for main, one of which > will ask list members how they learned of HPfGU. I'd like to have > the best options to give (there's a limit of 25; I have 9), but feel > there are certainly ones I'm overlooking. So, thought I'd check with > everyone here -- any options we're missing, any that we have which > are too vague and can be narrowed a bit more? I appreciate any help > on this. Another possibility is that Nimbus, at least, advertised outside the places you have mentioned, e.g., people were encouraged to ask if they could leave fliers in bookshops. That might have led on to HPFGU. David From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 23 00:54:36 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:54:36 -0000 Subject: New poll for main -- thoughts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: > Another possibility is that Nimbus, at least, advertised outside > the places you have mentioned, e.g., people were encouraged to ask > if they could leave fliers in bookshops. That might have led on to > HPFGU. Right; I'd asked Heidi if TLC had a page somewhere that was an "Other sites / groups of interest" sort of arrangement, and while they do not, HPfGU has gotten mentioned in passing here and there in various items posted there. So, need to include an option for that. Hm; 'fliers in bookshops'...maybe just an option of having learned of the groups from Nimbus or other upcoming events...see if the last one covers it? What I have so far: How did you learn about HPfGU (how did you find this group)? Searched Yahoo groups for an HP group Searched Google or another internet-wide search engine A link from The Lexicon A link from Fiction Alley The Fantastic Posts / hpfgu.org.uk site A mention on The Leaky Cauldron A mention on HPANA A mention on "What's In A Name?" A mention on an HP news group Heard about it from a friend A link from another Yahoo group (tell the elves which one -- HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com) A mention in another forum (tell the elves which one -- HPforGrownups- owner@ yahoogroups.com) Saw it mentioned in an online article (Salon.com, NYTimes Online, etc.) Learned about it from Nimbus or from the website / grapevine of another upcoming fandom convention Thanks for the input, everyone! If you have any more, let me know. --Kelley From lists at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 23 02:37:44 2004 From: lists at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (Heidi Tandy) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:37:44 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: New poll for main -- thoughts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1090550268.51D096D@...> And tonight, gmail had HPFGU as a 'related link'! On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 8:54pm, Kelley wrote: > David: > Another possibility is that Nimbus, at least, advertised outside > the places you have mentioned, e.g., people were encouraged to ask > if they could leave fliers in bookshops.? That might have led on to > HPFGU. Right; I'd asked Heidi if TLC had a page somewhere that was an "Other sites / groups of interest" sort of arrangement, and while they do not, HPfGU has gotten mentioned in passing here and there in various items posted there.? So, need to include an option for that. Hm; 'fliers in bookshops'...maybe just an option of having learned of the groups from Nimbus or other upcoming events...see if the last one covers it? What I have so far: How did you learn about HPfGU (how did you find this group)? Searched Yahoo groups for an HP group Searched Google or another internet-wide search engine A link from The Lexicon A link from Fiction Alley The Fantastic Posts / hpfgu.org.uk site A mention on The Leaky Cauldron A mention on HPANA A mention on "What's In A Name?" A mention on an HP news group Heard about it from a friend A link from another Yahoo group (tell the elves which one -- HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com) A mention in another forum (tell the elves which one -- HPforGrownups- owner@ yahoogroups.com) Saw it mentioned in an online article (Salon.com, NYTimes Online, etc.) Learned about it from Nimbus or from the website / grapevine of another upcoming fandom convention Thanks for the input, everyone!? If you have any more, let me know. --Kelley Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT -------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Feedback-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 23 06:14:03 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 06:14:03 -0000 Subject: New poll for main -- thoughts? In-Reply-To: <1090550268.51D096D@...> Message-ID: Heidi: > And tonight, gmail had HPFGU as a 'related link'! >>> Get outta town, are you kidding me? Is this on the main gmail site, or on your own account, or what? The main list, or the org site? --Kelley From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 23 17:38:40 2004 From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:38:40 -0000 Subject: New poll for main -- thoughts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > How did you learn about HPfGU (how did you find this group)? > I got here from a "Top Ten Links" list on iHarryPotter.net ~ Constance Vigilance From hpfgu_elves at hpfgu_elves.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 04:30:24 2004 From: hpfgu_elves at hpfgu_elves.yahoo.invalid (hpfgu_elves) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:30:24 -0000 Subject: From the main list: discussion of Movie policy Message-ID: 108001 From: "Geoff Bannister" Date: Wed Jul 28, 2004 2:31 pm Subject: Re: ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfgu_elves" wrote: > Attention, please! > If you wish to post about the > films, even if you are using them as support for a book-related > point, please direct your post to the Movie list: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie > Geoff: Which means that we may have to start playing leapfrog between lists. I also belong to the Movie group but, because I have limited time and I concentrate on the main list, I get to that group about once a month. It is draconian to suggest that /any/ film support is off- limits. For example, is it now going to be ruled that C S Lewis or J R R Tolkien as inadmissable? Surely the elves, by virtue of their elevated status, can be allowed to exercise their own discretion as to whether a reference to the films exceeds a permitted percentage of the post? 108031 From: "sad1199" Date: Wed Jul 28, 2004 7:04 pm Subject: Re: ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfgu_elves" > wrote: > > Attention, please! > > > If you wish to post about the > > films, even if you are using them as support for a book-related > > point, please direct your post to the Movie list: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie > > > > Geoff: > Which means that we may have to start playing leapfrog between lists. > Surely the elves, by virtue of their > elevated status, can be allowed to exercise their own discretion as > to whether a reference to the films exceeds a permitted percentage of > the post? sad1199 here: I am one of those who do not use the movies in discussion because 1. The movies are changed for viewing; whether scenes are changed, shortened or romanticized and whether or not JKR approves of those changes, there are still CHANGES from the books. 2. Not using the movies for my opinion, I am sometimes confused when a poster uses a point or scene from the movies. 3. The Home Page of this group clearly states that discussion is for Harry Potter BOOKS. So, I am sorry if others are not happy with this decision by the elves but, I, for one, am quite relieved with it. Have a Happy Love Filled Day sad1199 108133 From: "Geoff Bannister" Date: Thu Jul 29, 2004 3:44 pm Subject: Re: ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sad1199" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: Geoff: > > Which means that we may have to start playing leapfrog between > > lists. Surely the elves, by virtue of their elevated status, can > > be allowed to exercise their own discretion as to whether a > > reference to the films exceeds a permitted percentage of the post? sad1199: > > I am one of those who do not use the movies in discussion because > 1. The movies are changed for viewing; whether scenes are changed, > shortened or romanticized and whether or not JKR approves of those > changes, there are still CHANGES from the books. 2. Not using the > movies for my opinion, I am sometimes confused when a poster uses a > point or scene from the movies. 3. The Home Page of this group > clearly states that discussion is for Harry Potter BOOKS. So, I am > sorry if others are not happy with this decision by the elves but, > I, for one, am quite relieved with it. Geoff: I agree that there are changes from the books, but remember that Jo Rowling has oversight of what goes on; she has been interviewed together with Steven Kloves and has commented on the screenplays. To try to have no comment whatever on the films ignores the fact that often, the films point up something in the books. I have often been drawn back to check things on the books when involved in talking about HP films. I have been a Lord of the Rings addict for nigh on 50 years and I find that, in discussions, will often refer to the films to underscore a point. You are also being inconsistent. Playing devil's advocate, if the group exists solely to discuss the Harry Potter books, then we should not even be considering what JKR has said on her website or speculating on the content of Books 6 & 7 because they do not fall into this remit until they are published and actually become books! 108166 From: "sad1199" Date: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:52 pm Subject: Re: ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sad1199" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > > wrote: > > Geoff: > > > Which means that we may have to start playing leapfrog between > > > lists. Surely the elves, by virtue of their elevated status, can > > > be allowed to exercise their own discretion as to whether a > > > reference to the films exceeds a permitted percentage of the post? > > sad1199: > > > > I am one of those who do not use the movies in discussion because > > 1. The movies are changed for viewing; whether scenes are changed, > > shortened or romanticized and whether or not JKR approves of those > > changes, there are still CHANGES from the books. 2. Not using the > > movies for my opinion, I am sometimes confused when a poster uses a > > point or scene from the movies. 3. The Home Page of this group > > clearly states that discussion is for Harry Potter BOOKS. So, I am > > sorry if others are not happy with this decision by the elves but, > > I, for one, am quite relieved with it. > > Geoff: > I agree that there are changes from the books, but remember that Jo > Rowling has oversight of what goes on; she has been interviewed > together with Steven Kloves and has commented on the screenplays. To > try to have no comment whatever on the films ignores the fact that > often, the films point up something in the books. I have often been > drawn back to check things on the books when involved in talking > about HP films. I have been a Lord of the Rings addict for nigh on 50 > years and I find that, in discussions, will often refer to the films > to underscore a point. > > You are also being inconsistent. Playing devil's advocate, if the > group exists solely to discuss the Harry Potter books, then we should > not even be considering what JKR has said on her website or > speculating on the content of Books 6 & 7 because they do not fall > into this remit until they are published and actually become books! sad1199 again: Well, I am certainly not going to argue about this but, I hold firm with my opinion. As for playing devil's advocate; discussing future Harry Potter BOOKS or relatimg what JKR has said or posted in regards to her BOOKS is as much part of the discussion as discussing the current BOOKS. If someone has another comment fine but, I will not be responding again. Thank you. Have a Happy Love Filled Day. sad1199 From hpfgu_elves at hpfgu_elves.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 06:09:44 2004 From: hpfgu_elves at hpfgu_elves.yahoo.invalid (hpfgu_elves) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 06:09:44 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) Message-ID: 23401 From: "justcarol67" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:11 pm Subject: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) Shaun wrote: > I confess to being just slightly annoyed with HPFGU at the moment - > I sent a very large post, which I put a lot of research into, to > the main list last week, and received virtually no comments about > it at all. No reason I should I suppose... it's just very > disappointing - especially when I see that far less detailed posts > on the same types of issues spark a lot of discussion. > > Maybe I should have posted it here (-8. Carol responds: I think almost everyone, even those who dutifully spend every evening posting to the list, are overwhelmed by the number of posts on the main list right now. I, for one, have had to skip whole days' worth of posts and still am nowhere near caught up, even skipping SHIPs and FILKs. I have to be very selective about the posts I respond to as well. When I do post, I generally put a lot of effort into it (as you do, too) and even when I don't need to check canon, it's a very time-consuming process. Carol P.S. When no one answers one of my posts, which happens fairly often, I console myself with the thought that I've presented an unanswerable argument, the last word on the subject, and no one has anything to add. (It isn't true, of course, but the ban on "I agree" posts at least makes it plausible.) ;-) 23403 From: "Shaun Hately" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) I think part of the problem is how large the list is getting - not that I have a solution to that problem - but because probably everybody is having to skim messages, a huge amount that people are writing probably isn't even being read by most of the list. I don't have any type of solution to that problem - but if I'd posted that message a year ago, I'm almost certain I'd have had a lot more comment - back when the list had about 5000 members, it seemed to me that most things got read. Now it doesn't. > So it's not that I don't appreciate the time and thought that went > into your long post. I just put my own time and thought into other > topics--like the POV in the books or analysis of events and > characters. I think that many posters are in a similar position at the > moment. Yes, but I suppose my point is best illustrated by the fact that it seems likely you didn't even notice my large post, because you're commenting here about an entirely different post. The post I'm referring to was the largest post sent to HPFGU since September last year (as far back as my current HPFGU mailbox goes. It represents approximately a month of fairly solid research, and was heavily referenced. And it looks like you didn't even notice it existed (-8 Now, that's hardly your fault - if anything is causing that, it's the volume of the list caused by the lists success. But, to be frank, if I write anything similar again, it's unlikely I'll bother to post it to HPFGU because it seems to be a waste of time. When I joined HPFGU, it wouldn't have been. I'd have been fairly confident it was being read - even if nobody commented. I'm not saying HPFGU isn't working - because it is, I've got a great deal out of other discussions - but when I joined HPFGU, it seemed to be a place where detailed, in depth discussions, and detailed posts were pretty welcomed. It just doesn't seem that way to me anymore. Short posts tend to get read. Long posts now get ignored. Being concise is fine when you're dealing with simple issues, or when you don't mind spreading out a detailed discussion across lots of posts, but sometimes you can't say something in a short way. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought 23422 From: "tonyaminton" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:21 am Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) Shaun wrote: > I confess to being just slightly annoyed with HPFGU at the moment - > I sent a very large post, which I put a lot of research into, to > the main list last week, and received virtually no comments about > it at all. No reason I should I suppose... it's just very > disappointing - especially when I see that far less detailed posts > on the same types of issues spark a lot of discussion. > > Maybe I should have posted it here (-8. Shaun, I would have to agree with all the responses to your "slightly annoyed". I enjoy reading as many of the great posts as I can and responding when I have something useful to say. Most of the time my useful thing to say has been said already by someone who read the post earlier then I did. I also need to say that I have to be selective as to what posts I read because of time constraints. We are all adults here on the list and from what I gather we all have families, jobs, and other stresses that keep us otherwise occupied. I myself put my family first, then job stresses and then Harry. But I have to admit that after working a 10 hour day, spending time with my three year old, taking care of household needs, I am wiped out. I hope that you do not take the lack of response your excellant post personally. For me I always read all of your posts I love your point of view. Please keep posting I know I am reading your posts even if I don't have anything useful to add!! Tonya (Who hopes the cheering charm I have put on Shaun works well!!) 23430 From: "a_reader2003" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:17 pm Subject: Re: Problem of list vol (was No responses on the main list ) --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > I think part of the problem is how large the list is getting - not > that I have a solution to that problem - but because probably > everybody is having to skim messages, a huge amount that people are > writing probably isn't even being read by most of the list. > > I don't have any type of solution to that problem - but if I'd > posted that message a year ago, I'm almost certain I'd have had a > lot more comment - back when the list had about 5000 members, it > seemed to me that most things got read. Now it doesn't. > Carolyn: Its a problem that a lot of people are experiencing. It actually does need addressing, because otherwise the character of the list will be permanently damaged, IMO. Heretical suggestions in no particular order: (1) close this list to newcomers and start a new one for new members, resulting in current list over time becoming a calmer place to post (2) start a new list for longer, more thoughtful posts, with tight rules to ensure proper discussion, excluding people who have not been a member for xx months (3) introduce/tighten up draconian new rules on this list, eg limiting number of posts per person, and insisting on more substantive replies, proper reference to old posts and ideas, eliminating FAQ & OT questions etc Probably this should be on the Feedback list, so if it gets picked up and moved by Admin, hope people might come over and debate it there. Carolyn From: "davewitley" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:17 pm Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) Shaun wrote: > I think part of the problem is how large the list is getting - not > that I have a solution to that problem - but because probably > everybody is having to skim messages, a huge amount that people are > writing probably isn't even being read by most of the list. The evidence of the posting record is that it's not the size of the list per se that drives the posting rate, but the rate at which new people join, and the incidence of external factors to write about. jkrowling.com is now providing a fairly steady stream of comment- worthy material, and in particular recently recommended the Lexicon, which in turn recommends HPFGU. So there has been a massive spike in new members. If you look at the home page of the main list, you will see that the join and post rates have already begun to fall off slightly. Posting was up at almost 1400 a week - 200 a day - but is now below 1000. At about 160, the join rate is still high (about a dozen a day would IIRC be normal for a quiet period), but I think it has declined. Unfortunately, Yahoo keeps a poor record of membership numbers (list administrators can in theory reconstruct them from the records of people joining and leaving though it would be quite a bit of work, I think), so it's hard to see this, but, say in late 2000 the post rate was not very different to now with about 10% of the membership. Even allowing for the hiving off of OT and movie lists. > I don't have any type of solution to that problem - but if I'd > posted that message a year ago, I'm almost certain I'd have had a > lot more comment - back when the list had about 5000 members, it > seemed to me that most things got read. Now it doesn't. > But, to be frank, if I write anything similar again, it's unlikely > I'll bother to post it to HPFGU because it seems to be a waste of > time. When I joined HPFGU, it wouldn't have been. I'd have been > fairly confident it was being read - even if nobody commented. This will probably be cold comfort, but my own experience is that people sometimes comment, on or offlist, months or even years later, on posts that raised scarcely a ripple at the time. We are all pushed for time, and have three activities on the lists: reading, posting substantive thoughts, and posting to acknowledge others. I think it's probably pretty accurate to say that for most of us, the acknowledgement activity gets brutally shoved into a distant third place as far as priority is concerned. > Short posts tend to get read. Long posts now get ignored. It would be interesting to see if there's any objective evidence of this. It is a longstanding summer HPFGU tradition to whine about how the list is going downhill. The fact that people have crawled out of the woodwork bang on cue says to me that the continuity in all this far outweighs what is new. In 2000, there was oldbie eye-rolling by August about how newbies would ask about Dumbledore's gleam - less than two months after GOF was published. There was no golden age. David 23435 From: "a_reader2003" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:22 am Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Shaun wrote: > > Short posts tend to get read. Long posts now get ignored. > David wrote: > It would be interesting to see if there's any objective evidence of > this. > > It is a longstanding summer HPFGU tradition to whine about how the > list is going downhill. The fact that people have crawled out of > the woodwork bang on cue says to me that the continuity in all this > far outweighs what is new. In 2000, there was oldbie eye-rollingby > August about how newbies would ask about Dumbledore's gleam - less > than two months after GOF was published. > > There was no golden age. > Carolyn: If it happens every summer, shouldn't we try and do something about it? It can only get worse, not better over the next few years. What's the point of regularly dis-affecting half the membership? Every group needs constant renewal, older members burn out constantly; it's just a question of managing the process. A regularly updated consensus on what was a FAQ might stem the flow of some types of post (provided there was an effective mechanism to catch these posts before they got on to the list, and an easy place you could refer people to to find the answers). Controlling the number of posts per day might also be worth considering if it is not possible to come to an agreement on how large the group should be overall. And although a peruse of the archives certainly reveals no golden age, nevertheless, there is no doubt that when groups of members get used to working with each other, and are familiar with each other's points of view, some amazing threads can result. People stack ideas on ideas in ever-more entertaining houses of cards. Although the same groups also tend to fly too near the sun in their excitement and fall to earth eventually, its great while it lasts, and leaves a permanent legacy of great theories to be picked over and re-mastered, or indeed, trashed by other people. It's very rare for that kind of exhilarating thread to be generated by totally new people, so sorry if you think its whining, but I think it is quite important to try and strike a balance between the interests of older members and those who have just joined. Carolyn 23440 From: "jimlaming" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:52 am Subject: Re: Problem of list vol (was No responses on the main list ) "Shaun Hately" wrote: I think part of the problem is how large the list is getting - not that I have a solution to that problem - but because probably everybody is having to skim messages, a huge amount that people are writing probably isn't even being read by most of the list. Carolyn: Its a problem that a lot of people are experiencing. It actually does need addressing, because otherwise the character of the list will be permanently damaged, IMO. Jim chimes in: I joined almost 2 years ago and only started posting in the last 6-8 months or so. Unfortunately, I have now stopped reading regularly as I just can't keep up with the volume and the discussions seem to be revolving with very little new thought. Currently, I come back to research a topic I have questions or ideas about and when I have a few spare hours (LOL). There is a wealth of knowledge in the archives if you can get through the search engine. The HPfGU discussion board was my first HP site. As I have progressed in my obsession, I have found other formats that enhanced my study and understanding. Perhaps one of these could help solve the volume crisis. There is the synopsis format where a moderator (committee) has boiled down the theories (al la; Hypothetic Alley: HPfGU's Wildest Speculations) and presents the theories in all their spender. They have noted major disagreements, flaws, interrelationships to other theories and variations on a theme. To my knowledge, there have been no new updates to the "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them" site since OOP came out. I would love to see that branch of HPfGU reactivated. Posters like me would ask fewer stupid questions and have that "wealth of knowledge" organized and easily accessed. Another format is to subdivide the topics into separate discussion boards. Snape, Harry, Molly, Quidditch, Hogwarts, magical creatures, FILK, SHIP, JKR interviews and appearances, etc Then we can review the subject we are most interested in. Divide and concur, I mean conquer. ;-) I agree that something needs to be done to regulate or organize the flood of posts. We are drowning in our own success. I don't pretend to have all the answers. There are a lot smarter people than me out there. I hope we can find a way. Respectfully, Jim Laming 23441 From: "heiditandy" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:32 pm Subject: Re: Problem of list vol (was No responses on the main list ) Carolyn wrote: > Its a problem that a lot of people are experiencing. It actually does > need addressing, because otherwise the character of the list will be > permanently damaged, IMO. Carolyn - I don't want to sound dismissive, and I hope that what I am about to say doesn't sound that way, but people have been saying that for *years*. Right now, the main list is very different, and yet no different, than the way it looked when I first joined HPfGU over three years ago. Damaged? I don't think that's a fair way to look at it - if you go back and look at the posts at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages/1, you'll see a universe that's somewhate recognizable, but in a way, it's not. I remember the list before the proliferation of acronyms. I remember the list before coming up with a New and Unifying Theory was the be- all-and-end-all of disucssion. I remember the list when one was allowed to use an original narrative - or even fanfiction to make a point about something in canon. And oh, do I remember the first volleys in the ship debates (pretty much Oct-Nov, 2000). The list is a changing animal, and people have a tendency to think that The Way It Was When They Joined Or First Became Involved is how it should be - and sometimes they're right, and sometimes, things need to develop and grow and yes, they change. Now, I haven't been on the mod side of things on this list in over a year - but there were discussions in 2001, in 2002 and in 2003 about closing the list to newbies; as it stands now, newbies can't post to the list without having their first posts screened by a mod. That wasn't the way things were three years ago - or even two. But it's the way things are now, and it's caused a change in how the list is. Then Jim chimed in and said: > I joined almost 2 years ago and only started posting in the last 6- 8 > months or so. Unfortunately, I have now stopped reading regularly as > I just can't keep up with the volume and the discussions seem to be > revolving with very little new thought. Currently, I come back to > research a topic I have questions or ideas about and when I have a > few spare hours (LOL). There is a wealth of knowledge in the > archives if you can get through the search engine. > > The HPfGU discussion board was my first HP site. As I have > progressed in my obsession, I have found other formats that enhanced > my study and understanding. Perhaps one of these could help solve > the volume crisis. > > Another format is to subdivide the topics into separate discussion > boards. Snape, Harry, Molly, Quidditch, Hogwarts, magical creatures, > FILK, SHIP, JKR interviews and appearances, etc Then we can review > the subject we are most interested in. Divide and concur, I mean > conquer. ;-) There are other forums in the fandom that do things this way - it's much more organic and natural on a message board than it is on a mailing list. My own site, FictionAlley, has forums for discussion of every character (http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php ?s=&forumid=11), book (http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php ?s=&forumid=10), interview (http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php ?s=&forumid=38), SHIP (http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php ?s=&forumid=36) or FILK (http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php ?s=&forumid=33 although admittedly, the area for filks has an abundance of youthfulness about it; all filks, however, are appreciated!). Some people find the subdivision of concepts a handy way to engage in discussion, and among the million-plus posts, a wide range of discussions are taking place. But it's all about, really, how you like to read and discuss. I've always enjoyed turning arguments into stories, but others prefer to use traditional debate and forensic league styles (http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/forumdisplay.php ?s=&forumid=164). heidi 23442 From: "arrowsmithbt" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:57 pm Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > It is a longstanding summer HPFGU tradition to whine about how the > list is going downhill. The fact that people have crawled out of > the woodwork bang on cue says to me that the continuity in all this > far outweighs what is new. In 2000, there was oldbie eye-rolling by > August about how newbies would ask about Dumbledore's gleam - less > than two months after GOF was published. > > There was no golden age. Possibly, but that's no reason to not aspire to one. And yes, although I've been a member for little over a year I too think the standard of the average post has declined. I was part of the big influx in response to the forthcoming publication of OoP - more numerous than the current intake, I think. But there's a not-so-subtle difference this time - they're (mostly) not a response to the books, but to the release of the film. And judging by some of the posts a proportion of them have never bothered to read the books properly. Doesn't stop 'em posting, though. I've had mails querying my posts - "because it didn't happen that way in the film" and "the clues in the film say different." Since I've not seen the film and have no intention of doing so, I'm not able to comment except to point out that the films aren't canon. To which I received replies - "canon is boring"; "canon doesn't matter"; "forget canon, the film is more fun." OK, they might be exceptions (I hope), but it doesn't give me a great deal of confidence for the future if more than a handful with this attitude post with any regularity. Makes you wonder if it's worthwhile grafting to put a reasoned post together if make believe, adolescent fantasy and the view through Warner Bros. story filter are seen as more desirable. Never had that sort of mail previous to the past month. Could well be straws in the wind. So call me a whiner - better to my mind than airily dismissing concerns from the lofty eminence of 4 years on site. One stance is concerned about maintaining reasonably adult standards; the other sees no cause to worry. Sorry, I think you're wrong. The complexion of the membership is changing, and not in a way I feel comfortable with. Kneasy 23443 From: "Dina Lerret" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Problem of list vol (was No responses on the main list ) heiditandy said: > But it's all about, really, how you like to read and discuss. I've > always enjoyed turning arguments into stories, but others prefer to > use traditional debate and forensic league styles The HPFGU groups do offer an interesting alternative, but I'm more of a slasher and not even close to a literary intellectual. Truthfully, I haven't read a single HPFGU message in weeks; I just skim subjects. I'm happiest on mailing lists (multiple technical reasons that no forum or journal has yet to compensate) where folks are free to killfile me or jump into a discussion. I can think for myself but it's interesting to have a second viewpoint. If the complaint was about folks being 'buried under the masses', join the club. Fanfic writers are especially paranoid. For example, since I'm replying to Heidi's message, the FA domains could be a 'graveyard' for some fics or forum posts because of the huge amount of work they're competing with. Hm, create your own 'clique'. Find folks you want to converse with and *privately* invite them into a smaller group. Elitist, yeah, but that's what some of y'all are suggesting anyway. Dina, a last year 'newbie' on HPFGU that's probably still on moderated - I can chat freely here and on the HPFGU movie list and I'm happy with that 23444 From: "Amanda" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:31 pm Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) David, who is correct: > > There was no golden age. Idealist!Kneasy responds: > > Possibly, but that's no reason to not aspire to one. > > So call me a whiner - better to my mind than airily dismissing concerns > from the lofty eminence of 4 years on site. Not quite four in my case, but close, so I feel qualified to comment. Part of what you may be experiencing might honestly have nothing to do with the quality of the posts. I was an enthusiastic poster for quite a long time--in fact, in the old stats lists I topped the chart for quite some time. My participation has tailed off for a couple of reasons. One, of course, has to do with increased time demands from other aspects of life. But another has to do with "list life." By that I mean a natural progression of participation. I call it "natural" because I have observed and discussed this with other old listmembers--I don't feel I'm describing a phenomenon unique to me. Fact is, when you come onboard you are bursting with ideas and theories and delighted to find a place to share them. If you stay, though, after about a year--about the time you say you've been onlist- -it starts to be the case that there are no new ideas (or it seems not). Enthusiastic new members come on after you and bring up theories and ideas that you've already had, or already discussed, or already explored. At first, you respond and participate, and when relevant, point out aspects from the earlier discussions (or provide a thread name, or message number of interest). And you strive not to quash these people just becaus you've heard this "new" idea four or five times. It's a new thought to *them,* and you remind yourself it's not their fault you're tired of it. And after a while, you stop responding to so many posts, because if you participate you feel obligated to *fully* participate, and the cumulative weight of those earlier discussions and the desire to make newcomers aware of brilliant past insights begin to seem conflicted with a desire to make them welcome and let them explore and discuss for themselves. And you might end up pretty much lurking, stepping in now and then to make a comment. In this progression, in the "whiny" phase (no offense), there's a feeling of letdown. At least for me, I used to be a major poster and my ideas were discussed and valued. Then it seemed like nobody was reading my stuff anymore; I called myself a list dementor because all I had to do was comment and the thread died. Or I'd post a good discussion of something, with a fun sig line--and the substance would be totally ignored, while spinoff comments on the sig line thrived. This was my experience of the whiny phase, and I did in fact whine about it (hence no offense, I've been there). What I'm saying--In that time, when the list doesn't seem quite the same and you're trying to figure out why, don't think it's entirely externals. There have been discussions upon discussions of whether the quality of posts was declining. The quality of posts has always fluctuated. As David pointed out, we're coming off a spike, which probably accounts for this particular fluctuation (if there is one). But don't overlook, in analyses of how the list is changing, how your interaction with the list may be changing and maturing as well. ~Amanda 23445 From: Suzanne Chiles Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:32 pm Subject: RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) Perhaps what we need is a canon-only, no-film-mention-at-all sublist. Personally, I was happier before we were allowed to discuss film-related issues on the main list. Suzanne From: "entropymail" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:56 pm Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > There was no golden age. > Kneasy: Possibly, but that's no reason to not aspire to one. And judging by some of the posts a proportion of them have never bothered to read the books properly. Doesn't stop 'em posting, though. Entropy: True, Kneasy. The problem may be two-fold: I am frustrated lately by not just the caliber of the posts, but by the subjects themselves. First, if I'm going to entertain a theory (or post one myself), it's got to be chock-full of canon and common sense; a simple post stating a theory and a sentence from Book 3 to back it up just isn't going to do it for me. And second, I'm personally getting a bit tired of being asked to entertain the same theories over and over again. (No offense to all of you Vampire!Snape diehards out there, but do we really need to be re-hashing that one again? ) My concern is not so much that the list is getting too big or too busy, or too whatever, but that it is in grave danger of stagnating. In my mind, the older posters have (rightfully so) a "been there, done that" attitude: they've done the research and collaborated on the theories and drawn their conclusions, and don't really have much interest in watching the newbies start at square one all over again. >Kneasy:So call me a whiner - better to my mind than airily dismissing concerns from the lofty eminence of 4 years on site. One stance is concerned about maintaining reasonably adult standards; the other sees no cause to worry. Sorry, I think you're wrong. The complexion of the membership is changing, and not in a way I feel comfortable with. Entropy: Once again, Kneasy, I agree. Whether or not problems have been brought up in the past is no reason to dismiss them now. Perhaps the complaints were unfounded in the past; or, perhaps those complaining two or three years ago simply saw then what has now reached critical mass. In any case, it doesn't seem out of line to consider somehow splitting the list. Although someone suggested that other lists have been divided by subject (Snape, FILKS, Ships, etc.), I don't think anything that drastic is necessary. Simply splitting the list into two groups: (1)newbies who are excited about discovering older theories for themselves and (2) oldies who have a certain amount of time put into the group (or a certain number of posts) seems to me to be a fair way of keeping newer members happy and older members interested. Elves, are you listening? :: Entropy ::: 23449 From: "arrowsmithbt" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:26 pm Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at ...m, "Amanda" wrote: > > Not quite four in my case, but close, so I feel qualified to comment. > > Part of what you may be experiencing might honestly have nothing to > do with the quality of the posts. I was an enthusiastic poster for > quite a long time--in fact, in the old stats lists I topped the chart > for quite some time. My participation has tailed off for a couple of > reasons. One, of course, has to do with increased time demands from > other aspects of life. But another has to do with "list life." > > By that I mean a natural progression of participation. I call > it "natural" because I have observed and discussed this with other > old listmembers--I don't feel I'm describing a phenomenon unique to > me. > > Snip> > > What I'm saying--In that time, when the list doesn't seem quite the > same and you're trying to figure out why, don't think it's entirely > externals. There have been discussions upon discussions of whether > the quality of posts was declining. The quality of posts has always > fluctuated. As David pointed out, we're coming off a spike, which > probably accounts for this particular fluctuation (if there is one). > > But don't overlook, in analyses of how the list is changing, how your > interaction with the list may be changing and maturing as well. > Maturing? Me? Hardly. I'm growing old disgracefully. Oh yes, I've tried to take into account the rush of enthusiasm that carries you through the first few months, usually followed by a more selective approach to posting. That is a natural progression, I agree. After you've been around awhile it's natural to grunt when some old relic of a topic is resurrected for the umteenth time - not that again! But take the time to read these re-animations and you'll possibly see that the way they are composed and the handling of the subject matter is starting to change. This is the bit that worries/annoys me. Where before canon was quoted, possibilities put forward, questions framed, ideas exchanged and modified it's often not so now. I get the feeling that there is an increasing tendency for the mind-set of "I want it to be like this." Refutation with hard canon makes no difference; the perception is fixed - and then others join in with "Ooh! What a lovely idea!" Fortunately, up to now most of it has concerned trivial items, posts and subject matter that you can flip past without feeling that you're missing something. To make an analogy, it's as if the wishful whimsy of SHIPpers is spreading to other areas. And no, I don't want a hanging committee to adjudicate on the worthiness of the subject under disussion. Humour, a light touch and even the inconsequential are to be valued on a site like this. But how it's handled and presented does influence posters, responses and threads that follow after. Careless and sloppy breeds the more careless and even sloppier follow-up. A year ago, if I made a balls-up, there was always somebody who would adminster a boot up the backside - a strip publicly torn off for submitting such tripe, quoting chapter and verse to enlighten my ignorance of what the books really said. Haven't seen that recently. Pity. BTW, there was a post today wondering at the ages of the posters; it's crossed my mind too. Kneasy 23452 From: "(Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 6:37 pm Subject: RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) From: entropymail [mailto:entropymail at ...] | Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 | > Kneasy: | Possibly, but that's no reason to not aspire to one. And | judging by some of the posts a proportion of them have never bothered | to read the books properly. Doesn't stop 'em posting, though. | | Entropy: | | True, Kneasy. The problem may be two-fold: I am frustrated lately by | not just the caliber of the posts, but by the subjects themselves. | First, if I'm going to entertain a theory (or post one myself), it's | got to be chock-full of canon and common sense; a simple post stating | a theory and a sentence from Book 3 to back it up just isn't going to | do it for me. And second, I'm personally getting a bit tired of being | asked to entertain the same theories over and over again. (No offense | to all of you Vampire!Snape diehards out there, but do we really need | to be re-hashing that one again? ) [Lee]: Of course, if everyone would read the FAQ files and such before posting, this probably wouldn't happen so much. Now, I've got to admit, I joined the HPFGU Main List in--uh--hmm-- April, I think?...well, anyway, I did *scan* the FAQ files and tried to absorb the acronyms with little success. :-) There's just sooo much info to read through fully. But I at least felt pretty comfortable popping in. When I posted, I tried to devote a great deal of care to my posts and did all I could to adhere to List Protocols, and had lots of fun. As of late, however, some of the thrust of some of the threads makes me wonder if I've read the same books as some of the posters out there...no offense, but some of the stuff just totally eludes me. Perhaps I'm too--uh--concrete in my thinking that not every line has to allude to or foreshadow something...like the "stalagmite & Stalactite" thing. I admit I've got to wonder about all the time-travel stuff...a bit too way off the deep end for me. Etc., etc. [Entropy]: | My concern is not so much that the list is getting too big or too | busy, or too whatever, but that it is in grave danger of stagnating. | In my mind, the older posters have (rightfully so) a "been there, done | that" attitude: they've done the research and collaborated on the | theories and drawn their conclusions, and don't really have much | interest in watching the newbies start at square one all over again. [Lee]: Well, on the Battlestar Galactica list which I moderate, sometimes if there's enough lag, old things wax new again and a fresh spin can be put on something that older-list minds didn't see but one of the newer-list minds comes up with. Then, things can get interesting. | | >Kneasy:So call me a whiner - better to my mind than airily | dismissing concerns from the lofty eminence of 4 years on site. One | stance is concerned about maintaining reasonably adult standards; the | other sees no cause to worry. Sorry, I think you're wrong. The | complexion of the membership is changing, and not in a way I feel | comfortable with. [Lee, breaking in]: Been there, done that on the BSG list. That's why I went from full- mod to co-mod; I thought perhaps another voice, new blood, would be able to handle the change of dynamic, climate, whatever you wish to call it. We were a very close-knit, tight group who shared a lot; now, I don't feel I really know that many of the posters as well as I used to. Of course, our volume and numbers are no way as big as HPForGrownups! | [Entropy]: | Once again, Kneasy, I agree. Whether or not problems have been | brought up in the past is no reason to dismiss them now. Perhaps the | complaints were unfounded in the past; or, perhaps those complaining | two or three years ago simply saw then what has now reached critical mass. [Lee]: Or, perhaps, those complaining just lurk or left. | [Entropy]: | In any case, it doesn't seem out of line to consider somehow splitting | the list. Although someone suggested that other lists have been | divided by subject (Snape, FILKS, Ships, etc.), I don't think anything | that drastic is necessary. Simply splitting the list into two groups: | | (1) newbies who are excited about discovering older theories for | themselves and | (2) oldies who have a certain amount of time put into the group (or a | certain number of posts) | seems to me to be a fair way of keeping newer members happy and older | members interested. | | Elves, are you listening? [Lee]: A newby list might be a good idea or maybe if there's someone with all the information at hand who newbies can write to...who knows. These, unfortunately, are situations which probably always arise when running lists. Like I say, been there, done that One most important thing is *Consistency*. Examples: Any OT posts, for example, should either be 1) replied to off-list or 2) directed here to the chatter list. Movie & Canon comparisons might need their own list, I don't know. People who are basing their views on the films instead of the books should be redirected to the Movie list. Whichever way one goes, absolute consistency is paramount. IMO this goes for the list-veterans as well as the newbies. Anyway, I've still found some interesting threads to read and am certainly enjoying the banter on this list. The other thing to consider is that sometimes we get a case of "list burnout". That means that one needs to lay off for a couple months and give it all a rest, then come back and see what the climate is. Unfortunately, as a Mod, I can't leave...I'm trapped on the BSG list! But I've seen listers do this...take a sabbatical for a couple months, then come back and test the waters. Anyway, there's no clear-cut answer; what will please some won't please all and that's just the way it is. I have to applaud the Elves; this isn't a small group and takes a heck of a lot of work, I'm sure, to keep everything running as smootly as it is. Being a List Mom/Mod/Elf can be almost like having a full-time job which can be rough, especially if one has an active RL, too. So, please, Elves, know that I understand and thank you for your efforts. Cheers, Lee :-) . 23455 From: "nkafkafi" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:20 pm Subject: Suggestion: A Guide for posts in HPfGU (Was: No responses on the main list) > Entropy: > >Simply splitting the list into two groups: > > (1)newbies who are excited about discovering older theories for > themselves and > (2) oldies who have a certain amount of time put into the group (or a > certain number of posts) > > seems to me to be a fair way of keeping newer members happy and older > members interested. Neri: I have a suggestion that, I think, can be carried out whether or not any splitting or other actions take place. I personally doubt the success of any method involving strong centralistic control and governing the members, such as (say) limiting them to a max of two posts per day, or preventing newbies from posting for several months after joining, or splitting the group. I think we need a positive approach, something that will be a refreshing alternative to all those short newbie posts like "does anybody also think that The Other in the prophecy could be Neville?" I think it is high time that the post-OotP HPfGU will have a Guide. I'm not thinking about anything neat like the "Fantastic Posts" site (this is impossible in the current very dynamic situation of the group). I'm thinking about a "favorite links" page that will replace the horrible search engine of Yahoo. It should be easily accessible, so most newbies, instead of posting "does anybody think that The Other in the prophecy could be Neville", will instead search the guide for this theory, and then will post only if they have a new and interesting thought. I think such a link page can be easily assembled with a minimum effort by the list elves (or anybody who will volunteer to edit it. I personally would be glad to help). The trick is to delegate the tedious work of searching and sifting the good posts to the members. Simply ask the members to send links to posts from the last year (theirs or of other members) that they think are original, canon- based, well-written and/or started an interesting thread. Each submitted post should include the link, a single line describing its subject, and another line listing several key words that did not make it to the subject line (these key words are in order to help readers to find posts in the subject that they are interested with). To make the work of the editors even easier, the members should also recommend possible sections where this post might logically be placed. So for example, if I submit one of my recent posts it will look like this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106729 Bellatrix, Andromeda and Narcissa according to the Black's family tree. (12 Grimmauld Place, tapestry, Sirius, Rudolphus Lestrange, Ted Tonks, genealogy) Possible sections: "The Black family", "Minor characters", "Time lines" The editors of the Guide will only have to sort these links according to the sections suggested, or any other classification they will find convenient. I expect sections such as "Prophecy Interpretations", "The Gleam in DD's Eyes", "Severus Snape", "Neville Longbottom", "Minor Characters", "H/H SHIP", "Flints and Inconsistencies", "Life in the WW", and so on. I won't be surprised if the ensuing list will contain links to several hundred posts, but it will still be easy to search, using the browser's "search in page" function or according to the sections. The link for "The HPfGU Guide" should be placed in the opening page of the website in a noticeable way, and newbies should be encouraged by ADNIN to search it before posting. The Guide can be important for demonstrating to newbies what is the style of the group and what are the qualities of a good post. It may also encourage even old timers to go into the effort of writing a well thought-of post, so it will be worthy of Guide status. In addition, I'm hoping some members will use the Guide to write "review" posts that cover many posts of a whole subject, such as Elkins' memorable Memory Charm symposium. Perhaps in the future when the Guide will (almost certainly) become too large for convenient searching, such review posts will be able to serve as a Guide to the Guide. I'm sure other members can improve this idea further. Neri, who was a newbie less than a year ago From: Lanthiriel S Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:48 pm Subject: RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) --- "(Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > Now, I've got to admit, I joined the HPFGU Main List > in--uh--hmm--April, I > think?...well, anyway, I did *scan* the FAQ files > and tried to absorb the > acronyms with little success. :-) There's just sooo > much info to read > through fully. But I at least felt pretty > comfortable popping in. > > When I posted, I tried to devote a great deal of > care to my posts and did > all I could to adhere to List Protocols, and had > lots of fun. Well, I'm definitely no authority on the workings of the main list and I don't feel that I have the right to criticize or complain, but I do have a few thoughts. I joined only a few weeks back and I now have about 500 unread daily digests sitting in my newly expanded Yahoo inbox. The volume is part of what has me so behind, but also the feeling that I rather "missed the boat" - that the people on the list all know one another, are familiar with each other's personal theories, pet peeves, and interests and that I as a new member have nothing to add - or, at least, nothing that anyone will really care to read. I know the rules are absolutely necessary, and they do help familiarize new members to some extent. And I can completely understand the frustration of having new people pop up and ask the same old tired questions that have been discussed a million times before. But even with the ability to search the archives for specific topics, the sheer amount of posts - and the length of time over which they may be spread - makes it very, very difficult to read everything that has been said on a given subject. In short, joining the main list can be a very daunting proposition to some new members, and if there is a lack of "new blood" as has been mentioned, that might be a reason. > As of late, however, some of the thrust of some of > the threads makes me > wonder if I've read the same books as some of the > posters out there...no > offense, but some of the stuff just totally eludes > me. Perhaps I'm > too--uh--concrete in my thinking that not every line > has to allude to or > foreshadow something... Yes, this may also be a bit off-putting to some new members. I don't mean to say that everyone shouldn't have the right to bring up such theories - that's part of the fun of these books - but if some members have theories which they'd like to share which are... a bit less complex, they may feel they're going to get booed off the stage by members who have studied the books much more intently. > [Lee]: > A newby list might be a good idea or maybe if > there's someone with all the > information at hand who newbies can write to...who > knows. These, > unfortunately, are situations which probably always > arise when running > lists. Like I say, been there, done that I think the idea of having two lists is a great one. One list for newer members who might be interested in rehashing the old theories that - even though they're adult fans - may be completely new to them. The second list could be for the more established members, those who have exhausted such topics and - after having made a certain number of posts or being nominated by a mod? - desire to join in different conversations. The idea of having a moderator very familiar with the discussions on the main list is also a very good one. That way new members could e-mail them, run a topic by them, and - if it were the vampire Snape theory, for instance - the moderator could advise them not to bring it up and perhaps where they could read about it in the archive. People are often pressed for time and, while it's completely reasonable to search the archive and read a few posts on a topic of interest, I don't think anyone has time to wade through hundreds upon hundreds of messages to familiarize themselves with the intricacies of a particular theory or long-running conversation. This is especially true when people are excited and eager to express themselves. They're more likely to end up not posting at all, too worried that they might get a negative reception for broaching the subject. Again, I understand that this has to be weighed with the absolute need to avoid pointless posts asking the same old questions - but it can also be very intimidating. Just my thoughts, Lanthiriel - who thinks the "Fantastic Posts" page is also wonderful, but who still feels rather lost 23458 From: "saitaina" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:51 pm Subject: Posting value, ages and genral comment (was: Responses ont he Main List) Steve wrote: I think we're still holding onto that hope. Very, very difficult. For example, if we pull one thread but let one stay, we run the risk of one going way off topic, one turning into a flame war, or the people we move flooding our inboxes with howlers. We have to balance the needs of the list with respect for list members, adding in a dash of common sense and hope that we make the right choice in the end. Not to mention, there are thirty (more or less) elves trying to make this decision at once so we too seem to be ignoring things when we're actually trying to figure out what to do. Please note that this applies to everything we do, not just pulling lists. Oh, you were one of those? :o) Reviving dead topics is a hobby in HPfGU's worlds. I fully support anyone who wants to go back and revive dead topics so long as they're not the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes one (sorry, pet peeve of mine). New faces, new voices often have different views and opinions which lead to interesting conversation. Kneasy wrote: Someone's probably mentioned this but there is a poll near the main list that addresses this question. The average age, last time I looked, was 18-25, but we do have younger members. I myself almost joined young (then I waited a year and joined). Heidi wrote: Still ongoing. As Dave has said though, lulls in posting quality and volume happen, and have happened for years, and as Heidi pointed out, the list is ever changing. Heck, I remember a time before -OTC and -Movie (goddess, does anyone remember HPfGU-Food?). I would never give up HPfGU, no matter what the change in quality/volume because I've been out there in the wilds of the HP fandom. You guys think this is bad...go join some of the other HP lists, and tell me when you can translate the netspeak, bad plot theories (and yes there are some worse ones then what we come up with), the posting style that will make you go cross eyed trying to figure out what's being said, and so forth. Give it time, as we all do. It'll go up, it'll go down...it may even go sideways, but it'll still be the HPfGU we know and love. Saitaina Not speaking as an Admin Team member, but a list member who happens to be on the Admin Team (and if you think that's confusing you should see what I first wrote) **** "I laugh in the face of death...maybe not laugh more like a snicker...a quiet snicker, and I wouldn't do it directly in death's face so, it's more like a quiet snicker behind death's back. " http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina "No, one day I'm going to look back on all this and plow face-first into a tree because I was looking the wrong bloody way. And I'll still be having a better day than I am today." 23465 From: "Phil Boswell" Date: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:01 am Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) Lanthiriel S wrote: [snip] > The volume is part of what > has me so behind, but also the feeling that I rather > "missed the boat" - that the people on the list all > know one another, are familiar with each other's > personal theories, pet peeves, and interests and that > I as a new member have nothing to add - or, at least, > nothing that anyone will really care to read. I agree. Many of the "threads" come across as almost-private conversations between good friends to which the rest of us are graciously allowed to listen. I also get discouraged by the lack of logic and rigour in many of the arguments. I commented on this, in connection with the time-travel mania some while back, saying that it felt as if many posters each had their own pet mcguffin which they were determined to interject into the discussion regardless of whether there was any support for it in canon. Some people are desperate for a time-travel story, so they will try to work that into the HP series, disregarding all the warnings about it stated within canon. Suggesting that Dumbledore *must* be Ron Weasley sent back in time, despite all the back-story about DD in canon, and the absurdity of such a prominent figure springing up out of nowhere, is a prime example. Some people like the idea of good literature about gay relationships, which includes myself (emphasis on the "good" there, and I include various books by Misty Lackey amongst my "favourite ever" list). But there's no reason to jump up and down insisting that Lupin and Sirius *must* be lovers, for example. Maybe JKR will incorporate a character who is openly gay, maybe she won't. I don't happen to think it will make the books bad literature if she never does. Actually I think the main "miscreants" are those who have chosen their favourite character, or at any rate their *interpretation* of that character, and are prepared to defend their opinion to the death. As for what I think about people who haven't learnt what "snippage" is and just quote entire posts because they're too lazy to edit, I'm afraid as a long-ago Usenet freak, my opinion is well-nigh unprintable. It just gets impossible to read a conversation when the individual posts are badly formatted and too convoluted to follow. I just scroll past most of this stuff. Sorry, this started out as a quick comment, and seems to have turned into a minor rant. Lunchtime beckons :-) -- Phil 23466 From: "(Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)" Date: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:32 am Subject: RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) [Phil B., on a roll, wrote]: | | Some people are desperate for a time-travel story, so they will try to | work that into the HP series, disregarding all the warnings about it | stated within canon. Suggesting that Dumbledore *must* be Ron Weasley | sent back in time, despite all the back-story about DD in canon, and | the absurdity of such a prominent figure springing up out of nowhere, | is a prime example. [Lee]: That's one of the things that makes me wonder if I've really read the same HP books as everyone else. [Phil]: | As for what I think about people who haven't learnt what "snippage" is | and just quote entire posts because they're too lazy to edit, I'm | afraid as a long-ago Usenet freak, my opinion is well-nigh | unprintable. It just gets impossible to read a conversation when the | individual posts are badly formatted and too convoluted to follow. I | just scroll past most of this stuff. [Lee]: Yes, and the lack of proper attribution on some of the posts makes it difficult to know who's speaking, especially for those of us with screen readers, unless I manually cursor through and look for all the prefix marks. I do think the policy on correct attribution is really a great one; let's all hold to it. And spell-checkers...I'd be lost without mine, for sure. Not that I'm a terrible speller, but when typing fast, errors can occur and the spell-checker is my friend. I've taught it a lot, too, between HP and Battlestar terminology. And, of course, there's post signing...something I'm always attacking my BSG list people about, for all the good it does. :-) [Phil]: | Sorry, this started out as a quick comment, and seems to have turned | into a minor rant. Lunchtime beckons :-) Hmm--I just had breakfast at the frightfully early hour of 8:30 A.M., which is almost unheard of in this house! Rants are not necessarily a bad thing, for you never know who may be secretly ranting with you and just afraid to post it for whatever reason. However, at this point, I shall disband and march my little self downstairs for my second coffee...or third...or... :-) Later, Lee :-) 23468 From: "ameliagoldfeesh" Date: Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:57 am Subject: Re: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education ) --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lanthiriel S wrote: > I think the idea of having two lists is a great one. > One list for newer members who might be interested in > rehashing the old theories that - even though they're > adult fans - may be completely new to them. The second > list could be for the more established members, those > who have exhausted such topics and - after having made > a certain number of posts or being nominated by a mod? > - desire to join in different conversations. The idea > of having a moderator very familiar with the > discussions on the main list is also a very good one. > That way new members could e-mail them, run a topic by > them, and - if it were the vampire Snape theory, for > instance - the moderator could advise them not to > bring it up and perhaps where they could read about it > in the archive. > > Just my thoughts, Lanthiriel - who thinks the > "Fantastic Posts" page is also wonderful, but who > still feels rather lost A. Goldfeesh says...(this isn't personally directed at Lanthiriel) The only problem with having two lists-especially one that could be seen as exclusive- is that some posters would feel discrimminated against. I recall the whole debacle right after OOP was released when an ex-member with a grievance dropped the hint that some of the "classic" posters had made their own list. Many excluded posters felt angry and betrayed just by not being in the "in group" and imagining that the posts on the exclusive group were essays of brilliance that were being withheld from HPFGUs. It was just an ugly, bitter time that can be read about in OT and in the Feedback forum. Splitting, I don't think, is an answer. Personally, I don't think list quality has really dropped too much from when I first joined in Nov. 2001. I have been on a long hiatus from the main list. However, in the last week I've read the first half (or less- but it feels like half) of July since I'd like to see what's going on on the main list again now that I have enough space on Yahoo to get individual messages. Having 100mbs allows a few *g* messages to pile up before overfilling the mailbox. Some (well, many) of the topics are the same but it is interesting to see some new spins put on them. The Snape/Sirius discussions have been going on even before I joined the lists, the Prank is still discussed I find, with The Worst Memory thrown in as well. "Everything old is new again" along with "there is nothing new under the sun." *S* I do agree, though, that an easier way to find old posts or even threads is needed as a supplement to Yahoo's "search engine". It would also be nice to see the "Fantastic Posts" updated to include OOP. I'm sure volunteers would come out of the woodwork if the call were made. A Goldfeesh (who hadn't planned to be anywhere near this verbose) 23470 From: "Erin" Date: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:34 am Subject: Pet Theories (Re: No responses on the main list ) Phil wrote: ... it felt as if many posters each had their own pet mcguffin which they were determined to interject into the discussion regardless of whether there was any support for it in canon. I think the main "miscreants" are those who have chosen their favourite character, or at any rate their *interpretation* of that character, and are prepared to defend their opinion to the death. Now Erin says: I don't know, Phil. I've been with HPfGU a year(I don't post much), and I think that people willing to defend their theories is one of the things that makes the list great. A lot of times this is the only way a new theory gets any attention; if someone is willing to stay with it and plug it at every opportunity until it gets some discussion. I agree, though, that people should definitely be citing canon in their arguments, or at least include a link to an earlier post if their theory has one defining post where they've laid out all the canon. I point to Pippin on the main list as someone who always does the thing correctly, no matter how many times she's done it before. Done properly, people defending theories is the cornerstone of this list. Without it, all we'd have would be a bunch of newbies sitting around going "Say, did you notice that gleam in Dumbledore's eye? What d'you suppose *that* means?" Now Phil gives some examples From ameliagoldfeesh at ameliagoldfeesh.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 12:25:28 2004 From: ameliagoldfeesh at ameliagoldfeesh.yahoo.invalid (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:25:28 -0000 Subject: Movie Policy and List Volume In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A Goldfeesh: Firstly, I'd like to say that I agree with all the movie-related posts being moved to the movie list. That was a wonderful idea- seeing the movie-related posts (even if JKR is at fault for it)moved off HPFGUs is awesome. When I restarted reading the list just recently it irked me seeing them onlist, and if it rankled me, I'm sure it bugged many others. Good job list elves! Secondly, (HUGE HUGE SNIP) Shaun Hately > First of all, I object to the idea on personal grounds as I won't > be thirty myself until early next year (-8 > > But secondly, I rather despise the idea of their being a solid age > line anyway. When making laws, sometimes it's a necessity - but not > for something like this. > > There are plenty of 20 year olds I know who are more mature than > plenty of 30 year olds that I know (I'm at university - I know a > *lot* of people in these age groups. > > Age, of course, has some bearing on whether or not someone is a > 'grownup' - but there's a lot of other factors as well. > > > Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought I'd like to say that I entirely agree with Shaun. I can recall some posters that were high schoolers who posted much much better than posters over 30 who think age brings excellent posting skills. Plus, it would be a shame, as Saitaina points out, to lose List Elves, and possible even moderators. I would also like to repeat that I don't think the quality of the list has declined really since I first joined and I joined around the time of the start of the acronyms and T-Bays. I remember the three year summer (to use a Sugar Quill reference) when people were so desperate to find new stuff to talk about that Avery got his 15 minutes of fame. Things have changed, yes, but I think a person forgets all the annoying posts (and posters) from months or years ago when they first joined and remember the high points instead. A Goldfeesh (who admires Pippin, a veteran poster, for posting her defenses and links numerous, numerous times without fail) From ms_petra_pan at ms_petra_pan.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 14:08:46 2004 From: ms_petra_pan at ms_petra_pan.yahoo.invalid (Petra) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 07:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List Message-ID: <20040730140846.42889.qmail@...> Geoff, in HPFGU-Feedback message #471: > Which means that we may have to start playing > leapfrog between lists. I also belong to the > Movie group but, because I have limited time > and I concentrate on the main list, I get to > that group about once a month. It is draconian > to suggest that /any/ film support is off- > limits. For example, is it now going to be > ruled that C S Lewis or J R R Tolkien as > inadmissable? Though I can sympathize with your being indignant about possibly becoming inconvenienced with having to leapfrog between lists (dare I guess that this is one reason why people hate posting OT posts at OTC where they belong?!) I am at a loss as to why you dread the unlikely event that mentions of the *literary* figures Lewis and Tolkien in a post would send you hopping to the *movie* list. For what it's worth, I had laid out why I consider films to not be canon in http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/4605 "To add to the various objections raised already in other posts, I would like to point out that to cite JKR's influence on the screenwriter as support for canonizing the movies relies on an assumption that what we all saw on the screen/DVD is exactly as Kloves had set down on paper. This assumption would be incorrect." and "the movie as envisioned by Kloves should be represented by the shooting draft. His vision then underwent 14 revisions. Some of these revisions are major, some are minor, and some seem to bear the fingerprints of person(s) other than the one who originally set the shooting draft down on paper. This is too many degrees of separation from JKR for my comfort - to canonize materials that can only claim tacit approval from JKR seem rather dodgy to me" You might find the discussion around there about whether or not HP films should be considered HP canon to be of interest. I also ended up touching upon this issue in http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/5423 and http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/5443 if you care to check out that conversation. Petra a n :) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 19:25:06 2004 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:25:06 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List In-Reply-To: <20040730140846.42889.qmail@...> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, Petra wrote: > Geoff, in HPFGU-Feedback message #471: > > Which means that we may have to start playing > > leapfrog between lists. I also belong to the > > Movie group but, because I have limited time > > and I concentrate on the main list, I get to > > that group about once a month. It is draconian > > to suggest that /any/ film support is off- > > limits. For example, is it now going to be > > ruled that C S Lewis or J R R Tolkien as > > inadmissable? > Petra: Though I can sympathize with your being indignant > about possibly becoming inconvenienced with having > to leapfrog between lists (dare I guess that this > is one reason why people hate posting OT posts > at OTC where they belong?!) I am at a loss as to > why you dread the unlikely event that mentions > of the *literary* figures Lewis and Tolkien in a > post would send you hopping to the *movie* list. > > For what it's worth, I had laid out why I > consider films to not be canon in > > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/4605 > > "To add to the various objections raised already > in other posts, I would like to point out that to > cite JKR's influence on the screenwriter as > support for canonizing the movies relies on an > assumption that what we all saw on the screen/DVD > is exactly as Kloves had set down on paper. > > This assumption would be incorrect." > > and > > "the movie > as envisioned by Kloves should be represented by > the shooting draft. His vision then underwent 14 > revisions. Some of these revisions are major, > some are minor, and some seem to bear the > fingerprints of person(s) other than the one who > originally set the shooting draft down on paper. > This is too many degrees of separation from JKR > for my comfort - to canonize materials that can > only claim tacit approval from JKR seem rather > dodgy to me" > > You might find the discussion around there > about whether or not HP films should be > considered HP canon to be of interest. > > I also ended up touching upon this issue in > > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/5423 and > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/message/5443 > > if you care to check out that conversation. Having read your reply, I realise that I worded my post in such as way that it was open to misinterpretation. What I was trying to suggest was we might reach a situation that any reference to JRRT or CSL per se would be ruled inadmissable. What I feel is ridiculous is to impose a complete dichotomy between film and book. As I commented in a later post, I often get involved with discussions on Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and, in both cases, passing references are often made to the film versions - not major references but passing ones and these will often help to illuminate ideas etc.I first read the Lord of the Rings in or about 1955 and, surprisingly perhaps, the film versions have drawn my attention to details which I have overlooked in 25-30 readings. I am not indignant about having to leapfrog. I feel that the guidelines being laid down are not realistic in attempting to create a book world outside which the films do not exist and, as I have already said, if you are going to be consistent, than you must rule that speculation on Books 6 & 7 is off-topic because these books do not (yet) exist. Yours amiably Geoff From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 19:41:40 2004 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:41:40 -0000 Subject: Posting volume etc. In-Reply-To: <20040730140846.42889.qmail@...> Message-ID: Hi! Having just decided to request permission to come aboard HMS Feedback, I have just worked my way (I think) through message 471 and would add my own couple of thoughts on the subject of list volume. If these have already been voiced, my apologies. I feel that there are a couple of areas in particular which cause problems, namely the repetition of ideas again (and sometimes again and again!) and what I have called the "tennis match" post. An example of the first one was very common some time ago when a poster would write in to exclaim breathlessly that there was a boy called Mark Evans in the beginning of OOTP and was he related to Lily? Whereupon, many of us would silently groan "Oh no, not again". One of the problems in this area is not one of our making, namely the wretched Yahoo! search engine. If you want to search back any distance, it moves at a couple of hundred posts each time and, if you are not familiar with its quirkiness, you may think that the response "no matches found" indicates the end of the search instead of a need to plough further on into the great unknown in search of truth. As an aside, one thing I have done in my year-plus of membership has been to keep an archive of my own messages. This is not overweening pride but an aide-memoire to quickly track topics with which I've had an interaction. Then I am able to use that phrase for which perhaps I am renowned "May I draw your attnetion to the thread beginning at message XXXX". The second area is where someone sends a post which is then responded to by an objector who chops up the first post and intersperses replies. To which the first poster respons and does something likewise so that the message gets longer and longer. I agree that there has been a sharp rise in postings though I think the level began to drop after the buldozers demolished the Pillar of Storge except for the multiplicity of ideas both sensible and wacky on the Half Blood Prince. Perhaps the rush will abate, as it did after the huge volume of postings following the publiation of OOTP last year. I think most people take the line of concentrating on certain posts and leaving the rest. I returned from a holiday last Saturday to find a backlog of 1400 messages. After dutifully skimming through 800 or so, I thought "Blow this for a game of soldiers" and jumped forward to the latest. Geoff From dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 20:28:51 2004 From: dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid (Dicentra spectabilis) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:28:51 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > What I feel is ridiculous is to impose a complete dichotomy between > film and book. It's ridiculous only if you don't want to follow the rules. Such as posting list policy discussions on the wrong list when you've been around long enough to know better ::glares pointedly:: This is an acceptable way to reference the movie on main: MOVIE AS CATALYST "While watching the PoA movie, I was struck by all the visual references to time, so I dug into the book and noticed that the text makes temporal references, too." Then you list the examples from the *book* and offer analysis or whatever. You don't observe that the movie shows a giant pendulum in the entrance but the book never mentions it. These are unacceptable ways to reference the movie on main: MOVIE AS CANON "Did you guys notice all that wandless magic that Lupin and Dumbledore performed? I guess if you're good enough, you can do Alohomora on a locked trunk without the wand or the incantation." MOVIE DIFFERING FROM BOOK "That lake they showed was *way* too big. No way would Harry have been able to get to the other side of it to cast the Patronus. He wouldn't even have been able to see the dementors, let alone himself." MOVIE CONTAMINATION "Ron is such a freaking coward when they follow the spiders into the Forbidden Forest. He whines and complains the whole time. Harry should have just decked him with the lantern and been done with it." MOVIE VS. TEXT "They had to cut out the subplot about becoming animagi to accompany Lupin during the full moon. It's interesting, but it isn't essential." or "When you're making a movie, you have to concentrate on those things that best lend themselves to visual narrative. A picture might speak a thousand words, but you have to be selective about which 1000 words they are." Look. The movies are, at best, fanfic. They're an *interpretation* of the books, not a representation thereof (Columbus's best efforts notwithstanding). JKR doesn't control every element that we see on screen. She allows changes to be made to accommodate the limits of the medium. She told Cuar?n to not be too literal. She only intervenes if they're about to include something that is totally wrong (such as little people dancing on a keyboard) or to make sure they include something absolutely essential. They consulted with her on certain points (such as what the Quidditch robes look like), but the final decisions get made by the director. That's how it is in the movie business. As for what constitutes canon: The novels themselves, the schoolbooks, and statements made by JKR (on her site and in interviews) that we can reasonably assume to be true, such as Hermione's birthdate (Sept 19) and "Harry isn't the HPB." --Dicentra From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 21:24:05 2004 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 21:24:05 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Posting Rule Change - No Movie Discussion on Main List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Dicentra spectabilis" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > What I feel is ridiculous is to impose a complete dichotomy between > > film and book. Dicentra: > It's ridiculous only if you don't want to follow the rules. Such as > posting list policy discussions on the wrong list when you've been > around long enough to know better ::glares pointedly:: > > This is an acceptable way to reference the movie on main: > > MOVIE AS CATALYST > > "While watching the PoA movie, I was struck by all the visual > references to time, so I dug into the book and noticed that the text > makes temporal references, too." > > Then you list the examples from the *book* and offer analysis or > whatever. You don't observe that the movie shows a giant pendulum in > the entrance but the book never mentions it. Geoff: Which is precisely the point I made in different words. There is an acceptable way to reference the film on tne main group. So it isn't ridiculous after all. I will refrain from glaring pointedly. It isn't polite. :-( From zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid Fri Jul 30 21:35:46 2004 From: zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid (KathyK) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 21:35:46 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello, Wow. It's been five months since I've looked at any of the HPFGU lists. As a result I am suffering major Potter withdrawl. Before heading back into the main list, though, I thought I'd check out some of the less voluminous lists, as I used to do before I left. And here the first thing I stumble across is this "what's wrong or not wrong with the main list" discussion. I was reminded strongly of the Post-OOP debate on OTC last summer. At the time I was still quite new, having only been a listmember for a few months and felt somewhat offended, I later realised unnecessarily so, by the suggestions of several listmembers of a creation of a separate "newbie" list. A few months later, the newness of the list wearing off, I began to understand the perspective of those who had been around for a while. I rolled my eyes at topics brought up repeatedly. Not once every few weeks or months, but every few days. I got sick of reading about certain topics. At the time I still read nearly all the posts put out there and it was beginning to feel like a chore. I felt people were ignoring my own posts and then bringing up the same point. People often built off these posts rather than mine and I would wonder what it was about that other post that members liked better than my posts. Especially because I put a lot of time and effort into what I write. If I have a point to make, I've probably searched through at least three of the books looking for relevant canon and making sure I don't make errors. I've also re-read any posts in the thread I'm playing with and often taken time to go back through the archives if I remember seeing the topic come up before and recall something that might be helpful. These various things annoyed me. And I understood the annoyance of some members. But I also think there isn't much that can be done. Many of the suggestions put forth both in this recent discussion and the one I saw last summer were unfair and seemed elitist to Kathy the Newbie and Kathy the Annoyed, and still seem so to Kathy the Long-absent. Suggestions such as a newbie list. While nice in theory for listees who've been around, it is immensely off-putting to new members. In addition, as has been pointed out, this list would lose out. New members bring new ideas. Subjects may be rehashed until we can no longer stand to read another word but every so often someone will pop out a new gem no one has voiced (at least since you've been a member of this list). Suddenly the same-old is new and exciting again. This is much less likely to happen with less new blood. I decided that I like Harry Potter and HPFGU too much to let thoughtless, inaccurate, and unsnipped posts put me off. There are still good posts, new ideas to be explored, and people who will respond to something I've written (at least this is what I found five months ago). What I'm saying is that I found it's best to ride it out. I read fewer posts. I spent more time on OTC. There will be times when posting is crazy or listmembers are careless about canon. I think the fantastic folks on this list as well as the quality discussion that does take place more than make up for these irritations. Oh, and I want to point out the reason I haven't been around for so long has nothing at all to do with my being tired of or annoyed with this list. I've just been on holiday with no internet access except that which I paid for by the hour. Much too expensive to be hanging out here. Glad to be back, KathyK, who thinks theories that appear unlikely are a lot of fun to discuss-like Lupin killed Sirius or Time-traveling Ron being Dumbledore From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Sat Jul 31 14:16:42 2004 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:16:42 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > I felt people were ignoring my own posts and then bringing up the > same point. People often built off these posts rather than mine and > I would wonder what it was about that other post that members liked > better than my posts. Especially because I put a lot of time and > effort into what I write. If I have a point to make, I've probably > searched through at least three of the books looking for relevant > canon and making sure I don't make errors. I've also re-read any > posts in the thread I'm playing with and often taken time to go back > through the archives if I remember seeing the topic come up before > and recall something that might be helpful. > > These various things annoyed me. And I understood the annoyance of > some members. But I also think there isn't much that can be done. Annemehr: Hi, Kathy! It's great to see you again! I also agree there isn't *much* that can be done. At the moment, all I have time for is to read the message index and click on what might look interesting -- a very hit-or-miss proposition for finding the best posts. As I see it, there are two main causes for this situation during times when we get a large influx of new members. First, the newer, younger members seem to have a tendency to skim or skip the more involved, well researched posts, since they require a lot more effort on their part. Second (though this is really just the other side of the coin), newer members are most prone to just post what they are thinking at the moment rather than checking the canon, which leads to the same old threads, and long threads based on errors that may or may not wend their way back to canon accuracy. New members are also, of course, very enthusiastic posters as many are new to fandom and haven't discussed *anything* much yet. Well, I'm sure everyone here knows this already. As for what can be done about it, I think the only thing would be for the more experienced posters to make a real effort to respond to posts like KathyK's, to set a high standard. Then, ride it out. Annemehr From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sun Aug 1 23:49:29 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:49:29 -0000 Subject: The movie rule Message-ID: I have no knowledge of the internal debate that led to the re- imposition of the stronger line on movie-related posting on the main list. However, based on the wording of the admin and my knowledge of the history of the movie list and its relation to the main list, I feel Petra's and Dicentra's replies to Geoff miss the point a little. Here is the relevant text of the admin: "Due to the recent very high message volumes on the main list, and the inevitable tendency of any discussion referencing the Warner Bros. Harry Potter films to drift off-topic, the elves have decided to reinstate the old rule banning discussion of the films on the main list, effective immediately. If you wish to post about the films, even if you are using them as support for a book-related point, please direct your post to the Movie list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie " My understanding is, that, other things being equal, there *is* a valid place for the movies in canon-related discussion ("support for a book-related point") and that, in that sense, Geoff has logic on his side. We don't know the extent to which the movies may indicate canonical developments not yet revealed, or partially revealed, in the existing books, and JKR herself has dropped intriguing hints on this. Furthermore, there is the interesting question, not much discussed, of the extent to which JKR's portrayal of characters in OOP may have been influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by her viewing of the first two movies. (There is a moment, for example, where Nearly Headless Nick is cut short in conversation; I wondered if that was a playful reference to the way John Cleese gets so little screen time. (If anyone wants to respond to *this* point, they'd better do so on the movie list)) Also, it has in the past been a valid main list topic to discuss the extent of 'canon' itself - some, unlike Dicentra, do not accept anything from JKR's interviews as valid, for example. The movies are legitimately part of that discussion, especially as not all would accept there just two simple categories, canon and not-canon. My understanding of the reason for the rule, however, is that it is impossible in practice to hold the logical line ("the inevitable tendency of any discussion referencing the Warner Bros. Harry Potter films to drift off-topic"). Threads which validly discuss the canon implications of the movies just too often fail to stay that way. People start discussing the content of the movies themselves instead. So the rule is about pragmatic control of the content of the lists, not about whether the movies have a place in canon discussion. For that reason, I feel that discussion of the extent of JKR's influence on the movies is beside the point as far as this rule is concerned. Anyone who wants to suggest an alternative needs to look, not to logic, but to a practical and easy-to-understand-and- enforce definition of what is on-topic for the main list. Dicentra's list of acceptable and unacceptable posts missed out the kind of post that, I thought, has now changed status as a result of the rule: "I think that Lupin's references to Lily in the movie foreshadow a Lupin/Lily ship which JKR revealed to Kloves and Thewlis, which she is intending to put into HBP." As I understand it, that was acceptable before the rule change, and now is not. I thought all the unacceptable ones listed by Dicey were already unacceptable, because they illuminate no canon point. Is that right? David From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid Mon Aug 2 19:33:49 2004 From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:33:49 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] The movie rule In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I guess I'll throw my knut into this little pot. :-) [David wrote]: | Here is the relevant text of the admin: | | "Due to the recent very high message volumes on the main list, and | the inevitable tendency of any discussion referencing the Warner | Bros. Harry Potter films to drift off-topic, the elves have decided | to reinstate the old rule banning discussion of the films on the | main list, effective immediately. If you wish to post about the | films, even if you are using them as support for a book-related | point, please direct your post to the Movie list: | | http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie " | | My understanding is, that, other things being equal, there *is* a | valid place for the movies in canon-related discussion ("support for | a book-related point") and that, in that sense, Geoff has logic on | his side. | | We don't know the extent to which the movies may indicate canonical | developments not yet revealed, or partially revealed, in the | existing books, and JKR herself has dropped intriguing hints on | this. Furthermore, there is the interesting question, not much | discussed, of the extent to which JKR's portrayal of characters in | OOP may have been influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by her | viewing of the first two movies. [Lee]: All well and good, but, as far as I understand the function of the main list, it is to discuss book-related things with canon (book) support, be they theories, conjectures, etc. Whatever influences the movie may have to foreshadowing and such do not relate as there is no book-written support for them, so they should go to the movie list. [David]: | (There is a moment, for example, | where Nearly Headless Nick is cut short in conversation; I wondered | if that was a playful reference to the way John Cleese gets so | little screen time. (If anyone wants to respond to *this* point, | they'd better do so on the movie list)) [Lee]: Correct. [David]: | Also, it has in the past been a valid main list topic to discuss the | extent of 'canon' itself - some, unlike Dicentra, do not accept | anything from JKR's interviews as valid, for example. The movies | are legitimately part of that discussion, especially as not all | would accept there just two simple categories, canon and not-canon. [Lee]: Hmm--I tend to swing toward the books (what has been writ by the author) as canon and interviews, movies, as an off-shoot but not within the canon realm; they haven't been incorporated into the books so they have relevance to the Potterverse but do not fall within the realm of true canon. The exception I'm willing to concede is the dearth of notes on characters which have been included in canon, i.e. backgrounds, names, etc. These are things which help to flesh out the already established characters and give them more depth. [David]: | My understanding of the reason for the rule, however, is that it is | impossible in practice to hold the logical line ("the inevitable | tendency of any discussion referencing the Warner Bros. Harry Potter | films to drift off-topic"). Threads which validly discuss the canon | implications of the movies just too often fail to stay that way. [Lee]: Well, that's the fine point..."Canon *implications* of the movies." Because the so-called implication has not yet been incorporated or written, it is, therefore, not yet *truly* canon; it's only a conjecture or theory. Until it actually becomes a part of the written body of work, it can't really be considered canon. [David]: | People start discussing the content of the movies themselves | instead. So the rule is about pragmatic control of the content of | the lists, not about whether the movies have a place in canon | discussion. [Lee]: Both, actually, because of the fact that these topics, for the most part, have not yet been truly put into the penned mode and published by the author into the body of canon work. [David]: | For that reason, I feel that discussion of the extent of JKR's | influence on the movies is beside the point as far as this rule is | concerned. Anyone who wants to suggest an alternative needs to | look, not to logic, but to a practical and easy-to-understand-and- | enforce definition of what is on-topic for the main list. [Lee]: IMHO, If the topic exists in the written and presently published body of work (The Canon), it is right to discuss and extrapolate on the main list. Conjecture and theory and projection are fine with that. If the discussion does not stem from the written body of work (the canon), alluding to a possible point of canon but from a movie POV, it should probably be on the movie list. Again, this is simply my take on this. I'm a list moderator myself on the Battlestar Galactica list and this kind of thing has cropped up, too, in a slightly different vein since Battlestar was a TV series. The idea of what was canon and not canon stemmed from the original series vs the novelizations and the addition of the follow-up series of Galactica:1980. Now, to throw an added bad potion into the works, there is this new remake which came out end of last year which is as far removed from the original as one can get. But, there are some who, at some point, may want to call it canon, too. So, our stance is that if it wasn't in the original series of episodes it *is not* canon. Like I say, been down this road. [David]: | Dicentra's list of acceptable and unacceptable posts missed out the | kind of post that, I thought, has now changed status as a result of | the rule: | | "I think that Lupin's references to Lily in the movie foreshadow a | Lupin/Lily ship which JKR revealed to Kloves and Thewlis, which she | is intending to put into HBP." [Lee]: Key word "intending." But we haven't seen it in print, yet, so it, therefore, can't be considered truly Canon until it is actually part of the written body of work. Again, it's from the movie POV; it's an allusion, not a written fact as we know it yet; therefore, it's not within the realm of true canon. [David]: | As I understand it, that was acceptable before the rule change, and | now is not. I thought all the unacceptable ones listed by Dicey | were already unacceptable, because they illuminate no canon point. | | Is that right? [Lee]: Probably, but perhaps the good Elves are trying to make a more delimited line which is fine by me. Personally, I appreciate keeping book (canon) things and all their like to the main list; movie things and all their like should be on the movie list. I have no problem with that. Please, I'm not trying to trample toes, just trying to see all of this in a logical and consistency-oriented framework having experienced something like this myself. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me; | n2fgc at ... (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at ... Walk beside me, and be my friend. From meidbh at meidbh.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 6 03:26:12 2004 From: meidbh at meidbh.yahoo.invalid (meidbh) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:26:12 -0000 Subject: (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" Message-ID: Gosh what a tangled route this thread has taken. And I'm going to start by breaking the rules and not copying, pasting and attributing my sources ? it would just get too cumbersome. Please could we just consider this is a response to all who've gone before on `RE: No responses on the main list (Was: Wizarding Education)"? As a newbie I read the comments on this thread with interest. And to some extent I agree with the main complaints *The standard of posts is sometimes poor (writing, editing, referencing) *The subject matter often deviates far from canon and there are time wasting resurrections of theories that have been sunk But at the same time I have also been astounded at the time, thought and skill that has gone into some of the posts and essays. My interpretation of the books is constantly changing now because of what I've read on HPFGU. It has been an eye opener. The most stimulating posts are often, but not always, from the oldies. Understandable, they've spent more time pondering Potter. But I like to think that they were once new members bandying about old ideas too. And I'd like to ask them not to blame the naive and enthusiastic (like me) for thinking they're making discoveries, but please pull us up if we can't follow the list guidelines. The solutions suggested so far on the thread leave me rather cold. * The Newbie list: As an option perhaps, but not to be enforced please. I don't want to spend time reinventing the wheel. Far better to listen to and build on the ideas that have been carefully developed before. To be honest it's the voices of experience on the list (whether I agree with them or not) that make this group interesting. * Raising the age: As Shaun pointed out age is no indication of maturity. And there is no way to enforce it ? A member could tell us they are 15 or 50 and we would have to take them at their word. So instead? Well I think there is a pretty good system in place ? posting guidelines, reference materials (FAQ etc), moderatorship for new posters BUT it shouldn't really be solely the list elves responsibility to keep this common room tidy. If the older members see a post that has lost touch with printed Potterverse could theya habit of requesting the canon please? Or if a thread is resurrecting dead theories how about politely directing to the canon ("sorry she really did say he's not a vampire"). If certain posters just aren't following the guidelines maybe ADMIN reminders or another period of moderatorship are an option. Perhaps this way the quality of the posts might improve (and the quantity decrease?!). The whole structure of the list is very cumbersome too (is Yahoo the best option there is?). Finally, could some of the most popular subjects perhaps have their own sublists perhaps(eg Snape; HBP theories; stalactite discussions :-)) The natural evolution here will probably be that some oldies will move away (HPFVVGU perhaps?). But some will continue to influence this group and hopefully earn themselves some rich and stimulating discussions as a reward. Just MHO. Meidbh From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 6 13:56:22 2004 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:56:22 -0000 Subject: (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Meidbh wrote: > So instead? > Well I think there is a pretty good system in place ? posting > guidelines, reference materials (FAQ etc), moderatorship for new posters BUT it shouldn't really be solely the list elves responsibility to keep this common room tidy. If the older members see a post that has lost touch with printed Potterverse could theya habit of requesting the canon please? Or if a thread is resurrecting dead theories how about politely directing to the canon ("sorry she really did say he's not a vampire"). < Sorry to snip so much of an excellent post. I think by and large we oldbies do try to do this, at least I do. I have many times linked to the interview where JKR said that Harry would not be a Hogwarts teacher, for example. But a theory is only sunk when its last defender gurgles to the bottom of the Bay. Whether JKR uses twisty locutions in her interviews is a matter of opinion, and matters of opinion are what the list is all about. Of course, once Book Seven is published, there will be people who think JKR just got the ending wrong and it didn't *really* happen like that. Thanks, by the way, to those who said they appreciate when I put in links to my previous posts and essays. I do worry whether that is a bit Lockhartian (see 'my published works'). :-) Pippin From miamibarb at ivogun.yahoo.invalid Mon Aug 9 11:20:41 2004 From: miamibarb at ivogun.yahoo.invalid (Barb Roberts) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:20:41 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25E2384C-E9F6-11D8-B6B1-000A95DC8A32@...> meidbh wrote: > > > ...So instead? > Well I think there is a pretty good system in place ? posting > guidelines, reference materials (FAQ etc), moderatorship for new > posters BUT it shouldn't really be solely the list elves > responsibility to keep this common room tidy. If the older members > see a post that has lost touch with printed Potterverse could theya > habit of requesting the canon please? Or if a thread is resurrecting > dead theories how about politely directing to the canon ("sorry she > really did say he's not a vampire"). If certain posters just aren't > following the guidelines maybe ADMIN reminders or another period of > moderatorship are an option. Perhaps this way the quality of the > posts might improve (and the quantity decrease?!). > > The whole structure of the list is very cumbersome too (is Yahoo the > best option there is?). > > Finally, could some of the most popular subjects perhaps have their > own sublists perhaps(eg Snape; HBP theories; stalactite > discussions :-)) > > The natural evolution here will probably be that some oldies will > move away (HPFVVGU perhaps?). But some will continue to influence > this group and hopefully earn themselves some rich and stimulating > discussions as a reward. I think the main trouble is that it's summer. Many of the younger "adults" are out of school (college?), have too much time at their disposal, so they send out half-baked messages like fiends. Another list that I was on, The Vocalist, had this problem a couple of years ago. I remember one exasperated old-timer wondering whether the list moderator had advertised the list in "Teen Weekly." The start of school may solve some problems, and some of the old-timers may return. I think that a daily limit on the number of times that one person can post may help. At least it's worth considering. I just can't believe the volume of e-mail that i received last month from this list and other lists. It crashed my e-mail system. Off to work, Barbara Roberts (Ivogun), who should have been getting ready for work much earlier From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Tue Aug 10 13:30:40 2004 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:30:40 -0000 Subject: (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" In-Reply-To: <25E2384C-E9F6-11D8-B6B1-000A95DC8A32@...> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, Barb Roberts wrote: Barb Roberts; > I think that a daily limit on the number of times that one person can > post may help. At least it's worth considering. I just can't believe > the volume of e-mail that i received last month from this list and > other lists. It crashed my e-mail system. Geoff: Have you thought about reading on-line? I started by downloading everything and, within about two days scrapped the idea. At the moment, with the volume of post still pretty high, I am only following a couple of threads seriously so going to the website is an easier option. Pippin: But a theory is only sunk when its last defender gurgles to the bottom of the Bay. Whether JKR uses twisty locutions in her interviews is a matter of opinion, and matters of opinion are what the list is all about. Of course, once Book Seven is published, there will be people who think JKR just got the ending wrong and it didn't *really* happen like that. Geoff: Are we permitted to nominate posters who come into this category and should be dealt with? That could make for an interesting HPFGU Poll. :-) A fellow poster emailed me this morning and remarked that one particular contributor should "between you, me and cyberland be throttled.." Yesss.... From naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid Tue Aug 10 14:05:21 2004 From: naama_gat at naamagatus.yahoo.invalid (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:05:21 -0000 Subject: (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" In-Reply-To: <25E2384C-E9F6-11D8-B6B1-000A95DC8A32@...> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, Barb Roberts wrote: > > > I think that a daily limit on the number of times that one person can post may help. At least it's worth considering. I just can't believe the volume of e-mail that i received last month from this >list and other lists. It crashed my e-mail system. > I don't have that problem (I'm on web view), but both the quantitiy and the quality of the posts are problematic. Just to make the discussion a more concrete, here's a message that was posted today (I erased any identifying references): ---------------------------------------------------------------- > I support you too [..]. I love the Harry Potter books and I > think that JKR is a wonderful storyteller. IMO none of us would be > here discussing our theories if the books were garbage. [...] Cheers! Here, here!!! JKR is the most amazing author I have ever read (aside from Agatha Christie)! Her detail is beyond compare! Sometimes I get a headache from reading all the posts and OBSESSING about what the next book holds in store for us!!! It's all very confusing but I LOVE solving mysteries and JKR has magically entwined the WW & mystery stories all into one!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------ OK, so quoted like that, it's actually pretty funny, but it wastes space and time (because you don't know what it's going to be before you read it). If it was just one or two, but there have been quite a number of them recently. I'm not sure much can be done about it, but maybe restricting the number of daily posts may help. Would people actually *think* about what they're writing if they know they have limited space? Naama From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Tue Aug 10 17:08:57 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:08:57 -0000 Subject: (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Naama wrote: > I don't have that problem (I'm on web view), but both the quantitiy > and the quality of the posts are problematic. Just to make the > discussion a more concrete, here's a message that was posted today (I > erased any identifying references): It took me less than a minute to identify that post and its author, and not much longer to verify that the post had been approved for the list by the list-elves. I'm a little nervous, to say the least, of singling out specific posts for criticism here, especially of the generic 'does this poster *think*?' variety. I still have trouble understanding whether the core problem is perceived as infractions of the list rules, or that the diversity of valid posting is problematic. David From erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid Tue Aug 10 20:40:26 2004 From: erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid (Erin) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:40:26 -0000 Subject: (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "davewitley" wrote: > I still have trouble understanding whether the core problem is > perceived as infractions of the list rules, or that the diversity of valid posting is problematic. Erin: I viewed the post in question as an infraction of the rules, in that it was a forbidden "I agree" post with no canon point. Granted, it was not a one-liner, but the substance was "I agree" with nothing of any real value added. I don't know about anyone else, but my problems with the list are infractions of the rules, mainly to do with snipping. IMO, the elves can't send too many howlers to those who leave entire posts unsnipped when sending replies. Erin From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Wed Aug 11 04:40:12 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:40:12 -0000 Subject: The movie rule In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: > My understanding is, that, other things being equal, there *is* a > valid place for the movies in canon-related discussion ("support > for a book-related point") and that, in that sense, Geoff has logic > on his side. <<< "A valid place for the movies in canon-related discussion" -- yes, I think so; that's really the reason we eased up on the movie rule in the first place. For those who don't know, from when the Movie list was created up until just before OoP's release, any and *all* movie-related discussion had to go to the Movie list. Just before OoP we changed this to the more lenient rule that movie references would be okay, so long as they were used to support a canon argument. > My understanding of the reason for the rule, however, is that it is > impossible in practice to hold the logical line ("the inevitable > tendency of any discussion referencing the Warner Bros. Harry > Potter films to drift off-topic"). Threads which validly discuss > the canon implications of the movies just too often fail to stay > that way. People start discussing the content of the movies > themselves instead. So the rule is about pragmatic control of the > content of the lists, not about whether the movies have a place in > canon discussion. >>> Exactly. > For that reason, I feel that discussion of the extent of JKR's > influence on the movies is beside the point as far as this rule is > concerned. Anyone who wants to suggest an alternative needs to > look, not to logic, but to a practical and easy-to-understand-and- > enforce definition of what is on-topic for the main list. >>> Yes; the way I'd tried to explain it in the welcome message I send new members was: "Discussion of the films is only allowed on the main list when it specifically supports or refutes something from canon. For example, that the color of Harry's eyes is not as important as we believed, but that he has his mother's eyes is still important." Certainly not the greatest explanation or example, of course; I did find it quite difficult to come up with the best definition. So, while lots of list members did appreciate the distinction, too many did not, thus the discussions that strayed into pure 'movie' territory. > Dicentra's list of acceptable and unacceptable posts missed out the > kind of post that, I thought, has now changed status as a result of > the rule: > > "I think that Lupin's references to Lily in the movie foreshadow a > Lupin/Lily ship which JKR revealed to Kloves and Thewlis, which she > is intending to put into HBP." > > As I understand it, that was acceptable before the rule change, and > now is not. >>> I'd say yes, that's correct. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing this particular topic (Lupin/Lily) discussed on main. Where the problem comes in is that some folks would see this topic being discussed and think that makes it okay to discuss whatever else from the movies, that the thread would end up going into pure movie territory, etc., etc., etc. Someone can make the argument based on canon, of course. > I thought all the unacceptable ones listed by Dicey > were already unacceptable, because they illuminate no canon point. > > Is that right? Yes, that is right. Fwiw, when we eased up on the 'no movie on main' rule early last summer, a number of list members did express that they were unhappy about that. Now that we've gone back to that rule, quite a few have expressed their approval, far more than have complained against it. As far as what is or isn't canon, arguments can be made for anything beyond the books (and schoolbooks) themselves. Personally, I do take anything JKR says on her website or in online chats as canon, though with a grain of salt; my view is that 'it's not canon until it's canon'. --Kelley From carmenharms at snazzzybird.yahoo.invalid Wed Aug 11 13:20:54 2004 From: carmenharms at snazzzybird.yahoo.invalid (snazzzybird) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:20:54 -0000 Subject: (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" In-Reply-To: <25E2384C-E9F6-11D8-B6B1-000A95DC8A32@...> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, Barb Roberts wrote: > > I think that a daily limit on the number of times that one person can > post may help. At least it's worth considering. I just can't believe > the volume of e-mail that i received last month from this list and > other lists. It crashed my e-mail system. > I use the "Daily Digest" option -- which lately has been more like "10 or 12 E-mails Daily Digest". I used to scroll through all of the posts, skimming them and stopping when something grabbed my interest. Now I don't even do that: I scan the list at the top first, to see if anything looks interesting, and if so then I'll scroll down. Possibly a daily limit would be a good idea. --snazzzybird From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Wed Aug 11 17:09:34 2004 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:09:34 -0000 Subject: (from OT List ) RE: "No responses on the main list" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > But a theory is only sunk when its last defender gurgles to the bottom of the Bay. Of course, once Book Seven is published, there will be people who think JKR just got the ending wrong and it didn't *really* happen like that. > > Geoff: > Are we permitted to nominate posters who come into this category and should be dealt with? That could make for an interesting HPFGU Poll. > :-) > A fellow poster emailed me this morning and remarked that one particular contributor should "between you, me and cyberland be throttled.." > > Yesss....< After I was on the list a while, I noticed that the discussions repeat themselves as much as particular posters do--that is, the set of responses to any topic is fairly predictable regardless of who is participating. There are only so many ways one can react to a work of fiction, after all. Thus, after you've been on the list for a while, the discussions can appear to grow stale. There are whole categories of theory that don't contribute to my understanding of canon because I can't bring myself to believe a word of them; Character X is actually TimeTravelling!Character Y, for example. There are posts which contribute a great deal, but which I don't comment on because I haven't got anything to add. And there are other categories in which I nearly always respond, because I like writing on that particular topic. I will probably never get tired of talking about Snape, vampire! or otherwise. It is quite probable that there are people who are tired of hearing me talk about Snape, though. They have my permission to skip, not that they need it . As long as I can remember, people have complained about irritating threads, and they have always been advised to skip. A most irritating topic poll might be interesting. But I suspect that if we took a 'favorite topic' poll too, there'd be a lot of overlap. Pippin From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 14:35:57 2004 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 14:35:57 -0000 Subject: Quantity vs quality Message-ID: Isn't the worry about the volume of posts a bit misplaced? IMO the problem is not quantity but quality. To illustrate, suppose we had 300 posts per day, and most of them were great. We would have felt sorry that we don't have time to read all of them, but would we think this situation is bad? Or suppose that we had only 20 posts per day, but most of them would be of the "did anybody notice the gleam in DD's eyes" type. Is this a good situation? Or, suppose that we had 300 posts per day, most of them garbage but about 10 of them are great, and you had a convenient and quick way to locate these 10. Wouldn't you consider this a good situation? Also, I'm suspicious of any strong centralistic control measures. If there is a ban on one-liners or a limit on the number of posts per member per day, wouldn't such posters simply join several short posts in different subjects into a single post? The volume and quality will be the same, but trying to follow a thread would be more difficult. My thought is that we need to target the main causes of low-quality posts, Preferably not by bans but by offering better alternatives. For example, if a newbie had a quick and convenient way to find past posts that discuss the gleam in DD's eyes, he would read them before posting, and then even if he does post, his post would be much more informed. Neri From whizbang121 at whizbang121.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 15:23:16 2004 From: whizbang121 at whizbang121.yahoo.invalid (whizbang) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:23:16 -0000 Subject: new memebers Message-ID: If my experience is anything like yours, few new members will read back on old posts. You will get some great new posters, and nurturing and encouraging these is where time and effort should be spent. But a frustrating percentage won't even read the last post on a page before they jump in. In polite society, this would be uncommonly rude. But online, it seems the shoe is on the other foot, and the individual who butts in takes great offence at being asked to read back old posts and find out what the discussion is even about before beginning to type. I understand that part of the solution here has been to monitor new members for a time. But monitoring all the posts on a list this size would be daunting, to say the least. A while back, I suggested moving HP4GU to a forum style board, abandoning the group format. But that met with a great deal of objection. hmmm... Well, a forum style board could be run side by side with the yahoo.group board. Or a new board could be open for new members to post freely on. The established board will be viewable, but only members who have been considered by the mods to be quality posters could be allowed to post. New members who wish to follow the same lines of thought could post them on the newbie board. Or it could go the opposite, as well. Leave the established board as it is. But open a new board visible to all members, but only allow quality posters to contribute. Some forums do maintain invisible boards, like Hogsmeade at Cosforums.com. Everyone knows Hogsmeade is there, but the staff chooses who may see and post on this board. It's an incentive to work on quality posting. From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 17:45:35 2004 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:45:35 -0000 Subject: new memebers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > "whizbang" wrote: > > Leave the established board as > it is. But open a new board visible to all members, but only allow > quality posters to contribute. Some forums do maintain invisible > boards, like Hogsmeade at Cosforums.com. Everyone knows Hogsmeade is > there, but the staff chooses who may see and post on this board. It's > an incentive to work on quality posting. Neri: I tend to agree with this suggestion, given that the "high quality" board is visible to all the rest, but who decides which are the "high quality" members who are allowed to post in the quality board? This looks like a source of much grievance. If the criteria are permissive, the new board won't be much better than the usual board. If the criteria are restrictive, there might be many offended members. Moreover, any solution that puts a lot of pressure on ADMIN is not likely to happen. I'd add that even if I'm found worthy of the high quality group, I'd still want to post many times in the regular group, when I want to ask some question or make some comment that are not of much importance. This leads me to suggest: maybe simply leave it to the members to decide what they want to post in the high-quality group and what they want to post in the regular group? Posting guidelines in the high quality group will be much more stringent (no one-line comments, use correct language, snip properly, read the whole thread before you respond, start a thread only if you say something original and well- supported by canon, etc). ADMIN will be observing these guidelines especially with newbie posts, but I wouldn't decide from the outset that a newbie cannot make a contribution to the high quality group. You can then regulate the high-quality group at a rate that a reasonable person can cope with, say about 10 posts per day on average. If the rate is increased to 20 posts per day, ADMIN simply ask the members to be more stringent in what they post in the high- quality group. Neri From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 19:24:29 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:24:29 -0000 Subject: Quantity vs quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > My thought is that we need to target the main causes of low-quality > posts, Preferably not by bans but by offering better alternatives. > For example, if a newbie had a quick and convenient way to find past > posts that discuss the gleam in DD's eyes, he would read them before > posting, and then even if he does post, his post would be much more > informed. > > Neri I agree, Neri. Is it even possible to improve the search engine somehow? Alla From eeyore6771 at hollylawrence67.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 21:50:27 2004 From: eeyore6771 at hollylawrence67.yahoo.invalid (Pat) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:50:27 -0000 Subject: Quantity vs quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" > wrote: > > My thought is that we need to target the main causes of low- quality > > posts, Preferably not by bans but by offering better alternatives. > > For example, if a newbie had a quick and convenient way to find > past > > posts that discuss the gleam in DD's eyes, he would read them > before > > posting, and then even if he does post, his post would be much more > > informed. > > > > Neri > > > I agree, Neri. Is it even possible to improve the search engine > somehow? > > > Alla Pat (hollylawrence67): I'm one of the newbies here, thought I'm not at all new to discussing HP on other forums. I have tried several times to use the search engine, and really haven't had any success--I've tried putting in the numbers of topics, and also the titles of topics--neither is very helpful. In the end, I have resorted to scrolling back, page by page, looking for specific threads. That's very time consuming, and as a result, I have just skipped some things altogether. I understand that the volume of posts here is not condusive to a message board type forum, but that is a much easier way to track topics and to post. Is there some way of making this function more along that line? Pat (hollylawrence67) From eeyore6771 at hollylawrence67.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 22:10:56 2004 From: eeyore6771 at hollylawrence67.yahoo.invalid (Pat) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:10:56 -0000 Subject: new memebers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "whizbang" wrote: > If my experience is anything like yours, few new members will read > back on old posts. You will get some great new posters, and nurturing > and encouraging these is where time and effort should be spent. But a > frustrating percentage won't even read the last post on a page before > they jump in. > [snip] > > A while back, I suggested moving HP4GU to a forum style board, > abandoning the group format. But that met with a great deal of > objection. > > hmmm... > > Well, a forum style board could be run side by side with the > yahoo.group board. Or a new board could be open for new members to > post freely on. The established board will be viewable, but only > members who have been considered by the mods to be quality posters > could be allowed to post. New members who wish to follow the same > lines of thought could post them on the newbie board. > > Or it could go the opposite, as well. Leave the established board as > it is. But open a new board visible to all members, but only allow > quality posters to contribute. Pat: While I understand what you are saying about encouraging quality posts, I think the whole ide of only allowing some members to post while others can only read sounds very snobbish and elitist. The whole idea is so contrary to the spirit of the HP books that it just doesn't strike me as a very good idea. I do agree that a forum (message board format) is a much easier way to navigate topics and add thoughtful posts. In that set-up, there isn't the need to snip, and since the whole posts are left intact, it's easier for someone to read through and really catch all the twistings and turnings of the train of thought of the posters. I haven't been here long, but have been posting on another forum for more than three years. I do see though, that with the issues of bandwidth, that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to have the same thing here. Having my first posts moderated, as a newbie, was a bit frustrating in that I wanted to add my two knuts worth, but by the time it is posted, the topic had sometimes moved on. However, it seems to be a good way to let people know what is and is not acceptable, without offending people who are new and aren't quite used to the way things work. My hat's off to the Elves working on all that--it must take an enormous amount of your time to sort through all of it. Obviously, no solution, there. Just my thoughts about the whole process. Too bad there isn't some way to combine the best aspects of this and a forum--or is there? Any other ideas? Pat (hollylawrence67) From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 22:21:11 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:21:11 -0000 Subject: new memebers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pat: > > While I understand what you are saying about encouraging quality > posts, I think the whole ide of only allowing some members to post > while others can only read sounds very snobbish and elitist. The > whole idea is so contrary to the spirit of the HP books that it just > doesn't strike me as a very good idea. Alla: I recently said that I am not sure whether I can consider myself and oldbie. I have been actively posting for a year, I think ( Not sure). I've been also lurking for quite a few months prior to that and posting once in a blue moon. I also find an idea of "high quality board" to be VERY elitist, IF only some posters will be allowed to post. If EVERYBODY will be allowed to post, BUT with MUCH stricter quality control, I don't know... Maybe it is worth considering ... OR NOT. I am with Neri. I am really afraid of centralised "thoughts and ideas control" I was looking at the survey and thinking that maybe voluntary limit of the posts per day is a GOOD idea. Meaning that if let's say the limit is five posts per day, the sixth post by the same poster will not be deleted, but this poster will receive some kind of warning... I don't know. Actually, I think that before some restrictive measures will be implemented, if ANY, the elves may want to see whether the posting will go down in September, when people go back to school. Alla From tiamik72 at katie_wible.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 23:11:21 2004 From: tiamik72 at katie_wible.yahoo.invalid (tiamik72 at katie_wible.yahoo.invalid) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:11:21 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: new memebers Message-ID: In a message dated 8/12/2004 6:21:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, dumbledore11214 at ... writes: Alla: Katie (me): I am in total agreement with this. There is no way that we could pick that elitist group of who should post. One of the reasons that so many people belong to this group is that fact that they can read and respond to millions of different theories, even if they are completely outlandish. Part of the fun of this group, for me anyways, is reading the hilarious and completely crazy theories that cannot be backed up by canon. It breaks up the monotony of some of the other threads that have been rehashed and repeated over and over again. I feel that if we only let certain people post, thier own pet theories would dominate and it would leave the rest of us feeling left out. Also, someone new might have a brillaint theory that wll never be heard. Katie: Actually I do not think that this would be possible unless they actually limited the wording of each post. Then all of the people who respond "me too" would just elongate each post by snipping from every post that they agree with and it would become a huge post of "me too, me too" to every subject imaginable. Some people would take advantage of this and say well if they only let me post five times a day, my five posts are going to be humongous. Nothing would change because the quality of the post will remain the same, they will only be longer. Alla: Katie: I totally agree with this because I have to go back to school soon and I wonder how I am going to keep up and I usually just lurk. Most of the students will be alot busier than they are now during the summer. not that the bad posting is just students:) but I do think the influx will go down. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From estrilda_wolfegg at estrilda_wolfegg.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 23:12:44 2004 From: estrilda_wolfegg at estrilda_wolfegg.yahoo.invalid (estrilda_wolfegg) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:12:44 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think the problem on the main list is not the number of posts, but the length of the posts. It is fun to read a give and take discussion on a topic between several people. It is overwhelming to wade through one person's three-foot essay on their position when you are just trying to catch up on the current topics. It is even more annoying to see the same three-foot essay reappear five times in its entirety as other members comment on it. Old text that is not needed to put the new post in context should be deleted in replies. Too often, posters copy the old argument to contradict it or they are just too lazy or unknowledgeable to delete old text after they hit reply. Readers can read the old argument in the original post. Please let them. The second problem, in my view, is that the "very large posts" with "a lot of research" make the list very unwelcome to anyone with less than several hours to spend reading. It would be optimal if there were an archive, preferably one where the authors would have to figure out what category their dissertation fell into and store it with the other treatises on similar subjects. Then, a short summary could be posted on the main list and folks could go read it. It might also eliminate some of the re-hashes of themes that have already been extensively researched and presented on the list if new essays were posted with the similar old ones. I vote for a maximum 300-word limit for each post on the main list. Maybe it would even encourage self-editing. Estrilda > Shaun wrote: > > I sent a very large post, which I put a lot of research into, to > > the main list last week, and received virtually no comments about > > it at all. No reason I should I suppose... it's just very > > disappointing - especially when I see that far less detailed posts > > on the same types of issues spark a lot of discussion. From lists at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 12 23:30:12 2004 From: lists at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (Heidi Tandy) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 19:30:12 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1092353419.1FA3E2F@...> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 7:22pm, estrilda_wolfegg wrote: > The second problem, in my view, is that the "very large posts" with "a lot of research" make the list very unwelcome to anyone with less than several hours to spend reading. It would be optimal if there were an archive, preferably one where the authors would have to figure out what category their dissertation fell into and store it with the other treatises on similar subjects.? Then, a short summary could be posted on the main list and folks could go read it.? FictionAlley is actually about to open an essay/paper/dissertation center focusing on things lile this on 1 September. It's not a part of any of the current fanfic houses or the Discussion Boards in fictionalley park (http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums) and we'd be more than thrilled if it was used as an archive and a resource by everyone for things exactly like this. From karenbjhess at khess6669.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 00:58:05 2004 From: karenbjhess at khess6669.yahoo.invalid (khess6669) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:58:05 -0000 Subject: (Similar to) Quantity vs quality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, I have read the recent posts on quantity vs quality, and I wanted to make some comments along a similar line that don't really follow the existing thread. When I was trying to keep up on all the posts by reading the 25- message digests, I found myself grateful whenever a short post came along, because it was quick to read, and usually didn't have a lot of irrelevant "snip quotes" to wade through. I think someone should write some illustrated guidelines (for newbies and not-so-newbies) on how to construct a legible, concise, well- organized response to a long thread. (This would include some advice on formatting, too! Tell people how to remove all those arrow markers and bad line-wraps that make some posts a nightmare to read.) There are people who -- with the best of intentions -- construct a message with dozens of "snip quotes" and a few lines of commentary under each. While that may do justice to the people quoted, and it may bring together all the ideas that the current poster wants to respond to, it is difficult to read (and only gets worse when someone decides to respond to IT). It is really no better than a number of one-line messages all pasted sequentially into one big message. Since we already have a ban on one-line messages (which is really a ban on "me too" messages -- I'm sure a clever one-line joke would not go amiss now and then), why not also some kind of recommended (voluntary) upper limit on the length of a post, along with some GOOD illustrative examples of how to incorporate other people's arguments into your own message? Even if (as others have justifiably pointed out) the volume of postings to this list decreases significantly in September, the issue of message quality still exists, and the volume may rise again next summer when the students are out of school again anyway. And finally, one more small thing. I enjoy FILKs very much, and I know they do not make up a large volume of posts, but I don't see how they fit with the main list. They do not really add to our understanding of canon; they are mainly pleasant diversions. Is there another list where they would fit better? These are just a few thoughts I have had since joining HP4GU not so long ago, humbly submitted for other people to consider and (hopefully) comment on. KB From zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 01:46:31 2004 From: zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid (KathyK) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 01:46:31 -0000 Subject: Survey: Limiting Number of Posts and Length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: >I was looking at the survey and thinking that maybe voluntary limit of the posts per day is a GOOD idea. >Meaning that if let's say the limit is five posts per day, the sixth post by the same poster will not be deleted, but this poster will receive some kind of warning... I don't know.< KathyK: My understanding of a voluntary limit of posts per day versus the statutory option is that this is something the members would be encouraged to do, but wouldn't be strongly enforced by the List Elves. Is that correct? I think posting limits are a good idea so long as it isn't something the List Elves are going to have to spend lots of time dealing with. I'm going to use Alla's example of 5 posts per day. If most people adhere to this guideline most of the time, that's good. I don't think, though, people need to be sent any warnings if they go over the limit. For one it would cause all sorts of extra work for the Elves if they had to keep track of who posted how many messages per day. And for another, say a member has a very hectic schedule and doesn't have a lot of time to spend here. That person gets some time on Saturday to dedicate to HPfGU. (S)he has quite a few messages to respond to because they've been piling up in his/her mailbox. This person shouldn't be penalized for writing 9 messages instead of 5. Or if you've posted your fifth message and someone then comes out with an idea you just *have* to respond to, 'cause that happens sometimes. However, if somebody is breaking the five message guideline almost daily, that is something that could maybe be dealt with perhaps with a gentle reminder that while it's not an absolute rule to post only 5 messages per day it's something much appreciated by all members to help keep list volume down. If the result of a posting limit is more combined posts, which I don't think will necessairly occur, I personally would find that more irritating than a high number of posts. It would be much more difficult to track threads with so many combined messages. I don't mind combined threads at this point because they're infrequent. Estrilda said: >It would be optimal if there were an archive, preferably one where the authors would have to figure out what category their dissertation fell into and store it with the other treatises on similar subjects. Then, a short summary could be posted on the main list and folks could go read it. I vote for a maximum 300-word limit for each post on the main list. Maybe it would even encourage self-editing.< KathyK: I think your archive idea is very good for those people who have written "very large posts" with "a lot of research." But I would also like them still posted to the Main List. Just how I prefer things, I suppose. I do, however, object strongly to the suggestion of a maximum limit on the number of words a post can have. It would be a difficult thing to keep track of. Additionally, it would put me off posting altogether. I believe most of the messages I post go over your suggested 300 words, with the exception of the posts I make to find a quote or to correct a perceived mistake someone has made with the canon. This post, for example, exceeds 300 words easily. The message I posted on the main list earlier today, if I strip away all quoted material and attributions, still comes out at 662 words. I'll bet I'd find a lot of my old messages are at least that long. And I rarely write messages that begin threads. All of my long posts are responses to other members' messages and would have no place in an archive for essays as they're part of an ongoing discussion and not an essay. And to change the subject... In the survey there was the following option that I piqued my curiosity: >I feel I have to post quickly before anyone else jumps in with my idea< When OoP was released I felt this way. Back when I was new and people were posting like crazy. I just *needed* to get my ideas out there first so I spent inordinate amounts of time sitting at my computer making sure I was on top of my inbox so I could get that response out immediately and be the first. Was this a product of the excitement of OoP's release or because I was new? I don't know. I do know that it doesn't matter to me anymore. If there's a thread I want to post to and someone's already beaten me to it with the same ideas, great! It means I have some more time on my hands. If not, I'm happy to play with the thread. I'm curious to know others take on this particular one. Just some (useless) thoughts ;-), KathyK From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 01:49:35 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:49:35 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <411CAACF.23097.1D1B62@localhost> On 12 Aug 2004 at 23:12, estrilda_wolfegg wrote: > I think the problem on the main list is not the number of posts, but > the length of the posts. It is fun to read a give and take > discussion on a topic between several people. It is overwhelming to > wade through one person's three-foot essay on their position when > you are just trying to catch up on the current topics. It is even > more annoying to see the same three-foot essay reappear five times > in its entirety as other members comment on it. > Old text that is not needed to put the new post in context should be > deleted in replies. Too often, posters copy the old argument to > contradict it or they are just too lazy or unknowledgeable to delete > old text after they hit reply. Readers can read the old argument in > the original post. Please let them. > The second problem, in my view, is that the "very large posts" > with "a lot of research" make the list very unwelcome to anyone with > less than several hours to spend reading. It would be optimal if > there were an archive, preferably one where the authors would have > to figure out what category their dissertation fell into and store > it with the other treatises on similar subjects. Then, a short > summary could be posted on the main list and folks could go read > it. It might also eliminate some of the re-hashes of themes that > have already been extensively researched and presented on the list > if new essays were posted with the similar old ones. > I vote for a maximum 300-word limit for each post on the main list. > Maybe it would even encourage self-editing. OK, let me say a couple of things. (1) The idea of a message board that has been suggested again - once again, just to point out that a *lot* of people don't like message board formats and HPFGU has probably flourished in large part because it's not a message board format which requires people to be online all the time they are using it. If HPFGU was a message board, I would not bother with it, and I suspect there are a lot of other people who wouldn't either. I'm also on a dial up connection which makes a huge difference as well. (2) I find the suggestion that 'very large posts' with a 'lot of research' making the list unwelcome to some people rather offensive. If people don't want to read a long post, that's entirely their right and their choice. But I find it rather hard to see how the existence of such a post, and the hours and hours of work that went into it intended to try and give something back to the fan community can somehow be unwelcome. (3) If HPFGU had a 300 word limit on posts, then frankly, it would become just another insipid, juvenile forum. Sure, often you can say something relevant, and meaningful in a few words. But if you're dealing with something fairly complex, it often takes a while to discuss it - and one of the major strengths of HPFGU has been that it's a place that allows for discussions of complex issues. (4) I'd like to point out that the list is supposed to be: "a friendly, thought-provoking place for adults to enjoy discussion of the Harry Potter books". Note that word - *discussion*. The idea of posting long essays for example to somewhere else and just posting a summary to the list might be fine - if all a person wanted to do was pontificate and have people read their opinions. However, that's not the purpose of most posts to the list, and it wasn't the purpose of the long post I sent. The idea was for people, if they wanted to, to read it, and *discuss* it on list. Point out errors if they saw them. Ask questions if they had them. Seek clarification, add details... all of that becomes much less likely, and much more awkward, if the post itself is not on the list. The idea is to have *vibrant* discussion, I would have thought. Not just 'hey, read this.' 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 From sherriola at ... Fri Aug 13 02:16:31 2004 From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:16:31 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: <411CAACF.23097.1D1B62@localhost> Message-ID: <009601c480db$8ded5170$0400a8c0@pensive> OK, let me say a couple of things. (1) The idea of a message board that has been suggested again - once again, just to point out that a *lot* of people don't like message board formats and HPFGU has probably flourished in large part because it's not a message board format which requires people to be online all the time they are using it. If HPFGU was a message board, I would not bother with it, and I suspect there are a lot of other people who wouldn't either. I'm also on a dial up connection which makes a huge difference as well. Sherry answers I totally agree on this one! I use screen reading software. Most message boards are not very accessible or at best are difficult and tedious to wade through or participate in. When you can scroll and click on a web page, I have to use arrow keys, tabs and other ways to navigate. I am very skilled with the computer, but there is just no way that the internet is going to be as fast for those of us using screen readers as for those who do not. I wouldn't even bother. I don't have enough time in a day to try to participate in that kind of thing. As for only posting summaries instead of long messages, again, I would never go read those posts. As it is, I don't go to the archives or when someone says, look this up in message number ... I just don't go. The yahoo site is not one of the best for me, though it is relatively accessible. It is far easier however, to read through my email, picking and choosing what I want to read. I don't necessarily read every thread on the main list, because some topics just don't interest me. I was on an HP list, that seemed to be mostly kids, who argued constantly and couldn't type or spell check and never just discussed, which was what I longed to do. I was delighted to find HP for grownups because of the discussions that go on. It's always fascinating! Sherry email and MSN messenger: sherriola at ... From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 03:52:33 2004 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 03:52:33 -0000 Subject: What we CAN do about the Yahoo search engine (was: Quantity vs quality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla asked: Is it even possible to improve the search engine somehow? Pat (hollylawrence67) added: I have tried several times to use the search engine, and really haven't had any success--I've tried putting in the numbers of topics, and also the titles of topics--neither is very helpful. In the end, I have resorted to scrolling back, page by page, looking for specific threads. That's very time consuming, and as a result, have just skipped some things altogether. Neri: I don't have a clue about the mechanism of the Yahoo groups, but I assume that if a better way than the current horrible search engine would have been possible, ADMIN would have been already applying it. However, there is no reason we should continue to live with this situation. We can easily generate ourselves something even better than a search engine. We can build favorite links lists and FAQ lists that will be very easy to navigate and search. Simply ask members to contribute links to their favorite posts, each link with a subject line that describes it and maybe several additional key words that will help finding it. For example: --------------------------- The scar connection - possible effects on the war (long thread) (key words: Harry, LV, mind link, Occlumency, possession) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/90939 --------------------------- I already keep such a list to help me find again posts and threads that I liked. It's almost no work at all creating and maintaining it (whenever I come across a good post I just paste the URL in the list). I suspect many other members keep similar lists. It's very easy to search such a list, using the search engine of the browser or Word or the e-mail program you use. I keep my list in MS Word, so when I'm online I can get to the original post with one mouse click on the link. The example below naturally reflects my own skewed personal interests and limited knowledge, but with additional 5 or 50 or 500 members contributing links it should become much more inclusive and interesting. Such a list can be easily added to the website, or even posted by ADMIN: An example of a (post-OotP) HPfGU link list ------------------------------------------- THEORIES AND PREDICTIONS LV is Tom Riddle possessed by Salazar Slytherin? (Chamber of Secrets, "in essence divided", powers) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108664 The scar connection - possible effects on the war (long thread) (Harry, LV, mind link, Occlumency, possession, terror) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/90939 Suspicious issues regarding Sirius' death (long thread) (death arch, veil, DoM, Bellatrix, Lupin, DD) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/91486 DD's secret agenda for the WW (some TBAY, long thread) (MAGIC DISHWASHER, Order, phoenix, pureblood, MoM) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/81010 Will Harry vanquish LV with good magic or Dark Arts? (long thread) (Aveda Kedavra, Unforgivables, DoM, locked door, love) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85848 Did James and Lily know about the Prophecy? (long thread) (Potter, LV, DD, Harry, prophecy, Ancient Magic) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86575 Who's going to betray the Order in Books 6 and 7? (Ron, Percy, Lupin, Snape, Tonks, Mundungus, Molly) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/75704 PROPHECY INTERPRETATIONS A long thread about possible meanings of the Prophecy (Harry, James, Lily, LV) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/75035 The "Other" can't be a third person in a grammatical way (Prophecy, Harry, LV, Neville) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108241 HARRY POTTER Will Harry be an Auror after Hogwarts? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74897 Shouldn't everybody know Harry can cast a Patronus? (long thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/75968 HERMIONE GRANGER The development of Hermione's character throughout the series http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/105616 Hermione's parents and background (long thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/102644 ALBUS DUMBLEDORE Is DD a calculating puppet master? (James, Lily, Sirius, Harry, Aveda Kedavra, Ancient Magic) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/95458 Does DD see and know everything at Hogwarts? (Quirrell, Ginny, Marauders, Scabbers, Crouch Jr., Crouch Sr.) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/96085 SEVERUS SNAPE Snape as a double agent (long thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86384 More Snape as a double agent (long thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89443 What is Snape's position in the DEs' hierarchy? (long thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/92436 Snape's actions during the night of the DoM battle (long thread) (Harry, Sirius, Umbridge, Kreacher, Forbidden Forest) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/107699 Harry in any of Snape's classes in Book 6? (long thread) (DADA, Potions, OWL, NEWT) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/75779 REMUS LUPIN Did the ESE!Lupin kill Sirius? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/82860 Why Lupin couldn't have killed Sirius http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/82814 VOLDEMORT How did Tom come by his diary? (extremely long thread) (LV, Vauxhall Road, London, orphanages, World War II) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86506 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86517 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87431 LV as the classic fascist dictator (long thread) (ideology, racism, pureblood, DEs, Slytherin) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108762 Does LV takes his magical power from people's fear? (Voldemort, Dark Lord, Snape, Bellatrix) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/104274 LONGBOTTOMS Snape, Agnes and the Longbottoms - possible connections (Neville, St. Mungo's, poison) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86305 MINOR CHARACTERS TBAY: Quirrell lives in Scandinavia? (Durmstrang, trolls, unicorn blood, elixir of life) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87645 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87646 Is Aberforth the barman of the Hog's head? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/75569 Bellatrix, Andromeda and Narcissa on the Black family tree (12 Grimmauld Place, Sirius, Ted Tonks, Rudolphus, Lucius Malfoy) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106729 Some new suspects of kissing Florence and hexing Bertha (Rudolphus, Frank, Evan Rosier, Wilkes, Snape, Bellatrix, Alice) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/105599 ESE!Bill (TBAY thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85610 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85729 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85922 DEATH EATERS DEs: who, how many, and where are they now? (Malfoy, Avery, Rockwood, Bellatrix, Dolohov, Azkaban) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74825 Do the DEs know that LV is Tom Riddle? (Lucius Malfoy, Snape, Wormtail, Bellatrix, diary) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86502 HOGWARTS How safe is Hogwarts? (defenses, protection, aparation) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/86499 Hogwarts in the context of RL British Public Schools tradition (prefects, head boy, head girl, houses, headmaster, governors) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/105610 HOUSES Should the House of Slytherin be abolished? (long thread) (Sorting Hat, pureblood, racism, unity) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/99200 CLASSES, EXAMS, ETC. The (un)fairness of Snape grading Harry in OotP (long thread) (Potions, OWL, exams) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74576 Does Snape use drill sergeant methods to make his students better? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/94413 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/94631 MAGIC Questions regarding types of possession (LV, Quirrell, Tom Riddle, Diary, Ginny, Harry) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74992 How does the Pensieve work? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74777 Classification of spells (charm, curse, hex, jinx) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71220 Is the Imperius curse mind programming or remote control? (LV, Unforgivables, Crouch Sr., Wormtail, Moody, Lucius Malfoy) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/93300 How does the Mirror of Erised work? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/105670 TIME TRAVEL Different types of Time Travel and how JKR might use them (time turner, paradoxes, DD=Ron theory) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88794 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88636 PLACES Who will inherit 12 Grimmauld Place (long thread) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/75450 What is Godric's Hollow and who should inherit it? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/75508 JKR AS AN AUTHOR JKR's narrative strategy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/106967 A long thread about conspiracy and ESE theories http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/96577 Why is Grawp so huge? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/102442 Any need for more main characters killed in Books 6 and 7? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89866 FLINTS, INCONSISTENCIES AND ERRORS Is Hermione's age a flint? (birthday, cutoff date, school, September, Harry) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/92319 Three characters saying "Voldemort" is probably JKR's mistake (Wormtail, Crouch Sr., Crouch Jr., Dark Lord) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/109098 From erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 05:58:47 2004 From: erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid (Erin) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:58:47 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Estrilda wrote: I think the problem on the main list is not the number of posts, but the length of the posts. It is fun to read a give and take discussion on a topic between several people. It is overwhelming to wade through one person's three-foot essay on their position Erin responds: Maybe you don't like the long posts, but people's ideas of "fun" can differ, you know. The long, well-thought-out posts are my reason for reading the list. The thought of a list made up entirely of short, conversational posts gives me the shudders! I can't think of anything more... teenybopper. (Doesn't mean it is, just that's how I view it. An entire list of one-liners, me too's, and Dumbledore's gleams. *Shudder*) My whole joy in the list is to go back through and search for the wonderful long theories. Magic Dishwasher, ESE!Anyone, and anything Elkins ever wrote are what make the list great. Conversations can be fun, but for me there's nothing memorable in them, nothing to make you want to go back and reread. Or if there is, I immediately wish that it was consolidated into a larger, "proper" theory so as to make it easier to refer back to :-) Estrilda wrote: It is even more annoying to see the same three-foot essay reappear five times in its entirety as other members comment on it. Too often, posters are just too lazy or unknowledgeable to delete old text after they hit reply. Erin: In this we are in total agreement. I personally think anyone who quotes over, say, seven lines in a row from a previous post should be sent a howler from the mods. And some of my favorite posters, people whose posts I love to read and who seem like perfectly lovely people, frequently do this. (If you are reading this and have an uncomfortable feeling that I might be refering to you, I probably am. But I'd never be so rude as to say it directly to you....) It's really not that hard to highlight and press Backspace, people! Estrilda wrote: > The second problem, in my view, is that the "very large posts" > with "a lot of research" make the list very unwelcome to anyone with less than several hours to spend reading. Erin: Wait, wasn't that your first problem? Look, it's a list for adults. I *expect* a lot of research. If your theory isn't backed up by canon, and you can't show me the place in the books your canon comes from, then how do I know your theory is worth bothering with or believing in? To me, research and quotes actually *save* time, because then I don't have to go and look it up in the books myself. If you don't like long posts, my advice to you is the same as to those who don't like FILKs: just skip them. --Erin From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 08:15:43 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:15:43 -0000 Subject: Temporary solution Message-ID: Can I just point out that, for those with Winzip (or similar zipping software - it is easy enough to get) there are partial archives to be found at HPforGrownups-Archives , HPforGrownups-Archives2 and HPforGrownups-Archives3 , all Yahoogroups whose file sections contain zipped up text archives of earlier messages. It takes a bit of time and effort to download them, but once done you can at the minimum use Notepad to search 1000 messages at a time. David From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 09:18:29 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:18:29 -0000 Subject: A new list for substantive posts? Message-ID: Erin wrote: The long, well-thought-out posts are my reason for reading the list. The thought of a list made up entirely of short, conversational posts gives me the shudders! (..) My whole joy in the list is to go back through and search for the wonderful long theories. Magic Dishwasher, ESE!Anyone, and anything Elkins ever wrote are what make the list great. Conversations can be fun, but for me there's nothing memorable in them, nothing to make you want to go back and reread. Or if there is, I immediately wish that it was consolidated into a larger, "proper" theory so as to make it easier to refer back to :-) Shaun wrote: (2) I find the suggestion that 'very large posts' with a 'lot of research' making the list unwelcome to some people rather offensive. If people don't want to read a long post, that's entirely their right and their choice. But I find it rather hard to see how the existence of such a post, and the hours and hours of work that went into it intended to try and give something back to the fan community can somehow be unwelcome. (3) If HPFGU had a 300 word limit on posts, then frankly, it would become just another insipid, juvenile forum. Sure, often you can say something relevant, and meaningful in a few words. But if you're dealing with something fairly complex, it often takes a while to discuss it - and one of the major strengths of HPFGU has been that it's a place that allows for discussions of complex issues. Carolyn: I agree so much with Erin and Shaun. Whilst I enjoy the chat, after you have been on the list a while, you long for well-informed substantive discussions. One suggestion to remedy this, which went to Admin recently from me and another member went as follows: 1. Start a new, separate list (open to everyone), dedicated to posts which set out to deliberately discuss key topics, rather in the same way as an organised chapter discussion. Eg, might take a subject like ' Shrieking Shack' or ' Death of Lily & James', or a meta-theme such as 'Evil', or a character. Someone would be asked to write a substantial post to kick off the discussion, which reviewed past theories, gave proper references etc, but was opinionated and full of leading questions. 2. Subsequent posts replying to the starter-post would be subject to certain rules - essentially aimed at ensuring they were substantive replies. To ensure that they were, all posts on this list would be continuously moderated, without exception. Rules would be about length, citation, adding something new etc, but TBAY-style would be welcomed and accepted as a way of expressing this. This would intentionally discourage the fevered, me-too short posts - this is not the place for them. 3. The idea would be to have relatively few threads going at a time, but in-depth and chunky discussion of topics. Anyone who didn't feel like complying with the response rules could go post on the main list in the ordinary way, referencing the source post from this new list. The concept kind of updates the Fantastic Posts section in a creative way, giving people old and new a chance to read themselves in to a topic, and everyone a chance to put up considered contributions that moved a topic onwards. It is not exclusive of anyone, but does have some seriously tight rules, intended to limit post volume and maintain a high standard. It also stops these in-depth discussions getting lost in the swell of the main list. To get it started, it should be possible to identify a nice long list of good crunchy topics, and give them to people to work on, so there is a continual series of new things appearing every week or month. Would anyone support this? Carolyn From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 13:25:26 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:25:26 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Erin" wrote: > Erin responds: > Maybe you don't like the long posts, but people's ideas of "fun" can > differ, you know. The long, well-thought-out posts are my reason for > reading the list. The thought of a list made up entirely of short, > conversational posts gives me the shudders! I can't think of > anything more... teenybopper. (Doesn't mean it is, just that's how I > view it. An entire list of one-liners, me too's, and Dumbledore's > gleams. *Shudder*) > > My whole joy in the list is to go back through and search for the > wonderful long theories. Magic Dishwasher, ESE!Anyone, and anything > Elkins ever wrote are what make the list great. Conversations can > be fun, but for me there's nothing memorable in them, nothing to make > you want to go back and reread. Or if there is, I immediately wish > that it was consolidated into a larger, "proper" theory so as to make > it easier to refer back to :-) > Alla: Yes, yes, yes. Me too! :o) (It is not forbidden here, right?) From estrilda_wolfegg at estrilda_wolfegg.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 17:46:27 2004 From: estrilda_wolfegg at estrilda_wolfegg.yahoo.invalid (estrilda_wolfegg) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:46:27 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The thought of a list made up entirely of short, > > conversational posts gives me the shudders! I can't think of > > anything more... teenybopper. I think my suggestion for short, organized opinions, and summaries linked to a categorized archive might have been misunderstood by some of the responders. For context, please note that my favorite way to read posts is to message index and then expand messages so that they all line up in full down the page. This is not possible on the main list because of posts that scroll on literally for feet beyond that which would make Hermione blush. I do love the insightfulness of many of the theories on the list, but frankly, from my background as an undergraduate instructor of research and writing (really), although many of the longest ones cite sources to support ideas, they are obviously rough drafts that have never been proofread, organized, or edited by the author. Many long posts include lengthy text from canon and from other essays that could be much more easily cited to the source if we used an archive. And don't even get me started on the sophistry involved in many of the three thousand word essays suggesting a simple theory. Shorter posts (even a 1000 word suggested limit) and archived posts (inspiring more author investment in proofreading and organization?) lend themselves more easily to self-correction and less circles. It is also a Herculean task to find a specific theory on the board any length of time after the thread waned. I am not suggesting we start flip discussions. I am suggesting that perhaps members could present their more verbose opinions by referencing a section of an archive discussing similar ideas (thereby avoiding rehashing worn out ones), and posting research marvels somewhere we can read them at leisure and actually find them later. Estrilda (who comes to HPFGU in part to escape her own teenaged son and his friends, and just exceeded her own suggested length by a good 40 words. Oops.) From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 18:50:55 2004 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:50:55 -0000 Subject: A new list for substantive posts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > 1. Start a new, separate list (open to everyone), dedicated to posts > which set out to deliberately discuss key topics, > > 2. Subsequent posts replying to the starter-post would be subject to > certain rules > . > > 3. The idea would be to have relatively few threads going at a time, > but in-depth and chunky discussion of topics. > > Would anyone support this? Neri: Me too! OK, I can't leave it at that so I'll add some thoughts. First, better call this something that doesn't sound too elitist. How about the "in depth" list? Or the "looong and booooooring" list? This should scare off anybody who doesn't like to read long posts. Also, are the moderators ready to take on the job of going over all the posts and responses? I'm all for strict guidelines, but in the beginning I'd try leaving it to the members to decide what to post in the "in depth" group and what in the regular group. If this doesn't work well we can always increase moderation. The main problems I foresee with this suggestion are similar to the problems we have today between the regular list and the OTC and movie lists. That is, at what point in the thread do we move a post to the less-moderated list? Example: you post a very long and complex theory in the "in depth" list, and I mostly agree with you but I want a clarification regarding a single detail in your theory. Should I post this response in the "in depth" list or the regular list? If I post it in the regular list you might miss it and I won't get an answer. It would be best if we could work out guidelines for going from the "in depth" list to the regular list and back, so a discussion can be maintained across both lists. These problems are not very serious and shouldn't be viewed as my objection to the idea. Neri From erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 20:55:52 2004 From: erinellii at erinellii.yahoo.invalid (Erin) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:55:52 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Estrilda wrote: > I think my suggestion for short, organized opinions, and summaries > linked to a categorized archive might have been misunderstood by > some of the responders. Erin responds: Perhaps so, and if I seemed to be making fun, please forgive me. It's clear that your vision differs from my nightmare newbie list. But I don't see that more organized and concise opinions nessacerily follow from requiring shorter posts. I've seen just as much drivel from short posts, and I don't see how that can change without a level of moderator involvement that I don't think any of us want. Estrilda wrote: Many long posts include lengthy text from canon and from other essays that could be much more easily cited to the source if we used an archive. Erin: True, but as I've already said and at least one other member has mentioned, some of us like to have the canon or *relevent* quotes from another theory right there in the post that we're reading. Saves time. I don't want to have to go clicking on a zillion extra links or flipping through the pages of seven long books just to locate the few sentences that will let me understand what the current post is commenting on. Estrilda wrote: perhaps members could present their more verbose opinions by referencing a section of an archive discussing similar ideas (thereby avoiding rehashing worn out ones), and posting research marvels somewhere we can read them at leisure and actually find them later. Erin: I support the idea of an archive solely for the good posts in order to make them easier to refer back to, but only *after* they've appeared on HPfGU. It seems to me that your ideas would turn HPfGU into a suggestion list rather than a discussion list; "Go here and read this!" "Go there and read that!" And then what? Come back to the list and discuss them in less than 300 words? What if you had more than one question or comment on an essay? Would you have to break it up into two or three posts? That's not what I want out of my HPfGU! Estrilda wrote: And don't even get me started on the sophistry involved in many of the three thousand word essays suggesting a simple theory. Shorter posts (even a 1000 word suggested limit) and archived posts (inspiring more author investment in proofreading and organization?) lend themselves more easily to self-correction and less circles. Erin: It's true that some members do like to pontificate. But some of us simply enjoy reading more than others, I suppose. I can't tell you how many times I've finished one of Elkins' posts and wished that she had even *more* to say on a subject. Sometimes a theory is so good you just don't want it to end! As for better logic and more proofreading, those are again more quality than quantity issues, and I don't see how they are to be solved without, say, permanent moderation or some other measure more drastic than most members would be willing to support. Estrilda's signature included: > (who just exceeded her own suggested length by a good 40 > words. Oops.) Erin: See there? See how easy it is to do? There's lots of stuff that just won't *fit* into those teensy little posts! Bet you're regretting you pointed it out now, aren't you? Sorry, I just couldn't resist :-) --Erin, who posts with no doubt that she's trampled all over the proposed word limit. From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 22:32:30 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 08:32:30 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <411DCE1E.27334.274B38@localhost> On 13 Aug 2004 at 17:46, estrilda_wolfegg wrote: > The thought of a list made up entirely of short, > > > conversational posts gives me the shudders! I can't think of > > > anything more... teenybopper. > > I think my suggestion for short, organized opinions, and summaries > linked to a categorized archive might have been misunderstood by > some of the responders. For context, please note that my favorite > way to read posts is to message index and then expand messages so > that they all line up in full down the page. This is not possible > on the main list because of posts that scroll on literally for feet > beyond that which would make Hermione blush. Well, with respect, I'm not exactly sure that the entire list should be changed to conform so it fits your 'favourite way to read posts' - especially as I would guess it's a rather unusual way of reading them. Please understand that many people probably have some opinion about what should and shouldn't be on the list, that doesn't conform with the way the list actually functions. At the end of last year, I gave my opinions on TBAY posts, which quite a few people disagreed with (although, it does seem to be that my prediction that TBAY was going to wither away without its own list seems to have come true - unless it has moved somewhere else, without me noticing). We can't expect the list to *only* have posts we are interested in reading. I certainly think it's legitimate for people to express their views - that's what this forum is for. But this list has a lot of different types of posts, and that's part of its strength. > I do love the insightfulness of many of the theories on the list, > but frankly, from my background as an undergraduate instructor of > research and writing (really), although many of the longest ones > cite sources to support ideas, they are obviously rough drafts that > have never been proofread, organized, or edited by the author. Many > long posts include lengthy text from canon and from other essays > that could be much more easily cited to the source if we used an > archive. And don't even get me started on the sophistry involved in > many of the three thousand word essays suggesting a simple theory. > Shorter posts (even a 1000 word suggested limit) and archived posts > (inspiring more author investment in proofreading and organization?) > lend themselves more easily to self-correction and less circles. Well, assuming some long posts are the way you describe. I'm (all modesty aside, because I need to make a point) a fairly skilled writer. I am trained in technical writing - a huge amount of my work involves writing official reports and research reports. I have had a novel accepted for publication, as well as having written a chapter of a textbook which is being published in the United States next year, so I can write across quite different styles as well. Even if it's true that many long posts aren't particularly well written, by whatever measure is used, it would seem to me a rather hamfisted solution to simply ban long posts. Frankly, a great many short posts aren't particularly well written. In fact, I would go so far to say that the ratio of poorly written short posts is probably considerably higher than the ratio of poorly written long posts (for given values of 'long' and 'short'). Also understand that just because posts can be archived *doesn't* mean they shouldn't be posted - the long post I recently posted, will eventually be archived, and also placed on my website. This hasn't happened yet, because a couple of people suggested points I want to add, and also because a couple of my references were incomplete (I didn't have the page numbers). If the post hadn't been sent to HPFGU, I almost certainly wouldn't have any reason to realise that there were two other areas people wanted to know more about. That's part of the reason for posting there. I always intended that my post would be archived eventually - but it will be archived when I am *completely* happy with it. I'm 99% happy with what I posted to HPFGU - but I never make the mistake of assuming something is perfect and completely finished. Also, while some long posts may be far longer than they need to be, this certainly isn't true of all. Taking 3000 words to say something you could have said in 1000 words is not good. Taking 1000 words to say something that really needed 3000 words to explain it, though, is every bit as bad. > It is also a Herculean task to find a specific theory on the board > any length of time after the thread waned. I am not suggesting we > start flip discussions. I am suggesting that perhaps members could > present their more verbose opinions by referencing a section of an > archive discussing similar ideas (thereby avoiding rehashing worn > out ones), and posting research marvels somewhere we can read them > at leisure and actually find them later. > Estrilda Sure, that's not a bad idea (and it's generally my intention). But that doesn't make it a bad idea to post the original post once as well. People shouldn't be posting them over and over again - but posting it once so people can easily comment on it on the list is a good idea, in my view. And the fact that HPFGU was one of the very few Harry Potter forums that respected posts that people had put a lot of effort into is one of the reasons it has become so popular. Such posts are fairly rare - but if they didn't exist, HPFGU would wind up virtually indistinghishable from dozens of other forums. Most Harry Potter forums are similar - or at least 90% of the posts sent to them are similar. It's the ten percent (say) of posts that are *different* from those seen on other forums, that makes a forum special, and sets its reputation and tone. 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 From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 13 23:36:40 2004 From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:36:40 -0000 Subject: From OTC: List-volume discussion (way long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Erin: > It's true that some members do like to pontificate. But some of us > simply enjoy reading more than others, I suppose. I can't tell you > how many times I've finished one of Elkins' posts and wished that she > had even *more* to say on a subject. Sometimes a theory is so good > you just don't want it to end! Alla: It seems all what I am doing today is saying "me, too" :o) Elkins' posts are probably the best example of what would have happened if the words limit was enforced. I would not be able to read Crouch' novella and many other brilliant essays of her. I would consider myself to be very deprived then. Erin: > As for better logic and more proofreading, those are again more > quality than quantity issues, and I don't see how they are to be > solved without, say, permanent moderation or some other measure more > drastic than most members would be willing to support. > Alla: Absolutely. English is my second language and no matter how carefully I watch myself, I am bound to make some mistakes. Should I be forbidden from posting because of that? From eeyore6771 at hollylawrence67.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 14 01:25:53 2004 From: eeyore6771 at hollylawrence67.yahoo.invalid (Pat) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:25:53 -0000 Subject: What we CAN do about the Yahoo search engine (was: Quantity vs quality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Alla asked: > > Is it even possible to improve the search engine somehow? > > > Pat (hollylawrence67) added: > > I have tried several times to use the search engine, and really > haven't had any success--I've tried putting in the numbers of topics, > and also the titles of topics--neither is very helpful. In the end, > I have resorted to scrolling back, page by page, looking for specific > threads. That's very time consuming, and as a result, have just > skipped some things altogether. > > > Neri: > [snip > We can build favorite links lists and FAQ lists > that will be very easy to navigate and search. Simply ask members to > contribute links to their favorite posts, each link with a subject > line that describes it and maybe several additional key words that > will help finding it. For example: > > --------------------------- > The scar connection - possible effects on the war (long thread) > (key words: Harry, LV, mind link, Occlumency, possession) > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/90939 > --------------------------- > > I already keep such a list to help me find again posts and threads > that I liked. It's almost no work at all creating and maintaining it > (whenever I come across a good post I just paste the URL in the > list). I suspect many other members keep similar lists. It's very > easy to search such a list, using the search engine of the browser or > Word or the e-mail program you use. I keep my list in MS Word, so > when I'm online I can get to the original post with one mouse click > on the link. > Pat: Fantastic idea. I had started a list on paper, but only with the post numbers, the topic line and the date--didn't think to put the URL. So, this is one I'm saving, as there are some great links to ponder. But making that available and easily accessible is a great idea. Thanks, Pat From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 14 09:30:57 2004 From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:30:57 -0400 Subject: Searching Posts on YahooMort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've found that the best way to search is to be sure to go back to the "First" option which takes you back to the first article, then enter your search. It's still problematic, but works a bit better than just putting in the search criterion. Also, some blind users might have trouble with web-based forum boards. Yahoo isn't the most wonderfully accessible site in the universe and, for blind/disabled folk who are not really web savvy, that kind of forum can be a bit--uh--much. Hey, I consider myself a fairly proficient comp user (being an instructor and all that), and I still hate the web-based system. I plead guilty to not reading all the posts I have here before responding, but I just got back from the most excellent vacation and am totally bushed and spent, amazed that I can type at all. :-) Peace, and I'll play with that survey tomorrow...after I wake up from a hopefully *Long* snoozle. Peace, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me; | n2fgc at ... (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at ... Walk beside me, and be my friend. From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 14 14:34:55 2004 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:34:55 -0000 Subject: List-volume discussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I thought I would try to come in generally on some of the various matters which have been under discussion in the last few days. I came back to this group yesterday having not looked in for some days as nothing seemed to be happening to find about 30 posts to read!! First, I feel that the idea of having more than one group or sub- section within the group would probably create more problems than it solved. To an extent, I suspect that many people like myself "edit" what they read for the sake of time and their sanity. There are usually a number of threads which run and run and run which do not interest me, especially in the last few weeks so I simply pass over them; I will occasionally dip into one of them to see I have missed anything of note but some I leave totally alone (I never touch anything to do with Snape for example ? sorry to all Snapophiles). In other words, if you think it's boring ? don't read it.... There is the question of length. This, as folk have pointed out, is a difficult one. To impose a word limit might mean that a person might be deterred form posting for fear of overstepping the mark. I think that length often comes down to judicious snipping where possible. This leads me on to one of my hobby horses, that of what I call "tennis" replies. Someone has already mentioned these. A post appears and someone replies by chopping up the original text and answering various points by inserting their own piece in the middle. Someone else wants to reply, so they chop up the extended post and insert their bit. So the post gets longer and longer and becomes difficult to snip and is also often along the line of the "Oh yes it is"/"Oh no it isn't" where the posters reiterate the same argument until I, personally, stop trying to read the thread out of sheer annoyance. If folk could be persuaded to consolidate their gathered wisdom at the end of the item, it might then make it easier to give the original a haircut.... Finally, the wretched search facility. One problem is that even if you start from an older message number, the search always begins from the latest one. The only way seems to be if you have any idea whereabouts the thread was numerically and dive in and look on the main message listing. What I have found useful is to keep my own archive. Fairly soon after I joined the group 13 months ago, I realised that the search engine was about as useful as a chocolate teapot when it came to anything more than about 500 posts back so I started to save my own posts (which have now reached about 990 in 37000 group posts in that time) and I transfer them into Word files holding 200 posts. Let me hasten to say that this is not a display of overweening pride but it often proves to be very valuable if someone queries an older post where I put in my two-pennyworth because I can track down something of my own usually within a few minutes. It has saved me many a frustrating session with !Yahoo's little toy. It has been pointed out that the volume of posts rose sharply during the summer college and university vacations. Perhaps this will fall when these group members return to considering far less important things like astrophysics or the meaning of life. From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 14 16:21:00 2004 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:21:00 -0000 Subject: What we CAN do about the Yahoo search engine (was: Quantity vs quality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pat wrote: Fantastic idea. I had started a list on paper, but only with the post numbers, the topic line and the date--didn't think to put the URL. So, this is one I'm saving, as there are some great links to ponder. But making that available and easily accessible is a great idea. Geoff added in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/519 What I have found useful is to keep my own archive. Fairly soon after I joined the group 13 months ago, I realised that the search engine was about as useful as a chocolate teapot when it came to anything more than about 500 posts back so I started to save my own posts (which have now reached about 990 in 37000 group posts in that time) and I transfer them into Word files holding 200 posts. Neri: Pat and Geoff, if you and/or any other members create lists of links, simply post them here, and we will join them together. The more the better, as long as the posts are of good quality and the links are indexed and described in a convenient way. I'm not sure yet what format for describing the links is the best, but any format should probably be: 1. Succinct, so the whole list won't be too long. 2. Well organized into sections. 3. Easy to be searched using any computerized "search" tool. With this in mind, I describe a link with two lines: first a subject line that best summerizes it (not necessarily the original title of the thread, since these titles are not always informative), then another line of key words that did not make it to the subject line itself. This is in order to ensure that running a search for, say, "Dolohov", will find you the link: --------------------------------------- DEs: who, how many, and where are they now? (Malfoy, Avery, Rockwood, Bellatrix, Dolohov, Azkaban) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74825 ---------------------------------------- Note in this example that I didn't include "DEs" in the key words since it already appears in the subject line. Pasting the URL of the link is very convenient for members who, like myself, read posts in the website when they are online. In such a case clicking the URL will immediately open the post. However, those who read HPfGU by e-mail might find other formats more convenient. I'm open to suggestions. Neri From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 14 19:02:15 2004 From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:02:15 -0000 Subject: What we CAN do about the Yahoo search engine (was: Quantity vs quality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Neri: > > --------------------------------------- > DEs: who, how many, and where are they now? > (Malfoy, Avery, Rockwood, Bellatrix, Dolohov, Azkaban) > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74825 > ---------------------------------------- > Geoff: Looking at your example, I presume that you would want the lowest numbered message number (i.e. the start message) because the rest could be followed through from there, !Yahoo not being /too/ bad at tracing local links. Although, digressing slightly, have folks noticed that, in the list of follow-ups at the foot of the post, the immediately succeeding number often gets left off? Perhaps, we should rename the system !Yah- Boo? :-) From dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 14 19:33:08 2004 From: dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid (Dicentra spectabilis) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:33:08 -0000 Subject: Temporary solution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > Can I just point out that, for those with Winzip (or similar zipping > software - it is easy enough to get) there are partial archives to > be found at HPforGrownups-Archives , HPforGrownups-Archives2 > and HPforGrownups-Archives3 , all Yahoogroups whose file sections > contain zipped up text archives of earlier messages. > > It takes a bit of time and effort to download them, but once done > you can at the minimum use Notepad to search 1000 messages at a > time. Did you mean to include the hyperlinks there, Dave? I'm afraid we switched off the HTML on this group, too. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/ http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives2/ http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives3/ The best way, IMO, to do this is the following: 1. Download all of the ZIP files and extract the individual .txt files into one folder/directory. 2. Open the folder and click "Search" or use the search function in the Start menu. Then you search for a keyword *in the document* and limit the search to that folder. 3. The engine will pull up each .txt that contains the keyword. You can also search on e-mail addys and Yahoo IDs. 4. Then open each selected .txt file in Notepad to search for the particular instance of the keywordl I burned all of the unzipped archives I have onto a CD so that it wouldn't take up all my hard drive space. Hope that helps! --Dicentra From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 14 19:54:25 2004 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:54:25 -0000 Subject: What we CAN do about the Yahoo search engine (was: Quantity vs quality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Neri: > > > > --------------------------------------- > > DEs: who, how many, and where are they now? > > (Malfoy, Avery, Rockwood, Bellatrix, Dolohov, Azkaban) > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74825 > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > Geoff: > Looking at your example, I presume that you would want the lowest > numbered message number (i.e. the start message) because the rest > could be followed through from there, !Yahoo not being /too/ bad at > tracing local links. Neri: Er... not sure about this one either. I usually use only the first post in the thread, but sometimes a very good thread is triggered by a newbie's very short and dumb question, so it might be better to link to the first good post in the thread. Sometimes you have one very informative post in the middle of an otherwise low quality thread. Sometimes the thread is broken, so I think in this case it's best to give several links within the thread. This is also true for very long threads. Any suggestions? What I'm sure about is that any method would be far better than Yahoomort. Neri From dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 14 19:59:46 2004 From: dicentra at dicentra63.yahoo.invalid (Dicentra spectabilis) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:59:46 -0000 Subject: best posts archive / Yahoo search engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Neri: > > Pat and Geoff, if you and/or any other members create lists of links, > simply post them here, and we will join them together. The more the > better, as long as the posts are of good quality and the links are > indexed and described in a convenient way. Just FYI, there are two databases on the main list called "Recommended Posts" and "Recommended Posts (pre-OoP)." We Elvses have been populating them with posts we think are fairly well-written. However, y'all are more than welcome to add your own recommendations. To see the whole database in one go, click "Printable Record". You can also click "Export Table" to get a comma-delimited view that you can copy and paste into a text file (though I recommend deleting those nasty quotation marks). Tips on how to maximize the benefit of Yahoomort's Search Engine of Despair can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/Searching_Yahoo_Archives.html or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/Searching_Yahoo_Archives.txt --Dicentra From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sun Aug 15 03:02:33 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:02:33 -0000 Subject: Temporary solution -- Archives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David: > > Can I just point out that, for those with Winzip (or similar > > zipping software - it is easy enough to get) there are partial > > archives to be found at HPforGrownups-Archives, HPforGrownups- > > Archives2 and HPforGrownups-Archives3, all Yahoogroups whose file > > sections contain zipped up text archives of earlier messages. Dicey: > Did you mean to include the hyperlinks there, Dave? >>> David, are you "Dave" now?? Every time I see you referred to as "Dave", I always hear "What are you doing ... Dave?" ;-D Strangely, that doesn't happen when I think of Dave Hardenbrook, though. Odd... Dicey: > I'm afraid we switched off the HTML on this group, too. >>> Switched off? I had the impression that Yah doesn't do html in posts period; Dicey, what settings change is it? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/ > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives2/ > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives3/ I'm also going to be adding to this soon, too; Archives3 is now full (up to 67999), so am getting Archives4 started. It's here, and files are being loaded as we speak: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives4/ Btw, though the above links for Archives 2 and 3 have 'uk' at the beginning, the standard group URL, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives2 works just as well, and same thing for Archives3. (They read that way because the id we used to create those groups was set to UK time is all.) When I eventually get the Archives 5, 6, and however many more we'll need, the URLs will follow the same format. --Kelley From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sun Aug 15 17:18:22 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:18:22 -0000 Subject: Serious list policy point (was Temporary solution) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dicey: > > Did you mean to include the hyperlinks there, Dave? No, I would normally try to give them, and would also have suggested something along the lines of what you say for actually conducting searches (with a note to the effect that the instructions only apply to Windows users). I just didn't have much time, that's all. Kelley: > > David, are you "Dave" now?? Every time I see you referred to > as "Dave", I always hear "What are you doing ... Dave?" ;-D > Strangely, that doesn't happen when I think of Dave Hardenbrook, > though. Odd... You are right: though I never object when people call me Dave, particularly here where it's partly my own fault for inventing the "davewitley" id, I do in fact prefer to be called David. I have noticed that there is someone who signs his posts on the main list "David" so there is more possibility for confusion... David From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Wed Aug 18 18:02:02 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:02:02 -0000 Subject: Use of the OT-Chatter list (was OTC 'Newbie' thread) Message-ID: I just wanted to raise a point about the use of the OTC list, based mainly on the 'Newbie' thread there, particularly messages 23860 and 23868. In message 23844 a newbie called Luna introduced herself and, as part of her post, asked if we all have theories about Aunt Petunia. Personally, I thought that was fine. Rita, however, suggested in 23860 that OTC is for discussion 'not about canon', implying that canon questions and points ought not to be raised on that list. My own view is that we have always been happy to allow canon related discussion there, and that we have managed perfectly well doing so. (The HBfile is not really conclusive about this either way.) Conversely, Dina suggested in 23868 that OTC is a friendlier place for newbies to start out with posting ideas about which they don't feel confident, 'to ease themselves into this community', before plunging into the main list. While I am all in favour of anything that generally builds the confidence of new members, I worry that this advice will become self- defeating. I don't think it's a good idea to advise newcomers generally to start out on OTC before graduating to the main list: I think that does both lists a big disservice. The main list *is* where we discuss our theories about and reactions to the books (and any revelations on the jkrowling website). There is no need for anyone to feel that their ideas are too half-baked, or not sufficiently polished, for the main list. It is for *any* canon- related discussion, however trivial, not just for those posts that are candidates for 'Fantastic Posts' category. Furthermore, we already have the moderated post system in place there, for the precise purpose of easing new members into the community. My concern is that OTC will end up suffering from exactly the same problems that people go there from the main list to escape, as more and more people post there, because they feel they will get a more sympathetic audience, or because list volume is lower there, or whatever. In particular, I think it is bad netiquette, and unacceptable, for people to re-post on OTC what they have already posted on the main list, because they failed to get a response the first time round. I feel that it is the responsibility of all us oldbies to make new people feel welcome on *all* our lists, not to shuttle them back and forth from one to another because they are considered too canon-based for one and too uncouth for the other. David From eeyore6771 at hollylawrence67.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 19 05:09:43 2004 From: eeyore6771 at hollylawrence67.yahoo.invalid (Pat) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 05:09:43 -0000 Subject: Use of the OT-Chatter list (was OTC 'Newbie' thread) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > I just wanted to raise a point about the use of the OTC list, [snipping] > The main list *is* where we discuss our theories about and reactions > to the books (and any revelations on the jkrowling website). There > is no need for anyone to feel that their ideas are too half-baked, or > not sufficiently polished, for the main list. It is for *any* canon- > related discussion, however trivial, not just for those posts that > are candidates for 'Fantastic Posts' category. Furthermore, we > already have the moderated post system in place there, for the > precise purpose of easing new members into the community. > [snipping some more] > I feel that it is the responsibility of all us oldbies to make new > people feel welcome on *all* our lists, not to shuttle them back and > forth from one to another because they are considered too canon- based > for one and too uncouth for the other. > > David Pat here--definitely a newbie: Well, not new to discussing Harry Potter, but new here. I recently joined and took some time to read some posts before jumping in. My whole point in joing HP4GU is to discuss the books that I love and have read and re-read so many times I've lost count. So, whether the main list is too intimidating or not, I think, has a lot to do with how much a person has already discussed, perhaps in other groups. I think you make a good point that people who have been here longer need to make the extra effort to be welcoming and friendly. But so far, I haven't found that to be a problem. I'm here to exchange ideas and view points, so I'm not easily offended if someone disagrees with me--so far, at least, everyone has been polite, and that's what really counts in a discussion; if there's a disagreement it needs to be with the idea, not made into a personal attack. That's something that I particularly like here--people seem to focus on the topic, without making it a personal issue. Pat From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid Thu Aug 19 15:00:38 2004 From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:00:38 -0400 Subject: Personal List Musings (was RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: On Moderated and Un-Moderated Status) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey Folks, I'm going to just "blanket" address the feel of comments here rather than make specific refs and attributions. I'm also cross-posting this to the feedback list. Firstly, I've been involved with newsgroups and e-lists since 1988...so that's a pretty long time to be playing with this kind of stuff. :-) I've seen, I think, just about everything that can happen on one list/group or another, having been participant as well as moderator One of the things that does happen is that people sometimes post and forget that other real people with real feelings and diverse backgrounds are reading what is written. This can make for all kinds of trouble! Now, I'll be the first to say that, no matter how one slices it, someone somewhere will always find a gripe about a post or poster...but someone somewhere can always find a gripe about another person, too. : Every list/group has a "climate," an atmosphere which pervades it; some are more antagonistic, some are more of a slug-fest (yes, I actually heard from a friend who had been on a list where people were actually trying to pick fights about some triviality in someone's post). But the majority that I've been on are usually populated by lovely and decent people. Now, sometimes a person will come on to a list which is rather polite and laid back from one of those more antagonistic lists and all heck can break loose. As a moderator, I would write to that antagonist and explain that my list was one where respect is key, there are real people reading these posts and if said antagonist could not adhere to the list rules then I would have to remove him/her. The results were usually favorable with apologies from the antagonist and I rarely had to do a removal. However, there were those who decided to unsub, too, because they thought the list wasn't confrontational enough for them...fine by me. :-) There are lists where discussion of list policy and bashing the admins fall under regular list posting; I would always tend to discourage this and request that people take their gripes either to me or to whoever is the problem rather than pepper the list with a problem. But, that's not for everyone...like I say, some lists put everything on the table. The fact that HPFGU has a feedback list, to me, is a very nice thing...a good way to express for the members and a good way for the elves to get the "pulse" of the lists. One of the things I tried to do was encourage certain veterans to help new folk with snipping and formatting and inform new folk that there are these list veterans out there who would gladly help them with these kinds of things. This usually works well. However, there are people that, no matter how many times one asks them to snip or to sign their posts, it don't happen, and one deals or adapts. :-) I'm sure the list elves on HPFGU have these kinds of things to deal with as well...and these lists are a whole lot bigger than mine! :-) I do think that proper subject attribution *Is Truly Important*. I admit guilt on sometimes forgetting to alter the subject...... but appropriate subject lines do make for better sorting and possible deletion of threads someone might see as uninteresting. Again, however, from my experience, as much as I've tried to stress this, there are those who consistently do not adhere and, again, one must deal or adapt. Why am I expounding on all this? Simple...I'm just trying to point out that, no matter where you go, some rule on some list is probably going to make someone unhappy. And, just as there are no perfect people in this world, there are no perfectly perfect lists/groups. Sure, I've had a rejected and one edited post while on moderated status on the main list, but that's okay. If I had the time, there are some folk I would probably moderate more closely on my list...but I don't as there are only two of us admin types and both busy with other pursuits as well as our computer time. So I applaud the fact that HPFGU has such a large team that can do moderated status. IMO, if a person isn't happy on a list, then search out others and, perhaps, one can find a more ideal list home. I know that input is accepted gratefully here, and I'm sure some of the ideas may be rattling around in the hoppers of the list elves. But, if the HPFGU isn't meeting a need for someone, then search around. Remember, though, the grass isn't always greener on the other lists. I've rambled long enough, so I'll shut up now and go attack some chocolate. :-) Thank you, HPFGU Elves. :-) Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me; | n2fgc at ... (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at ... Walk beside me, and be my friend. From b_boymn at b_boymn.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 20 05:53:21 2004 From: b_boymn at b_boymn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:53:21 -0000 Subject: Link List Posting Message-ID: I have a few link lists from the 'Grownup' groups that I have compiled on various subjects as well as a couple of non-specific 'Grownup' link lists. Have we determine if we are going to compile these? And have we determine where and how they are going to be compiled? Were can I post them, or who can I send them too? Here is the format that I typically use- From: "iana_abadi" Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:01 pm Subject: The next Peter Pettigrew http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71699 Long Thread. Changes into a discussion of Ron becoming Prefect. Mostly, I use this because it's easy to cut-and-paste. It really is relatively quick, two cut&pastes (From/Date/Subject then Link), and a quick note. After the link, I add a short note, if necessary, to indicate anything that might be unusual about that post, or it might be a good place to add additional related subjects that could be searched; a crude form of cross referencing. In this case, even though the subject line is about Peter, the post is actually about Ron and evolves into a thread about Ron becoming Prefect, and I have included Ron's name in the /note/. Addmitedly, many of my link lists point to my own posts, but those links will take you into threads that have many intersting posts. I haven't followed this format religiously, mostly I've made these link lists for myself, but in the later ones, this is the format I try to use. Suggestion- If people are serious about this, we (or you) could try to asemble a team of volunteers to search through specific blocks of posts in a systematic way and catagories post by subject. Example: Person A- Searches posts 10,000 through 12,000 for a two week period catagorizing posts in a set of predetermined subject catagories and adding new catagories as necessary. Typical Catagories- Primary - Characters ... ... Secondary - Ron, Harry, Hermione, Percy, Molly, Arthur, Voldemort, etc... Primary - Story Theories ... ... Secondary - 'Good Slytherin', 'Magical Dishwasher', 'Who will die', etc... Primary - Wizard World Theories (theories on the inner workings of the wizard world) ... ... Secondary - Beasts (thestrals, dragons,...), Artifacts (wands, brooms, Portkeys...) ... ... Secondary - Magical Theory (apparation, protections, spells, charms, curses, ...) Etc... Many of these overlap, but with an added note of basic terms under the link, they could easily be cross referenced for search. Keep in mind that we are talking about searching over 100,000 posts; that's no small task. However, if a large group of people volunteered and agreed to search a certain number of posts in a certain period of time, we could gradually work our way through the list. One method might be to systematically search the current year, once it's cataloged, move to the previous year. Keep in mind that the year 2003 generated over 30,000 posts. July of that year totalled 8,234 alone. I have a free text editor that allows you to open multiple text files. When I am gathering links, I have serveral files open, each file dealing this a different subject catagory, and cut&paste the info as I come accross interesting links. If I need a new catagory, I just create a new file. Not sure to what extent I can participate, but I am intersted in the idea. Just curious. Steve/B_Boymn (was bboy_mn, was asian_lovr2, was boybluemn) From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 20 18:31:28 2004 From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:31:28 -0000 Subject: Link List Posting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > I have a few link lists from the 'Grownup' groups that I have compiled > on various subjects as well as a couple of non-specific 'Grownup' link > lists. > > Have we determine if we are going to compile these? And have we > determine where and how they are going to be compiled? Were can I post > them, or who can I send them too? > Neri: Well, I'm not a list elf or anything. I'm just a guy with an idea. I don't know how official ADMIN want to make this effort, if at all. What I wanted to demonstrate is that this thing can easily be done in an unofficial way. No tools or knowledge are required beyond what any HPfGU member has. > Steve: > Here is the format that I typically use- > > From: "iana_abadi" > Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:01 pm > Subject: The next Peter Pettigrew > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71699 > Long Thread. Changes into a discussion of Ron becoming Prefect. Neri: I'm OK with this format, except that I would add a line of several key words, since the whole point is to enable members to find posts in a subject that interests them by running a computerized search over the list. To choose the key words, just think about the person who is interested in this specific subject, and what words is he/she are likely to search for. In your example above you already have the words "Pettigrew", "Ron" and "Prefect", so I would add a line of key words like: (Neville, trio, traitor, jealousy, friendship). Also, in this specific case I'd maybe separate the two threads, since they obviously deal with different subjects. Have one link for the "next Pettigrew" thread and another for the "Ron as Prefect" thread. I would also suggest adding to each link a recommendation to which section it should belong, in order to make the organizers' job even easier. In this case an obvious section to recommend would be "Ron Weasly" Do you think the date is helpful here? If members want to search a post by a known date I'd say it is easier to find the post in the site. I think, however, that all these issues are minor. Even if the list includes links in 10 slightly different formats, it would still be very helpful. > Steve: > Addmitedly, many of my link lists point to my own posts, but those > links will take you into threads that have many intersting posts. Neri: I personally don't have any problem with that. Many of the posts in my own list are mine or threads that I participated in. As long as this project is collective, anybody who complains about not being represented can simply send the list of his own posts. Actually it might be a good incentive for members to contribute well-indexed posts. > Steve: > Suggestion- > > If people are serious about this, we (or you) could try to asemble a > team of volunteers to search through specific blocks of posts in a > systematic way and catagories post by subject. > Neri: Well, my idea was more like this: post a request in the main forum and ask the members to send their favorite posts according to the format above. If 200 members respond and they send on average 3 posts each, and you have (predictably) some overlap, this still amounts to several hundreds links. All the organizers have to do is join them into one list and perhaps do a bit of editing. This is also easy to maintain as an ongoing project. Just ask members to keep sending new posts they liked. Personally I'm a sucker for collective projects that organize themselves without much centralistic control. Not that I have anything against a systematic effort by a team of dedicated volunteers, but the chances that this will happen (and keep happening for a long time) are smaller. You'll need several very determined people with a lot of free time for that. I certainly don't qualify as such. But of course, if you and/or any other member volunteers to make such an effort on his/her own, this can be a great contribution to a collective effort. Such members can report in the feedback list what dates and/or subjects they are working on, so other such members will work on other sections. > Steve: > Typical Catagories- > Primary - Characters > Neri: I'm OK with these categories. If this will indeed be a collective effort then the categories will probably emerge by themselves according to the subjects members send and the sections they recommend. And of course in any case there will be a lot of overlap, which is why the key words are important. > Keep in mind that we are talking about searching over 100,000 posts; > that's no small task. Neri: Even an initial list of "only" 300 posts will be of great help, especially if these are posts that members thought are good, and many of them are whole threads. Such a list would be much more efficient and easy for most tasks than the current Yahoo search engine. Of course it would not ensure you that if you are looking for a *particular* post you'll find it there, and it won't ensure you that you'll find *everything* that was ever posted in a certain subject. But it will supply most members with several *good* posts in most subjects that might interest them. If in time this list becomes longer (thousands of links) it will actually be more problematic for quick search, and we might have to look for new solutions, but we can deal with that when we get there. Dicentra wrote in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/524 > Just FYI, there are two databases on the main list called "Recommended > Posts" and "Recommended Posts (pre-OoP)." We Elvses have been > populating them with posts we think are fairly well-written. However, > y'all are more than welcome to add your own recommendations. Neri: Thanks Dicentra. Some very good posts in there that I didn't see before. But I still think that URLs and key words are needed in order to make this more than just a list of recommended links, and turn it into a convenient tool for finding interesting stuff in any specific subject. I'll be probably adding these links to my list in the format above. Neri From hermionesmum at hermionesmum.yahoo.invalid Fri Aug 20 20:58:01 2004 From: hermionesmum at hermionesmum.yahoo.invalid (Sam) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:58:01 -0000 Subject: Use of the OT-Chatter list (was OTC 'Newbie' thread) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > Rita, suggested in 23860 that OTC is for discussion 'not > about canon', implying that canon questions and points ought not to > be raised on that list. SNIPED> > Conversely, Dina suggested in 23868 that OTC is a friendlier place > for newbies to start out with posting ideas about which they don't > feel confident, 'to ease themselves into this community', before > plunging into the main list. > > While I am all in favour of anything that generally builds the > confidence of new members, I worry that this advice will become self- > defeating. I don't think it's a good idea to advise newcomers > generally to start out on OTC before graduating to the main list: I > think that does both lists a big disservice. > > The main list *is* where we discuss our theories about and reactions > to the books (and any revelations on the jkrowling website). There > is no need for anyone to feel that their ideas are too half-baked, or > not sufficiently polished, for the main list. It is for *any* canon- > related discussion, however trivial, not just for those posts that > are candidates for 'Fantastic Posts' category. Furthermore, we > already have the moderated post system in place there, for the > precise purpose of easing new members into the community. > > My concern is that OTC will end up suffering from exactly the same > problems that people go there from the main list to escape, as more > and more people post there, because they feel they will get a more > sympathetic audience, or because list volume is lower there, or > whatever. > > In particular, I think it is bad netiquette, and unacceptable, for > people to re-post on OTC what they have already posted on the main > list, because they failed to get a response the first time round. > > I feel that it is the responsibility of all us oldbies to make new > people feel welcome on *all* our lists, not to shuttle them back and > forth from one to another because they are considered too canon- based > for one and too uncouth for the other. > > David Sam pipes up: Hello, I'm one of the newbies who welcomed Dina's suggestion about using OT chatter for initial posts. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the main list for the last year or so and have spent many a happy sunday night in the HPFGU chat room, usually with a glass of wine in one hand and ready for relaxed conversation, usually with a bit of a giggle. I'm very impressed with the quality of the discussion and the care that folk put into their theories. Even without trying to keep up with the high volume of posts on the main list, trying to join such a group is an intimidating prospect. I understand the need to discuss ways of making the list manageable, but for a newbie such as myself, encountering the recent threads on raised list volume and the irritating practices of newbies feels like walking into a pub full of locals expressing outrage that their favourite watering hole has been invaded by students. Some are even trying to disperse them with loud comments about how unwelcome they are while looking as if they wouldn't be adverse to offing a few with a stray dart if they could make it look like an accident. Dave's comments about wanting to make newbies welcome are very much appreciated. I made a canon-based post to OT chatter thinking it was going to particularly lame as it was a knee-jerk reaction to the JKR's door opening. I wanted to suggest that next time we get some new canon to play with we initially try out our ideas on it in the chat room. I can normally only manage a sentence or two of thought before my ideas start falling down anyway, and I don't generally make a very good job of explaining the connections my mind is making. I'm also not above a bit of schoolgirl silliness, especially where Remus Lupin is concerned. We could then think about making a co authored post to the main list that would be worth reading. Does this appeal to anyone? Sam who has got her children to bed, hidden the furry crocodile and is generally a bit less fraught:) From b_boymn at b_boymn.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 21 20:06:23 2004 From: b_boymn at b_boymn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:06:23 -0000 Subject: Link List POSTED In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hummm... no response on whether this is the right place to post links. Well, I'll post them anyway and hope whoever is collecting them will find them. BLACK ESTATE INHERITANCE Jun 29 - OOP: the Inheritance? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/65763 Jul 1 - OoP: Re: Question - inheritance thread...(& Winky) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/66493 Jul 23 - Dead Men Tell No Lies (was: inheritance) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72691 Jul 22 - Inheritance - Kreacher - Dead or Alive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72476 Aug 1 - Kreacher & House-Elf Relocation http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74791 Aug 2 - Re: Silly Questions (that may never be answered) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74859 DA CLUB Date: Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:33 pm Subject: Practice, Practice, Practice, & Play http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71004 Discusses the DA Club and the areas where the DA members need to improve. Touches on the Good Slytherin. Discussion of realistic changes that could be made at the Dursley's to impove Harry's life there. Date: Tue Jun 24, 2003 8:32 pm Subject: OoP: the DA (was:Dd's treatment to Harry) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/63344 General discussion of the nature of the DA Club. THE NATURE OF DARK MAGIC http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/82138 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/79252 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/79014 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/76645 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/53574 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/52538 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/53529 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/53527 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/46104 THE GOOD SLYTHERIN Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:48 pm Subject: Switching houses http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/93350 Indirectly touches on the 'Good Slytherin' subject. Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:00 am Subject: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/91320 Nice long thread that touches on several aspects of the latest book including the Good Slytherin. Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:43 am Subject: Re: The Good Slytherin - Stringy & Weedy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84984 Discusses who likely candidate are for the Good Slytherin. Subject line refers to the books describing one Slytherin as 'weedy' and another one as 'stringy'. Date: Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:22 am Subject: What the Sorting Hat REALLY Said, and The Good Slytherin. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84899 Discussion of whether Harry said he want to be Gryffindor or if he simply said 'not Slytherin'. Additional thought on the Good Slytherin. Started with a discussion of the Sorting Hat and how it works. Date: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:27 pm Subject: Thestrals and Slytherins http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71039 Starts as a discussion of the 'stringy' Slytherin who could see the Thestral and quickly switches to this title "Good Slytherin (Was: Re: Thestrals and Slytherins)". HARRY DIES (not a new idea) May 20, 2004- Tragic Hero http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/98908 Nov 16, 2003 - Endings http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85163 Dec 18, 2003 - Alternate Endings (was: Hows Harry going to learn...) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87275 Apr 4, 2004 - How about... this ending? (was: A portrait of Sirius?) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/95121 Aug 4, 2002- Re: Harry's Putative Death http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42116 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42051 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42124 Difficult thread to follow, goes on for days, an split into many subthreads Aug 27, 2003- Voldemort will win http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/78982 Interesting theory on the End and the link between V & H Long Thread Jul 11, 2003- I don't see Harry dying http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/69361 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/69516 Jun 24, 2003- OOP: Re: Why Harry will die http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/62697 very long thread with several tangents, leads to thread below... Jun 29, 2003- OOP: Veil - Gateway of Lost Souls http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/65783 Jan 2, 2003- Harry dying http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/49093 Jan 4, 2003 -JKR's quote...upcoming deaths/ Possible Harry 'death' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/49198 Jan 27, 2004- Do we need any more death cases? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/89781 General discussion on death in the books. LEGILIMENCY http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80147 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/79939 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80177 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72153 PERCY From: "Steve" Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:16 pm Subject: Ron is like Percy (was Chapter Discussion...) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/88447 Compares Ron and Percy's character. From: "Steve" Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:52 pm Subject: Re: Is it all Percy's fault? NOT!!! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/87132 A newer variation of my "Good Son" Theory. From: "Steve" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:40 pm Subject: BRAVO! - Percy Weasley under ... Imperius Curse? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85258 From: "manawydan" Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:13 pm Subject: Re: Percy Weasley under Lucius' Imperius Curse? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85244 Written by a avid Percy Defender, and stimulus for the post listed above. From: "Steve" Date: Thu Oct 30, 2003 5:06 pm Subject: Re: Where Percy got Scabbers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/83893 A 'logical extension' analysis of the likely circumstance in which Percy aquired Scabbers. From: "Steve" Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 4:42 pm Subject: Re: Percy - The Good Boy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/66159 Recommended for all Percy Defenders. One of the original post of my 'Good Son' Theory. From: "manawydan" Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Percy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/66065 From: Kathleen Kelly MacMillan Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 9:01 pm Subject: RE: [HPforGrownups] Percy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/8631 The beginning of a long Percy thread that splinters into several Sub-Threads. From: "bboy_mn" Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:30 am Subject: Percy - The Troubled Soul? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43283 PHOTOS & PORTRAITS Thu Sep 11, 2003 6:14 pm Re: photo vs. painting in magical world ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/80505 Sat Aug 2, 2003 12:20 pm Portraits http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74923 Good thread, lots of discussion. See my post later in the thread Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:38 pm Paintings vs. Photos http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/76735 Long thread with many sub-threads. My posts are in a sub-thread. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/76837 THESTRALS From: "Steve" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2003 3:35 pm Subject: The Impossible Thestral Flight To London. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/70621 From: "Steve" Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 9:51 pm Subject: Re: Flight to London - Speed Questioned http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71759 I'll keep looking. Steve/B_Boymn (was bboy_mn, was asian_lovr2, was boybluemn) From b_boymn at b_boymn.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 21 20:13:36 2004 From: b_boymn at b_boymn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:13:36 -0000 Subject: More Link Lists POSTED Message-ID: These are somewhat random link list I've accumulated while looking back through old sections of the HP for GrownUps maing group. RAMDOM From: "bboy_mn" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:51 pm Subject: Voldies at the Riddle Mansion; go get him! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42779 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 3:10 pm Subject: US Insanity and Translations http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42774 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 11:26 pm Subject: Re: US Insanity and Translations http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43207 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:28 pm Subject: The Clock Says 'Mortal Peril'....ooowww my stomach hurts. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42797 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 4:44 pm Subject: Re: Why Lupin was on the train (Flint?) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42854 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:57 pm Subject: Re: really odd topic: Polyjuice Potion: Gender? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42859 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 5:18 am Subject: Re: Harry's Holly Wand Connotating Christmas http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42870 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Sun Aug 18, 2002 4:35 pm Subject: Re: Godric's Hollow http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42883 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:50 pm Subject: Re: the burrow http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42911 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 2:28 pm Subject: Re: "yard" / Muggle money / "Ottery" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42953 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Wed Aug 21, 2002 1:38 am Subject: Re: "yard" / "Ottery" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42982 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 7:44 pm Subject: Magic: Foc/unFoc; Ctrl/unCtrl; Wand/NoWand; Spont/Intent http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43088 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 8:18 pm Subject: WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort: Let's get this straight. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43089 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Sat Aug 24, 2002 5:35 pm Subject: Re: WANDS: Harry's vs Voldemort: Reply to All http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43127 From: "dicentra63" Date: Fri Aug 23, 2002 6:03 pm Subject: Who Framed Fred and George? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43083 From: "zeff8" Date: Wed Aug 14, 2002 6:20 pm Subject: Fred and George's next prank http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42650 Evolves into Bullies thread From: "bboy_mn" Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:15 pm Subject: Fred & George Step on Draco - Big Deal http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43152 From: "serenadust" Date: Sun Aug 25, 2002 10:19 pm Subject: Fred, George, Harry, Ron & Hermione-all bullies? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43159 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Mon Aug 26, 2002 10:19 pm Subject: Re: Arthur Weasley http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43198 From: eloiseherisson at a... Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:03 am Subject: Re: Portkeys and Floo Network http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43209 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:05 am Subject: Re: Fred and George: The PREDATORS (NOT!) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43220 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 10:53 am Subject: Re: Harry's Good Will? (was: What is a Bully? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43284 From: "CHRISTOPHER NUTTALL" Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 1:03 pm Subject: The Scale of Things http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43288 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Wed Aug 28, 2002 3:09 pm Subject: Re: The Scale of Things http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43298 From: fourfuries at a... Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:32 pm Subject: Not many U.S. Wizards http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/27195 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 8:52 pm Subject: Re: Dirty!Harry and Stoned!Harry http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43344 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 8:03 pm Subject: Re: The Mystery of Hagrid Returning the Motorbike to Sirius http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43342 From: "pippin_999" Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 11:04 am Subject: The Twins vs Percy, family dynamics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43322 From: "bboy_mn" Date: Thu Aug 29, 2002 9:37 pm Subject: Re: What Makes a Viable Population http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43349 I'll keep looking. Steve/B_Boymn (was bboy_mn, was asian_lovr2, was boybluemn) From b_boymn at b_boymn.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 21 20:17:31 2004 From: b_boymn at b_boymn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:17:31 -0000 Subject: Still More Link Lists POSTED In-Reply-To: Message-ID: GENERAL LIST From: "Steve" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:02 am Subject: Re: Vanishing and Conjuring - how does it work? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/70746 From: "queen_astrofiammante" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 11:06 am Subject: Tube clues to whereabouts of Grimmauld Place (was London Locations) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/83992 From: "Steve" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2003 4:42 pm Subject: Re: Why to Like and Not Like OoP http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/70968 From: "Steve" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:33 pm Subject: Practice, Practice, Practice, & Play http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71004 From: "bibphile" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:50 am Subject: Good Slytherin (Was: Re: Thestrals and Slytherins) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71118 From: "greatelderone" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2003 10:51 am Subject: Good Slytherin (Was: Re: Thestrals and Slytherins) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71177 From: "jenny_ravenclaw" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:27 pm Subject: Thestrals and Slytherins http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71039 From: "Geoff Bannister" Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 2:36 pm Subject: Re: Hogwarts is in Scotland (longish) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/83994 From: "Steve" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2003 4:52 pm Subject: Re: Spell Definitions--help! DADA spells? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71220 From: "Steve" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2003 7:54 pm Subject: Good Slytherin - Plus an old debate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71254 From: "Kelly Grosskreutz" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2003 10:43 pm Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] First meetings HP/DM, JP/SS was Re: Always bothered me http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71298 From: "Steve" Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 9:51 pm Subject: Re: Flight to London - Speed Questioned http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71759 From: "jakedjensen" Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:35 am Subject: Dumbledore is Hedwig http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71578 From: "Steve" Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 9:01 pm Subject: House-Elves & the Tie That Binds. (long) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71752 From: "karenoc1" Date: Sun Jul 20, 2003 12:56 pm Subject: Thoughts on Ron Weasley http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71873 From: "Steve" Date: Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:33 pm Subject: $$$ Fan FIction $$$ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72150 From: "Steve" Date: Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:56 pm Subject: Re: "Legilimens!" Spell & Gift http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72153 From: "iana_abadi" Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:01 pm Subject: The next Peter Pettigrew http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71699 Long Thread. Changes into a discussion of Ron becoming Prefect. From: "lupinwolf2001" Date: Mon Jul 21, 2003 11:53 am Subject: New Angle on the prophecy Neville and Harry. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72071 From: "Steve" Date: Mon Jul 21, 2003 7:21 pm Subject: Re: New Angle on the prophecy Neville and Harry. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/72156 From: "Steve" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:13 pm Subject: Re: Scar doesn't cut it as H=V http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/70692 From: "tristan_ana2004" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2003 3:28 pm Subject: OOP Percy is Not Evil http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/65100 From: "curly_of_oster" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:01 pm Subject: OOP:Death--Point or Pointless? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/64545 From: "maneelyfh" Date: Tue Jul 29, 2003 6:45 pm Subject: Wizard or Warlock http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/73992 From: "stickbook41" Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003 3:47 pm Subject: Map of Hogwarts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/73713 Shaun's interior map of Hogwarts and discussion of internal structure. From: "traci_barbour" Date: Sat Aug 2, 2003 12:20 pm Subject: Portraits http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/74923 : Portraits - living and dead : Portraits - Additional: Actors Playing a Role From: "Steve" Date: Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:40 pm Subject: Portkeys - Curses foiled again http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/73735 With links to old posts. From: "freia80" Date: Sat May 31, 2003 10:37 am Subject: Portkey mystery? - incomplete lexicon information http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/59037 From: "Steve" Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 1:47 am Subject: Re: Portkey mystery? - incomplete lexicon information http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/59088 From: "yairadubin" Date: Fri Aug 8, 2003 12:36 am Subject: Harry=halfblood? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/76037 From: B Arrowsmith Date: Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:36 am Subject: BANG! You're dead! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/76697 From: "ghinghapuss" Date: Tue Aug 19, 2003 10:41 am Subject: What is Lily's big revelation in Book 5??? Help! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/77976 From: "Steve" Date: Tue Aug 19, 2003 5:12 pm Subject: Re: What is Lily's big revelation in Book 5??? Help! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/78030 From: "hermowninny719" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 12:30 pm Subject: Prefect Privileges/Powers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84087 From: "Shaun Hately" Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 2:44 pm Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Prefect Privileges/Powers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84095 From: John and Peg Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 6:08 am Subject: [HPforGrownups]The Burrow http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84086 Three posts from Steve (me) From: "Steve" Date: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:43 am Subject: Re: The Good Slytherin - Stringy & Weedy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84984 From: naraht at D... Date: Wed Aug 30, 2000 1:19 pm Subject: Knockturn Alley http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/580 From: "bohcoo" Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 7:27 am Subject: Magical Travel ( or, Grins for Steve) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84138 From: "hermowninny719" Date: Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:03 pm Subject: Does the sorting hat sort? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84757 From: "Steve" Date: Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:54 pm Subject: Bang! You're Dead. (was:Voldemorts animus...) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/85848 I'll keep looking. Steve/B_Boymn (was bboy_mn, was asian_lovr2, was boybluemn) From dudemom_2000 at dudemom_2000.yahoo.invalid Sat Aug 21 21:27:05 2004 From: dudemom_2000 at dudemom_2000.yahoo.invalid (dudemom_2000) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:27:05 -0000 Subject: Link List Posting/Re: Use of the OT-Chatter list (was OTC 'Newbie' thread) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > I have a few link lists from the 'Grownup' groups that I have compiled on various subjects as well as a couple of non- specific 'Grownup' link lists. > > Have we determine if we are going to compile these? And have we > determine where and how they are going to be compiled? Were can I post them, or who can I send them too? > > Here is the format that I typically use- > > From: "iana_abadi" > Date: Sat Jul 19, 2003 5:01 pm > Subject: The next Peter Pettigrew > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71699 > Long Thread. Changes into a discussion of Ron becoming Prefect. > > > Mostly, I use this because it's easy to cut-and-paste. It really is > relatively quick, two cut&pastes (From/Date/Subject then Link), and a > quick note. > > After the link, I add a short note, if necessary, to indicate anything that might be unusual about that post, or it might be a good place to add additional related subjects that could be searched; a crude form of cross referencing. > > In this case, even though the subject line is about Peter, the post is actually about Ron and evolves into a thread about Ron becoming Prefect, and I have included Ron's name in the /note/. > Snip > Suggestion- > > If people are serious about this, we (or you) could try to asemble a team of volunteers to search through specific blocks of posts in a > systematic way and catagories post by subject. > Snip > Not sure to what extent I can participate, but I am intersted in the idea. > > Just curious. > > Steve/B_Boymn (was bboy_mn, was asian_lovr2, was boybluemn) *****\(@@)/***** Steve, I love the idea. Do you think it would be possible to use the Files to organize the larger, more common categories/theories? Or say if a topic gets a certain number of posts, for argument's sake, say 300, it earns a place in the Files. It also would be a great way to have everyone post/reference threads that way. I am not a great poster to the main list, mainly because I tend to be fairly short and succinct when I reply to something (might have something to do with short term memory loss) and I see that longer, more involved posts are what people usually do. OT works for me because we can throw out an idea and get a pretty immediate response and at least test initial theories. OT is a great place for Newbies to get their feet wet, asking questions and then posting to the main list once they have bounced their initial theory around. Hermionesmum said in Use of the OT-Chatter list: I wanted to suggest that next time we get some new canon to play with we initially try out our ideas on it in the chat room. I can normally only manage a sentence or two of thought before my ideas start falling down anyway, and I don't generally make a very good job of explaining the connections my mind is making. I'm also not above a bit of schoolgirl silliness, especially where Remus Lupin is concerned. We could then think about making a co authored post to the main list that would be worth reading. Does this appeal to anyone? Sam Dudemom_2000 says: This is an absolutely excellent idea! The chat has been a great way to form theories. It is small enough in numbers that you get good discussion and helpful suggestions on posting on the main list. Also the participants are not dedicated to shooting theories down or constantly challenging anything that is said (though we did have one there recently who tried........) It is a great place to sharpen your skills, get help and generally bounce your theory off others and have them help you expand on it! Beside we have great fun and giggle a lot and generally are a great group to hang with. This has been one of my longest posts and my head hurts now...... Dudemom_2000 (*waves* hi to Hermionesmum and see you Sunday!) *****\(@@)/***** From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 14 21:03:04 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:03:04 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Help Wanted Message-ID: IT technical help wanted for interesting HPfGU project. Basic skills required: PHP, Python or Java. Need to be able to create SQL queries and handle text processing. Project will probably take 6 months, possibly longer. Alas, for legal reasons, we can only work with US-based developers, and involvement is on strictly voluntary basis. However, unlimited butterbeer and chocolate frogs to the chosen few. If you are interested in helping, please contact us at: developerapp@ hpfgu.org.uk Thanks, everyone! --Kelley, on behalf of the elves From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 22 13:27:24 2004 From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (dan) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:27:24 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Group Storage Space downgrade? Message-ID: Recently there has been a suggestion that Yahoo was considering the introduction of a premium Yahoo Groups service. Along with this service, the possibility of reduced storage space for free groups was also being considered. Does anyone know if Yahoo is proceeding with any such restructuring of their groups, or planning to? A link to a survey about this paid group service was posted in another group, but the survey had expired by then. Because the HPfGU lists are so large, such a downgrade in storage allotment would certainly affect us. If anyone knows what Yahoo's intentions are, it could be really useful, especially if we need to start lobbying for maintenance of the free groups at their present capacity. DAn From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Wed Sep 22 13:49:05 2004 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 06:49:05 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Yahoo Group Storage Space downgrade? References: Message-ID: <00f901c4a0aa$ed970b40$01fea8c0@...> Dan wrote: Yahoo has been pushing this idea around for about a year or so now. Frankly I doubt they'll do it (it would have been implemented by now), but the HPfGU elves discussed this back when it was a hot topic the first time around and had some ideas of how to proceed if this event occurred. I couldn't tell you specifics as things may have changed since I was an elf, but there were plans and ideas in place. Saitaina **** "I do wonder why the artist gave Riddle pointy ears in this doujinshi. I keep waiting for Elrond to drop by." http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina "No, one day I'm going to look back on all this and plow face-first into a tree because I was looking the wrong bloody way. And I'll still be having a better day than I am today." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid Thu Sep 23 19:03:02 2004 From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (dan) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:03:02 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Group Storage Space downgrade? In-Reply-To: <00f901c4a0aa$ed970b40$01fea8c0@...> Message-ID: Dan: > Does anyone know if Yahoo is > proceeding with any such restructuring > of their groups, or planning to? Saitaina: > Yahoo has been pushing this idea around > for about a year or so now. Frankly I > doubt they'll do it (it would have been > implemented by now), but the HPfGU > elves discussed this back when it was a > hot topic the first time around and had > some ideas of how to proceed if this > event occurred. I couldn't tell you > specifics as things may have changed > since I was an elf, but there were > plans and ideas in place. Thanks, Saitaina. I had not been aware of the previous work done around this when I posted the query, but will certainly look into it. Dan From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 27 00:21:08 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:21:08 -0000 Subject: Yahoo survey (Re: Yahoo Group Storage Space downgrade?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Dan: > > Does anyone know if Yahoo is > > proceeding with any such restructuring > > of their groups, or planning to? > > Saitaina: > > Yahoo has been pushing this idea around > > for about a year or so now. Dan: > Thanks, Saitaina. I had not been aware of the previous work done > around this when I posted the query, but will certainly look into > it. Sorry, Dan, you kind of got sandbagged on that one; I wanted to comment and got sidetracked before this post went up. To explain to everyone, in May of 2002 Yahoo put out a survey to gauge the interest in having 'pay' groups. At the beginning of Sept., they put out what seems to be the same survey again. I responded to it both times, but didn't save a copy of the questions the first time, and didn't save a full copy of them this time. But, I've searched a bit and found a copy (one version) of the '02 questions, which I'll upload to the files here, along with what I have of the latest one. I say 'one version' because answering one question one way would give you set of options A on the next question; answering it a different way would give you set of options B, etc. I assume that Yah *will* be going with some form of pay groups at some point, but I say this because of all the 'changes' that have been happening, really, since Yah took over eGroups, but mainly since the first survey went out: There's no longer any evidence of how much space we have for messages: HPfGU (and all groups started before '01) used to have 512 MB of message archive space. Groups created after Jan or Feb '01 (think it was '01, but might have been '02) only had 32 MB. As messages were posted, you could see on the Messages page (top right) what percentage of your 512 you'd used. They've dropped this, so very difficult to estimate how much space we'd need (for a pay group). This is one of the reasons for the Archive groups; we'd been extending them beyond just the messages from the old Club to current main list messages as a precaution in case we reached our message space cap and had to begin deleting the earliest messages to stay within limits (or heaven forbid, Yah deleting our messages). They've reduced the space for photos, too, I believe, though that hasn't really had much of an impact on us. Just before OoP they began making some "software" changes that were causing horrific delays, in particular delays in changing your email setting for the groups; people who joined in the OoP surge and forgot to change their default from Individual mails to anything else were going insane. They'd gone in and changed their settings (or had the elves do it), and days later were still getting individ emails (and you all remember how bad the posting volume was at the time). There were also delays between a person joining the group and actually getting added to the members list, too. Sometimes they were never added; this is a problem when it comes time to take them off moderated status -- if we can't find them on the members list, we can't 'de-mod' them. We'd have to contact the person and ask them to unsub and resub. I think this stuff coincided with the "Yahoo Sponsored Links" you see everywhere now, but can't remember for sure. Apart from the delays, there's the terrifically fun formatting wonkiness we've got now -- one line of text normal, next line has one word, next line normal, etc. Sigh. Oh! -- There's also now the difference in searching the archives: it used to search much bigger batches of messages, thus would take less time (especially if you had to go quite a way back). Now, the batches it searches are much smaller, between 150 and 300 messages or so, and we all know how long it takes now. The 'software' changes also affected the elves in other ways -- we can't sort the members list by "Joined" and "Last" anymore; we've been working around that, but an annoyance all the same (and I don't believe this is a problem in all groups, either, but it is on the main list, which is where the elves need it). One of the most irritating effects from this 'software' change (that's what the Yahoo person told me it was when I phoned them) was that all groups now have a limit of 15 moderators. This is a tremendous headache when you have a mod team of often 30 or more people. I can't see why they'd impose this new limit if they're not planning to introduce pay groups (in which they'd likely make that a new feature -- unlimited moderators, for a Fee!). Anyway, all these things (plus many that I can't think of offhand) have been happening in one form or another since the first survey. I'm sure we'll see more of these 'changes' coming again soon since this last survey. There have been some minor good changes in the midst of all this, but *far* fewer than the negative stuff -- the new 'links' at the top: Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail Welcome, kelleyscorpio Groups Home - [Sign Out, My Account] Help The "What's New" info on the homepages of groups -- how many new members, posts, files, etc., in the last week. A few other things, too, but these improvements are dwarfed by the increased limitations / cut back features & functions / problematic stuff. But, my point is, since the negatives are far outweighing the positives, I'm guessing Yah will make the things they've taken away / decreased / etc. available features of the pay groups. We'll see. Don't imagine any of this will be happening very soon, given the length of time between survey one and survey two. If anyone has more or different info on this, please let us know. --Kelley From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 27 02:31:16 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 02:31:16 -0000 Subject: Yahoo survey -- follow-up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wrote: > To explain to everyone, in May of 2002 Yahoo put out a survey to > gauge the interest in having 'pay' groups. Sorry; apparently it was Aug 2002, not May. Also, as I've looked through the survey questions I have from this last one, it does look that they're all identical. So, rather than upload them twice, I've just added another file listing their suggested 'fees' for the different variations they're considering. (Frankly, my feeling is that if we had to pay more than $50 per *year*, I'd rather we just buy our own server and create what we want.) Also, if you'd like to see the survey page-by-page, here's a link: http://www.geocities.com/users_union/survey08122002/ If you do look at this, I suggest you scroll to the bottom of the list, start with "08122002begin.html", then follow with "08122002start.html", then go to the top of the list and go through each in order, and then end with "08122002conclusions...>". --Kelley From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 27 02:38:54 2004 From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:38:54 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Yahoo survey -- follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <415809DE.29206.5CEEE0@localhost> On 27 Sep 2004 at 2:31, Kelley wrote: > I wrote: > > To explain to everyone, in May of 2002 Yahoo put out a survey to > > gauge the interest in having 'pay' groups. > > Sorry; apparently it was Aug 2002, not May. Also, as I've looked > through the survey questions I have from this last one, it does look > that they're all identical. So, rather than upload them twice, I've > just added another file listing their suggested 'fees' for the > different variations they're considering. Actually, I think it's at least March 2002 - I can't check the survey itself, but I have an e-mail from March 2002 which has the same link that I've seen flying around the web more recently. Users Union may not have captured the survey until August, but I am sure it was around earlier than that. 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 From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 27 03:11:49 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 03:11:49 -0000 Subject: Yahoo survey -- follow-up In-Reply-To: <415809DE.29206.5CEEE0@localhost> Message-ID: > Kelley wrote: > > Sorry; apparently it was Aug 2002, not May. Also, as I've looked > > through the survey questions I have from this last one, it does > > look that they're all identical. So, rather than upload them > > twice, I've just added another file listing their > > suggested 'fees' for the different variations they're considering. Shaun: > Actually, I think it's at least March 2002 - I can't check the > survey itself, but I have an e-mail from March 2002 which has the > same link that I've seen flying around the web more recently. > > Users Union may not have captured the survey until August, but I am > sure it was around earlier than that. Well, you know, as I'm looking through the files of this group I belong to (the group is for mods of Yah groups to help each other out with various issues, keep each other informed of new problems, etc.; it's run by the woman whose uploaded those survey pages to users_union), I see that there was an early version of this survey from Feb '02, though I never saw it then. I haven't looked through this whole thing, but I can upload the first page of it, which has some commentary from the person who saved it. It appears to be different from the '02/'04 version. One thing of interest in the commentary is that the survey was yanked ten days before it's projected end-date, so possibly it was replaced with the next version... --Kelley From przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid Mon Sep 27 13:48:44 2004 From: przepla at pshemekan.yahoo.invalid (Przemyslaw Plaskowicki) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:48:44 +0200 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Yahoo survey (Re: Yahoo Group Storage Space downgrade?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <687a22090409270648543ebc6@...> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:21:08 -0000, Kelley wrote: > > There have been some minor good changes in the midst of all this, but > *far* fewer than the negative stuff -- the new 'links' at the top: > While we are at it, there is similar service to yahoo groups at google: http://groups-beta.google.com/ I was able easy create such group there and it appears that such group has all needed features. (And Google search included). I am not advocating moving to Google groups (they are still in beta) but it might be a solution if there is need to move out from Yahoogroups. -- Przemyslaw 'Pshemekan' Plaskowicki From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 28 00:03:01 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:03:01 -0000 Subject: Yahoo survey (Re: Yahoo Group Storage Space downgrade?) In-Reply-To: <687a22090409270648543ebc6@...> Message-ID: Przemyslaw wrote: > While we are at it, there is similar service to yahoo groups at > google: http://groups-beta.google.com/ > I was able easy create such group there and it appears that such > group has all needed features. (And Google search included). > I am not advocating moving to Google groups (they are still in beta) > but it might be a solution if there is need to move out from > Yahoogroups. Hi, Pshemekan, great to see you again! Yep, I've been looking into Google groups a bit; from what I can see, the posting / discussion aspect looks okay, but I'm seeing a great deal missing (unless I just don't know where to look, which is *very* possible ). No Files, Photos, Links, Databases, Polls, Calendar, Chat. No Management logs (very important and greatly used by the elves right now in Yah). Messages aren't numbered (which is very nice to have), no "First" and "Last" for messages, members list, etc. Members list is only visible to owners/mods, not members. No 'new member moderated' setting -- either everyone is moderated or no one is. The homepage is the same as the "Messages" page, basically, which isn't the end of the world, but would be nicer to have a 'cover page' from which you could then go to the discussions. And so far, I can't see a way to 'search' the members list (which the elves also use greatly). Those are the things I've noticed so far, and maybe they'll be introduced in some form eventually (I hope, I hope). One thing I *love* though, and wish Yah did, is that you can use the option "View titles only" for the messages, which gives the subj. heading of the thread along with how many people have posted in it and how many messages there are in that thread. Very nice! I've not yet tried the 'search' function for any groups, but how can it be anything but better, right? ;-) If anyone would like to check it out, a group was set up for discussion about Google groups (and supposedly some Google employees pay attention to the discussions and post there occasionally): http://groups-beta.google.com/group/google-labs-groups2 The archives are open so you don't have to join to read, but you do have to join to post (and it's open membership, so anyone can join). I would really love to hear what others think about GGroups... --Kelley From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 28 05:50:53 2004 From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:50:53 -0000 Subject: Archive 3 - Missing 59000 to 59999 Message-ID: I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but in Archive 3, the files in the 59000 to 59999 block are missing. Are those really lost, or did someone just forget to upload them? Could that be corrected, I'm downloading the entire archive to my computer. Also, when is the next planned update of the archives? Thanks for the assistance. Steve/bboyminnn (was bboy_mn) From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 28 06:44:50 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:44:50 -0000 Subject: Archive 3 - Missing 59000 to 59999 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve: > I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but in Archive 3, the files > in the 59000 to 59999 block are missing. > > Are those really lost, or did someone just forget to upload them? >>> Oh, drat; no, they were just skipped over. > Could that be corrected, I'm downloading the entire archive to my > computer. >>> I've gone ahead and uploaded them here, as both a text file and as a zip file. Steve, are the zip files better for you? I've uploaded the 60000s as txt files, but I can easily replace them. > Also, when is the next planned update of the archives? > > Thanks for the assistance. I've actually been working on them a bit more lately; I received files up to 107999 from Paul so am working on getting those uploaded. Let me know if the zips are better for you, and I'll get those replaced. (I'm kelleyscorpio on YM; if you're on now, feel free to buzz me and I'll get started on it now.) --Kelley From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 28 19:29:29 2004 From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:29:29 -0000 Subject: Archive 3 - Missing 59000 to 59999 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" wrote: > Steve: > > ..., but in Archive 3, the files in the 59000 to 59999 block are missing. > >>> > > Oh, drat; no, they were just skipped over. > > > Could that be corrected, I'm downloading the entire archive to my > > computer. >>> > > I've gone ahead and uploaded them here, as both a text file and as a > zip file. Steve, are the zip files better for you? I've uploaded > the 60000s as txt files, but I can easily replace them. > > > Also, when is the next planned update of the archives? > > I've actually been working on them a bit more lately; I received > files up to 107999 from Paul so am working on getting those > uploaded. Let me know if the zips are better for you, and I'll get > those replaced. (I'm kelleyscorpio on YM; if you're on now, feel > free to buzz me and I'll get started on it now.) > > --Kelley Thanks Kelley, Actually, the ZIP files are better for me. Yahoo does this thing where the actual locations of files aren't linked to. For example, the actual link may look like this... http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/sLRZQRRaAro8UOU2odP8iu_PvnJIfb6BbBdLYADyfsouBrCIp1B3ERDsnNRI7FaO_vyboFcmU-xghoz7qzR5Tzn-Yh59hw/Yahoo%21%20Groups%20Archive%20%28cont.%29/m50000-52999/m52000-52999.zip this makes it more diffcult for other servers to link directly to the file. Yahoo is actually doing it for their protection and our protection. The problem is when I try to download a TXT file or "Save Target as" my browser says the link can't be found. So, have have to download the file on the screen; that is, display the TXT file in my browser, then save it. That's bad for me because it's slower, but good for people who want to view on-line rather than download and save. So, the advantage to the ZIP file is that I can download it easier and faster. The disadvantage of ZIP, unlike TXT, is that it can't be viewed on-line. Side note: ZIP files average about 500Kb, were as TXT files are typically about 2Mb (4 times larger). I have DSL, so the size isn't that important to me. The ZIP take about 8 seconds, and the TXT take about 30 seconds (which is annoyingly long for me). However, for people with Dial-up connections these would be 128 seconds (estimated) and 480 seconds (2.1 minutes and 8 minutes) assuming no other communication delays. The Archive prior to your most recent update, was about 70 files. Multiply that times the dial-up download speeds and you have a substantial amount of time. Again, for my purposes, ZIP works better. Thanks for the help. Steve/bboyminn From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Tue Sep 28 20:27:43 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:27:43 -0000 Subject: Archives (Re: Archive 3 - Missing 59000 to 59999) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve wrote: > Thanks Kelley, > > Actually, the ZIP files are better for me. Yahoo does this thing > where the actual locations of files aren't linked to. Gah, we know; we keep going through that with the HBF. Need to fix it permanently, even if we just have to simplify... > this makes it more diffcult for other servers to link directly to > the file. Yahoo is actually doing it for their protection and our > protection. Right, which is good; just these little things when it's an annoyance. > The problem is when I try to download a TXT file or "Save > Target as" my browser says the link can't be found. So, have have to > download the file on the screen; that is, display the TXT file in my > browser, then save it. >>> Oh, I see. Okay, good to know. > That's bad for me because it's slower, but good > for people who want to view on-line rather than download and save. > > So, the advantage to the ZIP file is that I can download it easier > and faster. The disadvantage of ZIP, unlike TXT, is that it can't be > viewed on-line. > > Side note: ZIP files average about 500Kb, were as TXT files are > typically about 2Mb (4 times larger). I have DSL, so the size isn't > that important to me. The ZIP take about 8 seconds, and the TXT take > about 30 seconds (which is annoyingly long for me). However, for > people with Dial-up connections these would be 128 seconds > (estimated) and 480 seconds (2.1 minutes and 8 minutes) assuming no > other communication delays. >>> Yep, exactly; I have dial-up and it's agonizingly slow. That's why I'd begun loading them as text files, so folks could read them without having to DL them. > Again, for my purposes, ZIP works better. >>> Okay, good deal. I've replaced the text files between 60000 and wherever I'd left off, 78000 or 79000, with zip files, and finished uploading all files I had as zips, which takes us to 107999. So, the Archives are now: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives/ -- 1 - 7815 from the Club and 1 - 31999 from the current Yahgroup. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives2/ -- 32000 - 52999 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives3/ -- 53000 - 82999 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups-Archives4/ -- 83000 - 107999 (so far) > Thanks for the help. >>> Oh, you bet, my pleasure! If anyone would like the files available as text files instead, just let me know. I'd be glad to upload them that way. --Kelley From poppytheelf at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid Wed Oct 6 20:52:40 2004 From: poppytheelf at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:52:40 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Call for New Elves Message-ID: The HPfGU Administration Team is looking for A Few Good Elves. All elves are expected to perform one or both of the following duties: ? Welcoming new list members -- Send personal welcome e-mails to all of the people who join the list on your assigned day and enter related information in a database. ? Participation in the list-reading rota -- Read every message posted to HPforGrownups (the main list) on your assigned day, check for compliance to posting guidelines, and note the non-compliant posts in a database. ADDITIONAL TASKS In addition, if you are interested in assisting with the following additional (optional) tasks, please note this in your Elf Enslavement Application: ? Pending Messages -- Approve, reject, or edit moderated posts from new members and explain why a message was rejected or edited. ? Help Desk -- Those who have problems with grammar, spelling, and punctuation (non-native English speakers, people with dyslexia or visual impairments, etc.) submit their messages for editing before they post them to the list. ? Technical Support -- Please have one or more of the following skills: knowledge of the mysterious inner workings of Yahoomort, HTML markup, using or writing scripts (Perl, Java, SQL, etc.), security measures, or other Internet technologies. ? Public Relations -- Respond to messages sent to the HPforGrownups- owner account. ? Database Maintenance -- Clear out old entries, ensure the accuracy of database entries, and cull relevant information. (We use the databases provided by YahooGroups.) ? Monitoring HPfGU Sister Lists -- Check OT-Chatter, Movie, and other HPFGU lists for spammers, flame wars, and other irregular or illegal behavior. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS An elf candidate must ? Have been a member of HPfGU in good standing for at least 6 months -- "Good standing" means that you are not on permanent moderated status. (Those few who are permanently moderated have been notified.) ? Have a good sense of HPfGU's posting conventions -- You understand the basic HPfGU standards of snipping, attribution, and courtesy. (You don't need to have the rules memorized, though.) ? Have good spelling, punctuation, and grammar skills -- You don't have to be a Master Linguist, but you should know the difference between a semicolon and a hole in the ground. :-) Non-native English speakers are welcome to apply. ? Have good communication skills -- It is important that you know how to express your ideas (especially disagreement) courteously and with clarity. ? Have good interpersonal skills -- Your fellow List Elves will come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of communication styles. You'll need to know how to get along with people you may not particularly like or understand, how to go along with decisions with which you don't necessarily agree, and how to be discreet (not reveal confidential list business to non-admins). ? Be reasonably level-headed -- You should be slow to react when insulted, slow to jump to conclusions, and quick to forgive misunderstandings. If you are in the habit of responding in anger (instead of waiting before posting), this might not be the job for you. Patience is definitely a virtue in HPfGU list admin; a sense of humor (especially in the face of the absurd) is mandatory. ? Score respectably well on the Percy scale -- If you have some perfectionist tendencies, you'll fit right in! ? Have no life -- Just kidding! However, we do ask that your real life not be so full as to prevent you from performing your elfly duties. (You can negotiate how many elfly duties you have.) We prefer that you commit to a minimum of six months in List Admin; however, you can don clothing sooner if the need arises. The ability to keep the rest of the Team supplied with eclairs is a bonus but is not required. :-) BENEFITS Becoming an HPfGU List Elf allows you to ? Blow your Harry Potter Obsession score through the roof. ? Imbibe all the butterbeer you want (except when on duty). ? Become the target of bitter and sometimes delicious insults, e.g., "Moderator Tart." ? Acquire a stylish new wardrobe of colorful tea cozies and lurid pillowcases. ? Get immediate first aid for ears-in-the-oven-door slammings, hand ironings, foot-in-blender jammings, and other self-inflicted punishments. If a large number of candidates apply, it may not be possible to accept every qualified candidate right away. Every application will be acknowledged, and we'll keep the applications on file for future consideration unless you notify us otherwise. You can find the Elf Enslavement Application (EEA.txt) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/ The application includes instructions on where to send the application. The deadline for sending in applications is Wednesday, 13 October 2004, 00:00 (midnight) Greenwich Mean Time. Best regards, The HPfGU List Administration Team From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sat Nov 20 19:38:49 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:38:49 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Call for New Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Phyllis wrote: > The HPfGU Administration Team is looking for A Few Good Elves. Was there an outcome? David, wondering what Step 4 of the enslavement is From kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid Sat Nov 20 20:27:27 2004 From: kelleythompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:27:27 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Call for New Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Phyllis wrote: > > The HPfGU Administration Team is looking for A Few Good Elves. David: > Was there an outcome? Hi, David, everyone-- Yes, thanks for asking! We're thrilled to welcome Nora (nrenka), Meri (meriaugust) and Dave (impherring13) to our ranks, with possibly more to come. > David, wondering what Step 4 of the enslavement is Mm, our clothes taken away and being issued a numbered pillow case? Our heads on plaques? Getting a spot of our own in a padded room? Kelley, wondering what Steps 1 - 3 are meant to be...did I miss a memo? ;-) From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Sat Nov 20 21:50:19 2004 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:50:19 -0800 Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Call for New Elves References: Message-ID: <00a201c4cf4a$eea46fe0$01fea8c0@...> Step 1: Being Enslaved Step 2: Figuring out what the hell you're doing Step 3: Realizing a year later just what your in for Step 4: Running for your little elf life. Saitaina Who couldn't resist now that she's clothed. **** It was very inspiring sight, in the 'oh looky a little flower outside my prison cell window' genre. http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina "No, one day I'm going to look back on all this and plow face-first into a tree because I was looking the wrong bloody way. And I'll still be having a better day than I am today." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid Sun Nov 21 15:22:46 2004 From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:22:46 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Call for New Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kelley wrote: > We're thrilled to welcome Nora (nrenka), > Meri (meriaugust) and Dave (impherring13) to our ranks, with possibly > more to come. Thank you! Congratulations, all! > > David, wondering what Step 4 of the enslavement is > > Mm, our clothes taken away and being issued a numbered pillow case? > Our heads on plaques? Getting a spot of our own in a padded room? > > Kelley, wondering what Steps 1 - 3 are meant to be...did I miss a > memo? ;-) >From the Elf Enslavement Application (I won't try and give the url; go to the main list, messages, EEA.txt): "STEP 1: Fill in the application below. STEP 2: E-mail the application either as a Microsoft Word or text file attachment, or included in the body of the e-mail message, to: HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Deadline is Wednesday, 13 October 2004, 00:00 (midnight) Greenwich Mean Time. NOTE: You MUST use this method to send in your application. STEP 3: Wait patiently for the return owl. We will send accept/reject notices by 27 October 2004 00:00 GMT. STEP 5: If we have more applicants than positions this recruiting cycle, please stick around. More positions will open up later, but we can train only so many new elves at a time." Four being the number of the steps. When thou reachest step 3, on no account shoudest thou stop, excepting that thou then advance to number 4. Thou shalt not jump over to number 5. Six is right out. David