What Price Success? Improving Posting Quality on HPfGU

[nrenka]

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" 
<spotthedungbeetle at h...> wrote:
> 
> Dungrollin:

> Having only been a member of the main list for 6 months, perhaps I 
> remember being a newbie a bit too clearly... I support this idea, 
> but I wonder whether too-long a period on read-only would be 
> counter-productive.

Read-only on newbies is undoable through Yahoo, I believe.  If you 
join a list you can post to it, although you are moderated 
automatically on this one.  That means that there is nothing built in 
that can stop us from having to deal with newbies who join and 
immediately post--that post will be in the queue, so we would have to 
go through and reject it and send a message why.

> Ginger:
> 
> Submitted for your approval:
> 1. Having new members wait until they are contacted by their
> welcoming Elf before posting. 

See above...

> 2. An ADMIN to all members asking cooperation with:
> Reading other posts before writing.
>  
> 3. Creating a HBP FAQ, updated frequently, which all must consult
> before posting. Howlers to those who ask oft-repeated questions.

I think an HBP FAQ would be a very good idea, and henceforth nominate 
Myself the Elf to write up such a thing--in conjunction with a longer 
moratorium on posting post-release.  I personally like the two week 
idea.  Gives me time to think about actually working on my exams.  We 
get the biggest issues written up and then the True Newbies will be 
less confused.

> Dungrollin:
> This concerns me too, and is it not, effectively, putting everybody 
> on moderated status?

Yes.  I'm not a fan because moderated status makes the flow of posts 
dependent upon someone being there to man the gates constantly.

> Admin:
> >>>*We* may be tired of certain topics, but we permit
> newcomers to retread old ground because *they* are excited about it
> and retreading that ground often leads to new ideas, and we don't
> want to discourage that.<<<


> Dungrollin:
>
> It's honestly difficult to see, you think "If I just phrase it
> like *this*, they'll see what I mean, - it's clear that
> they've misunderstood me - and it'll end the discussion..."
> But of course it never does, because there is a genuine 
> disagreement.  Rehashing the same arguments over and over again 
> which effectively come down to "You're wrong, because I hate Snape" 
> vs "Oh come on, it's a kid's book, you're *meant* to hate him..." 
> *is* fruitless, though perhaps somewhat cathartic for those 
> involved. 

I agreed strongly with this Admin statement, because it fits into the 
nature of the life of a mailing list.  We let things get run over 
again, such as the current Time Turner argument on list, because 
people want to talk about it--and it's rather lifeless to 
*completely* shut it down and send everyone back into the archives.  
Now, when arguments come down to the level of "Did too!" "Did not!", 
it needs to go offlist--but that is not primarily what that phrase 
was referring to.
 
> Effectively, what I'm saying is, I wonder if fear of more public 
> reprimands would embarrass people into thinking before 
> hitting `send'. 

As an elf, I do not want to send public reprimands.  I believe our 
current policy is that a Howler is between the elves and the 
recipient--and *no one* else.  If we start sending out public 
reprimands, I absolutely guarantee you that we are going to start 
getting messages going "You sent that to me, but you didn't to her!  
You guys aren't fair!".  I think procedural fairness, something we 
try very hard to carry out (and sometimes it takes time to work out 
something acceptable to the group), is best served by keeping public 
interjections to a minimum.
 
Just my perspective, of course.

-Nora (aka Alto Elf)