From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 17 12:39:42 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:39:42 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ec12t0+v2cf@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608161947u4861d33cg58a14b08267b1709@...>
	 <ec12t0+v2cf@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608170539m4c2e9c93jd283b7ac5572493f@...>

bboyminn:
> Now, like I said, I'm not fussed about being called a
> 'smart ass'. While I'm not sure it is true, I think
> there was sufficient context to indicate it was not
> intended as a blatant insult.

Random832:
The problem is not that I got called out for supposedly "insulting"
you. The problem is that I am _absolutely_ sure that if i'd instead
called you a "smart-aleck" (which means the exact same thing) none of
this would happened. The presence of a four-letter (ok, three-letter)
word jumped out at someone, and he/she felt the need to react, despite
the lack of a rule against the word "ass". Remember, the elf
responding was surprised at the use of the term itself, not at any
perceived insult to you or anyone else.

As for the "not sure it is true" - I don't know if you're a smart-ass
in general, because I don't know you, but the bit I was responding to
in particular was pure smartassery. Not that there's anything wrong
with that, I'm a smart-ass myself sometimes (you should see my reply
to the HPFGU-feedback ground rules), but you could have just _said_
something like "but aren't you assuming the self-consistency idea
yourself when you say that POA illustrates it" instead of rearranging
the quoted text to "illustrate" that and letting it stand on its own
without giving me a chance to answer that 'accusation'

bboyminn:
> You seem to be implying that the rules are somewhat
> unclear and perhaps arbitrary, but the heart of those
> rules is spelled out very clearly, what isn't spelled
> out, is easily gained from experience.

I don't want to "gain from experience" that this is a list where not a
single "four-letter word" is permitted. Because it's not. And if it
is, they should say so, and they _should_ rename it HPforKids.

bboyminn:
> Please don't feel as if you are being personally jumped
> on by the Elves, it was just a friendly reminder.

Random832:
Well - part of the issue is that I was called out publically - Even
though it was an accident, I did feel like I had to defend myself. My
original reply from _before_ I knew that, which you can see posted to
OTChatter, barely defended the language issue at all and only used it
as a jumping-off point to my asking for clarification about the
quoting/attribution/etc rules.

Speaking of which - while I do see the need for these rules (and I was
willing to go along with it even before I understood it), I wish you
guys would give it a rest sometimes. I'm trying. I don't need to have
every single little mistake pointed out. It's very hard to get used to
doing and it would be nice to get a little credit for the progress i
_have_ made.

-- 
Random832





From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 18 06:29:04 2006
From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:29:04 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608170539m4c2e9c93jd283b7ac5572493f@...>
Message-ID: <ec3mng+kdef@...>

Jordan sent a copy of this to me directly, and I responded off-line,
but now that I see he has posted on-line I will copy my response,
partly because I think this discussion has reminders for us all about
the Posting Rules and general etiquette.

One point I tried to make to Jordan, is that he shouldn't stress too
much about this. We all get reminder periodically about posting rules;
it's not big deal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

--- Jordan Abel <random832 at ...> wrote:

> bboyminn:
> > Now, like I said, I'm not fussed about being
> > called a 'smart ass'. ...
> 
> Random832:
> The problem is not that I got called out for
> supposedly "insulting" you. The problem is 
> that I am _absolutely_ sure that if i'd instead
> called you a "smart-aleck" (which means the exact
> same thing) none of this would happened. The 
> presence of a four-letter ... word jumped out at 
> someone, and he/she felt the need to react, despite
> the lack of a rule against the word "ass". Remember,
> the elf responding was surprised at the use of the 
> term itself, not at any perceived insult to you or 
> anyone else.
> 

Steve:

Actually, three and four letter words are not totally
forbidden. If you had called Ron or Harry or Snape a
'smart-ass' or even an 'ass', it probably wouldn't
have been a big deal, assuming you established a
reasonable context for it.

BUT, and this is a big but, you directed it at another
member of the group. Truthfully, when I read it, I was
a bit shocked. So, it wasn't the actual words but how
they were used that was the real problem. The Elf
might not have spelled it out, but the implication was
there.

Keep in mind that the Elves are not expert authorities
who are paid to arbitrate disputes, they are just
members of the group who have taken on the thankless
task of moderating the group and making sure things
stay orderly.

> Jordan:
>
> As for the "not sure it is true" - I don't know if
> you're a smart-ass in general, because I don't know 
> you, but the bit I was responding to in particular 
> was pure smartassery. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Well, we could debate that, but it's a minor point
hardly worth debating. Time Travel discussions always
get heated. I've been in them many times before. It
just that nature of the beast. 


> bboyminn:
> > You seem to be implying that the rules are
> > somewhat unclear and perhaps arbitrary, but ...
> > those rules is spelled out ... (and) easily 
> > gained from experience.
>
>Random:
> 
> I don't want to "gain from experience" that this is
> a list where not a single "four-letter word" is 
> permitted. Because it's not....
> 

Steve:

As I already pointed out, the word/words you used are
not the problem, the fact that you directed them at
another member of the group IS. That constitutes a
personal attack which is definitely forbidden. Even
when the 'personal attack' has no malice behind it.

It is very easy for Internet communication to get out
of control, as it frequently does in this group in
heated discussions. When vocal inflection and body
language are missing, what is intended as a light
in-passing comment can frequently be taken very
personally. In a lot of posts like this, I frequently
find that someone has taken offense at a part of my
comment that I considered very incidental and
insignificant. 

That is one of the reasons this group is moderated so
tightly, because it is the nature of Internet
communcation to foster misunderstanding, which in turn
leads to a downward spiral of ever increasing personal
attacks.

I could have been offended by what you said, and
responded in-kind which would have stressed you out
and irritated you even more, which would have lead to
a heated response by you, which would have made me
anger and instigated a strongly worded response from
me, which would have ...etc...etc...etc.... These
things DO , very quickly, get out of control, which is
why the moderators step in and shut them down quickly;
usually with a polite reminder.

> bboyminn:
> > Please don't feel as if you are being personally
> > jumped on by the Elves, it was just a friendly 
> > reminder.
> 
> Random832:
> Well - part of the issue is that I was called out
> publically - Even though it was an accident, I did 
> feel like I had to defend myself. ...
> 

Steve:

IT was just a friendly reminder, and you will probably
get more, many more. Why? Because we all do. That's
why you shouldn't take it personal. Yes, logically,
you want to explain and defend yourself, but it's not
worth getting all heated up over.

Trust me, in the beginning I got plenty of comments
from the moderators both on-group and off. At the
time, I thought they were being far too fussy, and as
I said, I even accuse one of them about being too
'anal' about the whole thing. Fortunately, they took
the whole thing lightly. 

Still, after all these years, I've come to see that
the strictness of the rules are what allow us to have
deep meaningful conversations, and that keeps those
conversations focused on the main point. The rules
work; as annoying and 'fussy' as they are, they work.

In closing, let me say 'Don't get to stressed out by
this'. It's all far too minor a point to lose any
sleep over. There are much better and far more
interesting conversations to be had. And, it really is
not personal. The moderator, who is really just an
ordinary fallible member of the group, was just doing
his/her job.

Looking forward to reading more of your opinions and
comments in the group.

Steve







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 18 12:41:13 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:41:13 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608170539m4c2e9c93jd283b7ac5572493f@...>
Message-ID: <ec4cha+df4r@...>

Random832:
> The problem is not that I got called out for supposedly "insulting"
> you. The problem is that I am _absolutely_ sure that if i'd instead
> called you a "smart-aleck" (which means the exact same thing) none 
> of this would happened. The presence of a four-letter (ok, three-
> letter) word jumped out at someone, and he/she felt the need to 
> react, despite the lack of a rule against the word "ass". Remember, 
> the elf responding was surprised at the use of the term itself, not 
> at any perceived insult to you or anyone else.

SSSusan/Shorty Elf:
It's a bit awkward to respond to this, because I don't feel that 
Feedback is necessarily the place to discuss *specific* procedural 
issues or instances [I definitely would not do so if the principal 
were not the person writing about it!].  That said, I do want to note 
that the word/phrase jumped out at more than one someone in this 
case.  

Mostly, though, I feel compelled to respond to the portion of 
Random's comments which states that he would not have been contacted 
if "smart aleck" had been used.  I have no doubt that Random 
*absolutely* believes this to be true, but as an elf, I also 
*absolutely* do not believe that to be the case.  

List elves each participate in a rotation of listreading duty.  IOW, 
we take turns reading a day's worth of posts.  This means that every 
single post is read by at least one elf (and often by more than one), 
in an effort to keep tabs on how things are going and to note 
anything problematic or troublesome.  (It also means we have 
an "excuse" to read the fun stuff every few days, as well, if we have 
a tendency to get behind in general.)

Anyway, my point is that "smart ass" *is* a term that has been used 
without any problem.  I'm 90% sure I've used it myself when speaking 
about a *character.*  There is, however, a difference in speaking of 
a character and speaking of a fellow list member with such a term.  
There is also a difference in speaking of a character and speaking of 
a fellow list member with the term "smart aleck."  With no indication 
that the term is being used in jest, it would be flagged by me as 
worrisome just as quickly as "smart ass."  IOW, as Steve suggested in 
his response, it's not the term itself; it's the way it's used.

I cannot say that I speak for every single elf and how s/he would 
respond, but I can say with certainty that it is not at all a given 
that a poster calling another poster a "smart aleck" would not 
concern the list elves.  


Random:
> As for the "not sure it is true" - I don't know if you're a smart-
> ass in general, because I don't know you, but the bit I was 
> responding to in particular was pure smartassery.
> Not that there's anything wrong
> with that, I'm a smart-ass myself sometimes (you should see my reply
> to the HPFGU-feedback ground rules), but you could have just _said_
> something like "but aren't you assuming the self-consistency idea
> yourself when you say that POA illustrates it" instead of 
> rearranging the quoted text to "illustrate" that and letting it 
> stand on its own without giving me a chance to answer 
> that 'accusation'

SSSusan/Shorty:
And I would counter -- as a fellow poster, even if I were not a 
member of the Admin Team -- that one can just as easily say, "Whoa.  
You rearranged things there, and it seems to me that that's not quite 
fair to the point I was making.  Why did you do that?"  That *type* 
of response allows you to express your surprise/frustration/annoyance 
at having your words manipulated in a way you didn't like and still 
do so in a polite manner.


Random832:
> Well - part of the issue is that I was called out publically - Even
> though it was an accident, I did feel like I had to defend myself. 

SSSusan/Shorty:
Yes, that was VERY unfortunate.  It has happened to me before, as 
well -- not with an elfy reminder but with a message I thought I was 
sending to fellow Administrators that I ended up sending to the Main 
list.  It is embarrassing to make such an error, but they do happen; 
we're not perfect.  In this case, the mistake was noticed almost 
immediately and was deleted.  The apology for that occurrence was 
decidedly sincere.


Random: 
> Speaking of which - while I do see the need for these rules (and I 
> was willing to go along with it even before I understood it), I 
> wish you guys would give it a rest sometimes. I'm trying. I don't 
> need to have every single little mistake pointed out. It's very 
> hard to get used to doing and it would be nice to get a little 
> credit for the progress i _have_ made.


SSSusan/Shorty:
And that is definitely a valid point, in my view.  We have little 
mechanism for positive reinforcement, and it can be frustrating to 
hear about the slip-ups but not about the progress.  

One difficulty with a volunteer staff, all sharing duties such as 
listreading and handling pending messages, is that we may not each be 
as aware of what has been said to individual list members as we would 
be if, say, there were a couple of individuals only handling these 
tasks.  (If we were a paid staff, iow -- HA!)  

If just two elves handled all listreading/elfy correspondence, it 
might be easier to recall, "Oh, I just wrote to that member; I'll 
hold off and see if s/he gets the hang of it in a day or two."  As it 
is, though, Elf A might send a quick note one day, and then Elf B 
might step in the next day and not realize or recall that Elf A just 
wrote to a person, thus perhaps sending another message on the same 
topic.  I can definitely see where that could be annoying and/or 
discouraging to a list member.  

This is something perhaps the Admin Team should have a discussion 
about handling better.  I'll just be honest -- it's rough to do this 
perfectly with a handful of people handling chores on an "as I've got 
a free moment" basis.

Siriusly Snapey Susan/Shorty Elf







From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 18 16:41:11 2006
From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God is the Healing Force)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:41:11 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] [HPforGrownups] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ec4cha+df4r@...>
Message-ID: <000c01c6c2e5$1d047ad0$65a4a8c0@rosie>

Hi,

I hadn't intended to weigh in on this, but Shorty's comment gave me a bit of
a push here. :-)

[Shorty Elf]:
| If just two elves handled all listreading/elfy correspondence, it 
| might be easier to recall, "Oh, I just wrote to that member; I'll 
| hold off and see if s/he gets the hang of it in a day or two."  As it 
| is, though, Elf A might send a quick note one day, and then Elf B 
| might step in the next day and not realize or recall that Elf A just 
| wrote to a person, thus perhaps sending another message on the same 
| topic.  I can definitely see where that could be annoying and/or 
| discouraging to a list member.  
| 
| This is something perhaps the Admin Team should have a discussion 
| about handling better.  I'll just be honest -- it's rough to do this 
| perfectly with a handful of people handling chores on an "as I've got 
| a free moment" basis.

[Lee]:
Even list mods don't get paid. <Sigh>  But, having moved the Battlestar list
to a two-mod system and, even before that, I had certain "deputies" working
with me, our system was that if we addressed a problem with someone which
was always done off list (except if one of us made a "Reply-To-All" booboo),
the note would be BCCed to the other mod/deputies.  So, if my deputy mod had
a problem with a lister and decided to address it with the lister, a BCC
would be sent to me and my co-mod so we would be aware that the problem had
been addressed and leave it like that.  List approvals are also sent with
BCC so all of us know who has been approved in order not to have to try
approving twice.

I also configured a box in my mailer with a filter containing the addresses
of the deputies/co-mod which would pick up any correspondence from or to
them, keeping it all in one place for ready reference.

I don't know if such a thing is practical with a community as large as this
and all of the sister lists, but it's something that might be considered.
The BCC can be a huge help!

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 ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 18 16:52:09 2006
From: ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:52:09 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608170539m4c2e9c93jd283b7ac5572493f@...>
Message-ID: <ec4r7p+4mji@...>

Random832:
> The problem is not that I got called out for supposedly "insulting"
you. The problem is that I am _absolutely_ sure that if i'd instead
called you a "smart-aleck" (which means the exact same thing) none of 
this would happened. The presence of a four-letter (ok, three-letter) 
word jumped out at someone, and he/she felt the need to react, 
despite the lack of a rule against the word "ass". Remember, the elf 
responding was surprised at the use of the term itself, not at any 
perceived insult to you or anyone else.

Vexxy/Ceridwen:
As the elf HERself (I get that all the time, btw, it's the uncommon 
name. I'm female, for future reference) I can answer what I thought.  
You called Steve a "smart-ass".  I was surprised.  And, almost as 
shocked as if you had called him a "jerk" or a "fool".  Those two 
words are almost never, in my experience, used in an endearing way, 
while "smart-ass" has been.  Since you did not put any smilies or 
other notations of teasing, such as *g* or (jk, pal), it seemed that 
you meant it in a derogatory manner.

As others have mentioned, if you had called a character a smart-ass, 
jerk, fool, woefully inadequate, moron, etc., or said that a 
character was one of those things, and supported your claim ("Madam 
Hooch was a fool to have left first-years alone with brooms" for an 
instance), then there would be no problem.  I cuss very well, thank 
you, "smart-ass" is nothing to me.  What surprised me, and what is 
against policy, is calling a fellow list-member a "smart-ass" or any 
sort of derogatory name.

Random (I presume):
> I don't want to "gain from experience" that this is a list where 
not a
> single "four-letter word" is permitted. Because it's not. And if it
> is, they should say so, and they _should_ rename it HPforKids.

Vexxy/Ceridwen:
Try reading past posts.  People use curse/swear/cusswords.  What most 
people don't do is insult other posters.

Random832:
> Well - part of the issue is that I was called out publically - Even
> though it was an accident, I did feel like I had to defend myself.

Vexxy/Ceridwen:
And I apologized for that, publicly, as it was sent publicly.

Random:
> Speaking of which - while I do see the need for these rules (and I 
was
> willing to go along with it even before I understood it), I wish you
> guys would give it a rest sometimes. I'm trying. I don't need to 
have
> every single little mistake pointed out. It's very hard to get used 
to
> doing and it would be nice to get a little credit for the progress i
> _have_ made.

Vexxy/Ceridwen:
When should we "give it a rest"?  When it is your post that is 
insulting to another member?  Or when another member insults you?  
The way you reacted to a "friendly reminder" accidentally being sent 
to the list makes me wonder how you would react to someone calling 
you a "smart-ass" publicly in discussion.  If someone should call you 
a name, whatever name it might happen to be, the elves would off-list 
that person about it just as surely as you were contacted.  Maybe not 
as publicly, the other elves *do* have more command of the Yahoo! 
mail features than I do!  Oh, and I really am sorry for that, I 
certainly wouldn't want a reminder meant for only me to be 
accidentally sent to the board.

>From what I understand, when an elf has to remind someone about 
something that has been mentioned before, and they are aware that the 
person has been doing better regarding that thing, they do mention 
the positive history in their reminder.  I don't recall anyone ever 
saying that Random used to call people names and has done very well 
lately, so I didn't mention it.  As far as I know, this was the first 
time you have ever called someone a name.  But as I mentioned in my 
reminder, some people might not take kindly to it.  We need to be on 
top of things to prevent hurt feelings and facilitate a friendly 
environment on the list.

And, I don't mean only Steve taking it wrong.  Other people read the 
public exchanges.  And, other people might get defensive on Steve's 
behalf, or simply take the fact of the name-calling as a personal 
affront.  All of our members deserve respect for their feelings as 
much as we can manage it.

Ceridwen, for Vexxy Elf.






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 18 17:52:24 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:52:24 -0400
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
References: <000c01c6c2e5$1d047ad0$65a4a8c0@rosie>
Message-ID: <006b01c6c2ef$0fe95500$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

[Shorty Elf earlier]:
> | If just two elves handled all listreading/elfy correspondence, it
> | might be easier to recall, "Oh, I just wrote to that member; I'll
> | hold off and see if s/he gets the hang of it in a day or two."  As it
> | is, though, Elf A might send a quick note one day, and then Elf B
> | might step in the next day and not realize or recall that Elf A just
> | wrote to a person, thus perhaps sending another message on the same
> | topic.  I can definitely see where that could be annoying and/or
> | discouraging to a list member.
> |
> | This is something perhaps the Admin Team should have a discussion
> | about handling better.  I'll just be honest -- it's rough to do this
> | perfectly with a handful of people handling chores on an "as I've got
> | a free moment" basis.

 [Lee replied]:
> Even list mods don't get paid. <Sigh>  But, having moved the Battlestar 
> list
> to a two-mod system and, even before that, I had certain "deputies" 
> working
> with me, our system was that if we addressed a problem with someone which
> was always done off list (except if one of us made a "Reply-To-All" 
> booboo),
> the note would be BCCed to the other mod/deputies.  So, if my deputy mod 
> had
> a problem with a lister and decided to address it with the lister, a BCC
> would be sent to me and my co-mod so we would be aware that the problem 
> had
> been addressed and leave it like that.  List approvals are also sent with
> BCC so all of us know who has been approved in order not to have to try
> approving twice.
<snip>
> I don't know if such a thing is practical with a community as large as 
> this
> and all of the sister lists, but it's something that might be considered.
> The BCC can be a huge help!

Shorty Elf once more:
Thanks, Lee, for writing in with this suggestion.  We actually do the very 
same thing at HPfGU.  The BCC is, indeed, a huge help and a very big friend! 
The problem is, first, as you suspected, the size of the HPfGU community & 
its resultant activity level, and also (imo, anyway) what I would call "the 
time factor."

It is not unusual to log in to HPfGU and find, say 6, 8  or 10 pending 
messages in the queue [where newbies' messages go for a time, while they get 
the hang of things 'round here].  We have members from around the world 
(yay!) but, alas, we have very few elves who reside outside North America, 
and so there are periods of time when those messages can really backlog.  I 
think what typically happens then is that one of us elves pops in and 
handles what we can in a brief period of time (as in, on a break from work 
or between work & making supper).  While there is time to do a little 
pendings work or handle a little moderator duty or two, I think most of us 
find it difficult to find the time to do much *research* (i.e., searching 
through those messages BCCed to an archive) at the same time, to see whether 
others have been in touch with a particular poster recently.

In an ideal world, we would have a hired staff of people who could "do it 
all right."  In an ALMOST-ideal world, we would have list volunteers who 
care about the place but who have significant chunks of time which could be 
scheduled for coverage each day.  Unfortunately, it just isn't even that 
almost-ideal world.

What we have are those list volunteers who care about the place but who have 
much-less-than-significant chunks of time most days and so who handle things 
in fits & starts.  I tend to rely upon my own memory (which is actually 
fairly good most of the time for a mid-40s mom of two, heh) to recall that 
there's been recent communication with a member, and *when I've had time,* I 
have done those searches of archived BCCs, which is *very* helpful.  But in 
a pinch, when there is work to do and precious little time to get it done, 
occasionally the memory fails and/or the urge to get it done right this 
minute prevails over slow-steady-and-thorough.  Again, not ideal, but just 
sayin'.  It's the way it tends to be, for this elf at least.

So, as I mentioned originally, perhaps there are still things we could do, 
and the Admin Team absolutely can have a discussion about what those things 
might be.  Realistically, though, it's always going to be an imperfect 
system.

Again, thanks for weighing in.

SSSusan/Shorty Elf





From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 18 18:04:06 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:04:06 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ec4r7p+4mji@...>
Message-ID: <ec4vem+isdo@...>

> Vexxy/Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
> As others have mentioned, if you had called a character a smart-
ass, 
> jerk, fool, woefully inadequate, moron, etc., or said that a 
> character was one of those things, and supported your claim ("Madam 
> Hooch was a fool to have left first-years alone with brooms" for an 
> instance), then there would be no problem.  I cuss very well, thank 
> you, "smart-ass" is nothing to me.  What surprised me, and what is 
> against policy, is calling a fellow list-member a "smart-ass" or 
any 
> sort of derogatory name.

Alla AKA Alika Elf:

Yep,yep, you should see what names I call Snape sometimes. Hehe. As 
far as I am concerned and the way I interpret the rules - character 
name calling is **fine** as long as you make sure to put that this is 
your opinion, or sometimes even without that, depending on particular 
name, but calling the fellow list member names is **not** fine.

 
> Vexxy/Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
> From what I understand, when an elf has to remind someone about 
> something that has been mentioned before, and they are aware that 
the 
> person has been doing better regarding that thing, they do mention 
> the positive history in their reminder.  I don't recall anyone ever 
> saying that Random used to call people names and has done very well 
> lately, so I didn't mention it.  As far as I know, this was the 
first 
> time you have ever called someone a name.  But as I mentioned in my 
> reminder, some people might not take kindly to it.  We need to be 
on 
> top of things to prevent hurt feelings and facilitate a friendly 
> environment on the list.

Alla:

Yes, what Shorty Elf said. It IS very hard to stay on top of making 
sure that you always give somebody not only reminders when we deem 
necessary ( as in when we decide the post violates the rules), but 
also positive feedback, because we all volunteers, many of us work 
full time jobs and put a lot of hours in managing the list too, so 
often making sure that rules are being followed is the top priority, 
because of time commitment.

BUT we do try. I know I try and other elves do too. On the top of my 
head I can remember several times when I wrote new members who posted 
their first posts perfectly formatted, attributed, etc,etc.

I thanked them for making our jobs easier ( yes, it should be a 
hobby, but the hours we pull often makes it a part time job), I 
praised them for reading the rules prior to starting posting.

Should I do it more often? Probably, but as I said I work full time 
and often there is just not enough time in the day to do so.

 
> And, I don't mean only Steve taking it wrong.  Other people read 
the 
> public exchanges.  And, other people might get defensive on Steve's 
> behalf, or simply take the fact of the name-calling as a personal 
> affront.  All of our members deserve respect for their feelings as 
> much as we can manage it.
> 
> Ceridwen, for Vexxy Elf.
>

Alla:

Indeed.

Alla AKA Alika Elf speaking for herself only.







From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 18 23:02:10 2006
From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:02:10 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] [HPforGrownups] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ec4cha+df4r@...>
Message-ID: <E1GEDLy-0005ae-Mi@...>

Random832:
> The problem is not that I got called out for supposedly "insulting"
> you. The problem is that I am _absolutely_ sure that if I'd instead 
> called you a "smart-aleck" (which means the exact same thing) none of 
> this would happened. The presence of a four-letter (ok, three-
> letter) word jumped out at someone, and he/she felt the need to react, 
> despite the lack of a rule against the word "ass". Remember, the elf 
> responding was surprised at the use of the term itself, not at any 
> perceived insult to you or anyone else.

SSSusan/Shorty Elf:
It's a bit awkward to respond to this, because I don't feel that Feedback is
necessarily the place to discuss *specific* procedural issues or instances
[I definitely would not do so if the principal were not the person writing
about it!].  That said, I do want to note that the word/phrase jumped out at
more than one someone in this case.  

Mostly, though, I feel compelled to respond to the portion of Random's
comments which states that he would not have been contacted if "smart aleck"
had been used.  I have no doubt that Random
*absolutely* believes this to be true, but as an elf, I also
*absolutely* do not believe that to be the case.  

Anyway, my point is that "smart ass" *is* a term that has been used without
any problem.  I'm 90% sure I've used it myself when speaking about a
*character.*  There is, however, a difference in speaking of a character and
speaking of a fellow list member with such a term.  
There is also a difference in speaking of a character and speaking of a
fellow list member with the term "smart aleck."  With no indication that the
term is being used in jest, it would be flagged by me as worrisome just as
quickly as "smart ass."  IOW, as Steve suggested in his response, it's not
the term itself; it's the way it's used.

I cannot say that I speak for every single elf and how s/he would respond,
but I can say with certainty that it is not at all a given that a poster
calling another poster a "smart aleck" would not concern the list elves.  



Sherry/Blinky Elf now:

I'm writing mostly as a reader, but also from my role as an elf.  As a
reader, I would be upset to read either term directed at another list
member, though they've often been used in referring to characters.  Pretty
much, I am agreeing with Susan and Steve on this issue.  It isn't the term;
it's the use of the term and to whom.    

Also speaking as a fairly new elf, if I had list reading duty the day the
post came through, I would also have flagged it and discussed it with other
elves, because of the same thing.  I've seen many other lists degenerate
into rounds of chaos and name calling, because people can't tell on the net
how something was meant, experienced plenty of situations of members of
other groups going back and forth calling each other names and insults
escalating.  What might have started in fun can become a serious problem
because of the nature of email discussion.  I've always appreciated the way
the elves kept this list respectful of all members, even while allowing
intense and hot debate!

And for the record, yes, I would have reacted exactly the same way to "smart
alec" or anything else that could be interpreted as derogatory to another
person.  In email, there would have been no way for me to know it was not
meant as an insult.

Sherry, AKA Blinky Elf




From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 19 19:06:14 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:06:14 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] [HPforGrownups] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ec4cha+df4r@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608170539m4c2e9c93jd283b7ac5572493f@...>
	 <ec4cha+df4r@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608191206q6312ea5fk6919b2dabb0dc096@...>

[Note. This message quotes and replies to parts of multiple messages]

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> Yes, that was VERY unfortunate.  It has happened to me before, as
> well -- not with an elfy reminder but with a message I thought I was
> sending to fellow Administrators that I ended up sending to the Main
> list.  It is embarrassing to make such an error, but they do happen;
> we're not perfect.  In this case, the mistake was noticed almost
> immediately and was deleted.  The apology for that occurrence was
> decidedly sincere.

Random832:
I don't doubt it, but this does bring something up - the fact that you
believe it was deleted. I think that in a lot of cases, people
administrating yahoo groups tend to forget that it is a mailing list.
There is, for better or worse, no way to "take things back" - there
have been any number of times when I've, immediately after hitting
send, thought "oh crap, i didn't sign/attribute/whatever", but there's
no way to change it once it goes out.

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> This is something perhaps the Admin Team should have a discussion
> about handling better.

Random832:
I wasn't really even complaining (since I really can't think of a way
to fix it) so much as just pointing out what its effect on my mood had
been.

If there's one thing that I think should be changed as a result of
this, I think what should be done is come up with a coherent policy on
what messages are supposed to look like and what replies are supposed
to look like, and get everyone on the same page. I've been told (by
different people) that signing vs self-attribution is either/or,
signing is mandatory but self-attribution is optional, both are
mandatory, I need to have an attribution at _every_ 'section' (i.e.
the beginning of any run of text by a different person), Once every
page or so, once for the whole message for short messages and 'every
so often' for longer messages, etc. I now do think self-attribution is
a good idea, but it needs to be clear _exactly_ what is required.

(Regarding Lee Storm's suggestion about bcc)
Honestly? I don't like secrets. I wouldn't mind, though, if such
reminders were _openly_ cc'd somewhere (to some list somewhere fr.ex.
or to hpfgu-owners) so there'd be a record of them so all the mods
could be on the same page.

> Vexxy/Ceridwen:
> As the elf HERself (I get that all the time, btw, it's the uncommon
> name. I'm female, for future reference) I can answer what I thought.
> You called Steve a "smart-ass".  I was surprised.  And, almost as
> shocked as if you had called him a "jerk" or a "fool".  Those two
> words are almost never, in my experience, used in an endearing way,
> while "smart-ass" has been.  Since you did not put any smilies or
> other notations of teasing, such as *g* or (jk, pal), it seemed that
> you meant it in a derogatory manner.

Random832:
I don't use smilies. I don't like them. Though i'll say "j/k" when I
_really_ think there's a risk of being misinterpreted. I'd _never_
heard "smart-ass" used in a truly derogatory way, either against me,
by me, or in my presence, so I didn't think it would be an issue. This
is apparently a regional thing.

Part of my reaction is due to a recent bad experience I had on another
list. I may have mentioned it among my other replies or I might have
snipped it out, but her goes: Someone said that a misspelling was
deliberate to get around censorship stuff like netnanny, etc; I saw
two misspelled words, neither of which looked particularly likely to
be censored, so I asked which one. A moderator (who was not involved
in the discussion) interpreted my mention of spelling errors as an
attack (even though i was _very_ polite about it and it was quite
clear I was only asking which one had been referred to) and i've been
put on permanent moderation.

> Vexxy/Ceridwen:
> When should we "give it a rest"?

Random832:
I was referring not to this incident but to the incessant stream of
"friendly reminders" (really, they don't seem so friendly when i've
had five in as many days) every other time I miss a self-attribution
or forget to sign. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that - I was
responding to the fact that you brought that up in addition to the
main issue.



From kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 20 21:44:12 2006
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:44:12 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608191206q6312ea5fk6919b2dabb0dc096@...>
Message-ID: <ecal3c+t9hu@...>

> Random832:
> I don't doubt it, but this does bring something up - the fact 
> that you believe it was deleted. I think that in a lot of cases, 
> people administrating yahoo groups tend to forget that it is a 
> mailing list. There is, for better or worse, no way to "take 
> things back" 

Kelley:
Oh yeah, we do realize; that's a fact that makes us feel even 
worse when we misfire a post (I've done it myself; it really does
feel awful).

Random832:
> - there have been any number of times when I've, immediately 
> after hitting send, thought "oh crap, i didn't 
> sign/attribute/whatever", but there's no way to change it once 
> it goes out.

Kelley:
You're right, and that's something we do need to keep in mind.

> Random832:
> <snip> If there's one thing that I think should be changed as 
> a result of this, I think what should be done is come up with 
> a coherent policy on what messages are supposed to look like 
> and what replies are supposed to look like, and get everyone 
> on the same page. I've been told (by different people) that 
> signing vs self-attribution is either/or, signing is mandatory
> but self-attribution is optional, both are mandatory, I need 
> to have an attribution at _every_ 'section' (i.e. the beginning
> of any run of text by a different person), Once every page or
> so, once for the whole message for short messages and 'every
> so often' for longer messages, etc. I now do think self-
> attribution is a good idea, but it needs to be clear _exactly_ 
> what is required.

Kelley:
Okay, let me give a little background on this.  The whole point 
of requiring attribution at all is to help those reading keep 
track of who is saying what in the discussions.  That's it.  The
rule started out as requiring posters to put the name of the person
who wrote the comments the poster is replying to above the quoted
comments, and then for the poster to include their signature (the
way you'd sign your name at the end of a letter).  If you are
replying to comments from more than one person, put the right 
person's name with the right comments.

Now, here's the understanding I have about the custom of "self-
attribution": my memory of this is that list members began doing
this themselves (meaning the elves didn't come up with this idea
and start asking/requiring folks to do it) during the heavy posting 
period following OoP's release.  I'd bet some people were surely 
doing it before then, but my memory is that it really caught on 
after OoP.  Lots of the time people were doing "Now me:" before
their comments, which makes sense in theory, but it would backfire
when others replied to that message and would forget to change "Now
me" to the person's name.  This still happens here and there, but
most folks are in the habit of just using their name/id to self-
attribute now.

So, people began doing this on their own, and it caught on, most
likely because it helps to make the discussions *so* much easier
to follow and keep straight, especially when the poster is 
replying to two, three, or more people in their post, and/or just
replying to lots of quoted comments and the post ends up being 
quoted, new comments, quoted, new comments, quoted, new comments, 
etc.

Personally, I never did 'self-attribution', put my own name before
my comments.  I'd just attribute any quoted and then put my name
at the end of the message.  That had always seemed 'enough,' 
'proper.' But, some months back when Sherry joined the list elves,
she very kindly answered some questions I'd had about her experience
using screen-readers with the groups.  One thing she explained (and
I hope she'll step in if I don't say it correctly) is that one of 
the most helpful things posters can do is to attribute comments, 
quoted and new, *every time* the 'speaker' changes, and then for
the poster to include their own name at the end, as well.

And when you think about it, that makes so much sense. Imagine 
you've got someone reading the messages aloud to you and giving 
the name each time the speaker changes. No question how helpful
it is, you know?  So, that's what got me to start self-attributing 
(though, yeah, as Sherry can attest, I still sometimes forget, but 
I really have been trying to make that a consistent habit when I post).

Now, as far as having a hard and fast rule about the format a post
must be in ... oy.  Making a new rule, or redefining/narrowing the
definition for what is an 'acceptable' format for a post ends up 
being a lot more complicated than it seems on the surface.

Personally, I'm always loath to add *another* rule.  For one thing, 
I think our current rules cover the major things that are 
problematic.  For another, the current rules are intimidating enough 
to new members already.  For the elves, it's a big deal to make a 
new rule -- we have to be willing and prepared to enforce it across 
the board.  Enforcing takes a lot of time and effort, and heck, it's 
enough with the rules we already do have.  So, we really all have 
to feel something is worthwhile before making it an actual rule.

My own position on rules (for groups like this) in general:  they 
have to be reasonable, justifiable, serve a legitimate purpose.  
If I can't explain the reasoning behind a rule to a list member, 
if I can't show the sense in it, that's a serious problem.  I 
absolutely detest when something is a rule 'for the sake of being 
a rule,' absent reason.  I don't really like when a list mod makes 
a rule against something just because 'they don't like it,' absent 
reason, (but hey, it's their list, so they can do what they want). 
When folks were commenting on this topic on the main list someone 
remarked that the main list was "the elves' group," not the list 
members, so hey, we can do what we want.  Of course the group 
belongs to all of us; if the elves were the only ones who saw the 
benefit of the rules, that wouldn't be enough reason to have them, 
imo.  

So, in the end, is it worth making it a rule that people must 
self-attribute their new comments and sign their posts at the bottom?
Mm, honestly, I don't know.  I absolutely see the sense in doing it
this way, see how it's helpful, but to require people to do it in
each and every post, send reminders when they don't...that feels a 
bit too much to me.  My feelings aren't set in stone on this, I'm 
open to persuasion that it should be a rule, but all I can say is
that making a rule for it feels like more than we need right now.  
We've been taking the tack of encouraging it, as Susan (Shorty Elf) 
explained, and that feels reasonable to me.

The elves have been discussing this though, primarily in regards 
to the "HPfGU_Formatting_Tutorial.html" (found in the Admin_Files
folder on the main list); this was put together by a former list
elf to help give some examples/illustrations of various posting 
rules.  There doesn't seem to be an example that shows the 'ideal'
format for attributing in a post that quotes lots of different 
people.  Maybe I can find a post that's a nice example, though 
may be easier to just create an example from scratch instead of
trying to search. ;-)

Random832:
> (Regarding Lee Storm's suggestion about bcc) Honestly? I don't 
> like secrets. I wouldn't mind, though, if such reminders were 
> _openly_ cc'd somewhere (to some list somewhere fr.ex. or to 
> hpfgu-owners) so there'd be a record of them so all the mods 
> could be on the same page.

Kelley:
We do keep record of all messages sent so the elves can all be on
the same page, yes, and we do it via bcc (typically), mainly because
in the history of the group there's been a couple instances of some
pretty unpleasant troll problems.  (I really don't want to say any
more on that here.)  Fwiw, all I can do is give you my word that
correspondence between the elves and list members is not seen by 
anyone but the elves and the list member in question.

Random832: 
> Part of my reaction is due to a recent bad experience I had on 
> another list. I may have mentioned it among my other replies or 
> I might have snipped it out, but her goes: Someone said that a 
> misspelling was deliberate to get around censorship stuff like 
> netnanny, etc; I saw two misspelled words, neither of which 
> looked particularly likely to be censored, so I asked which one. 
> A moderator (who was not involved in the discussion) interpreted
> my mention of spelling errors as an attack (even though i was 
> _very_ polite about it and it was quite clear I was only asking 
> which one had been referred to) and i've been put on permanent 
> moderation.

Kelley:
Ah, jeez, I'm sorry to hear about that.  Does sound like an
overreaction all right. :-(
 
> Random832:
> I was referring not to this incident but to the incessant stream 
> of "friendly reminders" (really, they don't seem so friendly when 
> i've had five in as many days) every other time I miss a 
> self-attribution or forget to sign. Sorry if I wasn't clear about 
> that - I was responding to the fact that you brought that up in 
> addition to the main issue.

"Five in as many days" -- that doesn't follow according to our 
records, but if you mean that literally, would you mind clarifying
for me?  Offlist is fine, of course.

There is a fine distinction between messages from the elves that 
a member receives while they're still moderated and after they've
been taken off moderated status -- while moderated, the messages
are intended to help guide, explain the posting rules; often they 
are letting the person know of an edit the elf made (e.g., adding 
a sig, etc.).  After getting off moderated status, they're reminders.  
(I know, in the end, it feels like they amount to the same thing, but 
I just wanted to explain in case anyone was wondering.)

Regardless, I definitely take your point that the reminders don't 
feel so friendly, no matter how mildly they're written, when you 
feel like you're getting barraged with them.  That's something the 
elves should always keep in mind when deciding whether or not to 
contact someone, and we do try, but yeah, we don't always succeed.  
We don't want anyone to feel they're being picked on or that they 
'just can't win' with us or whatever.  That's not how it is, but I 
can understand it might feel that way.  

If you can try to look at the messages objectively, just read them 
for what they say, take them in stride, and know that loads of other 
list members have gotten virtually identical messages, maybe that 
will help.  What we're trying to do is be consistent.  Again, we 
don't always succeed, but in our role as elves, we do strive for it.

I hope this has helped to give a little more background, detail to 
all this...

--Kelley






From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 21 11:14:46 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:14:46 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ecal3c+t9hu@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608191206q6312ea5fk6919b2dabb0dc096@...>
	 <ecal3c+t9hu@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608210414h44e6346x6d5a5ecf6b532aab@...>

> Kelley:
> Okay, let me give a little background on this.  The whole point
> of requiring attribution at all is to help those reading keep
> track of who is saying what in the discussions.  That's it.  The
> rule started out as requiring posters to put the name of the person
> who wrote the comments the poster is replying to above the quoted
> comments, and then for the poster to include their signature (the
> way you'd sign your name at the end of a letter).  If you are
> replying to comments from more than one person, put the right
> person's name with the right comments.

Random832:
Well - the original custom, in use on usenet and e-mail since time
immemorial, is to attribute _once_. at the top of the message, for
each quote level (where a "quote level" is a particular number of >
marks)

A wrote:
> B wrote:
>> Whatever B said
>
> Whatever A said

My reply

Now what I don't understand is why this isn't enough if the only
reason is to make sure that everyone knows who said what.

> Kelley:
> And when you think about it, that makes so much sense. Imagine
> you've got someone reading the messages aloud to you and giving
> the name each time the speaker changes.

Random832:
Personally, I don't really _care_ all that much who said what, as long
as it's there at the top of the message to find out in the rare cases
that i do need it, and as long as i can tell when there _is_ someone
new talking

> Kelley:
> Now, as far as having a hard and fast rule about the format a post
> must be in ... oy.  Making a new rule, or redefining/narrowing the
> definition for what is an 'acceptable' format for a post ends up
> being a lot more complicated than it seems on the surface.

Random832:
Well, right now there are a number of _different_ rules, depending on
which elf is reading the post. Signing _and_ self-attributing with
every single section seems to satisfy everyone, but it's a lot of work
and I don't think it should be necessary.

> Kelley:
> So, in the end, is it worth making it a rule that people must
> self-attribute their new comments and sign their posts at the bottom?
> Mm, honestly, I don't know.  I absolutely see the sense in doing it
> this way,

Random832:
You've explained a reason for self-attribution, but not for signing.

> Kelley:
> Ah, jeez, I'm sorry to hear about that.  Does sound like an
> overreaction all right. :-(

Random832:
I've decided that the moderator in that case was probably already out
to get me and looking for an excuse. I'm glad there's no-one like that
here.

> "Five in as many days" -- that doesn't follow according to our
> records, but if you mean that literally, would you mind clarifying
> for me?  Offlist is fine, of course.

Random832:
I didn't mean it literally, but I've certainly gotten more than five
total, and there have been times when it was one after another every
day, maybe for less than five days in a row.

> Kelley:
> There is a fine distinction between messages from the elves that
> a member receives while they're still moderated and after they've
> been taken off moderated status -- while moderated, the messages
> are intended to help guide, explain the posting rules; often they
> are letting the person know of an edit the elf made (e.g., adding
> a sig, etc.).  After getting off moderated status, they're reminders.
> (I know, in the end, it feels like they amount to the same thing, but
> I just wanted to explain in case anyone was wondering.)

Random832:
One thing to keep in mind is that it's _not_ common practice elsewhere
for the moderators to contact list members in an official capacity
unless there's something wrong, i.e. giving out a warning, a strike
(for a three-strikes system), etc. I don't think it's a bad idea to
have friendly reminders (though quantity is something to keep in
mind), but reminding people more clearly that they _are_ just friendly
reminders might be necessary.



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 21 11:37:41 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:37:41 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
References: <7b9f25e50608191206q6312ea5fk6919b2dabb0dc096@...> <ecal3c+t9hu@...> <7b9f25e50608210414h44e6346x6d5a5ecf6b532aab@...>
Message-ID: <01f601c6c516$368a1810$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

> Random832:
> Well - the original custom, in use on usenet and e-mail since time
> immemorial, is to attribute _once_. at the top of the message, for
> each quote level (where a "quote level" is a particular number of >
> marks)

SSSusan/Shorty:
But it really doesn't matter what the custom has been elsewhere.  This is 
HPfGU we are talking about now, is it not?  We have already pointed you to 
our formatting tutorial, and Kelley went to some effort to explain the 
history of things around here (she's been an elf for many years).  There are 
times when doing this very this is just FINE.


Random832:
> Now what I don't understand is why this isn't enough if the only
> reason is to make sure that everyone knows who said what.

SSSusan/Shorty:
"if the only reason is to make sure that everyone knows who said what"? 
Well, yes, that's precisely the reason!


>> Kelley:
>> And when you think about it, that makes so much sense. Imagine
>> you've got someone reading the messages aloud to you and giving
>> the name each time the speaker changes.

> Random832:
> Personally, I don't really _care_ all that much who said what, as long
> as it's there at the top of the message to find out in the rare cases
> that i do need it, and as long as i can tell when there _is_ someone
> new talking

SSSusan/Shorty:
Well, I'm sorry you feel this way, but what we are saying is that we care 
very much that our list members CAN tell. You might not care, but what we 
are saying is that we have our rules in place *because* we want it to be 
clear.  People who don't make much effort to make their own posts clear make 
it much more difficult for those who follow who are trying to make sure 
they've got words attributed correctly.  I personally find it rather selfish 
to take the view you've expressed here.


>> Kelley:
>> Now, as far as having a hard and fast rule about the format a post
>> must be in ... oy.  Making a new rule, or redefining/narrowing the
>> definition for what is an 'acceptable' format for a post ends up
>> being a lot more complicated than it seems on the surface.

> Random832:
> Well, right now there are a number of _different_ rules, depending on
> which elf is reading the post. Signing _and_ self-attributing with
> every single section seems to satisfy everyone, but it's a lot of work
> and I don't think it should be necessary.

SSSusan/Shorty:
I have tried to avoid discussing particulars of your situation, but this is 
simply not true.  I have looked back at every message that was sent to you, 
which, frankly, began with me after I *had* inserted attributions for each 
section of comments.  You replied by commenting that you did not believe it 
was necessary.  I replied to you, saying why I prefer that members do so but 
also telling you that if you elected to *NOT* do that, you would not be 
alone in that decision.  I did insist that you *either* self-attribute *or* 
sign, though.  Every single other piece of elfy correspondence was a 
variation of that either/or... or was a reminder to sign if you did not do 
either one.

I fail to see how this is "a number of different rules."  Again, I cringe 
doing this kind of thing in public, because it seems to me ridiculous to 
have to do so.  Yet you are continuing to aledge things about the elves and 
how things are done which simply are not the case.  In addition, the issue 
of why there are sometimes inconsistencies has been addressed with you 
numerous times, here on Feedback and offlist to you directly.  I'm not quite 
sure what the big deal is, frankly.  A bunch of VOLUNTEERS work to do the 
very best we can to keep the place running smoothly and clearly and without 
problem.  A bunch of human beings who occasionally make an error and pretty 
much are willing to admit errors and say "sorry" when it happens.  In this 
case I do not see the inconsistency you are claiming, especially beyond that 
initial communication between you & me, Random.


Kelley:
>> "Five in as many days" -- that doesn't follow according to our
>> records, but if you mean that literally, would you mind clarifying
>> for me?  Offlist is fine, of course.
>
> Random832:
> I didn't mean it literally, but I've certainly gotten more than five
> total, and there have been times when it was one after another every
> day, maybe for less than five days in a row.

SSSusan/Shorty:
And this has been explained to you as well.  We have a number of elves who 
handle various chores on various days and at various times on the SAME day. 
We do keep track of what's being said to whom, but it is sometimes a matter 
of working under time pressure to get things done (i.e., so people don't 
have their messages sitting in the queue for hours) and elves who do not 
have the time in that moment to make sure Member So-and-So hasn't already 
been contacted on X issue in the last Y days.

We have posting rules, yes.  We will continue to enforce posting rules and 
to guide new members in understanding how they work and why they are 
present.  That's pretty much the end of the story, whether individual 
members of the group like it or not.


> Random832:
> One thing to keep in mind is that it's _not_ common practice elsewhere
> for the moderators to contact list members in an official capacity
> unless there's something wrong, i.e. giving out a warning, a strike
> (for a three-strikes system), etc. I don't think it's a bad idea to
> have friendly reminders (though quantity is something to keep in
> mind), but reminding people more clearly that they _are_ just friendly
> reminders might be necessary.

SSSusan/Shorty:
And in one of my friendly reminders, I started out by *thanking* you for 
having done something well, did I not?

I think we elves as a group work very hard to be as friendly as we can!  Do 
we achieve it each time?  Probably not, but we try.

SSSusan/Shorty





From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 21 13:26:43 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:26:43 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <01f601c6c516$368a1810$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
References: <7b9f25e50608191206q6312ea5fk6919b2dabb0dc096@...>
	 <ecal3c+t9hu@...>
	 <7b9f25e50608210414h44e6346x6d5a5ecf6b532aab@...>
	 <01f601c6c516$368a1810$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608210626n12f5fc52yfb26fa3b025b935@...>

> Random832:
> > Now what I don't understand is why this isn't enough if the only
> > reason is to make sure that everyone knows who said what.
>
> SSSusan/Shorty:
> "if the only reason is to make sure that everyone knows who said what"?
> Well, yes, that's precisely the reason!

Random832:
My point, which you completely missed, was: why isn't what is done
everywhere else (indicate at the top who's being quoted at each quote
level) sufficient for that reason?

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> Well, I'm sorry you feel this way, but what we are saying is that we care
> very much that our list members CAN tell.

And they can tell. By scrolling up. The information is present in the
format I described.

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> You might not care, but what we
> are saying is that we have our rules in place *because* we want it to be
> clear.

Breaking style standards that have existed for several decades makes
things more clear how? It's disconcerting to see the attribution text
at the same level as the text it applied to, rather than one to the
left as is _standard_, and it made it hard for me to tell, at first,
what was being attributed to whom.

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> People who don't make much effort to make their own posts clear make
> it much more difficult for those who follow who are trying to make sure
> they've got words attributed correctly.  I personally find it rather selfish
> to take the view you've expressed here.

Random832:
You haven't explained what's unclear about the posting format I am
advocating, which is used everywhere else and has been for decades.

So it's selfish to want to use a perfectly clear AND STANDARD way of
making things clear rather than using a non-standard, redundant and
confusing way that _you_ think makes things clear?

> > Random832:
> > Well, right now there are a number of _different_ rules, depending on
> > which elf is reading the post. Signing _and_ self-attributing with
> > every single section seems to satisfy everyone, but it's a lot of work
> > and I don't think it should be necessary.
>
> SSSusan/Shorty:
> I have tried to avoid discussing particulars of your situation, but this is
> simply not true.  I have looked back at every message that was sent to you,
> which, frankly, began with me after I *had* inserted attributions for each
> section of comments.

Random832:
No. it STARTED with a reminder to _sign_, to which _I_ replied
suggesting self-attribution as an ALTERNATIVE to use of a signature
(you had not even brought up the issue of self-attribution). I'm not
talking about attribution of others' text (though as long as there's
_one_ attribution, it doesn't really take a genius to guess that the
same attribution will apply to other text at the same quote level
unless otherwise stated) Honestly? I'm willing to use
self-attributions, and put attributions at each section. However, I'm
opposed to the idea that I should be _forced_ to do so.

>From your original message:
> Also, we ask that each post be signed, so that members who do choose to respond will
> know how to refer to you.  Since you'd included a quote of your own from earlier, and that
> was labeled "Random832," I went ahead & signed the post that way.  If there is a different
> name you'd prefer to go by at HPfGU, just sign future posts with that name.

>  You replied by commenting that you did not believe it
> was necessary.  I replied to you, saying why I prefer that members do so but
> also telling you that if you elected to *NOT* do that, you would not be
> alone in that decision.  I did insist that you *either* self-attribute *or*
> sign, though.  Every single other piece of elfy correspondence was a
> variation of that either/or... or was a reminder to sign if you did not do
> either one.

>From message 157011:
> --
> Random832

>From Ceridwen/Vexxy Elf's reminder:
> One other point: you did not attribute your responses to yourself.

SSSusan/Shorty:
> I fail to see how this is "a number of different rules."

You fail to see it for what it is because you fail to see it at all.

SSSusan/Shorty:
> Yet you are continuing to aledge things about the elves and
> how things are done which simply are not the case.

So you honestly think that "remember to self-attribute", in response
to a message which i HAD SIGNED, is "a variation of that either/or"? I
was quite offended by that, especially after I'd specifically decided
to only sign on the strength of your previous statement that it _was_
"either/or". This is what I meant when I said you're not all on the
same page.

>  In addition, the issue
> of why there are sometimes inconsistencies

_why_ there are inconsistencies is beside the point - don't you think
it's worth working toward having fewer inconsistencies by actually
putting something in the rules about self-attribution and/or signing?
That's what the feedback list is supposed to be about, isn't it?

> has been addressed with you
> numerous times, here on Feedback and offlist to you directly.  I'm not quite
> sure what the big deal is, frankly.

The big deal is that _saying_ "this is a friendly reminder" doesn't
change the gut reaction that people get from being contacted by list
moderators acting in an official capacity, and that as long as they're
going to have such a reaction (and there's really not much except
experience that can change that), you should at least be a little less
cavalier about the content of such reminders, so people won't feel
like they "just can't win".

> A bunch of VOLUNTEERS work to do the
> very best we can to keep the place running smoothly and clearly and without
> problem.  A bunch of human beings who occasionally make an error and pretty
> much are willing to admit errors and say "sorry" when it happens.  In this
> case I do not see the inconsistency you are claiming, especially beyond that
> initial communication between you & me, Random.

If i give you the benefit of the doubt, i'll say that it's probably
because you're only looking at the reminders, and not at the messages
they refer to, or you'd see that I _had_ (and I think more than once,
though I don't see the need to take the time to dig up multiple
examples after i've already provided one) signed a message that earned
such a reminder.

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> And this has been explained to you as well.  We have a number of elves who
> handle various chores on various days and at various times on the SAME day.
> We do keep track of what's being said to whom, but it is sometimes a matter
> of working under time pressure to get things done (i.e., so people don't
> have their messages sitting in the queue for hours) and elves who do not
> have the time in that moment to make sure Member So-and-So hasn't already
> been contacted on X issue in the last Y days.

Regardless of _why_, the whole point of this feedback list is to
discuss issues like these and try to come up with solutions - The fact
is, it _is_ frustrating, and you're the only one in this discussion
who seems to think that it's entirely unimportant how non-elf list
members feel.

Some background information for anyone here who doesn't participate in
other lists/newsgroups/chats/forums/etc. Most places, the moderators
aren't "volunteers" as such in the same sense as here; they're
hand-picked - the position is essentially by invitation only, there is
no way to "apply" to be one, and if you ask you're disqualified. They
may or may not participate as normal users "on-list", but "off-list",
they contact users only to scold. This is the environment that i'm
sure a significant cross-section of users on the HPfGU lists come
from, and that they arrive expecting. I did at one point honestly
believe that each new "reminder" I was sent put me inevitably one step
closer to being kicked off the list.

This is not a tide that can be turned overnight. The fact that some
people will tend to assume the worst when getting an email from one of
you isn't something you should just ignore, or think that you can
counter just by saying it's a "friendly" reminder - words that have
all too often been used by people elsewhere who didn't really mean
them. This community does not exist in a vacuum, however much you
might _wish_ it did.



From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 21 14:56:14 2006
From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:56:14 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608210626n12f5fc52yfb26fa3b025b935@...>
Message-ID: <E1GFBCQ-0002lN-DF@...>

> Random832:
> > Now what I don't understand is why this isn't enough if the only 
> > reason is to make sure that everyone knows who said what.
>
> SSSusan/Shorty:
> "if the only reason is to make sure that everyone knows who said what"?
> Well, yes, that's precisely the reason!

Random832:
My point, which you completely missed, was: why isn't what is done
everywhere else (indicate at the top who's being quoted at each quote
level) sufficient for that reason?

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> Well, I'm sorry you feel this way, but what we are saying is that we 
> care very much that our list members CAN tell.

And they can tell. By scrolling up. The information is present in the format
I described.

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> You might not care, but what we
> are saying is that we have our rules in place *because* we want it to 
> be clear.

Breaking style standards that have existed for several decades makes things
more clear how? It's disconcerting to see the attribution text at the same
level as the text it applied to, rather than one to the left as is
_standard_, and it made it hard for me to tell, at first, what was being
attributed to whom.

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> People who don't make much effort to make their own posts clear make 
> it much more difficult for those who follow who are trying to make 
> sure they've got words attributed correctly.  I personally find it 
> rather selfish to take the view you've expressed here.

Random832:
You haven't explained what's unclear about the posting format I am
advocating, which is used everywhere else and has been for decades.

So it's selfish to want to use a perfectly clear AND STANDARD way of making
things clear rather than using a non-standard, redundant and confusing way
that _you_ think makes things clear?




Sherry now:

Random, I am a totally blind computer user.  I am a professional woman and I
use high level computer programs on a regular basis in my work.  I tell you
this, so you know I am not a novice computer user.  I know others have tried
to discuss the screen reader issues with you.  I would ask you to reply,
either here on list, or to me privately, with an example of what you are
saying is standard and has been for years.  I don't get a picture of it by
your description.  What do you mean by saying,


"...It's disconcerting to see the attribution text at the same level as the
text it applied to, rather than one to the left as is _standard_, and it
made it hard for me to tell, at first, what was being attributed to whom."

How do you mean, to the left?  A screen reader does not indicate where
certain text is, unless we turn on features to read all punctuation,
formatting, style and other text attributes.  Also, what do you mean about
seeing the attribution on the same level as the text it applies to.  The way
I'm writing this post now, alternating between you and SS Susan, then adding
my own comments, with your attributions on a line before each of your,
Susan's and my comments makes this message easy to read and to know who is
saying what.

I remember reading your comments to Lee Storm about our screen readers
should be able to say quote and end of quote so we would know what was being
quoted.  I know she tried to explain how annoying it can be to hear
punctuation read aloud as punctuation, which it would have to be, if we were
going to know there were quotes.  You might consider this an acceptable
thing, and it wouldn't be annoying perhaps for brief messages.  But we also
read books with our screen readers, letters, forms, professional documents,
excel spread sheets, Access databases and any other kind of documents you
can imagine.  Having to always hear,quote/end of quote would drive a person
crazy, not to mention slowing down the ease and speed of work.  So, like
Lee, I and most blind people turn off punctuation announcement unless we are
editing our work.  This does not mean the reader doesn't use the proper
inflection for things like commas, periods or question marks.  It just means
it uses inflection instead of saying aloud, ... She went to the store comma
and there she bought some milk comma bread comma and wine period  

Or perhaps, quote where are you going question quote she asked period

There is no proper voice inflection for quotes, however.


I do realize we are a small minority, both in the real world and on HPFGU,
but I, for one, appreciate how this group welcomes everyone, and how the
list elves have tried to make the system work easily for everyone, including
we in the small minority.

One of the things I do, in my role now as an elf, is to help new blind or
visually impaired members become accustomed to the posting guidelines, learn
how to read the messages and generally troubleshoot issues surrounding using
screen readers and following posting guidelines.  For blind people, the
easiest way to reply to a message is to hit reply and type.  I never knew,
till I joined this group several years ago, that it wasn't customary to do
that, and that replying under quoted material was the norm.  I had to learn
a new way to do it.  The reason we would write replies at the top is that
we'd already read the message to which we were replying, and to have to
scroll down with our screen reader, which is done by using arrow keys, not
with a mouse, was and is a pain, hearing the same old thing again to make
the reply.  But since I've learned to do this, remember, a posting rule that
was not the norm I was used to, I have come to appreciate it very much,
because I can follow the flow of the conversation.  You said a person could
just scroll up to see who was being quoted at the top.  so, I'd have to
arrow down to read quotes, replies, and then arrow back up to see who was
saying what at the top of the section.  That might be nothing much to you,
but for some long multi-part posts I've seen on HPFGU, that would be a time
consuming pain.  

Again, I realize I am in a minority, but I wanted you to have an explanation
of why I like the style of self-attribution we are discussing here, to try
to give you a different prospective.  Also I wanted you to see that more
members than just you alone have had to learn and adapt to a completely
different way of doing things when joining this list.  It really doesn't
matter how every blindness related list I'm on does things, how the other
non blindness specific lists I'm on do things, what matters here on HPFGU is
how HPFGU does things.

I hope this has helped clarify things a little on one aspect of it all.  and
I really would appreciate it if you could type up an example of what you are
saying is the normal way to handle attributions.  

Sherry/Blinky Elf




From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 21 16:17:42 2006
From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:17:42 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608210414h44e6346x6d5a5ecf6b532aab@...>
Message-ID: <eccmb6+6s3k@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...>
wrote:
>
> > Kelley:
> > Okay, let me give a little background on this. The 
> > whole point of requiring attribution at all is to 
> > help those reading keep track of who is saying what 
> > in the discussions.  That's it.  ...

> Random832:
> Well - the original custom, in use on usenet and e-mail 
> since time immemorial, is to attribute _once_. ...
> 
> A wrote:
> > B wrote:
> >> Whatever B said
> >
> > Whatever A said
> 
> My reply
> 
> Now what I don't understand is why this isn't enough if 
> the only reason is to make sure that everyone knows who 
> said what.
> 


bboyminn:

That looks good on paper (or on electrons), but in a sense 
you cheated (in a vague metaphorical sense) by indentifing 
the person in their fake post 'Whatever /B/ said', but let's 
try it for real.
. . . . . . . . . . . .

> > Tom:
> > It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience 
> > for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of 
> > others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, 
> > become his own.

> Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase 
> a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor 
> safety. 

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? 
I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. 
It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we 
must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of 
freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abe

. . . . . . . . . . .
Compare that to-
. . . . . . . . . . .

> > Tom:
> > 
> > It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience 
> > for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of 
> > others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, 
> > become his own.

> Ben:
>
> Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase 
> a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor 
> safety. 

Abe:

At what point then is the approach of danger to be 
expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring 
up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction 
be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. 
As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or 
die by suicide.

Abe
. . . . . . . . . .

So, who does the middle quote belong to? It belongs to 
Ben Franklin.

The reason for the signature is to say that this is 
definitively the end of my post. I didn't just 
accidently hit Send, or some other circumstance that 
might cause a partial message to be send. And really, 
is it that much harder?

As I said before, if I were to reply to that sample post, 
I would probably cut off your signature as you did the 
signatures of Tom and Ben. In that case we would have...
. . . . . . . . . . .
> > > Tom:
> > > It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience 
> > > for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of 
> > > others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, 
> > > become his own.

> > Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase 
> > a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor 
> > safety. 

> At what point then is the approach of danger to be 
> expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring 
> up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction 
> be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. 
> As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or 
> die by suicide.

One of life's great tragedies is to have never found what 
you love in life. Life's greatest tragedy it to have never 
looked for what you love.

Steve
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Now 'who said what' becomes even more vague. Yes, you do 
know that someone said each of those things, and in some 
groups that might be enough, but the Elves here try to 
keep thing orderly and organized. Despite even my annoyance
with the rigidity of the rule, they have proven themselves 
at keeping the conversation deep, coherent, and orderly. 

Also, though valid in a general discussion of the rules, 
what happens on other groups or in other aspects of the 
Internet is irrelevant, we start out knowing that our rules 
are stricter.

Even though our rules are generally stricter, they do have 
a degree of flexibility in them. A slip now and then will 
frequently be overlooked on the assumption that is was just 
that, a slip. 

Also, keep in mind that they keep a tighter rein on new 
members than on member who have been around a while and 
have proven their consistency.

> Random832:
> Well, right now there are a number of _different_ rules, 
> depending on which elf is reading the post. Signing _and_
> self-attributing with every single section seems to satisfy 
> everyone, but it's a lot of work and I don't think it 
> should be necessary.
> 

bboyminn:

There is a difference between what works best and the 
absolute minimum require. While you can get by with the 
absolute minimum, it would be better if you did 'what works 
best'. I suspect that is part of the difference you are 
seeing in responses from the Elves.

Next, keep in mind that I am not a List Elf or Moderator 
(though the position has been offerred), but, as I said, 
I've been a member for many many years, even longer than 
the 'joined' date in my Member List profile shows, since 
I've been through three or four user ID's.

Finally, I really hope this experience hasn't soured you 
toward the group. Really, I and many members of the group 
have been through the same thing you are experiencing right 
now. We've probably even made similar arguments. The 
comments you have made in general discussion, whether I 
agree with them or not, have been informed and insightful, 
and it would be a loss to us all if you left the group. I've 
said many times before that if we all agreed on everything 
then the conversation would be over. It's the fact that we 
have many different voices, interpretations, and opinions 
that makes the conversation interesting. 

My adivse is 'hang in there'. Just ride through the current 
storm and you will be rewarded with many deep insightful 
conversations on a subject we all love.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn







From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 21 19:03:31 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:03:31 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <eccmb6+6s3k@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608210414h44e6346x6d5a5ecf6b532aab@...>
	 <eccmb6+6s3k@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608211203m87d9e03wda369ebd8e7f81f@...>

> bboyminn:
>
> That looks good on paper (or on electrons), but in a sense
> you cheated (in a vague metaphorical sense) by indentifing
> the person in their fake post 'Whatever /B/ said', but let's
> try it for real.
> . . . . . . . . . . . .

(example snipped, it was an incorrect interpretation)

Random832:
This is not how it would appear in an actual "standard" post.

What you would see would be this:

Begin sample message
----------------------
Subject: Re:
From: Abraham Lincoln
----------------------
Benjamin Franklin wrote:
> Thomas Jefferson wrote:
> > It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience
> > for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of
> > others: or their case may, by change of circumstances,
> > become his own.
>
> Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase
> a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
> safety.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected?
I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us.
It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we
must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of
freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

-- 
Abe
----------------------
End sample message

Random832:
You may think it's counterintuitive. and maybe it is. But it's
systematic and has been thus for decades.

> So, who does the middle quote belong to? It belongs to
> Ben Franklin.

You _left out_ the attribution for the middle quote. I did _NOT_
advocate leaving out any attribution. In the standard system, _each_
attribution line applies to all text following at exactly one
quotation level below the level of the attribution itself, until (in
the rare case of a combined response), another attribution line at the
same quotation level supersedes it.

> The reason for the signature is to say that this is
> definitively the end of my post. I didn't just
> accidently hit Send,

What if you accidentally hit send and there _was_ a signature?

[...]
> As I said before, if I were to reply to that sample post,
> I would probably cut off your signature as you did the
> signatures of Tom and Ben. In that case we would have...

[snipped]

No, that is NOT what we would have. You're butchering the standard.
And before you say your inability to follow it is evidence that it is
confusing, keep in mind that the attribution line that you're leaving
out is the one that (you in the role of abraham lincoln) your email
client inserted for you when you hit "reply".



From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 21 23:45:44 2006
From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:45:44 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608211203m87d9e03wda369ebd8e7f81f@...>
Message-ID: <ecdgj8+moou@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...>
wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> >
> > ... in a sense you cheated ... by indentifing the 
> > person in their fake post 'Whatever /B/ said', but 
> > let's try it for real.
> > . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> (example snipped, it was an incorrect interpretation)
> 
> Random832:
> This is not how it would appear in an actual "standard" post.
> 
> What you would see would be this:
> 
> Begin sample message
> ----------------------
> Subject: Re: Famous Quotes
> From: Abraham Lincoln
> ----------------------
> Benjamin Franklin wrote:
> > Thomas Jefferson wrote:
> > > It behooves every man who values liberty of 
> > > conscience for himself, to resist invasions 
> > > of it in the case of others: or their case may, 
> > > by change of circumstances, become his own.
> >
> > Those who would give up essential liberty to 
> > purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither 
> > liberty nor safety.
> 
> At what point then is the approach of danger to be 
> expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must 
> spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. 
> If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its 
> author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must 
> live through all time, or die by suicide.
> 
> -- 
> Abe
> ----------------------
> End sample message
> 
> Random832:
> You may think it's counterintuitive, and maybe it is. But it's
> systematic and has been thus for decades.
> 

bboyminn: 

Your right I did slightly misinterpret the format you were trying to
present; one of the hazards of a 'what A said' 'what B said' example.
That partly why I switched to famous quotes.

Also, as has been pointed out, what the rest of the world does, or how
long they have done it are irrelevant to this group. We have stricter
standards, we've had them since the beginning of the group, and they work.

As you rightly point out in your example, that act of replying adds
the attribution header at the top, in a multi-response post each
person is identified as shown in your example, but it's not still not
that clear who said what.

Is...

Begin sample message
> ----------------------
> Subject: Re: Famous Quotes
> From: Abraham Lincoln
> ----------------------
> Benjamin Franklin wrote:
> > Thomas Jefferson wrote:
> > > It behooves every man who values liberty ...
> >
> > Those who would give up essential liberty to 
> > purchase ...
> 
> At what point then is the approach of danger to be 
> expected? I answer, ... As a nation of freemen, 
> we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
> 
> Abe

or -

. . . . . . . . . .
Subject: Re: Famous Quotes
From: Abraham Lincoln

> > Tom:
> >
> > It behooves every man who values liberty...

> Ben:
>
> Those who would give up essential liberty to 
> purchase ....

Abe:

At what point then is the approach of danger to be
expected? I answer, ... As a nation of freemen, we 
must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abe
. . . . . . . . . .

more clear and less subject to confusion or misinterpretation?

You are free to have your opinion, you are free to lobby the
moderators to accept your opinion as policy, but until such time our
standard are our standard independant of what the Internet does or
what anyone else thinks.

Again, I support these standards because I see them work effectively
day after day, year after year, for many many years. You don't mess
with success, although the Mods and Elves are more than willing to
find ways to improve upon success. As right or wrong as your method
may be, I don't see it as improving on function, effectiveness or success.

By the way, nice batch of posts in the other HP groups, it's clear you
are an intelligent, well informed, well educated person who will
surely be an asset to our groups. I look forward to agreeing and
disagreeing with you.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn







From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 01:24:47 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:24:47 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ecdgj8+moou@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608211203m87d9e03wda369ebd8e7f81f@...>
	 <ecdgj8+moou@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608211824w67eddc79i9a764ec073b388b3@...>

On 8/21/06, Steve <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
> As you rightly point out in your example, that act of replying adds
> the attribution header at the top, in a multi-response post each
> person is identified as shown in your example, but it's not still not
> that clear who said what.

Random832:
It's only 'not that clear' if you don't know how it works. How it
works is: EVERY SINGLE line with N ">" marks in front of it was
written by the person identified in the attribution line with N-1 such
marks. It couldn't be simpler. I don't see how it is in any way the
_least_ bit unclear.

bboyminn:
> Is... [snipped, standard way]  or - [snipped, weird way] more clear and
> less subject to confusion or misinterpretation?

Random832:
The first is more clear because I know how it works. I honestly did
find the other way confusing when I first encountered it. The first
also requires _no_ effort. Better to have a way that works every time
and can be correctly interpreted 100% of the time despite being a
little counterintuitive than a way that requires lots of extra effort
by every poster and leaves a very real risk of _not getting done_ if
someone's not paying attention or forgets etc

bboyminn:
> You are free to have your opinion, you are free to lobby the
> moderators to accept your opinion as policy, but until such time our
> standard are our standard independant of what the Internet does or
> what anyone else thinks.

Random832:
Write an email client that does it. Until there's a special HPfGU
client that quotes things the HPfGU way, you can't claim that this
community is somehow separate from the rest of the internet when we
use the same programs to access it and the way the rest of the
internet does things is intimately tied into the way those programs
work.

bboyminn:
> Again, I support these standards because I see them work effectively
> day after day, year after year, for many many years. You don't mess
> with success,

Random832:
Irony, much? How "many years" has the HPfGU way worked? I believe
someone said it started in its present form after the OOtP release,
that's, what, 2003? Generally "many many years" means more than three.
As opposed to the standard way, which has worked for literally
_decades_.

But anyway... regardless of the specific way the attributions are
interleaved, once I know that the text with two marks in front of it
was written by "Ben", why do I need to be told AGAIN who's at that
level unless it changes?

Note to the one person here who uses a screenreader: I haven't
forgotten about you, but I'm trying to make a point here. You'll
notice that I have been including self-attributions/etc even while
arguing against them - more carefully, even, here than in most of my
posts.

bboyminn:
> although the Mods and Elves are more than willing to
> find ways to improve upon success. As right or wrong as your method
> may be, I don't see it as improving on function, effectiveness or success.

Random832:
It improves on effectiveness because it's d*** near impossible for
someone to screw up unless they do so deliberately.

-- 
Random832, who has yet to be given a satisfactory explanation of how
signing these things helps anyone, particularly given the fact that my
name's already present a mere five lines above this signature.



From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 02:17:39 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:17:39 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608211824w67eddc79i9a764ec073b388b3@...>
Message-ID: <ecdpg3+8ljs@...>


Random832:
> Note to the one person here who uses a screenreader: I haven't
> forgotten about you, but I'm trying to make a point here. You'll
> notice that I have been including self-attributions/etc even while
> arguing against them - more carefully, even, here than in most of 
my
> posts.

Alla:

Just for everybody else to be aware of - there is not *one* blind 
list member who uses a screen reader. Of the top of my head I know 
of probably nine or ten blind list members who **post** and use 
screen readers.

And that is what I am **aware** of and on the list that has more 
than 21000 members I am sure there are a lot of blind members who 
lurk by using a screen reader.


Alla AKA Alika Elf speaking for herself only.







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 02:53:51 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:53:51 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
References: <7b9f25e50608211203m87d9e03wda369ebd8e7f81f@...> <ecdgj8+moou@...> <7b9f25e50608211824w67eddc79i9a764ec073b388b3@...>
Message-ID: <017601c6c596$32c40030$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Random832:
> It's only 'not that clear' if you don't know how it works. How it
> works is: EVERY SINGLE line with N ">" marks in front of it was
> written by the person identified in the attribution line with N-1 such
> marks. It couldn't be simpler. I don't see how it is in any way the
> _least_ bit unclear.

SSSusan/Shorty:
Not every e-mail client puts in the chevrons [the >>> symbols].  Depending 
upon how one receives messages (individual emails or digest) or not (i.e., 
one uses webview) and the type of email program utilized, the way that 
things appear when the member hits "Reply" varies.  Believe me, this is one 
of the things I've learned by doing pending messages.

Some members also use a software program to compose their posts (Word or 
Notepad or such), because they want to take their time to compose it or 
because they are combining responses to *several* posters at once and find 
it easiest to organize in such a program or for any number of reasons.  When 
they then copy this into an e-mail or into the message box via webview, 
those chevrons don't necessarily line up or appear at all.

Additionally, for those who combine responses within a thread (something we 
encourage), the number of chevrons idea does not work.  Here's an example.

If you hit "Reply" to a post where Bob and Dave have been talking, Yahoo 
generates an attribution for the *two* posters at the top (aka, a nested 
attribution), and it puts the DOUBLE-chevrons Random is talking about in 
front of the oldest quote and SINGLE chevrons in front of the newer quote. 
It looks like this:

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bob <bob at y...> wrote:
>--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave <dave at ...> wrote:

> > but how many times has Harry fantasized about torturing Snape?

> Has anyone gone back and counted the times Harry wanted to torture Snape?
> Just wondering.

I find it harder to follow, but it fits what Random is saying, and it works 
okay when it's one or two members being quoted.  (However, for over two 
quotes, it's a MESS and we ask members not to utilize this nested 
attribution.)

Now, to my example of a place where it doesn't work... if Bob wants to 
respond to Dave *and* to Mary *and* to Debbie, who've all been posting in a 
thread he's interested in, he may elect to combine responses to snippets of 
each of those members' posts, even if they are three separate posts.  Thus, 
he can't rely upon chevrons to indicate levels of quotes; he has to do 
something to help readers know whose words are whose.  It will have to look 
like this:

Mary wrote:
> blah blah blah

Bob:
Hmmm.  I'm not sure, Mary.

Dave wrote:
> yadda yadda yadda

Bob:
I think you and Mary are both a little off-base with this theory....

Debbie wrote:
> higgeldy-piggeldy pop

Bob:
Now, I think *that's* the ticket, Debbie....

In this example, those chevrons probably wouldn't be there automatically, 
and while we love it when a poster inserts them to help identify a quote, 
it's also not required that they do so (they simply have to do *something* 
to indicate it's quoted material).  Either way, you simply can't rely upon 
automatically-generated chevrons to do the work of identifying levels of 
quoted material.  Typed-in attributions are going to have to happen.

Of course this doesn't happen all the time, but it sure happens a lot. 
Since we do have a daily posting limit, many members do try to combine 
responses so that they can "save" their posts and not use them up responding 
to 3 separate individuals in the same thread.


Random832:
> You'll notice that I have been including self-attributions/etc even while 
> arguing against them - more carefully, even, here than in most of my
> posts.

Siriusly Snapey Susan/Shorty, who does very much appreciate how clear 
Random's posts to HP-Feedback and Main have been when attributions have been 
included






From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 11:16:04 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:16:04 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ecdpg3+8ljs@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608211824w67eddc79i9a764ec073b388b3@...>
	 <ecdpg3+8ljs@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608220416i1c97004bm1ec8ac3d739297e1@...>

Alla:
> Just for everybody else to be aware of - there is not *one* blind
> list member who uses a screen reader. Of the top of my head I know
> of probably nine or ten blind list members who **post** and use
> screen readers.

I meant "here" as in Feedback, which I supposed was significantly
smaller than the main list or any of the other lists, and that if
there was anyone else they would have said something. I didn't mean to
offend anyone regardless

SSSusan/Shorty:
> Not every e-mail client puts in the chevrons [the >>> symbols].

That doesn't really change the part of my message that you quoted.
Putting in the > symbols and putting the attribution lines the normal
way isn't really harder than putting them in and putting them in the
way people here normally do. (however, can you name an actual email
client that doesn't put them? clients that make a fancy vertical bar
are really putting > marks in disguise, it's called format=flowed)

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> Additionally, for those who combine responses within a thread (something we
> encourage), the number of chevrons idea does not work.  Here's an example.

Yes it does. What i'm saying is that then and ONLY then, another
attribution line indicating that the poster that goes with those
number of chevrons has changed is necessary.

(out of curiosity, why do you encourage this? It breaks threading, and
it's not clear what it saves. But that's an issue for another day)

A typical response of this type would read

Bob wrote:
> Alice wrote:
> > [A's text]

[Response by me to A]

> [B's text]

[Response by me to B]

Dave wrote:
> Carol wrote:
> > [C's text]
>
> [D's text]

[my response to these points]

-- 
Random832

I don't see what's not clear about it, and it has the advantage that
it's done automatically (except for the combining itself) by the
_vast_ majority of email clients. And all you have to do if you want
to compose in notepad is hit "reply" first and copy the skeleton reply
message into notepad, rather than copying the original message. I
sometimes use gvim myself.

-- 
Random832



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 11:19:10 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:19:10 -0400
Subject: Posting limit and combined posts
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608220419n7d3a1079r9614846a36334145@...>

I missed this in my original reply

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> Of course this doesn't happen all the time, but it sure happens a lot.
> Since we do have a daily posting limit, many members do try to combine
> responses so that they can "save" their posts and not use them up responding
> to 3 separate individuals in the same thread.

What exactly is saved by having one long post rather than several
shorter ones? It breaks threading, and doesn't really save any time to
read the posts. And since it's not possible to "save" posts in this
way in a back-and-forth discussion, the only purpose in that case
seems to be to slow things down.



From zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 14:58:18 2006
From: zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid (KathyK)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limit and combined posts
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608220419n7d3a1079r9614846a36334145@...>
Message-ID: <20060822145818.69623.qmail@...>


Random832:

What exactly is saved by having one long post rather than several
shorter ones? It breaks threading, and doesn't really save any time to
read the posts. And since it's not possible to "save" posts in this
way in a back-and-forth discussion, the only purpose in that case
seems to be to slow things down.

KathyK, a list elf speaking only for herself:
 
We don't have a posting limit to encourage combining replies.  We have a posting limit to lower message volume, which, during big releases (book, movie), can be qutie overwhelming.  Combining messages is an effective way to comply with the posting limit while still having your say on this day rather than waiting until the next. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 15:08:41 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:08:41 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limit and combined posts
In-Reply-To: <20060822145818.69623.qmail@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608220419n7d3a1079r9614846a36334145@...>
	 <20060822145818.69623.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608220808k8730520sc4dfaee321d4e7b@...>

> KathyK, a list elf speaking only for herself:
>
> We don't have a posting limit to encourage combining replies.  We have a posting limit to
> lower message volume, which, during big releases (book, movie), can be qutie overwhelming.
> Combining messages is an effective way to comply with the posting limit while still having
> your say on this day rather than waiting until the next.

Random832:
It's not clear to me why message volume is something worth limiting.
200 short messages or 100 long ones, will still take the same amount
of time to read.

-- 
Random832



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 15:12:17 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limit and combined posts
In-Reply-To: <20060822145818.69623.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20060822151217.60527.qmail@...>

Random832:
>>> What exactly is saved by having one long post rather than several
shorter ones? It breaks threading, and doesn't really save any time to
read the posts. And since it's not possible to "save" posts in this
way in a back-and-forth discussion, the only purpose in that case
seems to be to slow things down. <<<


KathyK, a list elf speaking only for herself:
>> We don't have a posting limit to encourage combining replies.  We have a posting limit to lower message volume, which, during big releases (book, movie), can be qutie overwhelming.  Combining messages is an effective way to comply with the posting limit while still having your say on this day rather than waiting until the next. <<
 
SSSusan/Shorty:
Thanks for making that clarification, Kathy.  The other point I wanted to briefly mention is that the combined response *will* still appear in the thread if the poster hits "reply" from one of those messages s/he is including.  IOW, as long as the poster doesn't just go and post with a new subject heading or without replying to one of the posts in the thread, the new, combined response will appear in the list of those posts which have been in response to a particular subject.
 
When I mention combining responses, I'm not speaking of "back-and-forth discussions," where it's pretty much two individuals writing responses to one another.  I'm speaking of those situations where a thread is more active, in the sense that there are many participants in it.  
 
Sometimes more than one list member raises the same issue in a thread, or states something related to what another poster said which provides a good segue into something a person wants to say in a response.  Combining responses can make a LOT of sense in those cases, where you want to build upon a particular idea that's being discussed.  Responding individually to those two or three posters can make it disjointed and also lead to repeating your view or comments in multiple posts.  Bringing them all together into one response can keep responses more cohesive, as well as, yes, providing a way for a "prolific poster" to keep him/herself within the posting limit (which was recently raised, btw, from 3 to 5).
 
Siriusly Snapey Susan/Shorty Elf
 



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 15:41:51 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:41:51 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limit and combined posts
In-Reply-To: <20060822151217.60527.qmail@...>
References: <20060822145818.69623.qmail@...>
	 <20060822151217.60527.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608220841t1d9695dei89f0b5b6862b8b6d@...>

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> The other point I wanted to briefly mention is that the combined response *will* still
> appear in the thread if the poster hits "reply" from one of those messages s/he is
> including.  IOW, as long as the poster doesn't just go and post with a new subject
> heading or without replying to one of the posts in the thread, the new, combined response
> will appear in the list of those posts which have been in response to a particular subject.

By "breaks threading", I meant the message will not appear in the
proper place in the thread, or, rather, it _can_ not, since there is
no longer a single proper place. That is, it will not appear below the
messages it is in reply to other than the one from which the poster
hits "reply".

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> When I mention combining responses, I'm not speaking of "back-and-forth discussions,"
> where it's pretty much two individuals writing responses to one another.  I'm speaking of
> those situations where a thread is more active, in the sense that there are many
> participants in it.

And combined replies would work nicely if threads were directed
acyclic graphs instead of trees (which would be an interesting concept
for an experimental email or usenet client) - The issue I meant to
bring up, though, is how can one compensate for the posting limit in
the case of what _is_ a back-and-forth discussion, that is, something
in which it's mainly two people debating but on a topic that is still
of interest to the entire list.

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> Bringing them all together into one response can keep responses more cohesive, as well
> as, yes, providing a way for a "prolific poster" to keep him/herself within the posting limit
> (which was recently raised, btw, from 3 to 5).

So how would one keep within the posting limit in a "back and forth"
discussion? Have them off-list and post summaries every so often? How
should one initiate such an exchange? "I challenge you to a
duel^H^H^Hebate"?

-- 
Random832



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 16:23:36 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limit and combined posts
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608220841t1d9695dei89f0b5b6862b8b6d@...>
Message-ID: <20060822162336.68794.qmail@...>

Random832 inquired:
>>> So how would one keep within the posting limit in a "back and forth"
discussion? Have them off-list and post summaries every so often? How
should one initiate such an exchange? "I challenge you to a
duel^H^H^Hebate"? <<<


SSSusan/Shorty:
Yep, one option is to have 'em offlist, but that is a shame for the rest of the members, which is part of the reason we increased the limit to 5, since 3 felt very restrictive to some of our posters (including several of the elves).  Another option is to hold off 'til the next morning and start afresh!
 
Siriusly Snapey Susan/Shorty Elf
 
 



From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 21:04:04 2006
From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God is the Healing Force)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:04:04 -0400
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608220416i1c97004bm1ec8ac3d739297e1@...>
Message-ID: <002401c6c62e$80758ae0$65a4a8c0@rosie>

[Alla wrote]:
| > Just for everybody else to be aware of - there is not *one* blind
| > list member who uses a screen reader. Of the top of my head I know
| > of probably nine or ten blind list members who **post** and use
| > screen readers.
| 
[Random responded]:
| I meant "here" as in Feedback, which I supposed was significantly
| smaller than the main list or any of the other lists, and that if
| there was anyone else they would have said something. I didn't mean to
| offend anyone regardless

[Lee]:
Well, there are at least two of us, Sherry and myself. :-)  Who knows how
many lurkers abound.

Let me add this to the reasons for attributions and why chevrons don't
always work.

Yes, there are email formats which do not include them.  If I send messages
as HTML format, those little marks are often not present in the response I'm
quoting and replying to.  Sometimes, visually, the text of the quoted
material may be indented, but that doesn't show for those of us who use
screen-readers unless we have a bunch of annoying verbosities turned on.

Either way you slice it, the attributions in a post make it much easier to
deal with.

Let me give you an example of why attribution is essential, important, and
sensible to me:

---------- Begin Sample Post ----------
[HG]:
I know I got the last question on the exam wrong...I just know it!

[HP]:
You worry too much, and I'm just glad the exam is over!

HP

---------- End Sample Post ----------

Now, let's say I've read HG's post; now I see the next post is HP's
response.  I already know what HG said so I use my down-arrow to skip over
HG's quoted material; when I hear "HP" I stop skipping and read.  If I
didn't have the attributions, I would have probably missed what HP said in
response to HG.  Does that make sense?

Visually, one might be able to see indented text, chevrons, etc., but that
little attribution means everything in the world for those who want to
freely skip parts of a post.

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 random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 23:52:55 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:52:55 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <002401c6c62e$80758ae0$65a4a8c0@rosie>
References: <7b9f25e50608220416i1c97004bm1ec8ac3d739297e1@...>
	 <002401c6c62e$80758ae0$65a4a8c0@rosie>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608221652y4fe4e271i3d7185aa6321339d@...>

I would like permission (both from you [Lee Storm] personally and from
the elves) to start an experiment: zero quote posting.

Basically, any reply would, instead of quoting pieces of others'
message with indentation, instead appropriately paraphrase for
context. Where necessary (that is, when the wording itself is what's
being responded to), _short_ verbatim quotes could be included, but
properly included in text with an indication of what was said and
included in proper "quotation marks" rather than indented with ascii
right angle bracket signs.

So how about it? Would that be acceptable? It seems to me that such a
thing would be the best solution, at least for posters willing to put
the necessary amount of effort in.

-- 
Random832



From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 23 00:01:51 2006
From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:01:51 +1000
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608221652y4fe4e271i3d7185aa6321339d@...>
References: <002401c6c62e$80758ae0$65a4a8c0@rosie>
Message-ID: <44EC278F.32507.16B5B198@...>

On 22 Aug 2006 at 19:52, Jordan Abel wrote:

> I would like permission (both from you [Lee Storm] personally and from
> the elves) to start an experiment: zero quote posting.
> 
> Basically, any reply would, instead of quoting pieces of others'
> message with indentation, instead appropriately paraphrase for
> context. Where necessary (that is, when the wording itself is what's
> being responded to), _short_ verbatim quotes could be included, but
> properly included in text with an indication of what was said and
> included in proper "quotation marks" rather than indented with ascii
> right angle bracket signs.
> 
> So how about it? Would that be acceptable? It seems to me that such a
> thing would be the best solution, at least for posters willing to put
> the necessary amount of effort in.

Hi Jordan,

Before posting in reply to this, I should just point out that I am one of the list elves myself. I 
am incredibly busy at the moment, so haven't been able to post in this discussion, even 
though I have been following it.

The problem with this suggestion from *my* perspective is that in my experience, people 
often misunderstand the point that another poster was making, for whatever reason. Even 
people who do put a lot of effort into their posts.

And that would make me very worried about the idea of people paraphrasing what I said 
rather than quoting it - because if they misunderstood the point I was making, their 
paraphrasing might very well wind up not accurately representing what I said.

For some people, that might not matter - it depends on the type of things they discuss - but in 
my own case, sometimes I wind up discussing issues where fine distinctions matter quite a 
bit, and can also relate to issues that are potentially significant to me professionally - the last 
thing I need is someone going around claiming I think teachers should be allowed to bully 
students, when in fact, I just believe teachers should be allowed to be extremely strict, for 
example. And because different people put the lines in different places, if people started 
paraphrasing what I had written on certain issues, I could see that happening very easily.

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 susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 21:10:11 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:10:11 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder
References: <7b9f25e50608211824w67eddc79i9a764ec073b388b3@...> <ecdpg3+8ljs@...> <7b9f25e50608220416i1c97004bm1ec8ac3d739297e1@...>
Message-ID: <000801c6c62f$5ade52c0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

SSSusan/Shorty:
>> Not every e-mail client puts in the chevrons [the >>> symbols].

Random:
> (however, can you name an actual email
> client that doesn't put them? clients that make a fancy vertical bar
> are really putting > marks in disguise, it's called format=flowed)

SSSusan:
Yeah, I can... and it doesn't insert vertical bars either.

When I am using my webmail through AT&T Yahoo! Beta, and I hit "reply" to an 
e-mail that came in from a Yahoo!Group (for instance this Feedback group), 
the quoted material does not have any kind of mark placed in front of the 
lines of the quoted material.

You might, for instance, take a look at my previous Feedback post --
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/747
-- where the quoted section looks like this:

Random832 inquired:
>>> So how would one keep within the posting limit in a "back and forth"
discussion? Have them off-list and post summaries every so often? How
should one initiate such an exchange? "I challenge you to a
duel^H^H^Hebate"? <<<


Those chevrons that started & ended the quote were inserted by me because 
*nothing* was added when I hit "reply."

I have my membership set so that my e-mails from Feedback go to my home 
e-mail address, rather than my work e-mail address.  The only way for me to 
access my home e-mail messages during the work day is via webmail with AT&T 
Yahoo.  Thus, there is your example of a situation where hitting "Reply" 
does not generate chevrons, fancy vertical lines or any such marks alongside 
the left margin.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, who is getting very tired of this discussion and will 
be bowing out now.





From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 23 01:14:28 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:14:28 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <44EC278F.32507.16B5B198@...>
References: <002401c6c62e$80758ae0$65a4a8c0@rosie>
	 <7b9f25e50608221652y4fe4e271i3d7185aa6321339d@...>
	 <44EC278F.32507.16B5B198@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608221814h58ef975cj4c0049bf17747143@...>

Dreadnought:
> Hi Jordan,
>
> Before posting in reply to this, I should just point out that I am one of the list elves myself. I
> am incredibly busy at the moment, so haven't been able to post in this discussion, even
> though I have been following it.
>
> The problem with this suggestion from *my* perspective is that in my experience, people
> often misunderstand the point that another poster was making, for whatever reason. Even
> people who do put a lot of effort into their posts.

Random832:
Wouldn't it be nice, though, in those cases if the misunderstanding
were spelled out [by being paraphrased incorrectly] than the original
poster having to guess how, or even if, they've been misread?

The original message is still there, after all. Does it really need to
be repeated? The issue of having to scroll down is still there
regardless of attributions, and attributions themselves are so
confusing. "Quoting" [if a dump of an entire paragraph from the
original can even be called that] is a shortcut anyway.

Dreadnought:
> And that would make me very worried about the idea of people paraphrasing what I said
> rather than quoting it - because if they misunderstood the point I was making, their
> paraphrasing might very well wind up not accurately representing what I said.

That's why it's an experiment. As in, to see if it would work or not.



From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 23 03:39:08 2006
From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God is the Healing Force)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:39:08 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608221652y4fe4e271i3d7185aa6321339d@...>
Message-ID: <000701c6c665$b0a556a0$65a4a8c0@rosie>

[Random]:
| I would like permission (both from you [Lee Storm] personally and from
| the elves) to start an experiment: zero quote posting.

<Large Snip!>

[Lee]:
In a word, no!  If I write something, I've taken care to make what I write
as coherent as possible.  However, as Shaun pointed out so well, there is
always room for misinterpretation and quoting/paraphrasing out of context no
matter how well a post is written.  For those of us with screen-readers, it
would be a nightmare (or daymare), through which I would not wish to slog.

Please, Jordan, (and if the elves want to hang me for this, I shall hang
proudly!), if you really don't like the way this list is running and feel
you must find so much fault, perhaps this group/community isn't for you.
Perhaps you might feel better starting your own group with your own
rules...I don't know.  But I can see that the elves have been very willing
to go over and over this all with you, and I have done my best to enlighten
you, along with Sherry's help, as to how those of us who are visually
challenged applaud the present rules and appreciate the helpfulness of the
list elves.

I, for one, have explained myself, rules, etc., as far as I can and still
have some sanity.  I have said all there is to say, I believe, and hope that
you will try to enjoy the good conversations you can have in these groups,
adhering to the rules set forth by the list elves.

And, my Elfly Friends, if I've stepped over the line here, I apologize to
you in advance.  I truly feel this whole thing has gotten a bit overly
nit-picky and much ado about nothing, so to speak, and needs to be given a
rest!  The list rules are what they are; I, for one, appreciate them and try
to comply to the best of my capability.  That's all the elves ask of us.  In
return, they give us a wonderful place to meet with e-friends and discuss
something that's a lot of fun for all of us...the HP Universe.

Thank you, Elves!

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 silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 24 09:35:16 2006
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:35:16 +0200
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <000701c6c665$b0a556a0$65a4a8c0@rosie>
References: <000701c6c665$b0a556a0$65a4a8c0@rosie>
Message-ID: <200608241134.59522.cualquier@...>


> [Random]:
> | I would like permission (both from you [Lee Storm] personally and from
> | the elves) to start an experiment: zero quote posting.

<Large Snip!>

> [Lee]:
> In a word, no! ?If I write something, I've taken care to make what I write
> as coherent as possible. ?However, as Shaun pointed out so well, there is
> always room for misinterpretation and quoting/paraphrasing out of context
> no matter how well a post is written. ?For those of us with screen-readers,
> it would be a nightmare (or daymare), through which I would not wish to
> slog.

Silmariel:

Briefly delurking.

I wanted to add that for those of us with English as second language (or 
third...) it would be a nightmare, too, and a overload of work I'm not sure 
every second languager is able to do.

Personally, I doubt I would be able. Just imagining trying to rephrase the one 
I'm replying to in a time-travel themed post predicts a severe headache. 

Want to thank the staff for the support offered to ESL's. We're legion.

Silmariel



From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 24 17:20:38 2006
From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:20:38 -0000
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608221652y4fe4e271i3d7185aa6321339d@...>
Message-ID: <eckn56+871s@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...>
wrote:
>
> I would like permission ... to start an experiment: 
> zero quote posting.
> 
> ... instead of quoting ... others' message .... 
> instead appropriately paraphrase for context. Where 
> necessary ..., _short_ verbatim quotes could be included, 
> but properly included in text with an indication of what 
> was said and included in proper "quotation marks" ...
> 
> ...

bboyminn:

I'm probably treading on thin ice here with the Mods, but what you are
proposing is not absolutely against the rules. While the rules here
are strict, they also have some flexibility for the dynamics of
discussion and a reasonable context driven need. 

For example, there are many times when I reply specifically to the
subject of a thread, but not to any one specific person. In that case,
I sometimes don't quote anyone since, as I said, I'm not replying
specifically to anyone. If fact, there are times when I do briefly
quote a previous poster and then make a general comment, and get in
trouble because the poster is sure I'm referring to him/her.

While it would be considered non-standard and not acceptable for
general use, a post where you paraphrase rather than quote a previous
poster might be valid within a certain context. 

Also, within a fair and reasonable context, you might be able to quote
a previous poster /in-line/. But again that would be considered
non-standard and wouldn't be acceptable for general use. Further, you
would still be require to atribute the quote to the person making that
statement.

For example-
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
On the subject of Harry's future happiness, I am reminded of what
Honest_Abe said in a previous post -

"Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don't think you would get any grief for that statement in that context.

Lastly, all posters are encouraged to Trim/Snip/Edit out as much of
the previous post as is reasonable possible. While it is done all the
time, it is frowned on when you post the previous posters complete
statement. So, trimming things down to the minimum is a good thing.
Yes, if people want full details, they can simply go up-thread and
read the full post. But in your/our reply, we want to trim it down to
just the key aspects. If there is one area where we all are most lazy,
this is probably it.

My point is that the rules, as ridged as they may seem, do contain a
fair and reasonable amount of flexibility. However, you seem to be
looking for a way around the rules altogether rather than a fair and
reasonable exception.

The rules here, regardless of what you think of them, work. Also, note
that many of us have resisted them in the beginning, myself included.
But, relax, go with the flow, and in time they will become second
nature, and you will grow to appreciate them. 

There is a thread in the main group now that has a title something
like 'Voldemort must be assimilated. Resistance is futile'. With no
intent for offense, we could apply that to you. Though what is at
stake is far less significant that the fate of the world or your
personal soul. Still, I think if you just ride it through for two or
three months until it all becomes second nature, you will see that the
rules really do make for orderly discussions. 

I've been in other less ridged groups, and yes you can decipher what
is being said, if you are willing to wade through all the confusing
formatting, incoherent babble and infantile musings. Here we keep the
discussion focused, clearly formated, and on-topic even if it means a
little extra work for everyone.

Really, at least for a while, go with the flow.

Steve/bboyminn







From kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 17:16:26 2006
From: kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid (kkersey_austin)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:16:26 -0000
Subject: Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes
In-Reply-To: <eckn56+871s@...>
Message-ID: <ecnb9a+eqts@...>

There seems to be some confusion (on my part only, perhaps) about a
couple of things: first, whether Random832 was proposing *allowing*
paraphrasing, or whether she was proposing *requiring* paraphrasing
(i.e. disallowing block quotes altogether); and second, whether
paraphrasing other list members' comments is an acceptable practice at
all.

In regards to the first, I read it as Random832 proposing a
not-entirely-serious remedy, in order to make a point - if quoting
format is going to be such a big issue let's just do away with block
quotes altogether.  Sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath
water. But then, I also read the "smart-ass" comment as being
self-directed, since it followed immediately after a quote attributed
to herself, and I got *that* one wrong. 

Now about paraphrasing in general: there is sometimes a fine line
between putting words in someone else's mouth (or keyboard, as it
were) and making a valid reference to or summary of someone else's
ideas or argument. Personally, I'd rather spend my time reading about
the *new* ideas rather than re-reading three paragraphs of quotage,
and because of that I tend to just skip over lengthy quotes out of
habit. In addition, I do think that Random832 has a good point, that
an inaccurate paraphrase can actually help point out a mis-reading,
and thus resolve a misunderstanding. (In fact, "What I hear you saying
is...", followed by a paraphrase, is a technique that is quite useful
when discussing emotionally charged subjects, in general.)

Perhaps it would be helpful to look at a post that does use
paraphrasing - hmmmm, how about this HPfGU classic, message #34911, in
which Elkins introduces SYCOPHANTS:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34911

It is a long post, so I will excerpt just part of it here and add some
comments below. But do go look at the original too.

Elkins, in message #34911, wrote:
> About Sirius' comment that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins
> who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters," I wrote:
> 
> > BTW, that "nearly all" is interesting, isn't it?...Who, one
> > wonders, were the abstainers?
> 
> Eileen and Rebecca both felt that I had misinterpreted Sirius' 
> comment, and that the six people he mentions (Snape, Rosier, Wilkes, 
> Lestrange, Lestrange, and Avery) were in fact the entirety of the 
> gang.  While both of them agreed that they would very much *like* it 
> for there to have been abstainers, neither of them believed that 
> this was what the author had intended.  Rebecca wrote by way of 
> explanation:
> 
> > I thought "nearly all" meant all but possibly Snape -- Sirius 
> > isn't sure if Snape actually became a DE when he spoke this.
> 
> Interesting!  It never even *occurred* to me to read "nearly all" 
> that way.  I had just automatically assumed that there were one or 

Elisabet, now commenting:

I find Elkins' post absolutely clear and readable. Rather than
quote extensive passages from Eileen and Rebecca's posts she
summarizes - paraphrases - and then provides a brief snippet from one
post, in order to respond to a particular point. She could, I suppose,
have quoted passages verbatim from both Eileen and Rebecca's posts
instead of providing the summary/paraphrase, but I for one appreciate
that she chose to simply lay out what she thought was important for
the purposes of moving the discussion forward. Even four and a half
years later, it is easy to read this post even though it was midway
through a lengthy thread. 

Each quote is introduced with a bit of context ("About Sirius'
comment...I wrote"; "by way of explanation") and is clearly
attributed. Personally, I don't have a problem at all with that first
quote being introduced with an "I wrote",  because it is absolutely
clear who she is quoting *and* it is unlikely that anyone would
accidentally mis-attribute during a cut and paste, it being part of a
sentence and not stand-alone. But that perhaps is another issue...

There are more examples of paraphrasing and summarizing throughout the
post; I just grabbed one near the top. 

So, a question: does anyone feel that the kind of paraphrasing Elkins
used here should be either encouraged or discouraged? Keeping in mind
the concern expressed by Sean about the dangers of misinterpreting
other people's words. And keeping in mind that not everyone can write
like Elkins... 


Elisabet, who - just so we're all on the same page - is *not* asking
this as a rhetorical question!






From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 17:39:02 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:39:02 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <eckn56+871s@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608221652y4fe4e271i3d7185aa6321339d@...>
	 <eckn56+871s@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608251039k5040da45pfc08f6f1a9421a87@...>

Think of it this way - If you were responding to a letter, or even an
actual written item posted on a physical bulletin board or whatever,
would you write out the whole original text, or even whole paragraphs
in an indented block? No, you'd _refer_ to the points you were
addressing, maybe quote a part of a sentence or two if you're talking
about the wording in particular. Quoting itself is a shortcut.

bboyminn:
> While the rules here
> are strict, they also have some flexibility for the dynamics of
> discussion and a reasonable context driven need.

Random832:
Do the rules even say you have to quote long runs of verbatim text in
responses, or do they just say what to do / what not to do _if_ you do
that

bboyminn:
> While it would be considered non-standard and not acceptable for
> general use, a post where you paraphrase rather than quote a previous
> poster might be valid within a certain context.

Random832:
What I'm suggesting is basically: Treat every post as if it's a "new"
post that's talking _about_ the points made in the previous post,
rather than creating endless cascades of quoted, indented (or not)
text.

bboyminn:
> Also, within a fair and reasonable context, you might be able to quote
> a previous poster /in-line/. But again that would be considered
> non-standard and wouldn't be acceptable for general use.

Random832:
If "non-standard" forms of quoting (there _are_ real standards, and
they describe the usual usenet style) were unacceptable for general
use, this entire community would be shut down for its quoting
conventions. But clearly that's not the case.

bboyminn:
> Further, you
> would still be require to atribute the quote to the person making that
> statement.

Random832:
Well, yeah. I never said I wouldn't.

In closing...

Look at this message (the part before this paragraph, since i can't
keep track of the numbers as they change as I type it). 8 attribution
lines, 12 quoted lines, 9 blank lines, 19 original lines. That's 12
full lines people have already read (and can get back to in their
inbox or the archive, particularly if I include an archive number). 8
content-free lines. That's more than half the message that someone who
just wants to read the new stuff has to scroll past. I could probably
have made the same points with only a few more original lines (to
refer to what point you made that I'm responding to), in only a few
paragraphs (not nearly as many blank lines) and no attribution _lines_
(i.e. the name set apart on it's own - I would mention you were the
one I was responding to and attribute any of your words I quoted
inline of course) necessary. To anyone who's worried someone might get
your point _wrong_ and paraphrase, I ask this. Is it worse for someone
to get it wrong and actually _say_ what their interpretation is so you
can correct them immediately, or for them to go off half-cocked with
incorrect assumptions and end up talking at cross-purposes trying to
sort out who's misunderstanding whom?

You accused me (I cut out the quote referring to it because I didn't
originally attempt to address it) that I "seem to be looking for a way
around the rules"? No. I'm looking for a better way to do things - I
don't care about the nitpicky details of _how_ quoting works - I think
quoting itself _doesn't_ work very well and creates difficulty for
everyone. And no-one's yet come up with a credible argument against my
proposal. The only thing even resembling one is the idea that someone
might paraphrase you wrong - and, honestly - if someone's going to
misinterpret what you're going to say, they'll do it with or without
quoting, and wouldn't it be better to have it out in the open so you
can quickly correct them?

The fact that my suggestion is not the way things are done now is no
reason not to _change_ how things are done - with that attitude, you'd
all never have _started_ changing things where the old usenet quoting
standard was inadequate

-- 
Random832



From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 19:18:07 2006
From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God is the Healing Force)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:18:07 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes
In-Reply-To: <ecnb9a+eqts@...>
Message-ID: <000001c6c87b$32375ee0$66a4a8c0@rosie>

Quite simply, I must agree with those who have English as a second language
issues as well as those who are concerned about misinterpretation.  The idea
of paraphrasing just doesn't work.  If I read a paraphrase post, I am then
relying on the paraphraser's interpretation and that bothers me; I want to
review what the original poster said, not rely on someone's hopefully
correct paraphrasing..

And, as far as looking through the archives...that's a nightmare, for me at
least, and I generally prefer not to delve into YahooMorts attic. :-)  I
know that some people with perfectly good vision have had problems searching
the archives.  Considering my distaste for online mail and further distaste
of YahooMort, I would rather read and enjoy than stress out and beat my
computer to a pulp. <BEG>

I will quote, not paraphrase; I will use attributions and sign my posts; I
will stay away from YahooMort!

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 susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 19:55:21 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:55:21 -0000
Subject: Paraphrasing [was: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)]
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608251039k5040da45pfc08f6f1a9421a87@...>
Message-ID: <ecnkj9+kvam@...>

Let's try this again -- I had some wonky characters appear in my last 
attempt at this.



SSSusan:
I think Elisabet's post here provided an excellent example of how 
paraphrasing certainly can work and can be an option.  Would I want 
to see a recommendation that HPfGU switch entirely to this?  Not at 
all.  Others [Shaun, Silmariel] have already spoken to potential 
problems in doing that.


Random832:
>>> Do the rules even say you have to quote long runs of verbatim 
text in responses, or do they just say what to do / what not to do 
_if_ you do that <<<

SSSusan/Shorty Elf:
No one on the List Administration Team is advocating the inclusions 
of large blocks of quoted material.  In fact, posting guidelines 
instruct and the elves consistently remind members that they *should* 
snip quoted material down to just that which is essential for setting 
the context for new comments.  

For me personally, hitting "Reply" and then snipping out what's 
unnecessary is a very quick and simple process.  For me personally, 
attempting, as a *general rule,* to paraphrase instead of snipping is 
not efficient or necessary.  It does not hurt to paraphrase, as long 
as a person is careful or is saying, "If I'm understanding correctly, 
your position is...."  But there is no reason to change the rules to 
say that this is the preferred method of doing things.  Why should it 
be?  It's quicker for most to snip out extraneous material, throw in 
an attribution, and start typing a response; it's more precise; and 
it avoids the difficulty of paraphrasing for those HPfGUers who 
speak/write English as a 2nd or 3rd language.  

The rules and guidelines at HPfGU are there to help make reading 
posts CLEAR for members.  Consistency in formatting tends to help; 
snipping out extra junk/irrelevant material helps; making 
attributions properly helps; signing and/or self-attributing helps.  
If paraphrasing instead of including a long block of quoted material 
makes it easier at times, that can be fine.  We're all about making 
things as clear as possible for as many members as we can:  clear 
attributions; standard formatting; proper grammar & spelling to the 
poster's best ability; minimal quotage.  If one looks around on the 
list, it's obvious that there is some room for variation in style in 
doing this.

It's really not that difficult to comply with the guidelines set 
forth.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan/Shorty Elf








From ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 20:16:28 2006
From: ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:16:28 -0000
Subject: Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes
In-Reply-To: <ecnb9a+eqts@...>
Message-ID: <ecnlqs+r0th@...>

Elisabet:
> There seems to be some confusion (on my part only, perhaps) about a 
couple of things: first, whether Random832 was proposing *allowing* 
paraphrasing, or whether she was proposing *requiring* paraphrasing 
(i.e. disallowing block quotes altogether); and second, whether 
paraphrasing other list members' comments is an acceptable practice 
at all.

Ceridwen:
Hi, Elisabet.  I'm answering for myself alone, as a fellow-poster and 
not as an elf.

Interesting question.  If we had an example of what Random wrote in 
this post, I might be able to offer an opinion.  Though, for the 
definitive answer, only Random could give that.  I'm going back to 
snag Random's post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-
Feedback/message/749

See, going back to get the quote makes more work for me to be able to 
respond to your query.  I clicked on the wrong post at first, and had 
to go up farther.  Random's original post:

Random832:
> > I would like permission (both from you [Lee Storm] personally and 
from the elves) to start an experiment: zero quote posting.

Ceridwen:
I read that as Random asking if it would be all right for *him* (or 
*her*) to begin posting as s/he suggests below:

Random832:
> > Basically, any reply would, instead of quoting pieces of others' 
message with indentation, instead appropriately paraphrase for
context. 

Ceridwen:
My problem here is, what if the earlier posts are *not* appropriately 
paraphrased?  I would expect, then, that Random would ask if 
FirstPoster *meant* this and that, and if so, then Random thinks such 
and so.  And since Random has suggested this as an experiment, I 
would expect to see this noted somewhere either at the top or the 
bottom of his or her response, which would then invite other posters 
to weigh in with their thoughts on the method.  Perhaps with a link 
to the post quoted here, where he first suggests the experiment.

Random832:
> > Where necessary (that is, when the wording itself is what's being 
responded to), _short_ verbatim quotes could be included, but 
properly included in text with an indication of what was said and 
included in proper "quotation marks" rather than indented with ascii 
right angle bracket signs.

Ceridwen:
Vexxy is trying to poke her nose into this, but I think I have her 
successfully under control...

*IMPERIO!*  That should do it!

The list elves, in accordance with the Humongous Big File and other 
group rules and suggestions, are always asking that people snip 
original quotes to the barest minimum.  As you mention elsewhere in 
your post, it's a pain to scroll past reams of stuff you've already 
read.  A short reminder quote in keeping with the subject should be 
all that is left.  Sometimes, that's hard to do, so people leave more.

In this case, I don't see any reason to have anything else around the 
quote.  Why paraphrase when the original quote is included?  Just 
make the comment, or build on the idea, and snip the rest of the 
original post.

Elisabet:
> In regards to the first, I read it as Random832 proposing a not-
entirely-serious remedy, in order to make a point - if quoting
format is going to be such a big issue let's just do away with block 
quotes altogether. Sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath
water. But then, I also read the "smart-ass" comment as being self-
directed, since it followed immediately after a quote attributed
to herself, and I got *that* one wrong.

Ceridwen:
This isn't the way I read Random's suggestion at all.  I took the 
suggestion to be serious, since we have been going back and forth on 
attribution and quoting for some time.  And, I thought that Random 
meant that he or she would like to conduct this experiment on the 
list to see how it works out.

The formatting question isn't a very big deal as it's playing out 
here on Feedback.  Only Random has been arguing against the list's 
rules and suggestions.  Two other non-elf posters have weighed in 
supporting the rules and suggestions.  I hope I'm not leaving anybody 
out!  Present company excepted, of course.

You gave a very good example of paraphrasing, and other posters have 
paraphrased more recently to find out if what they understood was 
what the other poster meant.  And, I just paraphrased Random, Lee 
Storm, and Steve.  *As far as I know*, there is no rule against 
paraphrasing.  And, there doesn't seem to be any suggestions against 
it either, as long as it is clear who said it (attribution) and also 
clear what is meant (content).

But, to get rid of quoting and replacing it with paraphrasing would 
be difficult for quite a few members.  ESL members who are not wholly 
sure of themselves when composing in another language might have 
problems, and may not even feel welcome in the group any more if they 
think they are, or in fact are, forced to paraphrase and get rid of 
quotes; it's often easier to understand a second language than it is 
to communicate in it.  Going solely to paraphrasing is what I think 
Random was saying in his post, and which you seem to agree that he is 
saying in your post.

But, what if I'm wrong and that isn't what you meant, or what Random 
meant?  And what if my interpretation was believed by the list, 
instead of interested listmembers going back to check the original 
posts?  Without knowing the number of the post, it's sometimes 
difficult to find where someone said something in a thread, 
especially when a person has been active in that thread.

I can certainly see a place for paraphrasing, but not so they take 
the place of direct quotes and clear attribution.  Does this help?

Ceridwen, for herself alone.







From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 20:39:13 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:39:13 -0000
Subject: Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes
In-Reply-To: <ecnlqs+r0th@...>
Message-ID: <ecnn5i+4oos@...>

>> Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
> But, to get rid of quoting and replacing it with paraphrasing would 
> be difficult for quite a few members.  ESL members who are not wholly 
> sure of themselves when composing in another language might have 
> problems, and may not even feel welcome in the group any more if they 
> think they are, or in fact are, forced to paraphrase and get rid of 
> quotes; it's often easier to understand a second language than it is 
> to communicate in it.  > I can certainly see a place for 
paraphrasing, but not so they take 
> the place of direct quotes and clear attribution.  Does this help?

Alla:

Okay, I told myself that I will not be talking anymore on this subject, 
I really did :) Oh, well, I snipped everything I agree with,which is 
basically your entire post, but I guess this would be another me too 
from ESL speaker.

Um, do you know how I would feel if I would be required to paraphrase 
when I just started posting ? It would be definitely **shoot me, shoot 
me now** moment. Thank goodness, I'd say that rules do not require that.

Let me go further - I think I have gotten much much better command of 
written English language in the last several years and I am honestly 
not sure whom I should thank more - my schooling or this list :)

But I still write awkwardly sometimes, I still struggle to express 
myself sometimes and I still feel that I would **never** ever be able 
to write as well as some great writers on this list do.

I would not **dare** to paraphrase them, I would not **want** to 
paraphrase them, because I don't want to butcher their clear writing 
and because more often than not it creates unnecessary work for me.

I struggle enough to express myself with clarity, thank you very much, 
I am not going to add additional struggles of paraphrasing people.

THAT sound to me as so much more work than *gasp* self-attributing /or 
signing one's posts, but hey that is just me.

Having said that, as other elves said, there is no rule against 
paraphrasing of course and sometimes it can certainly work. 


Alla AKA Alika Elf, who speaks for herself only and who remembers with 
amusement her elfy reminders now, but who certainly was not amused at 
the time when she got them :)







From kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 21:23:00 2006
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:23:00 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608211824w67eddc79i9a764ec073b388b3@...>
Message-ID: <ecnpnk+jb8p@...>

> Random832:
> Irony, much? How "many years" has the HPfGU way worked? I 
> believe someone said it started in its present form after 
> the OOtP release, that's, what, 2003? Generally "many many 
> years" means more than three. As opposed to the standard 
> way, which has worked for literally _decades_.

Kelley:
Okay, hang on -- I was the one who said that, and I was 
specifically talking about *self-attribution* of comments.  
List members themselves began this practice and it caught 
on around that time.

Our rules about giving proper attribution for quoted comments, 
signing your posts, snipping extraneous quoted material, etc., 
have been in place from very early in our group's existence.  
No, not for decades, but why should that matter, really?  Do 
you think our group does not have the right to choose which 
conventions work best for us?

> Random832, who has yet to be given a satisfactory explanation 
> of how signing these things helps anyone, particularly given 
> the fact that my name's already present a mere five lines 
> above this signature.

Kelley:
In this case your name's present five lines above, however 
consider a post in which two different people are quoted, say 
maybe an 8 - 10 line paragraph from each, and then the person 
replying makes some rather lengthy comments.  This person has 
placed their name above their comments, but as their comments 
are quite long, a person using a screen reader may not remember 
the name by the time they reach the end. If the person's name 
is also at the end it both reminds them whose comments they were 
reading, plus lets them know they've reached the end of the post, 
as well.

--Kelley







From kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 22:24:20 2006
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:24:20 -0000
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608251039k5040da45pfc08f6f1a9421a87@...>
Message-ID: <ecntak+mhl9@...>

> Random832:
> If "non-standard" forms of quoting (there _are_ real standards, 
> and they describe the usual usenet style) were unacceptable for 
> general use, this entire community would be shut down for its 
> quoting conventions. But clearly that's not the case.

Kelley:
This isn't a usenet group; why should it be bound to usenet
standards?

> Random832:
> Look at this message (the part before this paragraph, since i 
> can't keep track of the numbers as they change as I type it). 8 
> attribution lines, 12 quoted lines, 9 blank lines, 19 original 
> lines. That's 12 full lines people have already read (and can get 
> back to in their inbox or the archive, particularly if I include 
> an archive number). 8 content-free lines. That's more than half 
> the message that someone who just wants to read the new stuff has 
> to scroll past. 

Kelley:
Well, I found it helpful, because it clearly showed me which 
comments of Steve's you're responding to.  It was right there, 
I didn't have to take any extra steps to find it, etc.

As some have said, there are times when paraphrasing might be a
good option, but others have also given solid reasons why it 
would add problems for them, rather than make things easier.

> Random832:
> You accused me (I cut out the quote referring to it because I 
> didn't originally attempt to address it) that I "seem to be 
> looking for a way around the rules"? No. 

Kelley:
What I'm seeing is that clearly you do not like our rules, and 
would like them changed according to your desires, to what is
easiest for *you*.

> Random832:
> I'm looking for a better way to do things - I don't care about
> the nitpicky details of _how_ quoting works - I think quoting 
> itself _doesn't_ work very well and creates difficulty for 
> everyone. 

Kelley:
*Clearly* that's *not* the case -- if it created difficulty 
"for everyone" your proposal would have an awful lot of support
here.

> Random832:
> And no-one's yet come up with a credible argument against my
> proposal. 

Kelley:
Incorrect - at least two members for whom English is their 
second language have commented about the difficulties this
would create for them.  We have a great many ESL members, and
chances are quite good that they'd have problems similar to
what's been described.

> Random832:
> The fact that my suggestion is not the way things are done 
> now is no reason not to _change_ how things are done - with 
> that attitude, you'd all never have _started_ changing things 
> where the old usenet quoting standard was inadequate.

Kelley:
This isn't about usenet.  I have no usenet experience; I learned 
quoting standards through HPfGU.  The rules here have evolved over 
the life of this group.  There is not a rule against paraphrasing, 
so it seems to me that if a great number of list members preferred 
that, they'd be regularly doing it.  That's not the case.

Look, as things stand, we're seeing no evidence that your proposal
would be welcomed by the group, that list members besides yourself
have such huge problems with the posting rules and that what you're
advocating would 'fix' things for them.  If there are lurkers here 
on FB that support Random's proposals, I'd like to hear from you.

Random, you're clearly capable of formatting your posts in 
accordance with our rules, so I'm really not understanding the 
issue here.

--Kelley







From ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 00:12:15 2006
From: ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:12:15 -0000
Subject: Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes
In-Reply-To: <ecnlqs+r0th@...>
Message-ID: <eco3kv+ehsu@...>

Ceridwen earlier:
> Two other non-elf posters have weighed in supporting the rules and 
suggestions.  I hope I'm not leaving anybody out!
*(snip)* 
And, I just paraphrased Random, Lee Storm, and Steve.

Ceridwen again:
And, of course I did forget someone!  Oy!  Silmariel!  I am so very 
sorry, Silmariel!  Three non-elf posters have weighed in supporting the 
rules, and in my earlier post, I paraphrased Random, *Silmariel*, Lee 
Storm, and Steve.

Ceridwen.







From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 01:05:45 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:05:45 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <ecntak+mhl9@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608251039k5040da45pfc08f6f1a9421a87@...>
	 <ecntak+mhl9@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608251805y20512f89mcacf5a4b3f9718fa@...>

> Kelley:
> This isn't a usenet group; why should it be bound to usenet
> standards?

Random832:
It also applies to email - it just originated on usenet. I was
pointing out the irony of calling my suggestion "non-standard" when
what's _already_ done is anything but standard.d

> Kelley:
> What I'm seeing is that clearly you do not like our rules, and
> would like them changed according to your desires, to what is
> easiest for *you*.

Random832:
I want more flexibility. Can you tell me what's _wrong_ with what I'm
suggesting, rather than simply "that's not how We do things around
Here".

> Kelley:
> Incorrect - at least two members for whom English is their
> second language

Random832:
Nobody had yet brought up ESL at all at the time I said that this
morning. Anyway, I still don't find it very credible - quoting isn't
natural, there's no reason to think it's in any way "easier" than just
responding without quoting, except that they've had practice having
the sort of conversation where heavy quoting is involved. To say that
doing it one way is harder than doing it another way for ESL users
requires that it is harder in general.

> Kelley:
> The rules here have evolved over the life of this group.

Random832:
Then why does everyone seem to want the current form to be set in
stone? Why did someone call my suggestion "non-standard" as if that's
a bad thing when the way things are done "here" do not adhere to any
standard.

> Kelley:
> Random, you're clearly capable of formatting your posts in
> accordance with our rules, so I'm really not understanding the
> issue here.

It's a waste of space, time, bandwidth, and effort. It's unnecessary.

And if there's really no rule against it, why didn't I get a single
response along the lines of 'sure, go ahead, we won't stop you,
there's no rule against it anyway'? And why do you keep talking about
"our rules" when "There is not a rule against paraphrasing"???



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 01:20:44 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:20:44 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes
In-Reply-To: <000001c6c87b$32375ee0$66a4a8c0@rosie>
References: <ecnb9a+eqts@...> <000001c6c87b$32375ee0$66a4a8c0@rosie>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608251820t6f513f1drd6ff3479140133d7@...>

Lee Storm:
> Quite simply, I must agree with those who have English as a second language
> issues as well as those who are concerned about misinterpretation.  The idea
> of paraphrasing just doesn't work.  If I read a paraphrase post, I am then
> relying on the paraphraser's interpretation and that bothers me; I want to
> review what the original poster said, not rely on someone's hopefully
> correct paraphrasing..

Random832:
Well, if Yahoomort is functioning properly, you've already read what
the original poster said - and, it would have to be malfunctioning
pretty badly if the responder got the post and you didn't. And even if
it's not, chances are you'll still get it eventually, or can read it
in the archive within a day or so. Anyway, I thought your practice was
to skip quoted text - it was the reason (or one of the reasons) you
gave for wanting people to self-attribute, wasn't it?

Lee Storm:
> And, as far as looking through the archives...that's a nightmare,

Random832:
It may have been lost between my mind and the keyboard, or between the
numerous edits that any of my more lengthy posts get, but my original
intention would be that any reference to a previous post _not_
supported with a direct [inline] quote would be accompanied with a
message number.

But OK - How about a more drastic proposal - one which IIRC you (Lee
Storm), at least, have already endorsed: top-posting. (for those who
don't remember, top-posting means the whole reply goes at the top and
the whole original message, possibly snipped if it's grown too
unwieldy, is quoted at the bottom)

-- 
Random832



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 01:58:01 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:58:01 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes
In-Reply-To: <ecnlqs+r0th@...>
References: <ecnb9a+eqts@...> <ecnlqs+r0th@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608251858o4810a94y9de9d5a95241e360@...>

Elisabet:
>> There seems to be some confusion (on my part only, perhaps) about a
>> couple of things: first, whether Random832 was proposing *allowing*
>> paraphrasing, or whether she was proposing *requiring* paraphrasing
>> (i.e. disallowing block quotes altogether); and second, whether
>> paraphrasing other list members' comments is an acceptable practice
>> at all.

Random832:
I was proposing allowing it, since I thought that it wasn't, which is
why I asked for permission. I didn't think it should be required, but
these things do tend to take on a life of their own; self-attribution is
well on its way. [btw male]

Ceridwen:
> Interesting question.  If we had an example of what Random wrote in
> this post, I might be able to offer an opinion.  Though, for the
> definitive answer, only Random could give that.  I'm going back to
> snag Random's post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-
> Feedback/message/749
>
> See, going back to get the quote makes more work for me to be able to
> respond to your query.

Random832:
I think I left out the part about including a message number, like I
said elsewhere in the thread, it got lost somewhere between my brain and
the keyboard. But anyway, you did have to go back and get it, even
though at no point in this thread did anyone use my "zero-quote posting"
idea. The fact is, my message was long gone. Though a list of pertinent
message numbers is easier to include than a full history of all relevant
quoted text.

> Random832:
>>> I would like permission (both from you [Lee Storm] personally and
>>> from the elves) to start an experiment: zero quote posting.

Ceridwen:
> I read that as Random asking if it would be all right for *him* (or
> *her*) to begin posting as s/he suggests below:
[...]
> My problem here is, what if the earlier posts are *not* appropriately
> paraphrased?

Random832:
By "appropriately", I meant that they would be paraphrased if necessary,
It wasn't meant to be a reference to correctness of interpretation. I
actually hadn't thought of that as an issue when I originally proposed
this.

Ceridwen:
> The list elves, in accordance with the Humongous Big File and other
> group rules and suggestions, are always asking that people snip
> original quotes to the barest minimum.  As you mention elsewhere in
> your post, it's a pain to scroll past reams of stuff you've already
> read.  A short reminder quote in keeping with the subject should be
> all that is left.  Sometimes, that's hard to do, so people leave more.

Random832:
I think what often happens is that people want to respond point by
point, as if it's a debate, and they feel the need to leave in all the
original "points". And I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone else -
this idea is as much an experiment for _me_ as it is for the benefit of
the list.

Ceridwen:
> In this case, I don't see any reason to have anything else around the
> quote.  Why paraphrase when the original quote is included?  Just make
> the comment, or build on the idea, and snip the rest of the original
> post.

Random832:
Paraphrase, summarise, etc. I hadn't really done much thinking on the
distinction, I only meant... well, to put enough in, preferably in one's
own words, to make it clear what you're talking about.

> Elisabet:
>> Sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Random832:
I think that it's taken too much for granted that quoting _is_ "the
baby" - what if it's really more like a white elephant?

Ceridwen:
> The formatting question isn't a very big deal as it's playing out here
> on Feedback.  Only Random has been arguing against the list's rules
> and suggestions.  Two other non-elf posters have weighed in supporting
> the rules and suggestions.

Random832:
Well, at least one seems to have taken the rather baffling position that
I'm somehow arguing against the rules despite also acknowledging there
being, in fact, no rule against what I'm asking for.

Ceridwen:
> But, to get rid of quoting and replacing it with paraphrasing would be
> difficult for quite a few members.  ESL members who are not wholly
> sure of themselves when composing in another language might have
> problems, and may not even feel welcome in the group any more if they
> think they are, or in fact are, forced to paraphrase and get rid of
> quotes; it's often easier to understand a second language than it is
> to communicate in it.
>
> Going solely to paraphrasing is what I think Random was saying in his
> post, and which you seem to agree that he is saying in your post.

Random832:
So nice that you're all agreed; unfortunately it's not what I was
saying at all. And this even with having re-read and re-quoted my original
post. Now isn't it nice that I was able to "get" that it was what you
thought I was saying, instead of continuing to believe (as I did until
you said that) that you're arguing against me or anyone else being
*allowed* to post without quoting? Now, if you'd paraphrased what you
thought I said; well, first off, we wouldn't be having this discussion,
since no-quote posting would clearly then already be the norm; but more
to the point, I'd _know_ what you thought I said, and be able to say
"no, I didn't mean that at all".

Ceridwen:
> But, what if I'm wrong and that isn't what you meant, or what Random
> meant?  And what if my interpretation was believed by the list,

Random832:
So we're to suppose I'm not here to correct you? Even so, isn't that
still better than people believing that _your_ position is that there
should be a new rule forbidding posting without a certain minimum number
of quote lines? (such could be derived from an interpretation of some
people's responses combined with a correct interpretation of what I
meant)

Ceridwen:
> I can certainly see a place for paraphrasing, but not so they take the
> place of direct quotes and clear attribution.  Does this help?

Random832:
My suggestion included a place for direct quotes - in the middle of the
paragraph, between real quotation marks.

And for the record, my suggestion elsewhere that we go to top-posting,
or at least allow it, _was_ non-serious, but it's looking more and more
like a viable compromise.

-- 
Random832, certainly not going to make a post long enough to prompt the
use of a real text editor and then forget to sign it



From kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 02:34:50 2006
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:34:50 -0000
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608251805y20512f89mcacf5a4b3f9718fa@...>
Message-ID: <ecoc0a+ev15@...>


> Random832:
> I want more flexibility. Can you tell me what's _wrong_ with 
> what I'm suggesting, rather than simply "that's not how We do
> things around Here".

Kelley:
Where did I convey that?

Random, I can't keep track of what you're suggesting anymore.  
There was all the stuff about attribution/self-attribution/signing.
Then it was nested attribution, which as someone else has said, 
can get very messy and frustrating beyond two levels, imo.
Then it was paraphrasing. Or no quoting/mention at all of the
comments you're replying to.  I can't tell which, or was it both?
In the last post you made replying to Lee (the one following this 
one that I'm replying to now), you say "...but my original intention 
would be that any reference to a previous post _not_ supported with 
a direct [inline] quote would be accompanied with a message number." 
I don't know what you're saying here; what do you mean by "direct 
[inline] quote"?  And then lastly in that post you then bring up
the suggestion of top-posting.

So, when you say you want to know what's 'wrong' with what you're
suggesting, I don't know which suggestion you're talking about.


> > Kelley:
> > Incorrect - at least two members for whom English is their
> > second language
> 
> Random832:
> Nobody had yet brought up ESL at all at the time I said that this
> morning. 

Kelley:  Okay, fair enough.

Random832:
> Anyway, I still don't find it very credible - quoting isn't
> natural, 

Kelley:
What do you mean by 'natural'?

Random832:
> there's no reason to think it's in any way "easier" than just
> responding without quoting, except that they've had practice 
> having the sort of conversation where heavy quoting is involved. 
> To say that doing it one way is harder than doing it another way
> for ESL users requires that it is harder in general.

Kelley:
Again, I'm not feeling clear on what you mean when you say 
"requires that it is harder in general".  To keep things straight
here, my understanding is that two of our ESL members stated that
it would be more difficult/confusing/problematic for them to try
to create a paraphrase of another members comments.  Perhaps they
can say if I've misunderstood.

But what you're talking about in the paragraph above is what you
refer to as 'zero quoting', yes?

> > Kelley:
> > The rules here have evolved over the life of this group.
> 
> Random832:
> Then why does everyone seem to want the current form to be set 
> in stone? 

Kelley:
Again, what I'm seeing is that people are just saying they prefer
the current incarnation of the rules, that they find them to work
well for this group.  That's how I feel, at any rate.

Random832:
> Why did someone call my suggestion "non-standard" as if that's
> a bad thing 

Kelley:  
I've lost track of who said that, and I don't even know what is 
or was meant by 'non-standard'.  (And again, I don't know which 
suggestion we're talking about.)  I agree that in many ways, 
compared to other forums, etc., our rules *are* non-standard, as
far as that goes.

Random832:
> ...when the way things are done "here" do not adhere to any
> standard.

Kelley:  Well, they adhere to our *own* standard.
 
> > Kelley:
> > Random, you're clearly capable of formatting your posts in
> > accordance with our rules, so I'm really not understanding the
> > issue here.

Random832:
> It's a waste of space, time, bandwidth, and effort. It's 
> unnecessary.
> 
> And if there's really no rule against it, why didn't I get a 
> single response along the lines of 'sure, go ahead, we won't 
> stop you, there's no rule against it anyway'? 

Kelley:
Gah, so all this time what we're talking about is paraphrasing??
I understand you're proposing this as an experiment, but my 
impression was that, if this is a 'successful' experiment I guess, 
that the result would be that we then use that as a preferred means
of posting over quoting, as an across-the-board kind of thing, 
encouraging/requiring it for everyone.  That's not correct?

Random832:
> And why do you keep talking about "our rules" when "There is not 
> a rule against paraphrasing"???

Kelley:
Honestly, I didn't know which particular rule you were complaining
about anymore.  Really, I'm trying not to, but I *am* getting a
little exasperated; I can't keep up with what you want, and I'm 
starting to feel like we can't win with *you*.

--Kelley







From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 03:25:35 2006
From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Mrs.) Lee Storm (God is the Healing Force)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:25:35 -0400
Subject: Returning To Sanity (was RE: Mail Formats)
In-Reply-To: <ecoc0a+ev15@...>
Message-ID: <000001c6c8bf$4b925db0$66a4a8c0@rosie>

| Random832:
| > And why do you keep talking about "our rules" when "There is not 
| > a rule against paraphrasing"???
| 
| Kelley:
| Honestly, I didn't know which particular rule you were complaining
| about anymore.  Really, I'm trying not to, but I *am* getting a
| little exasperated; I can't keep up with what you want, and I'm 
| starting to feel like we can't win with *you*.

[Lee]:
I've been feeling that for the past few days, Kelly, et al.  No matter what
is said, it's not good enough for our Random friend who wishes to make
harangue among us.  However we try to explain, he's got to argue and press
his  point, even if a point must be created for the pressing.

Please note that I have put a filter on "Jordan Abel" and "Random832" which
will send all messages with those terms to the Deleted Items folder of my
mail.  I, for one, am discoursed out, this ridiculousness is detracting from
my reading pleasure and giving me a headache, and I feel the need to bring
sanity back to my life and to my mailbox.

I hope all the list elves will join me in a Butterbeer Bash which I will
hold in your honor. :-)

Sincerely

Mrs. Lee Storm




From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 06:49:57 2006
From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:49:57 -0000
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608251805y20512f89mcacf5a4b3f9718fa@...>
Message-ID: <ecoqul+88bk@...>

---  "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Kelley:
> > This isn't a usenet group; why should it be bound
> > to usenet standards?
> 
> Random832:
> It also applies to email - it just originated on usenet. 
> I was pointing out the irony of calling my suggestion 
> "non-standard" when what's _already_ done is anything
> but standard.
> 

bboyminn:

We are not talking about UseNet, and I certainly was 
talking specifically about the HP groups when I made 
the comment about 'standards'. A fair and reasonable 
interpretation would have been 'our standards', OUR 
standards in OUR groups. Proven standard that have grown 
and stood the test of time and function.

Regardless of how 'our standards' relate to the rest 
of the Internet, these are the standards we use here.


> > Kelley:
> > What I'm seeing is that clearly you do not like our 
> > rules, and would like them changed according to your 
> > desires, to what is easiest for *you*.
> 
> Random832:
> I want more flexibility. Can you tell me what's _wrong_ 
> with what I'm suggesting, rather than simply "that's not 
> how We do things around Here".
> 

bboyminn:

There is nothing wrong with what you are suggesting as 
long as you apply it in a fair and reasonable context. 
As long as you are able to make coherent understandable 
posts, you are not obligated to quote anyone. It's just
that most people do quote because it's most effective
for an on-going discussion, and when they quote we try
to encourage them to quote according to what WE have 
found to be the most effective method.

I frequently post without quotes or paraphrasing of any 
kind, but I do so in a 'fair and reasonable' context.


> > Kelley:
> > The rules here have evolved over the life of this 
> > group.
> 
> Random832:
> Then why does everyone seem to want the current form to 
> be set in stone? Why did someone call my suggestion 
> "non-standard" as if that's a bad thing when the way 
> things are done "here" do not adhere to any standard.
> 

bboyminn:

You seem determined to be contrary. We have OUR standards 
and that is what we care about. Those standards are NOT set 
in stone, they do change and evolve and have a degree of 
flexibility as has already been pointed out by myself and 
others.

Further, your suggestion is non-standard for OUR groups, 
not forbidden, just not the standard and common method of 
posting for OUR groups. 

> > Kelley:
> > Random, you're clearly capable of formatting your posts 
> > in accordance with our rules, so I'm really not 
> > understanding the issue here.

> Random832:
> 
> ...
> 
> And if there's really no rule against it, why didn't I 
> get a single response along the lines of 'sure, go ahead, 
> we won't stop you, there's no rule against it anyway'? 
> And why do you keep talking about "our rules" when "There 
> is not a rule against paraphrasing"???
>

bboyminn:

Well, that is exactly what I did. I said in a fair and 
reasonable context you could do what you suggested, and 
in a fair and reasonable context it would be allowed, but 
it would also be considered non-standard for OUR GROUPS. 
And I further admitted that at one time or another, most 
have us have done exactly what you suggested. At one time 
or another, but NOT all the time.

We do what we do because since the beginning we have 
continually refined OUR rule to make them work better 
for US. Regardless of what you think, in the course of 
6 years of posting in OUR GROUPS and OUR CONVERSATIONS 
we have discovered what works for US. We have discovered 
what is necessary and effective for deep, coherent, 
complex, orderly discussions.

Why do we continue with the existing rule? Again because 
they work. Inconvinient and tedious as they may be on 
occassion; they do work. If we see a need for change and 
find an effective method to impliment that change, we will 
be on it immediately. 

Whether you like it or not, the majority of the group are 
generally satisfied with the current method of posting. You 
will notice, no one has leapt on your suggestion and 
championed it. (In fact, though you don't seem to see it, 
I have championed your idea more than anyone.) Mainly 
because most of us don't think it will improve the situation 
for the group. If implimented as our standard method of 
posting, most of use don't see it as making the discussion 
easier or cleared or more orderly or more effective. It may 
indeed be less work, but 'less work' is not necessarily the
road to 'most effective'. 

Once again, I suggest that you just go with the flow for a 
few months. Then when you have a real feel of the group and 
how it works, you might be in a position to tell us what will 
and will not improve things. 

We really are not resistant to change when we see the need 
for it.

Steve/bboyminn






From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 19:49:49 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 15:49:49 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <ecoqul+88bk@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608251805y20512f89mcacf5a4b3f9718fa@...>
	 <ecoqul+88bk@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608261249wede1254hf892904ac0f0d534@...>

Kelley:
> Random, I can't keep track of what you're suggesting anymore.

Random832:
Well, then we're even, since I can't keep track of what everyone else
wants. My talk of what you call "nested attribution" was just saying
that it's a perfectly adequate way to accomplish the ONLY goal that
people have stated - to be able to tell who said what. If there's
another reason for requiring this group's weird attribution style
instead of the standard used everywhere else, no-one's told me. But
regardless, that wasn't the topic of THIS thread, and you're being very
disingenuous in claiming that you thought it might have been what I was
talking about when I had LONG since moved on.

Kelley:
> Then it was paraphrasing. Or no quoting/mention at all of the comments
> you're replying to.  I can't tell which, or was it both?

Random832:
Well, whatever it is, this post (if you interpret it as a reply to my
previous posts instead of the one you hit "reply" on, and it really is,
since you're addressing things I didn't mention at all in that post) is
a perfect example.

Kelley:
> I don't know what you're saying here; what do you mean by "direct
> [inline] quote"?

Random832:
You missed the part of my original suggestion saying that sometimes
quoting would be necessary, and when that was the case the quote could
be included in real quote marks (i.e. the ones above the apostrophes on
your keyboard). That's what I meant by that.

Kelley:
> And then lastly in that post you then bring up the suggestion of
> top-posting.

Random832:
The suggestion of top-posting was a joke. Though without the usenet
"standards" on which to base that arbitrary decision, it's not clear
what's wrong with it anyway.

Kelley:
> So, when you say you want to know what's 'wrong' with what you're
> suggesting, I don't know which suggestion you're talking about.

Random832:
I was talking about the no-direct-block-quote suggestion. None of the
others were the topic of THIS thread. I think you are deliberately
trying to confuse the issue to turn others against me.

> Random832:
>> Anyway, I still don't find it very credible - quoting isn't
>> natural,

Kelley:
> What do you mean by 'natural'?

Random832:
It's not what you do when answering a letter (the kind that's written on
paper), is it? It's not what you do in a phone conversation. What's
"natural" about it?

> Kelley:
> Again, I'm not feeling clear on what you mean when you say
> "requires that it is harder in general".  To keep things straight
> here, my understanding is that two of our ESL members stated that
> it would be more difficult/confusing/problematic for them to try
> to create a paraphrase of another members comments.  Perhaps they
> can say if I've misunderstood.

Random832:
Sure it would be more difficult. They already know how to quote. That
doesn't mean it would be more difficult to learn than quoting was
originally, which is what you seem to be claiming. But regardless,
bringing up that _others_ would find it hard to _write_ messages that
way when I was only asking for permission to do it myself (surely you're
not claiming it's harder for ESL members to _read_ such messages) is
again, a deliberately misleading statement (Ordinarily I'd give you the
benefit of the doubt, but I've already answered this misconception in
too many other posts to think you're doing anything but _deliberately_
misconstruing my words)

> Kelley:
> Again, what I'm seeing is that people are just saying they prefer
> the current incarnation of the rules, that they find them to work
> well for this group.  That's how I feel, at any rate.

Random832:
I have NEVER said that not quoting should be required (though there is
a rule on the books that quoting should be minimal, it's just not
enforced very much)

> Kelley:  Well, they adhere to our *own* standard.

Random832:
No they don't. The usenet quoting standard is
<http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage--1.03.txt>.
Where is our standard? That's what I meant when saying there is none.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that calling any
divergence from what happens to be done by others on any given day
"non-standard" is rather silly. Anyway, I didn't expect to be pulled
into such a serious debate for just a passing mention of something
I found ironic.

> Kelley:
> Gah, so all this time what we're talking about is paraphrasing??
> I understand you're proposing this as an experiment, but my impression
> was that, if this is a 'successful' experiment I guess, that the
> result would be that we then use that as a preferred means of posting
> over quoting, as an across-the-board kind of thing,
> encouraging/requiring it for everyone.  That's not correct?

Random832:
I never proposed _requiring_ anything for anyone. And what's wrong with
encouraging something if, as I suspect it will, it turns out that such
posts are easier to read and result in more expeditious resolution of
misunderstandings?

bboyminn:
> We are not talking about UseNet, and I certainly was talking
> specifically about the HP groups when I made the comment about
> 'standards'. A fair and reasonable interpretation would have been 'our
> standards', OUR standards in OUR groups. Proven standard that have
> grown and stood the test of time and function.

Random832:
I guess you're not understanding my definition of what a "standard" is;
it is a document that describes how things are to be done. The quoting
style here is a custom, which may have lasted for "years" [well, three
years. two and a half.] but there is no document describing it. So
I feel a bit lost, especially given conflicting accounts of what is
required (one elf tells me that only one or the other of self-
attribution or signature is required, then later another complains at me
for not self-attributing on a post I signed. And apparently they're both
right. How am I supposed to know, when there's no standard I can refer
to? How can I even complain about their actions, when there's no
standard THEY can refer to?)

The only standard that exists for quoting is USEFOR USEAGE section
3.2.2.1 - there are other communities that do things in other ways,
certainly, but no others have bothered to set them in writing as
a standard. Few enforce them so rigidly as to need one, but it's very
exasperating when I'm not told what exactly is required but nonetheless
keep getting sent "friendly reminders" for not following different and
conflicting requirements.

>> Random832:
>> Can you tell me what's _wrong_ with what I'm suggesting, rather than
>> simply "that's not how We do things around Here".

> bboyminn:
> There is nothing wrong with what you are suggesting

Random832:
I'm rapidly finding that no-one really finds anything wrong with what
I'm _actually_ suggesting (or if they do they won't say why), merely
that they either honestly can't understand what I'm suggesting, or
(sadly, this seems more likely given the sheer number of times I've
explained it) they're deliberately misunderstanding in order to spread
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to turn everyone else against me.

> bboyminn:
> Further, your suggestion is [...] not forbidden,

Random832:
Could have fooled me - not a single person responded to my original
proposal with a "go ahead, we won't stop you, there's nothing in the
rules against that". I asked for permission, and no-one bothered to say
that I don't need it.

bboyminn:
> We really are not resistant to change when we see the need
> for it.

Random832:
Then why is everyone so vocally against the idea of letting me do
something that's not against the rules, with the idea that maybe others
would follow WITHOUT IT EVER BECOMING A REQUIREMENT.



From kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 22:11:34 2006
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:11:34 -0000
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608261249wede1254hf892904ac0f0d534@...>
Message-ID: <ecqgum+jbu0@...>

> Kelley:
> > Random, I can't keep track of what you're suggesting anymore.
> 
> Random832:
> Well, then we're even, since I can't keep track of what everyone 
> else wants. 

Kelley:
Heh, maybe we should all fall back and regroup, then. ;-)

Random832:
> My talk of what you call "nested attribution" was just saying
> that it's a perfectly adequate way to accomplish the ONLY goal 
> that people have stated - to be able to tell who said what. 

Kelley:
Okay.  "Adequate," sure, but it's also prone to making posts become
visually frustrating when they get cluttered with loads of chevrons 
everywhere, too.  So it's adequate, but not necessarily the best option. 

Random832:
> If there's another reason for requiring this group's weird 
> attribution style instead of the standard used everywhere else, 
> no-one's told me. 

Kelley:
Well, okay, if it seems weird, it seems weird.  But for me, and I
think I can safely say for lots of other members of these groups, 
it's preferred for its clarity.

Random832:
> But regardless, that wasn't the topic of THIS thread, and you're 
> being very disingenuous in claiming that you thought it might 
> have been what I was talking about when I had LONG since moved 
> on.

Kelley:
I wasn't trying to claim that that was what this particular thread
was about; those were general comments about all the discussions 
we've been having here.
 
> Kelley:
> > Then it was paraphrasing. Or no quoting/mention at all of the 
> > comments you're replying to.  I can't tell which, or was it 
> > both?
> 
> Random832:
> Well, whatever it is, this post (if you interpret it as a reply 
> to my previous posts instead of the one you hit "reply" on, and 
> it really is, since you're addressing things I didn't mention at
> all in that post) is a perfect example.

Kelley:
Okay, so paraphrasing/summarizing/no direct quoting, etc.  I've 
got that.  So there's no longer any issue with the other topics
that we've been discussing here on FB?
 
> Kelley:
> > I don't know what you're saying here; what do you mean by 
> > "direct [inline] quote"?
> 
> Random832:
> You missed the part of my original suggestion saying that 
> sometimes quoting would be necessary, and when that was the case 
> the quote could be included in real quote marks (i.e. the ones 
> above the apostrophes on your keyboard). That's what I meant by 
> that.

Kelley:
Okay, so just basically what we typically do re quoting.
 
> Kelley:
> > And then lastly in that post you then bring up the suggestion 
> > of top-posting.
> 
> Random832:
> The suggestion of top-posting was a joke. Though without the 
> usenet "standards" on which to base that arbitrary decision, 
> it's not clear what's wrong with it anyway.

Kelley:
"Joke," ah, okay. :-)  For us, it's not arbitrary at all; here's
an admin that explains it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/154637

I'll also add that it gives the discussions more of a 
'conversational' flow.  When you're talking with someone, they'll
say something and you'll reply, or you'll say something and they'll
reply, and the conversation builds from there.

Yes, there are many arguments against this, we know; that's all
been discussed.  My point is that this wasn't an arbitrary decision
for us.

> Kelley:
> > So, when you say you want to know what's 'wrong' with what 
> > you're suggesting, I don't know which suggestion you're talking 
> > about.
> 
> Random832:
> I was talking about the no-direct-block-quote suggestion. None 
> of the others were the topic of THIS thread. I think you are 
> deliberately trying to confuse the issue to turn others against
> me.

Kelley:
No, I'm not.  I was going through all the messages, rereading many, 
catching up on others, and rather than make multiple replies, I 
wanted to address whatever I could in that post.

But again, these discussions have gone from topic to topic, mainly
with you expressing what you don't like about this rule or that
one.  That's fine.  But there are a lot of criticisms, and I'm
genuinely unclear on whether you're just remarking about things you
don't like, or if you're 'petitioning' the elves to change things
(for lack of a better term).

> Random832:
> It's not what you do when answering a letter (the kind that's 
> written on paper), is it? It's not what you do in a phone 
> conversation. What's "natural" about it?

Kelley:
Okay, I see what you're saying.  No, it's not natural in those
contexts, along with the context of a 'conversation' as I 
mentioned above.

But surely you must agree that it can be a useful function; in 
the context of these sorts of dicussion groups/mailing lists, 
particularly ones that can be quite busy with lots of folks 
participating in the discussions, to see a brief bit of the 
post being replied to, the specific bit in question, that does
help people reading along to have the best context for what the
new comments are saying.

That's the whole point of asking members to do that when they
post.  While groups like this have similarities to a conversation,
written letter correspondence, etc., there are also differences
and while something might be absurd to do in a written letter or
conversation, they can be useful and sensible for this sort of
medium.
 
> Random832:
> Sure it would be more difficult. They already know how to quote. 
> That doesn't mean it would be more difficult to learn than quoting 
> was originally, which is what you seem to be claiming. 

Kelley:
No, I'm not claiming that; I don't *know* their position on that.

Random832:
> But regardless, bringing up that _others_ would find it hard to 
> _write_ messages that way when I was only asking for permission
> to do it myself (surely you're not claiming it's harder for ESL 
> members to _read_ such messages) is again, a deliberately 
> misleading statement (Ordinarily I'd give you the benefit of the 
> doubt, but I've already answered this misconception in too many 
> other posts to think you're doing anything but _deliberately_
> misconstruing my words).

Kelley:
I'm not trying to mislead, that was me wanting clarification. More
below.
 
> Random832:
> I have NEVER said that not quoting should be required (though 
> there is a rule on the books that quoting should be minimal, 
> it's just not enforced very much)

Kelley:
Well, it's enforced more than many people might be aware, but
moving on.
 
> > Kelley:  Well, they adhere to our *own* standard.
> 
> Random832:
> No they don't. 
> The usenet quoting standard is
>
<http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage--1.03.txt>.
> Where is our standard? That's what I meant when saying there is 
> none.
> That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that calling 
> any divergence from what happens to be done by others on any given 
> day "non-standard" is rather silly. Anyway, I didn't expect to be 
> pulled into such a serious debate for just a passing mention of 
> something I found ironic.

Kelley:
Well, I appreciate that Usenet has such a detailed protocol, and I
understand your point that our groups don't have those sorts of 
standards.  But Steve has explained what he meant there, so seems
that's cleared up now.  Frankly, I'd give it up if we ever reached
the point of needing such standards, so I'm glad that's not the
issue here. ;-)

> Random832 re paraphrasing:
> I never proposed _requiring_ anything for anyone. And what's 
> wrong with encouraging something if, as I suspect it will, it 
> turns out that such posts are easier to read and result in more 
> expeditious resolution of misunderstandings?

Kelley:
I have no idea whether it will result in that or not, but sure, it
could be something that happens along the same lines as
self-attribution, just catching on among members.

> Random832, re self-attribution:
> <snip> ...but there is no document describing it. 

Kelley:
There might not be a document about it, but there are the posts
from your fellow list members..

Random832:
> So I feel a bit lost, 

Kelley:  Still??

Random832:
> especially given conflicting accounts of what is required (one 
> elf tells me that only one or the other of self-attribution or 
> signature is required, then later another complains at me for not 
> self-attributing on a post I signed. And apparently they're both
> right. How am I supposed to know, when there's no standard I can 
> refer to? How can I even complain about their actions, when 
> there's no standard THEY can refer to?)

Kelley:
You must do *at least* one of the two (sign or self-attribute).
Doing *both* is the most helpful for your fellow list members.
I could go back to the way I used to format posts and not self-
attribute my own comments and I would not be contravening the
rules, but I choose not to do that because the 'inconvenience' 
it causes me is far outweighed by its helpfulness to other list 
members.

> Random832, re paraphrasing:
> I'm rapidly finding that no-one really finds anything wrong with 
> what I'm _actually_ suggesting (or if they do they won't say why),
> merely that they either honestly can't understand what I'm 
> suggesting, or (sadly, this seems more likely given the sheer 
> number of times I've explained it) they're deliberately 
> misunderstanding in order to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt 
> to turn everyone else against me.

Kelley:
Heh. No, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you, and no, there's
not any sinister conspriracy going on.

Now that I have a better idea of what you're talking about, it's
fine.  I would say please keep in mind that some people may end
up preferring their comments *not* to be paraphrased and their 
wishes should be respected.  Otherwise, you're welcome to do it.

> Random832:
> Could have fooled me - not a single person responded to my 
> original proposal with a "go ahead, we won't stop you, there's 
> nothing in the rules against that". I asked for permission, and 
> no-one bothered to say that I don't need it.

Kelley:
Well, that may be because some folks weren't exactly clear on
what it was you were proposing initially.  But again, go ahead.

Can we consider all this settled now?

--Kelley








From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 27 00:28:54 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:28:54 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <ecqgum+jbu0@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608261249wede1254hf892904ac0f0d534@...>
	 <ecqgum+jbu0@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608261728i3f332e17yefbf82fcda5d5d88@...>

> Kelley:
> Heh. No, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you, and no, there's
> not any sinister conspriracy going on.

Random832
I didn't mean to accuse you, or anyone else in particular, I just
wasn't sure where this idea that I wanted to _make_ anyone do this was
coming from - and I thought it was very confusing that anyone would
think it would make things difficult for ESL users because I thought
initially that people were saying that such posts would be hard for
ESL users to understand, not to compose.

I suppose this is just yet another illustration of why an incorrect
paraphrase is much better than a direct (and, needless to say,
absolutely technically correct) quote with an incorrect interpretation
with no mention of what the interpretation is. At the time I suggested
that FUD was being spread, it was mainly because it was right after
I'd read Lee Storm's message saying she'd blocked my messages, so I
was feeling attacked, and just a little angry at whoever was
responsible for all these misunderstandings (if it was in any way
deliberate on anyone's part).

> Kelley:
> Can we consider all this settled now?

I hope so.



From dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 27 01:32:22 2006
From: dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid (Daniel R. Tobias)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:32:22 -0400
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <1156634742.1421.45438.m20@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1156634742.1421.45438.m20@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <44F0BDE6.29992.4209496B@...>

> Kelley:
> > And then lastly in that post you then bring up the suggestion of
> > top-posting.
> 
> Random832:
> The suggestion of top-posting was a joke. Though without the usenet
> "standards" on which to base that arbitrary decision, it's not clear
> what's wrong with it anyway.

Dan T.:
But, up until the point that was brought up, this discussion had the 
apparent distinction of being the longest and most heated discussion 
/ debate / argument over reply formatting I ever recall seeing in any 
forum / mailing list / newsgroup / board which did *not* (yet) 
include any advocacy regarding top-posting (either pro or con).

My own comments regarding reply formatting are here:
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 kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 27 01:55:34 2006
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:55:34 -0000
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608261728i3f332e17yefbf82fcda5d5d88@...>
Message-ID: <ecqu2m+vs59@...>

 
> Random832
> I didn't mean to accuse you, or anyone else in particular, 

Kelley:  Thanks. :-)

Random832:
> I just wasn't sure where this idea that I wanted to _make_ anyone
> do this was coming from - 

Kelley:
Yes, exactly, I'm not sure, either, and it seems a few of us had
the idea that was what you meant, however we got that idea.  Then
when Alla, Silmariel made their comments about the difficulties
for them to create a paraphrase, the idea was just reinforced in
my mind.  (After I sent that last post, I reread a number of the
most recent posts, and I began to see where we were all sort of
missing one another, making a disconnect, whatever, and it all 
began to make a lot more sense.) ;-)

Random832:
> and I thought it was very confusing that anyone would think it 
> would make things difficult for ESL users because I thought
> initially that people were saying that such posts would be hard 
> for ESL users to understand, not to compose.

Kelley:
Right, exactly.  I'm at least on the same page with you now. :-)

Random832:
> I suppose this is just yet another illustration of why an 
> incorrect paraphrase is much better than a direct (and, needless 
> to say, absolutely technically correct) quote with an incorrect 
> interpretation with no mention of what the interpretation is. 

Kelley:  Indeed. <g>

Random832:
> At the time I suggested that FUD was being spread, it was mainly 
> because it was right after I'd read Lee Storm's message saying 
> she'd blocked my messages, so I was feeling attacked, and just a 
> little angry at whoever was responsible for all these 
> misunderstandings (if it was in any way deliberate on anyone's 
> part).

Kelley:
Oh sure, I do understand, yeah.  Guess we were all getting a little
frustrated and so forth.

> > Kelley:
> > Can we consider all this settled now?

Random832:
> I hope so.

Kelley:  Yay! :-D








From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 27 03:27:16 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:27:16 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <44F0BDE6.29992.4209496B@...>
References: <1156634742.1421.45438.m20@yahoogroups.com>
	 <44F0BDE6.29992.4209496B@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608262027u32403ff0w31c55b078557c72d@...>

> Dan T.:
> But, up until the point that was brought up, this discussion had the
> apparent distinction of being the longest and most heated discussion
> / debate / argument over reply formatting I ever recall seeing in any
> forum / mailing list / newsgroup / board which did *not* (yet)
> include any advocacy regarding top-posting (either pro or con).

Random832:
Well - in all seriousness, the biggest issue with top-posting is that
it's so easy to forget to cut things down, since the person writing
the message doesn't have to scroll down through it before beginning
the reply. So while they are an underlying cause of a serious problem,
I think it's a mistake to view top-posting as being a problem _in and
of itself_. It could, in theory, be very effective to write a
well-organized message (regardless of anything else, interleaved
posting encourages poor organization) without any quoting or
paraphrasing except when absolutely necessary, and include the text of
the original message (without any second-level quotes unless
absolutely necessary), or at least the part that's being responded to,
at the bottom for reference. The only problem is that it's so easy to
forget to remove the second-level quotes.



From dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 27 15:12:23 2006
From: dan at danthewebmaster.yahoo.invalid (Daniel R. Tobias)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:12:23 -0000
Subject: Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608262027u32403ff0w31c55b078557c72d@...>
Message-ID: <ecscon+cg0u@...>

> Random832:
> I think it's a mistake to view top-posting as being a problem _in and
> of itself_. It could, in theory, be very effective to write a
> well-organized message (regardless of anything else, interleaved
> posting encourages poor organization) without any quoting or
> paraphrasing except when absolutely necessary, and include the text of
> the original message (without any second-level quotes unless
> absolutely necessary), or at least the part that's being responded to,
> at the bottom for reference. The only problem is that it's so easy to
> forget to remove the second-level quotes.

Dan T.:
Really?  I've always regarded one of the strong points in favor of
interleaved posting as being that it encourages *good* organization,
as well as the exercise of reading comprehension skills and
encouraging relevancy of replies.  In order to prepare a message for
posting this way, you need to carefully trim the quoted material, and
separate it into its major parts beneath which you intend to reply,
and then if your reply is in fact a non-sequitir, this fact is clearly
evident.  On the other hand, top-posting encourages a style where no
organization is necessary; you just attach the whole mess of the
original message (and perhaps the whole thread before it) without
doing anything to sort it out into parts; and, if your reply is
irrelevant and fails to answer the original questions, this fact is
buried pretty deeply.

-- 
Dan








From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 27 16:24:14 2006
From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (lunalovegoodrules)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:24:14 -0000
Subject: The HPFGU difference
Message-ID: <ecsgve+2ga2@...>

These groups require that people format their posts as whole answers,
not as single points at the end of a series of nested attributions, as
a policy to encourage people to compose, to think about their posts as
items in themselves, not as some part of a generalized, internet chat
or usenet "noise". There is no law that all internet groups need to
use identical rules.

This is the whole point - and it works. When people can't get past
their automatic responses, can't join in on the terms explicitly
stated in the introductory emails the group sends out, they waste a
lot of time trying to make completely irrelevant, obstinate, childish
points.

dan







From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 28 00:39:06 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:39:06 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Mail Formats (was Re: An Elfly Reminder)
In-Reply-To: <ecscon+cg0u@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608262027u32403ff0w31c55b078557c72d@...>
	 <ecscon+cg0u@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608271739v6b1a6e8t5013e624855f1564@...>

> Dan T.:
> I've always regarded one of the strong points in favor of
> interleaved posting as being that it encourages *good* organization,

Random832:
It encourages organization, I won't dispute that. However, it is my
opinion that the sort of organization it encourages is not
particularly good at all. In my opinion, a message should be a
coherent whole, not a bunch of individual one- or two-sentence sound
bytes, each being a minimal reply to one or two particular sentences
in the original, with no sense of connection between the responses and
no acknowledgement of the connection (if there was any) between the
points being addressed. Interleaved posting encourages (if not
requires) sloppy composition. It forces you to put your replies in
essentially the same order as the original points, even when a
different order might flow more naturally. A style without any direct
(or at least without any _block_) quoting would allow more thought to
be given to the organization of a post.

-- 
Random832



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 28 01:21:13 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:21:13 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] The HPFGU difference
In-Reply-To: <ecsgve+2ga2@...>
References: <ecsgve+2ga2@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608271821n18e8184aj2ae286d722bc84e8@...>

On 8/27/06, lunalovegoodrules <lunalovegood at ...> wrote:
> These groups require that people format their posts as whole answers,
> not as single points at the end of a series of nested attributions, as
> a policy to encourage people to compose, to think about their posts as
> items in themselves, not as some part of a generalized, internet chat
> or usenet "noise". There is no law that all internet groups need to
> use identical rules.

It is singularly unclear what point you are trying to make. What I have
been advocating is being _allowed_ to format a post as a whole answer,
rather than as a list of unrelated point/counterpoint responses. Do you
really think that having more attribution lines or having them in
a "more sensible" place accomplishes this?

The form and placement of attribution lines, the presence or not of
a signature, are mere window dressing - it doesn't change the overall
truth that messages, here or anywhere else, _aren't_ formatted as
a coherent whole. That is what i've been trying to change by proposing
this experiment.

And where have I said that there is a law that all groups need to use
identical rules? I've never said that. All I did was point out the irony
in calling my (even less like Usenet) suggestion "non-standard" when no
standard exists describing the way things are done here.



From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 28 15:06:37 2006
From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (lunalovegoodrules)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:06:37 -0000
Subject: The HPFGU difference
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608271821n18e8184aj2ae286d722bc84e8@...>
Message-ID: <ecv0pt+6pt5@...>

Jordan wrote:
> It is singularly unclear what point you are trying to make.

Dan:

Read the rules in the introductory package you were sent. If you want
to join the management of the list, or want to change some rules,
apply yourself by all means, but understand that it should be a
negotiation in good faith, not a continuing bitch session in bad
faith, which is rude and tiresome, but which is what a number of
people on this list have indicated you are engaged in. If you only
want to be right, fine. You are right. However, please format your
posts as the rules and Elves have suggested anyway, because you agreed
to it on joining, even if you are right and we are all wrong.

That was and is my point.

dan







From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 28 17:42:59 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:42:59 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: The HPFGU difference
In-Reply-To: <ecv0pt+6pt5@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608271821n18e8184aj2ae286d722bc84e8@...>
	 <ecv0pt+6pt5@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608281042m65fb7736l5e4db684eaa0bac0@...>

Dan:
> not a continuing bitch session in bad faith,
> which is rude and tiresome, but which is what a number of
> people on this list have indicated you are engaged in.

Who? I don't see anyone "indicating" that but you, a relative
latecomer to the thread. What I see in the thread up until now is a
series of misunderstandings that were only just recently cleared up.
The first misunderstanding was that I made the mistake of asking
permission to do something that is not against any rule, and it went
downhill from there.

> If you only
> want to be right, fine. You are right. However, please format your
> posts as the rules and Elves have suggested anyway, because you agreed
> to it on joining,

I agreed to no such thing - or, rather, I did agree to follow the
rules, but the rules I agreed to follow include nothing of the sort. I
have read the HBF more than once, and can find no rule against what
I'm asking for. Furthermore,  you are being _extremely_ adversarial as
a newcomer to a thread which has in my opinion (and as far as I can
tell I'm not alone in that opinion) already been resolved.



From kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 28 20:47:31 2006
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:47:31 -0000
Subject: The HPFGU difference
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608281042m65fb7736l5e4db684eaa0bac0@...>
Message-ID: <ecvkp3+n58b@...>

Random832:
> What I see in the thread up until now is a series of 
> misunderstandings that were only just recently cleared 
> up. 

Kelley:
Yes, this is exactly my take on it, a "series of 
misunderstandings." (Ha, "direct inline quote"!) ;-D

(After I'd asked you what you meant by that and you explained,
I replied "Okay, so just basically what we typically do re 
quoting."  But afterwards I realized that I'd misunderstood
again:  by "what we typically do re quoting" I'd meant the
basic kind of direct quoting, like above where I've got your 
name followed by "What I see in the thread..." etc., set off 
by chevrons.

I finally realized you mean what I've now done with the actual
quote marks, what people do when they quote a passage from the 
books, more or less.  There's no problem with that.  It did 
occur to me that a nice touch would be to follow the "quote" 
with the message number, e.g., (#12345), the way people give 
the book, chapter, page, edition, etc., when giving a book 
quote; it would just help folks to easily find where you're 
quoting from, if they want to go back and reread.  Heh, if I'm 
*still* misunderstanding, please tell me!) :-D

Random832:
> The first misunderstanding was that I made the mistake of 
> asking permission to do something that is not against any 
> rule, and it went downhill from there.

Kelley:
Oh, please don't feel that way!  It wasn't a mistake at all;
asking permission when one's not sure of what's okay is a very 
polite, respectful way to find out.  I'm just sorry there were 
all the misunderstandings.
 
Random832: 
> I agreed to no such thing - or, rather, I did agree to follow 
> the rules, but the rules I agreed to follow include nothing of
> the sort. I have read the HBF more than once, and can find no
> rule against what I'm asking for. Furthermore, you are being 
> _extremely_ adversarial as a newcomer to a thread which has in 
> my opinion (and as far as I can tell I'm not alone in that 
> opinion) already been resolved.

Kelley:
I do agree -- I appreciated that Random was willing to discuss 
all this here, to explain for me again what he was proposing, to 
answer my questions, etc.; that's what helped me to understand.  
He's not saying he refuses to go by this rule or that one; again, 
it was just a misunderstanding as to whether something was (or 
would be) allowed.  I'm very pleased we were able to resolve this, 
and so, a plea from me to everyone that we not continue in this 
way.  As far as I'm concerned, it's all been settled.

--Kelley







From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 28 20:55:08 2006
From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (lunalovegoodrules)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:55:08 -0000
Subject: The HPFGU difference
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608281042m65fb7736l5e4db684eaa0bac0@...>
Message-ID: <ecvl7c+ipqt@...>

Jordan wrote:
>  you are being _extremely_ adversarial as a newcomer to a thread 
which has in my opinion (and as far as I can tell I'm not alone in 
that opinion) already been resolved.

I wasn't in the thread, I posted my opinion of people using feedback 
in an irritating, petty way. You immediately responded as if it were 
in that thread, in defensive way, hence, I told you you were right, 
hoping not to become involved in a similar thread, but you have won, 
and turned this thread to the same irritating reiteration.

dan








From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 28 22:16:07 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:16:07 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: The HPFGU difference
In-Reply-To: <ecvl7c+ipqt@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608281042m65fb7736l5e4db684eaa0bac0@...>
	 <ecvl7c+ipqt@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608281516h78e49f58o9980257d897e44d2@...>

Dan:
> I wasn't in the thread, I posted my opinion of people using feedback
> in an irritating, petty way. You immediately responded as if it were
> in that thread,

Random832:
It's not immediately obvious that you weren't in the thread, since it
looks the same in an email client as if someone posts to the thread
and changes the subject line, and it _was_ on the same general topic.
My point that you did not feel the need to weigh in except to attack
me still stands.

Dan:
> in defensive way, hence, I told you you were right,
> hoping not to become involved in a similar thread,

Random832:
Hint for future reference: sarcasm is NOT a good way to stop people
from getting defensive. I still have no idea what point you were
originally trying to make. I was _not_ being petty, I was not
"bitching", I had an idea for something that might improve the flow of
discussion - and once people understood what I was really talking
about, it wasn't being all that badly received either. So why did you
feel the need to attack me?

-- 
Random832



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 28 22:34:46 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:34:46 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: The HPFGU difference
In-Reply-To: <ecv0pt+6pt5@...>
References: <7b9f25e50608271821n18e8184aj2ae286d722bc84e8@...>
	 <ecv0pt+6pt5@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608281534m11975aacx294a6ddf8ec29141@...>

Dan:
> If you want to join the management of the list,

Random832:
W. T. F.
I missed this on my first reading of this message - but your stance
seems to be that no-one but "the management" has any right to talk
about policy/rules/etc, and that any attempt for a "mere mortal" list
member to speak on these issues must necessarily be in bad faith.

Tell me, then, what is this list here for? If you don't like the fact
that -Feedback exists, and that people use it for its intended
purpose, then by all means, LEAVE.



From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 13 17:07:41 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:07:41 -0000
Subject: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
Message-ID: <egoh4t+6p6v@...>

Greetings fellow feedbackers,

The new Yahoo!Groups interface shows you the whole "thread tree" 
below the text of each post. This is nice, except that frequently the 
posts are not indented in a way that shows who answered who. It seems 
to me that in the old interface it used to work better (but perhaps 
my memory fails me) when simply pressing the now extinct "upthread" 
button would bring me straight to the upthread post. 

A typical recent example of this problem can be seen here: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159569

Scroll down and see how most of the posts in the "thread tree" are 
not indented. So while this post by Jen answers Alla's post, in order 
to read Alla's post I must search for it in the thread, I must know 
that Alla's Yahoo ID is "dumbledore11214" and if she has more than 
one post in this thread then basically I must guess which of them is 
the upthread post. Trying to follow such a thread after several days 
you haven't visited the list is annoying. Most of the posters in this 
thread are long time members and I'm sure they indeed sent their 
posts in reply to the posts that they meant to answer.  

Here is another such example, this time from our own feedback list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/776

and here is an example of how it should look like when things work 
properly:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159523

Does anyone have an idea if this can be fixed? Did I just miss the 
button in the new interface that fixes it? Why does it sometimes work 
properly and sometimes not? Is it something Yahoo are doing wrong, 
and can we ask them to correct it? 


Neri






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 13 23:41:11 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:41:11 -0000
Subject: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
In-Reply-To: <egoh4t+6p6v@...>
Message-ID: <egp86n+7c4j@...>


> Neri:
> A typical recent example of this problem can be seen here: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159569
> 
> Scroll down and see how most of the posts in the "thread tree" are 
> not indented. So while this post by Jen answers Alla's post, in order 
> to read Alla's post I must search for it in the thread, I must know 
> that Alla's Yahoo ID is "dumbledore11214" and if she has more than 
> one post in this thread then basically I must guess which of them is 
> the upthread post. 


Neri again:
OK, it seems that the situation is even worse than I first thought.

In my example post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159569
I've just discovered that, in fact, Alla's post to which Jen responded
*does not appear at all* in the thread tree below. Alla's posts that
do appear there are more recent posts. So in this case there is *no
way at all* to reach the upthread post from Jen's post. The only way I
could find Alla's original post was to run a search for her text that
Jen quoted. I think you'll agree with me that this is a very
roundabout way to do things.

I also suspect that the problem is with too large threads. It seems
that when the thread has too many posts in it, then at some point the
Yahoo threading function just gives up and doesn't attempt to display
all of them. Which would have been fine by me, if only they did
display the one-step upthread and downthread posts.

Neri






From ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct 14 03:05:27 2006
From: ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:05:27 -0000
Subject: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
In-Reply-To: <egp86n+7c4j@...>
Message-ID: <egpk5n+ht17@...>

Neri:
> > A typical recent example of this problem can be seen here: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159569

Scroll down and see how most of the posts in the "thread tree" are 
not indented. So while this post by Jen answers Alla's post, in order 
to read Alla's post I must search for it in the thread, I must know 
that Alla's Yahoo ID is "dumbledore11214" and if she has more than 
one post in this thread then basically I must guess which of them is 
the upthread post.

Ceridwen:
I noticed that, too, on the Banned Books thread, where it was very 
noticeable.  I am trying out the option of sorting threads by date, 
which is at the top of the thread tree.  It seems to work, the first 
post is first, and not indented at all.

The difficulty with this system is that the posts appear by date, so 
some are very indented, while others are not. 


Neri again:
> OK, it seems that the situation is even worse than I first thought.

In my example post: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159569 I've just 
discovered that, in fact, Alla's post to which Jen responded *does 
not appear at all* in the thread tree below. Alla's posts that do 
appear there are more recent posts. So in this case there is *no way 
at all* to reach the upthread post from Jen's post. The only way I 
could find Alla's original post was to run a search for her text that 
Jen quoted. I think you'll agree with me that this is a very 
roundabout way to do things.

Ceridwen:
Yes, this is a problem.  I have had to do a search too, some time 
back, but I used the poster's name.  If a poster is not a frequent 
poster, then the post being searched for is usually near the top.  
But when the poster is frequent, then it can be buried in the other 
posts, especially when it has been a few days since it has been 
posted.  It is taking me a long time to get completely comfortable 
with the new Yahoo set-up!

Ceridwen.






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 16 17:57:26 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:57:26 -0000
Subject: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
In-Reply-To: <egpk5n+ht17@...>
Message-ID: <eh0h66+8g4q@...>


> Ceridwen:
> I noticed that, too, on the Banned Books thread, where it was very 
> noticeable.  I am trying out the option of sorting threads by date, 
> which is at the top of the thread tree.  It seems to work, the 
first 
> post is first, and not indented at all.
> 
> The difficulty with this system is that the posts appear by date, 
so 
> some are very indented, while others are not. 


Neri:
I believe I pinpointed the problem. The magic number is 30...

It seems that if the thread has more than 30 posts in it, the Yahoo 
threading function gives up. It's actually very easy to see for 
yourself. Here are the directions:

In the list site, click on "group by topic" (if you're not in this 
mode already). This will show you a list of the current threads, with 
the number of posts in each thread shown in the "messages" column. 
Start entering threads, scroll down and check the "thread tree" at 
the bottom. You'll find that if the thread has 30 posts  or less, 
then the thread tree looks the way it should, with upthread posts 
properly indented. If the thread has more than 30 posts, then only 30 
out of these posts will be shown. In these threads you'll often find 
many posts one below the other that are not properly indented. 

(Note: it's of course possible for several posts to appear one below 
the other with no indentation in any thread. This is OK when several 
members answered the same post. However, if more than 10 posts one 
after the other have no indentation and they include more than one 
post from some members, this probably means it's an error.)

This is obviously a bug in the new Yahoo interface. My guess is that 
Yahoo thought there would be very few threads of more than 30 posts 
anyway, so why bother. This is probably true in small lists, where 
it's indeed rare to have very large threads. I think we have to ask 
Yahoo to fix this problem. At the minimum, if they can't show the 
whole thread properly, then they should show only the one step 
upthread post and one-step douwnthread posts. 


Neri






From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 18 13:52:13 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:52:13 -0000
Subject: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
In-Reply-To: <eh0h66+8g4q@...>
Message-ID: <eh5bid+ic8i@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Ceridwen:
> > I noticed that, too, on the Banned Books thread, where it was 
very 
> > noticeable.  I am trying out the option of sorting threads by 
date, 
> > which is at the top of the thread tree.  It seems to work, the 
> first 
> > post is first, and not indented at all.
> > 
> > The difficulty with this system is that the posts appear by date, 
> so 
> > some are very indented, while others are not. 
> 
> 
> Neri:
> I believe I pinpointed the problem. The magic number is 30...
> 
> It seems that if the thread has more than 30 posts in it, the Yahoo 
> threading function gives up. It's actually very easy to see for 
> yourself. Here are the directions:
> 
> In the list site, click on "group by topic" (if you're not in this 
> mode already). This will show you a list of the current threads, 
with 
> the number of posts in each thread shown in the "messages" column. 
> Start entering threads, scroll down and check the "thread tree" at 
> the bottom. You'll find that if the thread has 30 posts  or less, 
> then the thread tree looks the way it should, with upthread posts 
> properly indented. If the thread has more than 30 posts, then only 
30 
> out of these posts will be shown. In these threads you'll often 
find 
> many posts one below the other that are not properly indented. 
> 
> (Note: it's of course possible for several posts to appear one 
below 
> the other with no indentation in any thread. This is OK when 
several 
> members answered the same post. However, if more than 10 posts one 
> after the other have no indentation and they include more than one 
> post from some members, this probably means it's an error.)
> 
> This is obviously a bug in the new Yahoo interface. My guess is 
that 
> Yahoo thought there would be very few threads of more than 30 posts 
> anyway, so why bother. This is probably true in small lists, where 
> it's indeed rare to have very large threads. I think we have to ask 
> Yahoo to fix this problem. At the minimum, if they can't show the 
> whole thread properly, then they should show only the one step 
> upthread post and one-step douwnthread posts. 
> 
> 
> Neri
>

Alla:

Oh, I am sooo computer unsophisticated to put it mildly, but to test 
your magic *30* I just counted the posts in this thread

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159895

Here a_svirn replies to mine, which Yahoomort does not bother to show 
already and I counted 29, or am I math challenged also? :)

Alla.





From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 18 22:13:25 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:13:25 -0000
Subject: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
In-Reply-To: <eh5bid+ic8i@...>
Message-ID: <eh68u5+s8ou@...>

 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, I am sooo computer unsophisticated to put it mildly, but to test 
> your magic *30* I just counted the posts in this thread
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159895
> 
> Here a_svirn replies to mine, which Yahoomort does not bother to show 
> already and I counted 29, or am I math challenged also? :)
> 

Neri:
I've counted twice and got 30 each time...

However, probably additional posts were added to this thread since you 
wrote the above, so I'm not saying you were wrong. 30 or 29, it's 
obvious there's a problem. The question is what do we do about it.

Do the elves have any connection with Yahoomort? How do we file a 
notice about a bug? We are the largest Yahoo Group, aren't we? We have 
the power to change things.

Neri 

Neri






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 19 00:00:30 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:00:30 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
References: <eh68u5+s8ou@...>
Message-ID: <004901c6f311$978a61a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Alla:
>> Oh, I am sooo computer unsophisticated to put it mildly, but to test
>> your magic *30* I just counted the posts in this thread
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159895
>>
>> Here a_svirn replies to mine, which Yahoomort does not bother to show
>> already and I counted 29, or am I math challenged also? :)


Neri:
> I've counted twice and got 30 each time...
>
> However, probably additional posts were added to this thread since you
> wrote the above, so I'm not saying you were wrong. 30 or 29, it's
> obvious there's a problem. The question is what do we do about it.
>
> Do the elves have any connection with Yahoomort? How do we file a
> notice about a bug? We are the largest Yahoo Group, aren't we? We have
> the power to change things.


SSSusan:
Neri, this has driven a lot of us nuts since Yahoo!Groups first introduced 
it's "New and **coughNOTcough** Improved" version of Y!Gs a few months ago. 
I *loved* the old "Up Thread" and "Down Thread" buttons, and I have found 
the new system very confusing and inconsistent.  I also find the 
indentations they use to show the entire thread less than helpful -- I don't 
think the offsets are quite deep enough and find it hard to actually tell 
what's indented.

When I say consistency, I mean this:

If you look in this message
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159904
and click on "Show Message Option," you will see "Up Thread" there... and 
clicking on it DOES, in fact, take you to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159900
and clicking on "Up Thread" in that message does, in fact, take you to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159895
and etc.

This is wonderful -- it's what I remember from before -- but that "Up 
Thread" option under "Show Message Option" is NOT always present.

For instance, in this post of Eddie's,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159906
even though it's a continuation of a thread ["Sevens"], it has a new subject 
line, and there is no "Up Thread" option available.

Similarly, this post from Jordan, which *kept* the name of that thread 
["Sevens"]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159894
also does not have the "Up Thread" option.   Perhaps it's because Jordan 
sent the post via email and not webview?  I don't know.  That's the part 
I've not investigated.  So, while I say the "Up Thread" option is there 
inconsistently, it may actually be that there's a very real, consistent 
pattern to when it's available, but I've not figured it out.

Then again, this post of Jordan's in a different thread
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159822
*does* show the "Up Thread" option.  So what does that mean??

And my last post was posted from webview as a reply
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159790
and yet it does not show the "Up Thread" option.
Sigh....  WHO KNOWS?!!?!?

I guess if I have to say something nice <g>, I *do* like the feature where 
you can expand the messages and actually read the content of each post in 
the thread if you like -- that saves a lot of clicking, at least.

Enough commiserating.  To your questions.

Yes, I do think we are the largest Y!G.  And, yes, we do have a contact or 
two that a couple of members of our list admin team can use (and have used) 
to express concerns & make requests.  And while those folks have been great 
about listening and being in touch with us, it's not like we have any 
"power" to wield with them.  I know we did gripe very loudly about a couple 
of the features, and they put them back aright pretty quickly, but it may 
have been that folks from many Y!Gs were similarly concerned and let them 
know it.

What typically happens is that we let a contact know about an issue we're 
worried about or feel could be improved and then wait for a response. :) 
For instance, Y!Gs currently limits the number of moderators a group can 
have to 15.  For most groups, this is way more than adequate.  For a group 
like HPfGU, it is actually inadequate.  When we have a full complement of 
elves working on pending messages (like we've needed to w/ this recent HUGE 
surge in membership), we would like to have as many elves as possible with 
moderator privileges, and 15 doesn't quite cut it.  We've reported this, 
asked if it can be changed, and have been told that it likely can be... but 
that it may not be addressed very quickly.  So, while we can certainly 
report our concerns and gripe to the PTB about what annoys us, we're still 
at the mercy of those PTB as to what they feel is high enough priority to 
require their attention.

I would be happy to pass this concern on to the list admin's group, for 
those who aren't following Feedback, and see if someone can then pass it on 
to the Y!G contact.  Additionally, I think the more people who, as 
individuals, write to those PTB themselves, the better.

There is a link at the bottom left of the Y!G homepage under "Send us 
feedback" that you can use:
http://groups.yahoo.com/

Siriusly Snapey Susan




From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 19 13:54:17 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:54:17 -0000
Subject: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
In-Reply-To: <004901c6f311$978a61a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <eh8029+j5t4@...>

> Neri:
> > I've counted twice and got 30 each time...
> >
> > However, probably additional posts were added to this thread 
since you
> > wrote the above, so I'm not saying you were wrong. 30 or 29, it's
> > obvious there's a problem. The question is what do we do about it.

Alla:

Heeee, not making a really substantive post, just fully conceding 
that you are right.


> > Do the elves have any connection with Yahoomort? How do we file a
> > notice about a bug? We are the largest Yahoo Group, aren't we? We 
have
> > the power to change things.
> 

Alla:

What Susan said basically :)





From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 19 17:14:07 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:14:07 -0000
Subject: Threading problem in the new Yahoo interface
In-Reply-To: <004901c6f311$978a61a0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <eh8bov+e8md@...>

 
> SSSusan:
> Neri, this has driven a lot of us nuts since Yahoo!Groups first 
introduced 
> it's "New and **coughNOTcough** Improved" version of Y!Gs a few 
months ago. 
> I *loved* the old "Up Thread" and "Down Thread" buttons, and I have 
found 
> the new system very confusing and inconsistent.  I also find the 
> indentations they use to show the entire thread less than helpful --
 I don't 
> think the offsets are quite deep enough and find it hard to 
actually tell 
> what's indented.
> 
> When I say consistency, I mean this:
> 
> If you look in this message
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159904
> and click on "Show Message Option," you will see "Up Thread" 
there... and 
> clicking on it DOES, in fact, take you to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159900
> and clicking on "Up Thread" in that message does, in fact, take you 
to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159895
> and etc.
> 

Neri:
Thank you, SSSusan, thank you! My lost Up thread button, found again! 
I had the feeling I was missing something obvious.

> SSSusan:
> This is wonderful -- it's what I remember from before -- but 
that "Up 
> Thread" option under "Show Message Option" is NOT always present.
> 

Neri:
Drat


> SSSusan:
> For instance, in this post of Eddie's,
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159906
> even though it's a continuation of a thread ["Sevens"], it has a 
new subject 
> line, and there is no "Up Thread" option available.
>

Neri:
I was going to suggest that we're generally supposed to use the 
new "thread tree" below to get to the up thread post, but in threads 
of more than 30 posts, where the threading function breaks down, 
we're supposed to use the up thread button. This indeed works with 
the threads I used in my previous examples ? if there are less than 
30 then the thread tree looks fine and there's no up thread button. 
If there are more than 30 the thread tree is broken and there *is* an 
up thread button. Only your example above refutes this, because there 
are less than 30 posts and still the thread tree looks broken and no 
up thread button. This is worse than figuring out how to open the 
door in JKR's site

 
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that changing the name of the thread has 
nothing to do with it. Yahoomort don't care if we change the name. 
>From their PoV it's still the same thread.


> SSSusan:
> Similarly, this post from Jordan, which *kept* the name of that 
thread 
> ["Sevens"]
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159894
> also does not have the "Up Thread" option.   Perhaps it's because 
Jordan 
> sent the post via email and not webview?  I don't know.  That's the 
part 
> I've not investigated.  So, while I say the "Up Thread" option is 
there 
> inconsistently, it may actually be that there's a very real, 
consistent 
> pattern to when it's available, but I've not figured it out.
> 

Neri:
Well, I guess we can simply ask the PTB. Although this would be like 
going to the Leaky website to find out how to open the door instead 
of figuring it out yourself



> SSSusan:
> Then again, this post of Jordan's in a different thread
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159822
> *does* show the "Up Thread" option.  So what does that mean??
> 

Neri:
It means that this thread has more than 30 posts. So the obviously 
broken thread tree below shows you *exactly* 30 posts out of them, 
and Yahoo added the up thread button because they know their 
threading function breaks down after 30 posts.


> SSSusan:
> And my last post was posted from webview as a reply
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159790
> and yet it does not show the "Up Thread" option.
> Sigh....  WHO KNOWS?!!?!?
> 

Neri:
Yup. Because there are less than 30 posts. So you can use the thread 
tree to get to the up thread post.

So this *almost* always works: less than 30 posts - use the thread 
tree. More than 30 posts ? use the up thread button.

I have a related question for you, SSSusan. Your post (the one I'm 
answering right now) answered my post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/793
and yet in the thread tree below, it appears as an answer to my first 
post, the one that started this thread:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/788
This is another common problem I've noticed: a post appears as a 
reply to the first post of the thread although it is an answer to a 
more up thread post. I suspect it's another Yahoomort quirk. Do you 
remember what did you do when you answered my post?


> SSSusan: 
> I guess if I have to say something nice <g>, I *do* like the 
feature where 
> you can expand the messages and actually read the content of each 
post in 
> the thread if you like -- that saves a lot of clicking, at least.
> 

Neri:
Yes, I like it too. And their new Search is waaaay better (not that 
it was difficult to do better than the previous Search
)


> SSSusan: 
> Yes, I do think we are the largest Y!G.  And, yes, we do have a 
contact or 
> two that a couple of members of our list admin team can use (and 
have used) 
> to express concerns & make requests.  And while those folks have 
been great 
> about listening and being in touch with us, it's not like we have 
any 
> "power" to wield with them.  I know we did gripe very loudly about 
a couple 
> of the features, and they put them back aright pretty quickly, but 
it may 
> have been that folks from many Y!Gs were similarly concerned and 
let them 
> know it.
> <snip>

Neri:
OK, this sounds like the classic situation of griping to the system 
technicians. They might actually be very nice, but they are always 
busy with More Important Things, so it's usually best to give them a 
very exact description of the problem, and then ask for a small fix 
that wouldn't take them a lot of work to make. Perhaps we should ask 
them if it's possible to make the up thread button always available. 
Since they apparently can make it available in the big threads, I 
presume it shouldn't be a problem in small threads as well. Other 
suggestions? 
  
Neri






From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 13:01:49 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:01:49 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemor
In-Reply-To: <ehk97g+qfrj@...>
References: <ehjfs7+m6q1@...> <ehk97g+qfrj@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610240601r17042bdema403302639eb8c13@...>

[also sent to -feedback. followups should go there]

> Aussie:
>
> Let me guess. An elf already sent you an email saying it is less
> confusing to ask one question at a time.

Doubtful. Such a policy, if there was one, would almost directly
conflict with the rarely-enforced five-messages-per-person-per-day
limit. We're encouraged to put as much together in a single message as
we can. Personally, I don't agree with that policy, and I don't think
it really reduces volume at all since one big messages takes as long
to read as five small ones, but it is the policy.

-- 
Random832



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 13:22:44 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemor
Message-ID: <20061024132244.80208.qmail@...>

Aussie:
> Let me guess. An elf already sent you an email saying it is less
> confusing to ask one question at a time.

Random832:
>>> Doubtful. Such a policy, if there was one, would almost directly
conflict with the rarely-enforced five-messages-per-person-per-day
limit. We're encouraged to put as much together in a single message as
we can. Personally, I don't agree with that policy, and I don't think
it really reduces volume at all since one big messages takes as long
to read as five small ones, but it is the policy. <<<


SSSusan:
Nope, there is no policy which says a member should ask one question only.  Not at all.  And as Random points out, especially *within* one thread, the preference is for combined responses, rather than a bunch of individual responses.  I can understand what your'e saying, Random, about the length of some combined responses, but I know that when I read, I *much* prefer to find a synthesis of arguments to that point, with responses to several posts if applicable, than to find 4 or 5 short posts in a row by the same poster, all addressing the same topic.  IOW, I find it much nicer to read the entire gist of a position, with countering positions & responses, in one place.

Um... can you say more, Random, about the "rarely-enforced" 5-post limit??  As an elf, I participate in the listreading rotation, and I can attest that it *is* monitored.  It is also a little tricky since what constitutes a "day" depends upon where in this wide HP world one resides.  However, we do try to look at a rolling 24-hour time period, to see if anyone is going over.  For me, if I find that someone went over in such a 24-hour time period, I look back further to see if there is a pattern of doing so.  I can't swear that all elves are monitoring this in their listreading duty, but I can vouch that many of us are.

Siriusly Snapey Susan, more as Shorty Elf this time



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 14:10:10 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:10:10 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemor
In-Reply-To: <20061024132244.80208.qmail@...>
References: <20061024132244.80208.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610240710y5b8274c9odaff4ca0757b03f3@...>

> SSSusan:
> Nope, there is no policy which says a member should ask one question only.
> Not at all.  And as Random points out, especially *within* one thread, the
> preference is for combined responses, rather than a bunch of individual
> responses.  I can understand what your'e saying, Random, about the length of
> some combined responses,

Random832:
I'm not sure you do. I'm not saying that combined responses are _bad_
because they're long, i'm saying they're _no improvement_. And that
effectively preventing someone from continuing to respond to the
replies that are made to their own messages needlessly limits the pace
of debate for no real benefit.

>but I know that when I read, I *much* prefer to find a synthesis of
arguments to that point, with responses to several posts if
applicable, than to find 4 or 5 short posts in a row by the same
poster, all addressing the same topic.  IOW, I find it much nicer to
read the entire gist of a position, with countering positions &
responses, in one place.

> Um... can you say more, Random, about the "rarely-enforced" 5-post limit??

I've never heard of anyone who wasn't on moderation getting called on
it. The fact that someone thought that the questions should have been
split up into individual message further tells me that it's an
_unfamiliar_ policy - that is, people don't know about it to nearly
the same degree they know about quoting rules, signatures, and all
that.

------

In general, if the issue is that people are saying the same thing over
and over in response to many different posts (i've been guilty of this
- not here, but on usenet, honestly, particularly in larger threads)
then why not have the rule be that we should try to make sure each
post adds something new, rather than a hard limit that has nothing to
do with the original problem?

And what if someone wants to post responses to five (or more)
different threads? Combining posts becomes a problem there because a
message can only be in one thread, and can only have one subject (the
occasional "reply to two dozen different things" type message when
someone's been gone for a while is fine, but I certainly wouldn't like
to see it become the norm)

Personally, I do reply to multiple messages [always within a thread or
a few closely related threads] in one, when it makes sense to, and
i'll hold off on things like one-liners or
semi-not-really-but-almost-off-topic things until i've got something
more substantial to go with it, but I make no effort to limit my posts
to any particular number and i've never been called on it - that's
what I meant by 'rarely enforced' - the only time I was ever called on
it was when I was still on moderation AND the post in question also
needed editing due to quoting issues. I'd at least like to think that
the reason i've never been called on it is because the posts still
_work_ - they're not ten of the same reply to ten different messages,
they're not one-liners, etc.

Would it really be a problem if he were to have asked the three
questions in three separate posts, been answered, and then in each of
those threads posted to ask for clarification if needed etc (six in
total) all in the same day? What if he'd had four questions (eight
posts)?

I think that the five-post-per-day limit is a solution to the wrong
problem - even more so now that it's been more clearly explained to me
what the real problem is

-- 
Random832



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 14:27:05 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemor
Message-ID: <20061024142705.44720.qmail@...>

Random:
>>> I've never heard of anyone who wasn't on moderation getting called on
it. The fact that someone thought that the questions should have been
split up into individual message further tells me that it's an
_unfamiliar_ policy - that is, people don't know about it to nearly
the same degree they know about quoting rules, signatures, and all
that. <<<

Shorty:
I guess I would ask, why would you have heard of anyone being called on it?  Offlist messages to members about posting violations are private matters; they're not shared with anyone else.  Yet I can assure you I have sent those reminders to members.


Jordan:
>>> In general, if the issue is that people are saying the same thing over
and over in response to many different posts (i've been guilty of this
- not here, but on usenet, honestly, particularly in larger threads)
then why not have the rule be that we should try to make sure each
post adds something new, rather than a hard limit that has nothing to
do with the original problem? <<<

Shorty:
Since I am at work, I do not have time to address much from the various other issues you raise.  I'll leave it for others to respond, other than to say that until a few months ago, the posting limit was THREE per day.  The limit was raised to FIVE per day for several reasons, among which were to allow people more "breathing room" and to allow more opportunity for those who are involved in an active exchange to not have to "shut down for the day" and wait til the next.  

And we *do* have a rule that says she would try to make each post add something new.  To whit:

2.4.1 Make Your Post Worthwhile
The best posts are not just written; they are constructed, with an introduction, argument, supporting evidence from canon, and conclusion. We strongly encourage posters to take their time writing posts, and to consider before posting whether the post will add anything new to the discussion or merely repeat things that have already been said. 

Shorty/SSSusan



From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 14:51:18 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:51:18 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemor
In-Reply-To: <20061024142705.44720.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ehl996+c3d3@...>

> Random:
> >>> I've never heard of anyone who wasn't on moderation getting 
called on
> it. The fact that someone thought that the questions should have 
been
> split up into individual message further tells me that it's an
> _unfamiliar_ policy - that is, people don't know about it to nearly
> the same degree they know about quoting rules, signatures, and all
> that. <<<
> 
> Shorty:
> I guess I would ask, why would you have heard of anyone being 
called on it?  Offlist messages to members about posting violations 
are private matters; they're not shared with anyone else.  Yet I can 
assure you I have sent those reminders to members.
> 
>

Alika Elf:

Yes, me too and more than once. And yes, we do enforce it rather 
strictly.

Now, since as Shorty said we count during 24 hour limit in order to 
try to be as fair as possible to all list members, once in a blue 
moon if I see six posts over 24 hour limit and list member never 
overposts otherwise, I will not do so, because it is sometimes 
possible to miscount your posts, I did it once or twice myself, but 
when I see seven or eight posts even if it is once in a while, I will 
send a reminder most definitely.





From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 15:39:01 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:39:01 -0400
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610240839u20f7778apba81ed94946d7413@...>

> Shorty:
> I guess I would ask, why would you have heard of anyone being called on it?  Offlist messages to members about posting violations are private matters; they're not shared with anyone else.  Yet I can assure you I have sent those reminders to members.

Well - I think the fact that it's unfamiliar speaks for itself. I
don't have to see the messages people get for quoting/signature
problems to know they're being sent out.

> Shorty:
> And we *do* have a rule that says she would try to make each post add something new.  To whit:
>
> 2.4.1 Make Your Post Worthwhile

OK, so there is one. Can anyone explain to me what the problem is if
someone posts six or seven messages a day, even if it's _every_ day,
as long as they're all worthwhile?

Especially if the alternative is that they post all the same content
in two or three long messages that mix stuff about multiple subjects -
it seems like in that case it creates more work and breaks threading
for no apparent benefit.

-- 
Random832



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 15:57:43 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] 5 Posts per day limit
Message-ID: <20061024155743.71153.qmail@...>

Shorty earlier:
> > I guess I would ask, why would you have heard of anyone being called on it?  Offlist messages to members about posting 
> > violations are private matters; they're not shared with anyone else.  Yet I can assure you I have sent those reminders to 
> > members.

Random:
> Well - I think the fact that it's unfamiliar speaks for itself. I don't have to see the messages people get for quoting/signature
> problems to know they're being sent out.


Shorty:
I don't get where you're getting the notion that it's "unfamiliar."  If it were unfamiliar, we would be having many members going over the 5-post limit all the time.  This doesn't happen!  It's an occasional situation.  

The 5-post limit is *in* the posting rules; it's *in* the Humongous BigFile.  Those members who've been at HPfGU for more than a few months know that we moved from 3 to 5.  I do not understand what this evidence is that the limit is "unfamiliar.

Shorty Elf



From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 17:15:22 2006
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:15:22 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610240839u20f7778apba81ed94946d7413@...>
Message-ID: <ehlhna+a5vj@...>

Jordan:
> OK, so there is one. Can anyone explain to me what the problem is
> if someone posts six or seven messages a day, even if it's _every_
> day,as long as they're all worthwhile?
 
> Especially if the alternative is that they post all the same
> contentin two or three long messages that mix stuff about multiple
> subjects -it seems like in that case it creates more work and 
> breaks threading for no apparent benefit.

Jen: Just writing in as a list member since 2003. I don't know when 
you started Random, but I'm thinking it was fairly recent. Just a 
little bit of history. After OOTP the list went through this period 
where every day for weeks on end, I kid you not, there were the same 
debates over and over ad nauseum about Snape (most often his 
teaching or Occlumency) and the abuse issue with the Dursleys. 
Typically a handful of people would argue the same points daily, 
trying to persuade each other of the their 'truth'. Posts from 
individuals would number way over 5 by the time each day was done 
and you can probably guess the outcome--no one persuaded anyone else 
of ANYTHING. Other issues got crowded out or people simply stopped 
posting b/c the list became so negative and, in my opinion, boring.

In my experience unlimited posting promotes unlimited arguing and 
the utopian ideal of 6-7 'worthwhile posts' won't be met. To me it 
seems almost impossible to write 6-7 truly substantive posts a day 
because my criteria is very high for what that means: Constructing a 
position using canon quotes or references which are woven into the 
arguments, addressing multiple POV's from different posters on the 
thread, and actually have something to add that is a different 
perspective. 

Now, do I think all posts need to meet that criteria? No way. We 
need to have fun too, and that's why 5 posts a day allows for some 
really substantive posts and some bits here and there. Frankly, no 
matter how much I enjoy certain posters NO one, myself included, is 
enjoyable after 5 posts a day. People just get tired of seeing your 
name in my opinion. 

And lest you think I want to change your mind--I don't!! I'm just 
saying when you've been here day after day, year after year, and 
seen what causes some of these rules to be put in place, it will 
definitely help in the understanding deparment. Many of the rules 
are long before my time, but I'll bet they all came because multiple 
members were tearing their hair out over some annoying problem 
rather than the whim of elves or whatever you many think (not sure). 

OK, enough from me. I wrote one post here and one on main and 
already I'm worn out for the day. If you can come up with stuff for 
6-7 that's pretty amazing.

Jen Reese, recovering list member from the great Snape debates of 
what, 2004?





From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 17:25:58 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:25:58 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <20061024155743.71153.qmail@...>
References: <20061024155743.71153.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610241025g32415684l75fe94c926505bb0@...>

> Shorty:
> The 5-post limit is *in* the posting rules; it's *in* the Humongous BigFile.  Those members who've been at HPfGU for more than a few months know that we moved from 3 to 5.  I do not understand what this evidence is that the limit is "unfamiliar.

If it were more familiar, nobody would have suggested splitting the
post out into individual ones for each question, just as no-one ever
suggests leaving off the signature to save space, or top-posting so
that the new content is immediately visible. That's all I meant

-- 
Random832



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 18:05:56 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] 5 Posts per day limit
Message-ID: <20061024180556.6800.qmail@...>

Shorty:
> The 5-post limit is *in* the posting rules; it's *in* the Humongous BigFile.  Those members who've been at HPfGU for more than a 
> few months know that we moved from 3 to 5.  I do not understand what this evidence is that the limit is "unfamiliar.

Random:
>>> If it were more familiar, nobody would have suggested splitting the
post out into individual ones for each question, just as no-one ever
suggests leaving off the signature to save space, or top-posting so
that the new content is immediately visible. That's all I meant <<<


Shorty Elf:
Ah, okay, I think I see what you're saying.  The very fact that Aussie responded with the "guess" that an elf had contacted this newbie about splitting out the questions makes you believe that people aren't all that familiar with the limit?  Or am I still missing the point?

Frankly, one member saying that he suspected a newbie might've been contacted about parceling out questions into separate posts does not, to me, mean it's a common misunderstanding that there's no posting limit or that the 5-post limit isn't enforced.  It's a leap I'm not quite making.

Also, truthfully, I have no idea what was behind Aussie's response.  First of all, the newbie herself didn't seem to be concerned either that she *should* post a lot of questions in one post *or* that she should separate them out.  Steve (bboyminn) responded to her and addressed just about all of her questions.  Nowhere was it mentioned that she should not submit so many together just to save posts, and neither was it suggested anywhere that she could post each question separately, for an unlimited number of questions, because she can post as much as she wants.  

So that's why I'm puzzled by Aussie's response and also unsure that it really pertains to an understanding/belief about the posting limit either.  To me it seems more about the issue of clarity in posts.  Who knows whether Aussie was even thinking about how many posts this member would have in which to ask her questions? 

Shorty Elf



From horridporrid03 at horridporrid03.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 19:09:26 2006
From: horridporrid03 at horridporrid03.yahoo.invalid (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:09:26 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <20061024180556.6800.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <ehlod6+249f@...>

> >>Shorty:
> > The 5-post limit is *in* the posting rules; it's *in* the       
> > Humongous BigFile.  Those members who've been at HPfGU for more 
> > than a few months know that we moved from 3 to 5.  I do not     
> > understand what this evidence is that the limit is "unfamiliar.

> >>Random:
> If it were more familiar, nobody would have suggested splitting the
> post out into individual ones for each question, just as no-one    
> ever suggests leaving off the signature to save space, or top-    
> posting so that the new content is immediately visible. That's all 
> I meant

Betsy Hp:
Actually, some people *are* familiar with posting limits.  I know 
this because there are often posts where folks reference the posting 
limit. ("I'm at my 5th post" etc.)

Though frankly, I'm not sure why familiarity matters...

Are you wanting those limits to change?

(Personally, I theorized that Aussie was more responding to 
Potioncat's plea for more informative Subject lines... but that was 
just a guess on my part. <g>)

Betsy Hp






From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 20:57:04 2006
From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:57:04 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] 5 Posts per day limit
References: <20061024155743.71153.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <019b01c6f7ae$f684b420$02fea8c0@Draco>

Shorty Elf wrote:

<The 5-post limit is *in* the posting rules; it's *in* the Humongous 
BigFile.  Those members who've been at HPfGU for more than a few months know 
that we moved from 3 to 5.  I do not understand what this evidence is that 
the limit is "unfamiliar.>

I didn't know this was changed and I've been a member since 2001.  When did 
this happen?

Maybe it's just been that damn long since I was an active list member and 
and elf, but I always thought so long as the posts did something for the 
discusscion, were had substance and were far more then a one liner, that 
rule was ignored.  In fact, way back when, when I had an active role, I 
barley remembered the rule in the first place.

...then again, I've forgotten most of the rules, because we still have too 
many but that's a diffrent topic *grins*.

Jen wrote:

<To me it
seems almost impossible to write 6-7 truly substantive posts a day >

I doubt that.  I know our members.  They could write substantive posts until 
their brains explode and then do it again tomorrow.

<People just get tired of seeing your name in my opinion. >

...I'm trying to figure out how this is a problem?  It's the same issue as 
getting sick to death of a topic.  You can just skip messages.  People have 
the right on this list to support their theories, topics, opinions all they 
want so long as it's within the rules.  Just because someone is vocal 
doesn't mean that they can't post if they can back it up and make it worth 
posting.

If the five a day rule was to change (which it won't...in my opinion as a 
non elf), those members would have just as much a right to post to their 
hearts content as they would at any other time.

< I'm just
saying when you've been here day after day, year after year, and
seen what causes some of these rules to be put in place, it will
definitely help in the understanding deparment. >

Time does not equate understanding.  Most newbies understand the reasons for 
the rules just fine.  Nor does time stop one from questioning the rules, and 
asking for a review.  I joined before the Humongous Big File (or whatever 
it's called these days) was implimented and am still a member after it and I 
question some of the rules...just not publically because I have no urge to 
ask for a review (or a debate with the elves).

<Many of the rules
are long before my time, but I'll bet they all came because multiple
members were tearing their hair out over some annoying problem
rather than the whim of elves or whatever you many think (not sure). >

I vote whim (kidding elves!).

Honestly I don't remember how the rules came about (probably because I was 
an elf just after their creation), but most of them were for the ease of the 
elves jobs and cleaning up the list if I recall correctly (and I bet 
anything an older elf is going to correct me).  They serve the same function 
as multiple sister lists, order to chaos.

While members always have input, in the end any decision IS left to the whim 
of the elves (and back in the day, the Mod Tower).   Well, not whim so much 
as what the elves can do for the better of the list and saving their sanity.

And on the actual subject of five posts a day, while I understand SOME of 
the reasoning behind it (chaos control, keeping the list on topic and worth 
reading, keeping elf sanity (always important!), and so forth), I'm not sure 
if the rule is really something that should be in place , or is in the best 
format.

It doesn't effect me, let's get that out of the way right away.  I don't 
post and hardley read the main list anymore, but for those that ARE active 
posters, that post substantial, worth wild topics and read the list, I think 
that the rule might be a bit...antiquated.

We have a lot of members, we have a lot of opinions and topics, five posts a 
day stiffles those and creates harder discussions because you're bouncing 
all over to catch up with the conversation.  Threads of discussion are lost 
as replies are combined into topics that one might accidently skip over. 
While this would not be a problem if all the replies were to the same thread 
of discussion, it does get a bit annoying when the replies are to SEVERAL 
topics of discussion, as some members post.  You have to play a guessing 
game to figure out which messages are replies to your topic and which 
aren't, unless its' explicitly spelled out in the subject line.

In fact, confusing conversation flows was one of the reasons I stopped 
participating.  I couldn't keep track of what went where and just gave up. 
And after time, I just had nothing to say because I couldn't find anything 
unless it was a direct conversation.

And while I doubt it weights much, that's just my opinion on the subject.  I 
know the rule has been reviewed recently enough to be changed and yay for 
that, I just have issues with the rule itself and those are my issues.  I 
fully understand that and in the end I side with the elves doing what they 
think is best for the list when it all comes down to it.

-----
Saitaina

It was a dead head. He hadn't expected this when he'd left Japan. Shot 
maybe. Stabbed possibly. Hung or strangled. Poisoned. But not heads rolling 
merrily down the street like a deranged bowling ball ready to gnaw off their 
ankles.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina

If life hands you lemons, you should make lemonaide...and then try to find 
someone whose life has handed them vodka.





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 21:32:10 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:32:10 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] 5 Posts per day limit
References: <20061024155743.71153.qmail@...> <019b01c6f7ae$f684b420$02fea8c0@Draco>
Message-ID: <001701c6f7b3$dda088d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Shorty Elf wrote:
> <The 5-post limit is *in* the posting rules; it's *in* the Humongous
> BigFile.  Those members who've been at HPfGU for more than a few months 
> know
> that we moved from 3 to 5.  I do not understand what this evidence is that
> the limit is "unfamiliar.>

Saitaina:
> I didn't know this was changed and I've been a member since 2001.  When 
> did
> this happen?

Shorty:
Hee.  'Twas announced June 15 '06:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/153892


Saitaina:
> Maybe it's just been that damn long since I was an active list member and
> and elf, but I always thought so long as the posts did something for the
> discusscion, were had substance and were far more then a one liner, that
> rule was ignored.  In fact, way back when, when I had an active role, I
> barley remembered the rule in the first place.

Shorty:
"That damn long" -- hee, you mean back in the days when membership was, 
what?, 8000? 10,000?  <g>  This recent "HPfGU featured at Yahoo!Groups's 
homepage" business has caused another huge jump in membership, along with 
those that happened after OotP and HBP.  We're at 24,475 at the moment!  NOT 
that that has anything to do with the overall goal of wanting posts which 
advance discussion -- that's still the goal! -- but it does impact list 
administration and potentially posting volume.

Saitaina:
> While members always have input, in the end any decision IS left to the 
> whim
> of the elves (and back in the day, the Mod Tower).   Well, not whim so 
> much
> as what the elves can do for the better of the list and saving their 
> sanity.

Shorty:
I do think saving sanity is part of it! :)  DISCLAIMER:  I speak for myself 
and no other elf.


Saitaina:
> Threads of discussion are lost
> as replies are combined into topics that one might accidently skip over.
> While this would not be a problem if all the replies were to the same 
> thread
> of discussion, it does get a bit annoying when the replies are to SEVERAL
> topics of discussion, as some members post.  You have to play a guessing
> game to figure out which messages are replies to your topic and which
> aren't, unless its' explicitly spelled out in the subject line.

Shorty:
FWIW, I don't think elves ever actually encourage *this* kind of combining 
of responses, Saitaina.  What is suggested is a combining of responses 
*within* a thread... and that is not a new suggestion.


Saitaina:
> And while I doubt it weights much, that's just my opinion on the subject. 
> I
> know the rule has been reviewed recently enough to be changed and yay for
> that, I just have issues with the rule itself and those are my issues.  I
> fully understand that and in the end I side with the elves doing what they
> think is best for the list when it all comes down to it.

Shorty:
Heavens, you *should* weigh in!  You're right that this was fairly recently 
discussed (spring of '06), as was the original decision to go to a 
3-post-per-day limit.  Both times pretty extensively.  There were multiple 
reasons for the decision to go to 3 posts, again to raise it to 5 posts. 
Doesn't mean either decision was "right" or "perfect," and certainly no 
matter what the elves do, it's not going to suit every member.

Shorty, avoiding some of the rationale discussion for now because she only 
ever seems to have about 5 mins. to devote to any one response!






From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 21:07:47 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:07:47 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <ehlod6+249f@...>
References: <20061024180556.6800.qmail@...>
	 <ehlod6+249f@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610241407l61b8705u524d7dc2838b5223@...>

> Betsy Hp:
> Actually, some people *are* familiar with posting limits.  I know
> this because there are often posts where folks reference the posting
> limit. ("I'm at my 5th post" etc.)
>
> Though frankly, I'm not sure why familiarity matters...

It doesn't, except for the fact that I used the adjective phrase
"rarely-enforced".

> Are you wanting those limits to change?

well, yes, that was sort of where I was going with the whole "arguing
the shortcomings of the rule and the lack of need for it" thing. This
is the right place for that, isn't it?

Why not instead say that every post has to _add_ something (not that
it has to be a perfectly constructed post, but just that it can't be a
mere rehash of the same message you responded to someone else with two
seconds ago, or that you said the same exact thing earlier in the
thread)? That would stop people arguing in circles and keep debate
moving forward without limiting its pace unnecessarily.

Jen:
> After OOTP

First thing - that's right after a book release - don't you think that
maybe it's possible we don't need the same rules in (shall we say)
'peacetime'?

I'm not denying that what you described [elsewhere in your post] isn't
a problem - I just think that it's not a problem that's really solved
by limiting to 5 posts per day. The only "problem" that it "solves"
is, well, the number of new messages each day. Which no-one's really
seriously argued is a problem. I think there are better solutions to
the problem that's actually been stated (which we all seem to agree
on, if in somewhat different words - that being people just arguing in
circles / repeating themselves many times / etc)

Jen:
>NO one, myself included, is
>enjoyable after 5 posts a day. People just get tired of seeing your
>name in my opinion.

Even when there are five (or six, or ten) different discussions going
on and these five posts are in only four of them anyway? If there are
ten different discussions going on should there be a rule that any
given list member is only allowed to have an opinion on five of the
issues being discussed?

And regardless, who really gets tired of seeing a name? You might get
tired of reading so much material by someone, but 15 short posts or 5
really long ones, it's all the same in that respect. In these recent
threads about draco or snape or whether dumbledore knew what was gonna
happen on the tower etc, i've gotten tired of reading them altogether
no matter _who_ posts them. And it's really no different with a small
number of really long posts as with more, shorter ones. Even if what
you're saying is a problem that should be solved, it's not one that
can be solved by (metaphorically, though not by much) stuffing the
same number of letters into fewer envelopes.

-- 
Random832



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 22:23:32 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:23:32 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
References: <20061024180556.6800.qmail@...> <ehlod6+249f@...> <7b9f25e50610241407l61b8705u524d7dc2838b5223@...>
Message-ID: <004101c6f7bb$0a9611f0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Betsy Hp:
>> Actually, some people *are* familiar with posting limits.  I know
>> this because there are often posts where folks reference the posting
>> limit. ("I'm at my 5th post" etc.)
>>
>> Though frankly, I'm not sure why familiarity matters...

Random:
> It doesn't, except for the fact that I used the adjective phrase
> "rarely-enforced".

Shorty:
This is where I get a bit frustrated.  Again, why do you maintain that this 
is "rarely enforced"?  I have already responded that the elves *do* enforce 
this, so I guess I feel as though you are saying, "Well, no, you don't" and 
I do not understand how you can make this claim.





From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 22:29:15 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:29:15 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <001701c6f7b3$dda088d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
References: <20061024155743.71153.qmail@...>
	 <019b01c6f7ae$f684b420$02fea8c0@Draco>
	 <001701c6f7b3$dda088d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610241529k54d85d5fw296128fec49598e3@...>

> Shorty:
[regarding combined responses on multiple threads]
> FWIW, I don't think elves ever actually encourage *this* kind of combining
> of responses, Saitaina.  What is suggested is a combining of responses
> *within* a thread... and that is not a new suggestion.

Well, the problem as I see it is that it's never really made clear
what's encouraged, and even if it's not encouraged as such, in any
event the rule creates a dilemma between either doing that (which
breaks threading, is hard to read, hard to figure out, and generally
annoying) or limiting the number of threads one can participate in.

> Shorty:
> Shorty, avoiding some of the rationale discussion for now because she only
> ever seems to have about 5 mins. to devote to any one response!

I don't think the problem is the rationale - clearly there is a
problem that needs to be solved. I just think this may not be the best
way to do it.

Saitana:
> I always thought so long as the posts did something for the
> discusscion, were had substance and were far more then a one liner, that
> rule was ignored.

I think that even if this is not the case, it should be, and the rule
should be rewritten to reflect that.

--
Random832



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 22:39:36 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:39:36 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <004101c6f7bb$0a9611f0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
References: <20061024180556.6800.qmail@...>
	 <ehlod6+249f@...>
	 <7b9f25e50610241407l61b8705u524d7dc2838b5223@...>
	 <004101c6f7bb$0a9611f0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610241539m11c4a3f6q69c643328281901a@...>

On 10/24/06, susiequsie23 <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
> Betsy Hp:
> >> Actually, some people *are* familiar with posting limits.  I know
> >> this because there are often posts where folks reference the posting
> >> limit. ("I'm at my 5th post" etc.)
> >>
> >> Though frankly, I'm not sure why familiarity matters...
>
> Random:
> > It doesn't, except for the fact that I used the adjective phrase
> > "rarely-enforced".
>
> Shorty:
> This is where I get a bit frustrated.  Again, why do you maintain that this
> is "rarely enforced"?  I have already responded that the elves *do* enforce
> this, so I guess I feel as though you are saying, "Well, no, you don't" and
> I do not understand how you can make this claim.

...we're going in circles - i just happened to say it offhand, i'm not
"maintaining" or "insisting" it or anything - i just said it once and
you jumped on it - then i explained that it's not as familiar to
people as some of the other rules and you asked why i was talking
about if it's familiar or not - you're arguing in circles*.

-- 
Random832
*which is a bit ironic if you think about it



From horridporrid03 at horridporrid03.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 22:36:47 2006
From: horridporrid03 at horridporrid03.yahoo.invalid (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:36:47 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610241407l61b8705u524d7dc2838b5223@...>
Message-ID: <ehm4hv+2dfv@...>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Though frankly, I'm not sure why familiarity matters...

> >>Random832:
> It doesn't, except for the fact that I used the adjective phrase
> "rarely-enforced".

Betsy Hp:
Ah, so you were saying that since the limit is "rarely-enforced" it 
is also an unfamiliar limit?  I think I get it.  I think you're 
wrong for the most part, I do think most regular members know about 
the limit.  But I don't think this particular debate informs at all 
on your main point.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Are you wanting those limits to change?

> >>Random832:
> well, yes, that was sort of where I was going with the            
> whole "arguing the shortcomings of the rule and the lack of need   
> for it" thing. This is the right place for that, isn't it?

Betsy Hp:
It is, but I was confused about what your main point was.  I thought 
you were suggesting the elves should get better about *enforcing* 
the limit.  Or possibly that they needed to do a better job 
advertising the limit.  Which is why I asked for clarification.

> >>Random832: 
> Why not instead say that every post has to _add_ something (not   
> that it has to be a perfectly constructed post, but just that it   
> can't be a mere rehash of the same message you responded to        
> someone else with two seconds ago, or that you said the same exact 
> thing earlier in the thread)?

Betsy Hp:
We do.

> >>Random832:
> That would stop people arguing in circles and keep debate moving   
> forward without limiting its pace unnecessarily.

Betsy Hp:
It doesn't. <g>

But really, one person's rehash is another person's nuance, so that 
particular rule *is* hard to enforce.  I think it's generally used 
to call a halt to a debate the devolves into personal attack and/or 
is not!-is to!-ing.

So the 5 post limit, is it a good thing?  Keep in mind that it's a 
rule of thumb rather than a hard and fast rule, but yeah, I'd say 
it's open to debate.

> >>Saitaina
> <snip>
> We have a lot of members, we have a lot of opinions and topics,   
> five posts a day stiffles those and creates harder discussions    
> because you're bouncing all over to catch up with the conversation.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Personally, I've noticed that folks *have* had to self-stiffle ("at 
my 5 limit") while in the middle of a hot debate.  I'm of two minds 
on that.  On the one hand, it allows time for other posters in 
different time zones to chime in before the debate gets played out.  
But on the other hand, it can disrupt the flow of an on-going 
dicussion.  Especially if one of the main posters is unable to 
return the next day.

So, yeah, I could go either way on this, myself.  I'll be curious to 
hear what other "Feedbackers" think.

Betsy Hp





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Oct 24 23:09:16 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:09:16 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
References: <20061024180556.6800.qmail@...> <ehlod6+249f@...> <7b9f25e50610241407l61b8705u524d7dc2838b5223@...> <004101c6f7bb$0a9611f0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7> <7b9f25e50610241539m11c4a3f6q69c643328281901a@...>
Message-ID: <006701c6f7c1$6dcd7cd0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Random:
>> > It doesn't, except for the fact that I used the adjective phrase
>> > "rarely-enforced".

Shorty:
>> This is where I get a bit frustrated.  Again, why do you maintain that 
>> this
>> is "rarely enforced"?  I have already responded that the elves *do* 
>> enforce
>> this, so I guess I feel as though you are saying, "Well, no, you don't" 
>> and
>> I do not understand how you can make this claim.

Shorty:
> ...we're going in circles - i just happened to say it offhand, i'm not
> "maintaining" or "insisting" it or anything - i just said it once and
> you jumped on it - then i explained that it's not as familiar to
> people as some of the other rules and you asked why i was talking
> about if it's familiar or not - you're arguing in circles*.
>
> -- 
> Random832
> *which is a bit ironic if you think about it

Shorty:
Sorry, I don't see it as arguing in circles.  When you mentioned *again* 
"rarely enforced," I took it as your stating it as a contention again.  If 
that is not what you were doing, then I simply misread you.  (And if that is 
not what you meant, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you were saying 
in that sentence -- sorry.)

I really don't think making a statement that a rule is rarely enforced is 
something that a list member can necessarily do "offhandedly," though.  It 
reads like a statement of fact, which is why I responded.  I don't believe 
that I "jumped on it" either, Random.  I responded to it, yes, to clarify my 
position on that issue, as an elf.  "Jumping on" in my opinion has to do 
with being nasty to someone else, which I do not believe I was.

My intention is not to argue with you at all, least of all in circles!  I 
just believe that, here at Feedback, when issues pertaining to list 
management, list procedures, rules & guidelines come up, members are not 
necessarily going to know how things operate behind the scenes.  I think 
having elves write in to clarify or explain is helpful, especially when 
statements are made which *seem* to be misstatements.

Shorty




From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 01:25:06 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:25:06 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <ehm4hv+2dfv@...>
References: <7b9f25e50610241407l61b8705u524d7dc2838b5223@...>
	 <ehm4hv+2dfv@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610241825p34707777x7f7d96474e97e6d4@...>

> Betsy Hp:
>  But I don't think this particular debate informs at all
> on your main point.
> Betsy Hp:
> It is, but I was confused about what your main point was.

I'll just say straight out - "rarely enforced" had nothing to do with
my main point

> > >>Random832:
> > That would stop people arguing in circles and keep debate moving
> > forward without limiting its pace unnecessarily.
>
> Betsy Hp:
> It doesn't. <g>
>
> But really, one person's rehash is another person's nuance, so that
> particular rule *is* hard to enforce.  I think it's generally used
> to call a halt to a debate the devolves into personal attack and/or
> is not!-is to!-ing.
>
> So the 5 post limit, is it a good thing?

I think my analogy earlier was a good way to put my take on it - it
leads to stuffing too many letters into too few envelopes without
having much real effect on anything else. I think that maybe what it's
trying to get across is a good thing, but it's not a good way to put
it.

maybe something like limit the amount of energy [time or the volume of
text, ???] that any one member puts into any given topic of discussion
in a day - the problem is that would be impossible to enforce fairly.

I think that maybe, instead of five posts per day total, maybe limit
to some number of posts per day _on a given subject_. - and have some
flexibility for the amount of discussion that subject is getting - if
debate is reasonably healthy and fast-paced (and _going somewhere_) go
ahead and post more, but if it seems one person is dominating a thread
or it's just going back and forth without providing any new
information, that's a problem. And I don't think that posts in one
discussion should go towards any "limit" so as to prevent from posting
in an unrelated discussion.



From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 03:14:30 2006
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:14:30 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610241825p34707777x7f7d96474e97e6d4@...>
Message-ID: <ehmkqm+sf27@...>

Jordan:
> I think my analogy earlier was a good way to put my take on it - it
> leads to stuffing too many letters into too few envelopes without
> having much real effect on anything else. I think that maybe what
> it's trying to get across is a good thing, but it's not a good way
> to put it.

Jen: Limiting the number of posts didn't completely solve every 
problem on the list, and maybe it did create other problems such as 
the one Betsy mentioned about stopping a discussion cold or your own 
issues with threading. It's not simply a numbers game though, 
positive things happened, too: more variety of topics, more posters 
participating, newcomer's questions addressed more readily (to name 
a few).

Part of the reason you see so many threads now is because the list 
opened up more topics once the most frequent posters stepped back. 
Saitana said threads are like posters and if you don't like one, 
ignore it. That gets hard when the majority of threads every day are 
variations on the same topic. You don't see that nearly as much now. 
And the positive change can't be chalked up only to new canon, 
because here we are over a year past HBP, with fewer JKR updates, 
and thread variety continues.

Jordan:
> I think that maybe, instead of five posts per day total, maybe
> limit to some number of posts per day _on a given subject_. - and
> have some flexibility for the amount of discussion that subject is
> getting - if debate is reasonably healthy and fast-paced (and 
> _going somewhere_) go ahead and post more, but if it seems one 
> person is dominating a thread or it's just going back and forth 
> without providing any new information, that's a problem. And I 
> don't think that posts in one discussion should go towards 
> any "limit" so as to prevent from posting in an unrelated 
> discussion.

Jen: The difficultly with the first idea is subjectivity. Who will 
make that call? As Betsy so aptly put it, "one person's rehash is 
another person's nuance." I think more members would be bothered by 
someone making a judgement call in the middle of a thread than they 
are by limiting posts. At least that applies to ALL members equally 
and there can't be shouts of favoritism. 

Your second idea is more appealing to me and would also help the 
problem Betsy mentioned of discussions drying up. I have my fears 
we'd be back at square one, but if people want to consider that one 
I'm open to it.

Jen R.





From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 13:18:29 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:18:29 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <ehmkqm+sf27@...>
References: <7b9f25e50610241825p34707777x7f7d96474e97e6d4@...>
	 <ehmkqm+sf27@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610250618t255c6cb4s8e5319947f54884e@...>

Random832:
> > And I
> > don't think that posts in one discussion should go towards
> > any "limit" so as to prevent from posting in an unrelated
> > discussion.

Jen:
> Your second idea is more appealing to me and would also help the
> problem Betsy mentioned of discussions drying up. I have my fears
> we'd be back at square one, but if people want to consider that one
> I'm open to it.

Random832:
How about - a limit of three posts per person per subject per day?
Sure, it's still a bit - no pun intended - subjective as to whether
two posts are on the same "subject", but it seems more easily judged
and agreed upon than other criteria, while still allowing flexibility
to participate in multiple discussions.

-- 
Random832



From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 13:57:50 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 06:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
Message-ID: <20061025135750.73022.qmail@...>

Random832:
> > > And I don't think that posts in one discussion should go towards
> > > any "limit" so as to prevent from posting in an unrelated discussion.

Jen:
> > Your second idea is more appealing to me and would also help the
> > problem Betsy mentioned of discussions drying up. I have my fears
> > we'd be back at square one, but if people want to consider that one
> > I'm open to it.

Random832:
> How about - a limit of three posts per person per subject per day?
> Sure, it's still a bit - no pun intended - subjective as to whether
> two posts are on the same "subject", but it seems more easily judged
> and agreed upon than other criteria, while still allowing flexibility
> to participate in multiple discussions.


SSSusan/Shorty:
This is a very interesting idea, Random.  I think it would be a little tough at times for elves (as you acknowledged), and definitely a little more work than simply being sensitive to the total number of posts from members, but it should sure be discussed as an option.  (I agree with Betsy when she suggested that this particular issue of posting limits seems fairly *fluid.*  It has changed in the past, more than once, and there's no reason to consider it a totally closed issue, that's for sure.)  

My initial concern as SSSusan, as opposed to Shorty, is that I might be peeved to be told that I can only have 3 on one topic per day.  If we'd previously been allowed 5 total, why should I be limited to 3 on one topic, if that's the only topic I happen to care about at the moment?  (I didn't really have much trouble with even 3 posts, personally, but it's just a thought I had when I read your suggestion, that this might seem unfair to some.)

Now, to a little of the history I've been wanting to give.  [I think I'd better "clock out" at work as I draft this post!]  As you know, there was a time when there were no posting limits at HPfGU.  I can say that there were a number of concerns which arose, eventually, under that system, many of which came from a number of list members themselves, such as:  a few individuals posting as many as 12-15 times per day, which some members saw as dominating the boards; some members who never combined responses or seemed to worry about the quality of their posts because they could send in any number they wanted; and (a biggie!) list members who were upset that they could no longer keep up, as they wanted to do.  

Additionally, there were concerns from the elves, especially after the release of OotP.  Those first few days after OotP were *amazing* -- I once checked on the numbers, and IIRC, there were something like 900+, then 800+, then 600+ posts those first 3 days after the list came back up.  It was exhilarating in some ways, but also very tough on the admin team, not to mention list members trying to keep up.

All of this led to an experiment with a small number of posters who voluntarily limited themselves to 3 posts per day.  Much discussion ensued at that time.  Those who were "guinea pigs" tended to feel, IIRC, that they *were* "forced" into being better posters -- to be more thoughtful, more careful, and to consider more before hitting "Send."  With this feedback and with membership continuing to rise and with the release of HBP approaching, the admin team elected to go to a list-wide 3 post per day limit.

Time went on.  We survived the HBP release <g>, and gradually there were some complaints, both from listees and from elves, that perhaps 3 was too restrictive -- that such a limit cut off some exchanges prematurely, might force members to feel compelled to take an exchange offlist, etc.  After much *more* discussion, the Admin Team elected to move the limit up from 3 to 5.

Speaking for myself personally now, do I think it's perfect?  Nope.  There are times when it "hurts" to stop at 5.  There are posters who still find a way to send in posts that don't contribute much to the discussion (the "quality issue," I suppose).  But do I think removing the limit will correct those things?  I'm not sure, I'm just not.  And I do think that what we have now is *much* better than what we had in the days of unlimited posting.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan/Shorty Elf



From random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 14:47:21 2006
From: random832 at random832.yahoo.invalid (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:47:21 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <20061025135750.73022.qmail@...>
References: <20061025135750.73022.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610250747x3c9e292eu4de947fb2b4c4820@...>

> SSSusan/Shorty:
> [...] and there's no reason to consider it a totally closed issue, that's for sure.)

I don't think anything should ever be considered a "totally closed
issue" - that's what -Feedback is here for, isn't it?

> My initial concern as SSSusan, as opposed to Shorty, is that I might be peeved
> to be told that I can only have 3 on one topic per day.  If we'd previously been
> allowed 5 total, why should I be limited to 3 on one topic, if that's the only topic
> I happen to care about at the moment?

Then make it 5 - I only said 3 because I was going with the idea of
moving from 3 to 5 being the "wrong" solution to the problems that
existed with 3 total, and replacing it with a different solution
instead of adding one, but I don't really care that much - it's just a
number. (personally, I don't see the need for the limit at all in
"peacetime" - i.e. when we're not in a really hectic time period like
around the release of a book - I think you said earlier that this all
started around the OOTP release?)

And "if that's the only topic I happen to care about at the moment" is
the kind of thinking that IMO needs to _stop_ - Whatever the limit
ends up being, it should be per-topic. No-one should "get to" post
more because they're only posting about one thing, or have to post
less because they have opinions on several different issues.

> But do I think removing the limit will correct those things?  I'm not
> sure, I'm just not.  And I do think that what we have now is *much* better than
> what we had in the days of unlimited posting.

I do think that the rule should change, and whatever rule it changes
to should not in effect penalize someone for having opinions on more
than one issue (i.e. participating in many different threads at once)
- i.e. if i post in one thread it should not have any chance of
causing me not to be able to post in another.

-- 
Random832



From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 14:53:27 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:53:27 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <ehlhna+a5vj@...>
Message-ID: <ehntp7+7k63@...>

Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
> .... Just a 
> little bit of history. After OOTP the list went through this period 
> where every day for weeks on end, I kid you not, there were the 
> same debates over and over ad nauseum about Snape (most often his 
> teaching or Occlumency) and the abuse issue with the Dursleys. 
> Typically a handful of people would argue the same points daily, 
> trying to persuade each other of the their 'truth'. Posts from 
> individuals would number way over 5 by the time each day was done 
> and you can probably guess the outcome--no one persuaded anyone 
> else of ANYTHING. Other issues got crowded out or people simply 
> stopped posting b/c the list became so negative and, in my opinion, 
> boring.
> 
> In my experience unlimited posting promotes unlimited arguing and 
> the utopian ideal of 6-7 'worthwhile posts' won't be met....

I don't usually weigh in here, but I want to agree with what Jen 
said.  Before the posting limits, often just a few members would 
really "hog" the board by arguing back and forth.  Also, there was a 
problem where some members wouldn't read a whole thread before 
responding.  Instead, they'd just write a response to every post on 
the thread, so if there were already ten posts on the thread, they'd 
write ten responses.  In many cases, the points they were making had 
already been made by someone else, and they just hadn't read that far 
yet.

The problem with judging members' posts on a case-by-case basis is 
that it is almost guaranteed to lead to hurt feelings and charges of 
favoritism.  If we have a system that limits only those posters who 
are making pointless posts, then the elves are going to have to tell 
those people, "Please don't post so much because you aren't saying 
anything worth reading."  They can try to sugar-coat it, but that's 
what it will mean. Telling someone, "We have a rule of no more than 
five posts a day," is a lot easier on people's feelings. 

I used to be a list elf, and we spent a *lot* of time discussing 
whether we should have posting limits before we ever implemented the 
rule.  If there's a better system, we certainly weren't able to find 
it.

Saitaina, I think maybe the posting limit rule was implemented after 
you left.  That may be why you don't remember it.

-- Judy





From zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 15:51:41 2006
From: zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid (KathyK)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:51:41 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610250747x3c9e292eu4de947fb2b4c4820@...>
Message-ID: <eho16d+gkf1@...>

Jordan wrote:

> (personally, I don't see the need for the limit at all in
> "peacetime" - i.e. when we're not in a really hectic time period 
> like around the release of a book - I think you said earlier that 
> this all started around the OOTP release?)

KathyK:

There are a couple things I wanted to say.  The first is that the 
list volume and membership *did* explode when OoP was released in 
2003.  I had just joined and didn't know any different, but I 
*think* the growth was quite a surprise for members and elves 
alike.  I apparently had nothing to do at the time and read every 
single post from the release through February 2004, but for most, 
the volume all summer was unmanagable, as has been described by Jen 
and Susan.

The posting limit was not implemented, IIRC, until 2005.  Way after 
the OoP release.  Because, as Jen and Judy both mentioned, there 
were occasions where the list was dominated by a few members, the 
arguments and topics were repetitive, etc...  long after the initial 
Phoenix craziness.  I think the posting limit has been quite 
effective in stopping much of that.

Lifting the limit during "peacetime" is not as simple as it seems.  
Other than this summer, which seemed quite quiet to me, this list 
tends to get much busier in North America's summertime, when many 
members are out of school and have more free time, regardless of 
whether a book or film (which also tends to increase membership and 
posting volume) has been released.  So a limit is a good thing 
during these peacetime busy-times.  Additionally, unexpected things 
do increase our membership and posting volume.  Like Yahoo putting 
us in their spotlight and teasing folks that Book 7 is coming out 
next summer.  These are times, IMO, posting limits are very helpful 
in maintaing order and quality on list.  And I suppose we could just 
issue an admin whenever we feel things are getting out of hand, but 
to me it's really inconsistent.  And our posting rules are numerous 
enough to remember as it is, I wouldn't want to force members to 
have to keep double-checking to see if they've changed every few 
months.

I want to address your proposal about a limit per subject, but I am 
afraid I have to hold off because I need to leave for work.

Best,

KathyK







From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 19:25:35 2006
From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:25:35 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
References: <ehntp7+7k63@...>
Message-ID: <02fa01c6f86b$59abfab0$02fea8c0@Draco>

Judy wrote:

<Saitaina, I think maybe the posting limit rule was implemented after 
you left. That may be why you don't remember it.>

I'm starting to suspect it was if I go by what SSSusan/Shorty is saying.  I remember leaving just after the crush of OotP, when the list was settling down.

...now not remembering that rule makes sense. *grin* Though we always had an un-official 'limit yourself' idea stewing, it wasn't something active when I elf, thus my confusion.

I stopped really reading the list right about the same time I stopped elfing so they coencide.

<Before the posting limits, often just a few members would 
really "hog" the board by arguing back and forth. >

I see your point about members not reading all of the conversation/thread, and understand that it's frustrating to see the same arguments over and over just because people are lazy, but I don't see the hogging issue.

Maybe it's me.  I'm from the old days when we had three thosand or less members, in those days hogging the conversation was always done because we had some very active posters who had opinons on what seemed to be everything.

But so long as they're argument or 'hogging' has stubsance, and isn't a rehash of the same points, shouldn't they be a allowed to debate their cases?  (or whatever they're doing while arguing).  

Yes judging on a case by case basis can lead to hurt feelings and name calling but really, nothing in an elves job leaves you open for sunshine and roses.  People are going to be mean and nasty no matter what the rule is.  Five posts a day vs "Please make sure you're posts are substancive and add to the discussion", someone's going to be upset either way.

I just don't think upset feelings can factor in if you're thinking about the rules.  The betterment of the list, the list Elves jobs themselves, how much work vs how much reward, sure, those I'll go with, but not the fact that one rule might hurt a poor list member's feelings.

I spent a lot of time as an elf, and a lot of time as a moderator of other sites.  People are going to be hurt and bitchy no matter what you give them.

And really, everyone KNOWS the elves play favorites!  *sniff* Mod tarts.  (joke!  And a very old one).

-----
Saitaina

It was a dead head. He hadn't expected this when he'd left Japan. Shot maybe. Stabbed possibly. Hung or strangled. Poisoned. But not heads rolling merrily down the street like a deranged bowling ball ready to gnaw off their ankles.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina

If life hands you lemons, you should make lemonaide...and then try to find someone whose life has handed them vodka.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 21:04:22 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:04:22 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610241539m11c4a3f6q69c643328281901a@...>
Message-ID: <ehojgm+cs91@...>

> Random832:
> ...we're going in circles - i just happened to say it offhand, i'm 
not
> "maintaining" or "insisting" it or anything - i just said it once 
and
> you jumped on it - then i explained that it's not as familiar to
> people as some of the other rules and you asked why i was talking
> about if it's familiar or not - you're arguing in circles*.
> 
> -- 
> Random832
> *which is a bit ironic if you think about it
>


Neri:
I just want to know if there's a 5 posts per day limit to the 
feedback list, and more specifically if there's a 5 posts per day 
limit to the 5 posts per day limit thread?

Neri, 
making his humble contribution towards clogging precious bandwidth 
with worthless junk. 







From horridporrid03 at horridporrid03.yahoo.invalid  Wed Oct 25 21:11:18 2006
From: horridporrid03 at horridporrid03.yahoo.invalid (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:11:18 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610250747x3c9e292eu4de947fb2b4c4820@...>
Message-ID: <ehojtm+tnai@...>

> >>Random832:
> <snip>
> Whatever the limit ends up being, it should be per-topic.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right, I'm going to weigh in on this as an elf and say I don't like 
this idea.  Too complicated.  Now I'm suddenly having to keep track of 
what topics you're posting on?  Blech.  Figuring out the rolling 24hrs 
was difficult enough.

Yeah, it's too bad if you've got 5 or 6 different topics you're 
following, but if that's a big enough deal I'd prefer just dropping 
the limits.

Betsy Hp (who perhaps should be known as Lazy Elf? <g>)





From drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 26 05:36:20 2006
From: drednort at drednort.geo.yahoo.invalid (Shaun Hately)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:36:20 +1000
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610250747x3c9e292eu4de947fb2b4c4820@...>
References: <20061025135750.73022.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <4540D5F4.16185.4ED99D4@...>

OK - to make things clear before I post, I am a list elf, and I am posting this message from 
my perspective as a list elf. But everything I say is my own opinion and should not be 
assumed to represent the views of the elves as a body.

On 25 Oct 2006 at 10:47, Jordan Abel wrote:

> > SSSusan/Shorty:
> > [...] and there's no reason to consider it a totally closed issue,
> that's for sure.)
> 
> I don't think anything should ever be considered a "totally closed
> issue" - that's what -Feedback is here for, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

And there's nothing wrong with raising an issue here.

However, I do think it's worth me pointing out a few things.

I, personally, am opposed to posting limits. I don't think we should have a posts per day limit. 
I'm not really going to go into why I feel that way here, simply due to lack of time, but I should 
say that a lot of my reasons are similar to ones that you have raised here.

And, perhaps, importantly, I have raised these types of issues myself on the elves own 
discussion forum. A quick check through my sent mail indicates I've been involved in two 
such discussions this year, both putting forward my view that we'd be better off without 
posting limits, but if we have to have them, the higher the better.

And other elves have read what I have had to say, and have responded to what I have to say, 
intelligently and reasonably, raising their objections to the position I've advocated, or agreeing 
with me, or doing both at once.

My point is that the current state of affairs is a *consensus* view arrived at by the elves. It is a 
compromise based on hearing the views of a number of different people on these issues and 
working to arrive at a group decision. Because my skills with the Imperio spell are rather 
limited, I haven't yet been able to force everyone to agree with me - but rest assured that 
when this issue comes up periodically, as most issues do, there are people presenting 
arguments on both sides.

Feedback is very useful because issues could certainly be raised here that we haven't 
considered, and perspectives can be raised here that may not been raised in the elves 
discussions. And we do take those points seriously - I will certainly unashamedly appropriate 
any you've made that I think will make my own case stronger in elfly discussions.

These things are taken seriously and are discussed and debated - even if, because the 
status quo remains in place after those discussions, that may not always be absolutely clear 
to other people.
 
> Then make it 5 - I only said 3 because I was going with the idea
> of
> moving from 3 to 5 being the "wrong" solution to the problems that
> existed with 3 total, and replacing it with a different solution
> instead of adding one, but I don't really care that much - it's just
> a
> number. (personally, I don't see the need for the limit at all in
> "peacetime" - i.e. when we're not in a really hectic time period
> like
> around the release of a book - I think you said earlier that this
> all
> started around the OOTP release?)

I sympathise with your position here, and I agree it has merit - in an ideal world, I would love 
to see this type of thing in place personally - a limit of posts per topic is one I quite like.

But as an elf, I can see serious problems with implementation from our perspective. And bear 
in mind that we are all volunteers giving our own time and energy to trying to keep the list 
running smoothly. Suggestions that would require us to expend even more of our time and 
energy to do that are ones we *really* need to consider carefully.

Unlike real house elves, we don't live to work.

Enforcing the five a day limit overall - well, for me to do that, when it's my turn to closely 
monitor the list involves me reading every message, which we have to do anyway AND 
keeping count of how many times a person has posted that day. Because some people post 
throughout the day, this isn't always easy. Say you post at 9.00am your time. And then you 
post again at 12.00pm and at 12.20pm and at 1.00pm, and then again at 6.00pm and again 
at 9.00pm. 

Other people will have posted between many of your posts. While I am reading I have to try 
and keep track of whether I have seen someone post before that day, and how many times 
I've seen it, while reading using the YG! interface (because the vagaries of e-mail means I 
cannot view what arrives in my personal inbox as definitive), and in my case via a dialup 
internet connection, which is rather slow. If I realise that you've gone over the limit. I also 
need to, to some extent, keep track of two different timezones at once - the one we elves use 
internally, which I think is GMT but I'm not actually 100% sure at the moment, and the 
timezone from which I think you are most likely posting. And both of those are normally 
different from my own.

It's not an incredibly complicated thing to do, but it is non-trivial. It does take special effort.

Your suggestion on a limit by topics, though it appeals to me in some ways, would make that 
task much more complicated. Because now, as well as having to keep an overall count, I'd 
also have to try and classify every post you made by topic - and frankly hope that the topics 
I'm classifying them by are the same as the ones you would classify them by. Then I'd have 
to keep track of how many in each topic - a non-trivial exercise has just become harder by 
something approaching an order of magnitude.

> I do think that the rule should change, and whatever rule it
> changes
> to should not in effect penalize someone for having opinions on
> more
> than one issue (i.e. participating in many different threads at
> once)
> - i.e. if i post in one thread it should not have any chance of
> causing me not to be able to post in another.

Jordan - what about if the changes you are proposing penalise *us* - these things may make 
our job as list elves harder. And we, I think, have a right not to be penalised as well.

Any compromise is going to involve some people not getting what they want. That's a reality.


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 tonyaminton at tonyaminton.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 26 14:11:22 2006
From: tonyaminton at tonyaminton.yahoo.invalid (Tonya Minton)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:11:22 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <4540D5F4.16185.4ED99D4@...>
References: <20061025135750.73022.qmail@...>
	 <7b9f25e50610250747x3c9e292eu4de947fb2b4c4820@...>
	 <4540D5F4.16185.4ED99D4@...>
Message-ID: <d4a040d0610260711t594699dfjb4518ec04d2eec04@...>

>
> SSSusan/Shorty Said :
> SNIP (sorry)




> I, personally, am opposed to posting limits. I don't think we should have
> a posts per day limit.
> I'm not really going to go into why I feel that way here, simply due to
> lack of time, but I should
> say that a lot of my reasons are similar to ones that you have raised
> here.
>
> And, perhaps, importantly, I have raised these types of issues myself on
> the elves own
> discussion forum. A quick check through my sent mail indicates I've been
> involved in two
> such discussions this year, both putting forward my view that we'd be
> better off without
> posting limits, but if we have to have them, the higher the better.
>
> And other elves have read what I have had to say, and have responded to
> what I have to say,
> intelligently and reasonably, raising their objections to the position
> I've advocated, or agreeing
> with me, or doing both at once.
>
> My point is that the current state of affairs is a *consensus* view
> arrived at by the elves. It is a
> compromise based on hearing the views of a number of different people on
> these issues and
> working to arrive at a group decision. Because my skills with the Imperio
> spell are rather
> limited, I haven't yet been able to force everyone to agree with me - but
> rest assured that
> when this issue comes up periodically, as most issues do, there are people
> presenting
> arguments on both sides.
>
> Feedback is very useful because issues could certainly be raised here that
> we haven't
> considered, and perspectives can be raised here that may not been raised
> in the elves
> discussions. And we do take those points seriously - I will certainly
> unashamedly appropriate
> any you've made that I think will make my own case stronger in elfly
> discussions.
>
> These things are taken seriously and are discussed and debated - even if,
> because the
> status quo remains in place after those discussions, that may not always
> be absolutely clear
> to other people.


Now Tonya stepping up to the opinion plate:

I also think it would be a good idea to lift the posting limit.  I wonder if
we could have a trial of no posting limits and see how it goes.  We may find
that the discussions are overwhelming again and if that is the case them
let's bring the limiting back.  I remember sometime a few years ago that
there was worry that the list would explode after a book came out then there
was a posting restriction put in place, which seemed to work well.  Maybe if
the posting lift works we could bring it back after JRK updates her web
page, or when she has speaking engagements and book releases.

Personally I don't really care if everyone wants to hash and rehash any
topic and there are 40 posts about Snape, if I am not interested in the
discussion I do not follow the thread.  If I am really interested in a topic
I read everything prior to any posting and I think generally that is how
everyone treats this list.  I do think that there are people who will jump
in the middle of a thread and get excited (understandably) and post without
reading the full thread-- these folks just need to learn to exercise some
control on their excitement (something that has taken me years to learn) and
read the whole thread and before they post.  Most of the time when I have
something to say on a topic and find by reading the thread that someone else
has already expressed what I was thinking, I still follow the thread and
enjoy every one's point of view.

I love this list!!  I have GREAT respect for the list elves they do a great
job pulling in the cowboys and gently nudging the rest of us.

Thanks for listening to my opinion,
Tonya


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 26 14:21:50 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
Message-ID: <20061026142150.86609.qmail@...>

Top-posting to say that, for clarification's sake, these are not SSSusan/Shorty's words.  They are Shaun's.  (Hee, personally I appreciate the posting limit, both as a regular member and as an elf. <g>)

SSSusan


>
> SSSusan/Shorty Said :
> SNIP (sorry)


> I, personally, am opposed to posting limits. I don't think we should have
> a posts per day limit.
> I'm not really going to go into why I feel that way here, simply due to
> lack of time, but I should
> say that a lot of my reasons are similar to ones that you have raised
> here.
>
> And, perhaps, importantly, I have raised these types of issues myself on
> the elves own
> discussion forum. A quick check through my sent mail indicates I've been
> involved in two
> such discussions this year, both putting forward my view that we'd be
> better off without
> posting limits, but if we have to have them, the higher the better.
>
> And other elves have read what I have had to say, and have responded to
> what I have to say,
> intelligently and reasonably, raising their objections to the position
> I've advocated, or agreeing
> with me, or doing both at once.
>
> My point is that the current state of affairs is a *consensus* view
> arrived at by the elves. It is a
> compromise based on hearing the views of a number of different people on
> these issues and
> working to arrive at a group decision. Because my skills with the Imperio
> spell are rather
> limited, I haven't yet been able to force everyone to agree with me - but
> rest assured that
> when this issue comes up periodically, as most issues do, there are people
> presenting
> arguments on both sides.
>
> Feedback is very useful because issues could certainly be raised here that
> we haven't
> considered, and perspectives can be raised here that may not been raised
> in the elves
> discussions. And we do take those points seriously - I will certainly
> unashamedly appropriate
> any you've made that I think will make my own case stronger in elfly
> discussions.
>
> These things are taken seriously and are discussed and debated - even if,
> because the
> status quo remains in place after those discussions, that may not always
> be absolutely clear
> to other people.


Now Tonya stepping up to the opinion plate:

I also think it would be a good idea to lift the posting limit.  I wonder if
we could have a trial of no posting limits and see how it goes.  We may find
that the discussions are overwhelming again and if that is the case them
let's bring the limiting back.  I remember sometime a few years ago that
there was worry that the list would explode after a book came out then there
was a posting restriction put in place, which seemed to work well.  Maybe if
the posting lift works we could bring it back after JRK updates her web
page, or when she has speaking engagements and book releases.

Personally I don't really care if everyone wants to hash and rehash any
topic and there are 40 posts about Snape, if I am not interested in the
discussion I do not follow the thread.  If I am really interested in a topic
I read everything prior to any posting and I think generally that is how
everyone treats this list.  I do think that there are people who will jump
in the middle of a thread and get excited (understandably) and post without
reading the full thread-- these folks just need to learn to exercise some
control on their excitement (something that has taken me years to learn) and
read the whole thread and before they post.  Most of the time when I have
something to say on a topic and find by reading the thread that someone else
has already expressed what I was thinking, I still follow the thread and
enjoy every one's point of view.

I love this list!!  I have GREAT respect for the list elves they do a great
job pulling in the cowboys and gently nudging the rest of us.

Thanks for listening to my opinion,
Tonya


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 26 14:54:49 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
Message-ID: <20061026145449.62323.qmail@...>

Now Tonya stepping up to the opinion plate:
>>> I remember sometime a few years ago that there was worry that the list 
would explode after a book came out then there was a posting restriction put in place, 
which seemed to work well.  Maybe if the posting lift works we could bring it back 
after JRK updates her web page, or when she has speaking engagements and book releases. <<<

SSSusan says:
You're right, Tonya.  This is what I was mentioning yesterday -- we went to 3 posts per day after what happened with OotP's release, in anticipation of HBP's release (and for other reasons, such as overall posting volume; complaints of not being able to keep up; members posting as many as 12-15 times a day, followed by complaints of people dominating the list; concerns about post quality; etc.)  Then it was raised to 5 per day a few months ago, which is where we stand now.

I know that I just mentioned I'm a fan of the posting limit -- and I am.  However, I am also intrigued by this particular possibility Tonya raises, that rather than just dispensing with the limit altogether, there might be *periods* of at least trying to go without one, interspersed with periods when the Admin Team determines that posting volume has or is likely to go through the roof and that limits are necessary for awhile (website updates, new canon, huge upsurge in membership such as we just saw with Yahoo!Groups featuring us).  My gut reaction is that this would be do-able for staff.  (Usual disclaimer:  I speak for myself there, not for the List Admin Team!)


Tonya:
>>> I do think that there are people who will jump in the middle of a thread and get excited 
(understandably) and post without reading the full thread-- these folks just need to learn to exercise some
control on their excitement (something that has taken me years to learn) and
read the whole thread and before they post.  <<<

SSSusan:
This is actually one of the reasons why I like a posting limit.  I think that, knowing there is a limit, a person is more likely to WAIT and see what has been said in the thread, so as not to "use up" a post on a point already made (vs. not caring if it has been made because there's no limit to how much they can post)... and also more likely to see if there is more than one post in the thread s/he can respond to in one post.  I know not everyone agrees, but I think doing that kind of synthesis is a *good* thing.  (I know the response will not show up in the thread of *every* post responded to, but it *will* show up in at least one, provided the person hits "Reply" to one of them.  And I personally like the coming together of several related thoughts and points on that one topic and find that more useful than the loss of a "perfect" threading record.)

Siriusly Snapey Susan



From lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid  Thu Oct 26 16:20:39 2006
From: lunalovegood at lunalovegoodrules.yahoo.invalid (lunalovegoodrules)
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:20:39 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610240839u20f7778apba81ed94946d7413@...>
Message-ID: <ehqn8n+415f@...>

Jordan Abel wrote:
> Can anyone explain to me what the problem is if someone posts six or
seven messages a day, even if it's _every_ day, as long as they're all
worthwhile?

Well, in the real world, for example, loudmouth people think
everything they say is the most important thing in the world. This
situation goes unchallenged on most internet boards - which is why
those boards are ignored, are much smaller than HPfGU, and also
explains why so many people resent not being able to post 300 times a
day in response to everything they read on HPfGU. What people have
been trying to do with this list is to not let it become just another
stupid, argumentative idiotic banal boring juvenile internet forum
with posts as silly as those posted in chat rooms.
 
> Especially if the alternative is that they post all the same content
in two or three long messages that mix stuff about multiple subjects -
it seems like in that case it creates more work and breaks threading
 for no apparent benefit.

But posting "worthwhile" posts implies work already, doesn't it?

dan 








From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 27 19:10:12 2006
From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:10:12 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610250618t255c6cb4s8e5319947f54884e@...>
Message-ID: <ehtlik+et40@...>

---  "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> Random832:
> > > And I don't think that posts in one discussion 
> > > should go towards any "limit" so as to prevent from
> > > posting in an unrelated discussion.
> 
> Jen:
> > Your second idea is more appealing to me and would 
> > also help the problem Betsy mentioned of discussions
> > drying up. ...
> 
> Random832:
> How about - a limit of three posts per person per subject
> per day? ....
> 
> -- 
> Random832
>

bboyminn:

First, I think you are trying to solve a problem that only
Hypothetically exists. I'm also inclined to agree with
Shorty Elf when she(?) said -

"< I'm just saying when you've been here day after day, 
year after year, and seen what causes some of these rules
to be put in place, it will definitely help in the 
understanding deparment. >"

The rule exist, though they may seem very arbitrary and
restrictive at times, because there was a need and a 
mutually agreed upon solution.

As to the Five-A-Day rule, that is more of a guideline
than a rule since the Elves have no way of enforcing it.
When the issue originally came up, I agrued that people
weren't just posting to see their electron in print. If
the posting volume was high, it was because /interest/
was high, and not because people felt some arbitrary
obligation to make their voice heard in every thread.
And, I still think that is true. But, that said, I
also support the rule.

The staff of the main group are all voluntary. Believe
it or not they all have lives that make demands on them
outside this group; kids need to be fed, jobs need to be
worked, groceries need to be purchase, sleep needs to be
had, etc....

When over 8,000 (8,234) posts are flowing per month which
is an average of 275 PER DAY, their job of monitoring the
group becomes extremely difficult and demanding. I believe
somewhere Jordan/Random implied that 10 small posts or
one big post with 10 internal comments amounts to the
same thing. But that is not true, at least not to the 
elves who have to review it. One large post can be scanned
quickly, and it can be reasonably assumed that it is
substantive. However, 10 individual posts need to be delt
with individually. 

We can see now with the recent influx of new members that
the number of very short unsubstantial posts has increased
noticably. Now, the elves aren't Nazis, they have some
reasonable flexibility, thought at times when you receive
a howler in your in box, it may not seem so. Yet, those
new members will quickly get the hang of things, and fall
in line. Many of my first post in the group, oh so many
years ago, were of the want to see my own electrons in
print variety. Still I learned and grew.

I consider myself to be one of the more frequent posters,
though I rarely go over the limit. That said, if there are
a lot of interesting subjects, and I think I have 
something worth while to say, I have no problem going over
the limit. I don't think the Elves mind that so much as
long as I really am adding to the discussion, and not 
wasting everyone's time. 

Also, when a new book comes out, there are many many 
things the need discussing. So, I don't think the 5 per
day rule is strictly enforces at that time. Though certain
people are reminded to keep it on topic, to the point, and
keep the volume down (both the amplitude and the 
quantity). Keep in mind that during those times, the elves
are probably more interested in taking part in the 
discussion than monitoring it and sending out howlers. 

I think the key is to AVERAGE 5 or less per day, and
despite the fact that occassionally I go over my limit of
5, I frequently only post one or two per day because at
those low volume times, the interesting subjects aren't
there.

So, to some extent Jordan/Random it right, the 5-a-day 
rule is pretty arbitrary, but rarely is it ever 
restrictive. Five-a-day works out pretty good and is a 
good reminder to everyone to keep their post meaningful.
There is already a rule against 'Me Too' and 'I Agree' 
posts unless those posts also expand the discussion.
Between those two rules, I think the group is fairly,
functionally, and effectively regulated without being
unnecessarily restrictive.

My point is, are you trying to change the rule because
you simply don't agree with it, or because you see that
it is not working. Are we dealing with your desire or a
problem that needs to be fixed? 

Personally, I see that it IS working, and see no reason
to change it. The group rules do not come about 
arbitrarily, a problem exist and a workable solution is
found. Further, the rule in question has served us well
for several years, and has never created a problem. If
no problem exists, then why try to force a solution
on it? 

Steve/bboyminn





From kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 27 19:30:27 2006
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:30:27 -0000
Subject: Statistics, Posting Limit
Message-ID: <ehtmoj+q5ud@...>

Kelley:
Well, I can say that personally I'm not wild about having
a post limit, but there are a few things it's intended to 
do:

-to help encourage more substantive posts/avoid multiple
brief posts.

-help avoid "tennis match" discussions -- you know, the sort 
of back and forth discussion between a couple members, 
something like you'd see in a chat.  (Sometimes these sorts
of discussions are really good, but more often they aren't.)

-help avoid people reading a thread and just dashing off a 
reply to each post as they come to it.  This also encourages
substantive posts, which also seems to raise the quality of
the discussions.

-help avoid the sense that any thread is being 'dominated' 
by this or that list member:  we actually did get complaints 
to this effect -- that people were feeling discouraged from 
participating in threads because they expected certain
members to 'pounce' on them immediately, and while those
'pouncing' members weren't explicitly attempting to quash 
opposing views, that was sometimes the overall effect of 
their posts.

-one more measure to help keep posting volume within 
'manageable' levels for members.

To add a bit more to the historical 'How This Rule
Came To Be' info that Susan and others have already
given, I found the below in old elves discussions.

To put it into perspective, these are from mid-July
2004.  The previous summer was OoP release, and 
while the elves knew it was going to be a madhouse,
it was way (*way,* WAY) more than we were prepared
for.  When it was happening we were stretched too
thin to come up with any good plans to implement
immediately to help the situation; we were just in 
crisis mode, sending hundreds of welcome messages 
each day, handling hundreds of pendings, reading 
hundreds of messages posted, etc.
 
Once that passed, we spent some time recuperating, 
but we also began discussing it all:  what could we
have done better, where did we screw up, how we 
could better prepare for the next time.

We were relieved that the next summer, 2004, 
wouldn't bring new canon, so we had a bit of time
to get some good ideas going.  The PoA film was
going to come out, so we were expecting an uptick
in membership and posting, even, by extension, on
main, as that had happened with the first two movies.

What we weren't prepared for was JKR's website.  
This, plus the fact that not long after her site's 
debut she awarded the Lexicon the fansite award 
(Lexicon links to HPfGU as a recommended discussion 
group), along with the expected PoA film uptick, 
caused a far bigger membership and posting surge than 
we were expecting.  (Heh, I remember myself and a few 
other elves just *living* in the pendings queue that 
summer.) <g>

So, we'd been talking already, trying to get a jump
start on preparing for book 6's release, when we
were slammed again (far less than OoP, but still 
really big and unexpected) and our discussions about
what we could/should do took on a whole lot more
urgency. ;-)

The idea of a posting limit had been raised during
the OoP craziness and so it once again came up  
with even more discussion.  These bits below are 
some of the statistics a couple elves put together 
during those discussions:

"Dicey:
It's official: the posting rate is through the roof.

Between July 1-12 (2004, US Mountain time), we 
had 2287 posts that hit the list.

920 posts hit pending, 787 were approved (85%).
1500 posts were posted by unmoderated members.

Which means that 65.5% of the posts were 
unmoderated.

During that same period, 387 members joined, 54 
(14%) of which also began to post. They delayed an 
average of 43.5 hours before posting.

Interestingly, 162 spam messages bounced because 
the senders weren't members. Be glad we don't have 
it set so that anyone can post.

Twenty-five members posted more than 20 posts 
during that time. 32% of them were moderated 
members. 

I also got membership stats from June 1 to July 12.

There were huge membership spikes around June 
15th and June 30th. No idea why. 

Eloise:
These are the statistics for yesterday, (July 13, 
2004, UK time) which was exceptionally busy, with 
221 messages.  Obviously, this is just a snapshot. 
I really should do this for a few more days.

These 221 messages were posted by just 89 
members. Now if you do the average, this sounds 
fairly reasonable, coming out at just under 2.5 
messages per poster, but in fact,

129 of those messages were posted by just 18 posters
64 of them were posted by just 8 posters
21 of them were posted by just *one* poster.

If we limited posters to posting just three messages 
per day, yesterday's total would have been down by 
71 messages, to 150."

Kelley again:
Take particular note of what Eloise says above:
21 messages in one day by one member.  64 by 8
people.  (And this wasn't new canon, it was just 
an exceptionally busy summer.)  We'd regularly 
seen particular members post 10, 12, 15 times a 
day.

Now, on the one hand, so what?  If someone has 
the time and interest to post a lot, and if they're 
being civil, making good posts, etc., what's the 
problem?

On the other hand, we *did* get some complaints 
from list members that this or that member was 
'dominating the discussions' or that they were 
feeling discouraged from posting because member 
so and so would 'pounce' on them and they didn't 
want the hassle.

>From a list elf perspective, how do you handle this?
Just tell the person that the list member in question
is posting within the rules, so that's it?  Tell the
posting-a-lot list member that people are complaining
that they seem to be dominating the discussions so 
they need to post less (thus a rule for them that's 
not for other members)?  Neither option is very 
satisfactory.  At any rate, that's just the one point.

While I keep getting behind and haven't had enough
chance to write out all my thoughts about this topic, 
I will say that this is one of those issues that, to 
me, is far less 'clear cut' than things like telling 
folks to snip, proofread, give proper attribution, etc.  
There are good reasons for and against having posting 
limits.

And like Random, I'd always felt that a posting limit
wasn't really the best way to accomplish what we 
were going for.  But, funnily enough, it seems to have 
succeeded where other things haven't.

Now, I say this because: 

-posting rates *have* been lower.  This could be due
to all sorts of other factors, though.

-and some folks have said that the existence of a 
posting limit has 'forced' them to make more effort
in making their posts substantive.

However, I don't have any statistics on this, no other 
facts, so while it does seem the limit is responsible, 
I don't know that for sure.

Gah, I do have lots more to say about all this, but 
this is happening at a bad time for me, I just don't
have the time to devote that I would need.  Anyway, 
as Shaun said, the elves discussed this extensively, 
both when we were trying to decide whether to have
a limit at all, then again when we were trying to 
decide whether to raise it from 3 to 5.  I believe 
pretty much every pro and con that's been raised here 
on FB was raised in the elves' discussion as well.

None of that means that this is set in stone, 
irreversible.  I'm *very* glad to hear how more folks 
feel about this, and would love some more suggestions 
and ideas.

--Kelley





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Fri Oct 27 21:23:14 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:23:14 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <ehtlik+et40@...>
Message-ID: <ehttc2+c5v1@...>

bboyminn:
> First, I think you are trying to solve a problem that only
> Hypothetically exists. I'm also inclined to agree with
> Shorty Elf when she(?) said -
> 
> "< I'm just saying when you've been here day after day, 
> year after year, and seen what causes some of these rules
> to be put in place, it will definitely help in the 
> understanding deparment. >"

SSSusan says:
Yep, Steve, Shorty Elf is a "she" -- she's me. :)


Steve:
> As to the Five-A-Day rule, that is more of a guideline
> than a rule since the Elves have no way of enforcing it.

SSSusan:
Erm... not quite sure what you mean by "no way of enforcing it."  
Could I refer you to my post, upthread, where I explain that we *do* 
monitor & enforce it?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/798

Or perhaps you mean something else that I'm not getting?


Steve:
> The staff of the main group are all voluntary. Believe
> it or not they all have lives that make demands on them
> outside this group; kids need to be fed, jobs need to be
> worked, groceries need to be purchase, sleep needs to be
> had, etc....

SSSusan:
Thanks for recognizing it! :)


Steve: 
> I consider myself to be one of the more frequent posters,
> though I rarely go over the limit. That said, if there are
> a lot of interesting subjects, and I think I have 
> something worth while to say, I have no problem going over
> the limit. I don't think the Elves mind that so much as
> long as I really am adding to the discussion, and not 
> wasting everyone's time. 

SSSusan:
I would say that it would depend upon how often this happened, 
Steve.  Once in awhile?  Sure, as you noted earlier, it's a 5-post-
per-day *guideline.*  Elves are not sitting around with ruler in 
hand, waiting for someone to hit 6 so they can say, "Aha!!!  This 
fellow needs a good rap on the knuckles!"  

Should said fellow establish a pattern of posting 6 every day... or 
8 or 9 in one day... then maybe one of those friendly (we hope!) 
Elfy Reminders will appear in your Inbox.

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct 28 00:09:19 2006
From: bboyminn at bboyminn.yahoo.invalid (Steve)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:09:19 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <ehttc2+c5v1@...>
Message-ID: <ehu73f+tttr@...>

--- "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:

> 
> 
> Steve:
> > As to the Five-A-Day rule, that is more of a guideline
> > than a rule since the Elves have no way of enforcing 
> > it.
> 
> SSSusan:
> Erm... not quite sure what you mean by "no way of 
> enforcing it."  Could I refer you to my post, upthread,
> where I explain that we *do*  monitor & enforce it?
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/message/798
> 
> Or perhaps you mean something else that I'm not getting?
> 

bboyminn:

What was on my mind when I made this statement is the fact
that Yahoo Group Administrative Controls don't make a 
provision for setting a limit on post quantity. There 
isn't some box somewhere that says [5] in it, and the 
minute you hit FIVE, Yahoo prevents you from posting more.
I think that would be excessively restrictive.

So, enforcement occurs after the fact. Once someone has
shown a pattern of ignoring the post limit, he gets a 
howler reminding him. Presumably, it the refuse to
comply, they are put on moderated status. If that 
doesn't work, presumably then are then dropped from the
list. Does that about sum it up?

As I originally said, I think high volume simple reflects
high interest. When interesting topic are flowing like 
wine, replies flow right along with them. But having the
five-a-day 'guideline' is a good reminder to everyone to
stay focused. To consider that some things can be left 
unsaid until tomorrow, and the world won't end. As 
others have pointed out, it also encourages people to 
read the whole thread or at least a substantial portion
of it before responding.

As a 'guideline' I think this 5-a-day limit works 
reasonably well, and it does seem to have some flexibility
as long as no one abuses it. Three I think was too few.
I found that very restrictive and was more incline to 
ignore it, though I did make an effort even then to keep
my averages down. Still, other than right after a book
release or major-major JKR interview, I think 5 works fine.

Steve/bboyminn





From kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid  Sat Oct 28 15:14:18 2006
From: kkersey at kkersey_austin.yahoo.invalid (kkersey_austin)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:14:18 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <ehu73f+tttr@...>
Message-ID: <ehvs4a+qogn@...>

I think the posting limits are in balance a good thing. They may not
be perfect, but they are practical and they are fair. 

Here's an idea for consideration:

On those (presumeably rare) occasions when someone feels a great need
to go over the posting limit - say, they are about to leave on
vacation and can't spread over a couple of days all the brilliant
insights that had come to them in a dream the night before, or, a
particular discussion is going so spectactularly well that putting the
brakes on it would be a shameful disservice to HP scholarship and
fandom - how about this: the poster in question simply *asks* the
elves for permission to go over the limit in that particular instance,
and includes a short note indicating that such permission was given
when making the "overage" posts. 

A little flexibility, but still respectful of the spirit of the rule. 


Elisabet, who as the parent of a seven year old, knows the value of
the "ask permission first" meta-rule.





From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 30 00:17:40 2006
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:17:40 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <001701c6f7b3$dda088d0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <ei3gb4+ase4@...>

Saitaina (Hi Saity, long time no see!):
> > While members always have input, in the end any decision IS left 
to the 
> > whim
> > of the elves (and back in the day, the Mod Tower).   Well, not 
whim so 
> > much
> > as what the elves can do for the better of the list and saving 
their 
> > sanity.
> 
Shorty:
> I do think saving sanity is part of it! :)  DISCLAIMER:  I speak 
for myself 
> and no other elf.

I must strongly protest.  Anyone who had any sanity worth saving 
would never have become a list-elf in the first place.

David





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Mon Oct 30 00:35:03 2006
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:35:03 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: 5 Posts per day limit
References: <ei3gb4+ase4@...>
Message-ID: <02b101c6fbbb$3d830290$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Shorty:
>> I do think saving sanity is part of it! :)  DISCLAIMER:  I speak 
>> for myself  and no other elf.

David: 
> I must strongly protest.  Anyone who had any sanity worth saving 
> would never have become a list-elf in the first place.

Shorty:
Hee.  Well, sometimes I do wonder about that.  

At least you know whereof you speak! :)






From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Tue Nov  7 19:43:13 2006
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:43:13 -0000
Subject: 5 Posts per day limit
In-Reply-To: <ehttc2+c5v1@...>
Message-ID: <eiqnkh+31h4@...>

 Siriusly Snapey Susan
> Should said fellow establish a pattern of posting 6 every day... or 
> 8 or 9 in one day... then maybe one of those friendly (we hope!) 
> Elfy Reminders will appear in your Inbox.


Potioncat, having met her 5 post limit at the main list, wanders around 
looking for a place to post...any place...any topic...How about those 
Cubs!

Well, a long time ago, I was very vocal against the post limit. Then, 
the list conducted a trial and I became a believer!! At that time, the 
limit was 3. Five seems a cornucopia of possibilities!

With no limit at all, you get a lot of chit-chat, one liners and 
running gags. (all right, I do miss the running gags) You have posters 
who read one post, respond, read the next post, respond. As a reader, 
you end up reading the same points over and over because too many 
posters aren't responding to the thread but to individual posts. And to 
be honest, the running gags aren't funny if you aren't in on them at 
the time. Reading them a few days later is a waste.

I think quality improved with the limit. It was worth it to look up 
canon, you don't have to feel like you're in a race to be the first 
with the idea. You can actually take the time to develop the idea. For 
a while, posters used to cut and past several posts into one reply, 
keeping the posts from one thread together. I don't see so much of that 
any more. I'm not sure if it's because of yahoo's new (newer, newest) 
format, or if it's something else.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I hope I didn't repeat too much, I did read 
back for a couple of days.








From harryp at harryp_52556.yahoo.invalid  Tue Nov  7 23:41:01 2006
From: harryp at harryp_52556.yahoo.invalid (harryp_52556)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:41:01 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
Message-ID: <eir5id+rnuv@...>

(*clears throat*)  This is my first post on Feedback.  I haven't read
all the threads, but I've read through the "5 posts per day limit"
thread, so I'm somewhat up to date on the issues.

Some observations:

* I'd guess that 5 posts per day is sufficient for most people.  And
since the limit is enforced after the fact with an escalation process
of Howlers, Moderation, and eventually Destruction, I doubt that the
limit is much of a real problem for anybody.  (Except the elves who
implement the policy!)


* We're at "peacetime" right now, but I want to point out that there
will be only one more "wartime" in our future.  Maybe two or three if
JKRowling shocks us with something.  My point is that making rules
that work for peacetime will probably be best, since the wartimes will
be limited occurrences.


* What with the unexpected flood of newbies from Yahoo's recent focus
on HP4GU, I think we're going through a temporary problem time that
will work itself out in a week or so.  I'd hate to see us change the
rules for a temporary problem.


* I think some (a lot?) of the problem with newbies asking obvious
questions that have been hashed many times before ("Hey, did anybody
notice that Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightning bolt?!"), is
that Yahoo's group-list software makes it difficult to find
_INFORMATION_.  The software promotes posting and tends to demote
searching.  The new Search functions help, but it's clear that newbies
aren't using it much before they post.  The number of repetitive posts
speaks for itself there, I think.  I've tried reading the forum with
the posts "grouped by subject" but I find that if I skip topics I miss
interesting posts that were tangential to the main thread and the
poster didn't bother to change the subject line.
    Repeat of overall observation: Yahoo's group software exacerbates
some of the problems we are experiencing and there's very little we
can do about it.


* When people search for something (e.g. "Dumbledore's Socks" in
message body) they'll get hundreds of posts that match those search
terms, but the relevant info is twisted in with posts that are
unrelated.  This is a problem complicated by our policy of limiting
the number of posts per day, which encourages people to post very long
posts on multiple topics.  After having read all this discussion, I
DON'T think the answer is to raise or remove the limits on the number
of posts per day.  But I do think we should discourage omnibus posts
on multiple topics.  It just makes it too hard to find _INFORMATION_.



My suggestions:

1) Keep the 5 posts per day limit.  It seems to mostly adequate.  Keep
it a guideline that continues to use a progressively escalating
management policy of Howler, Moderation, etc.


2) Discourage omnibus multi-topic posts


3) To help newbies feel welcome, if they post a topic has been covered
before, we should encourage older hands to be nice and provide a link
to those older discussions and to remind people about the search
function.  *** NOTE: I'd suggest that such "pointer" posts not count
towards the posters daily 5.


4) It would be nice if once a month (or maybe even once per week
during wartime) an Elf/Admin could post a message with links to useful
places (Search button, Database, Files, HP-Lexicon, Harry-Potter
Wikipedia pages, Google).  This Admin post could remind everybody of
the 5-post limit.
   The point of this post is to prevent the useless posts before they
are posted.  It also gives the helpful old hands an easily-found place
to point newbies to.


Thanks for listening,
Eddie





From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov  8 01:03:09 2006
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:03:09 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <eir5id+rnuv@...>
Message-ID: <eiracd+1814@...>

Eddie wrote: 
> 4) It would be nice if once a month (or maybe even once per week
> during wartime) an Elf/Admin could post a message with links to useful
> places (Search button, Database, Files, HP-Lexicon, Harry-Potter
> Wikipedia pages, Google).  This Admin post could remind everybody of
> the 5-post limit.
>    The point of this post is to prevent the useless posts before they
> are posted.  It also gives the helpful old hands an easily-found place
> to point newbies to.


Potioncat:
We just had a very popular thread about word origins and pronounciation-
-it was nice to discuss something that wasn't controversial and which 
offered new insights.

Could someone start a discussion of good canon-based resources? I don't 
know, maybe a general post about which ones are good, or maybe a deeper 
weekly review of some?

It would let the old-times show off without being insufferable know-it-
alls. It might be good to have some the HPfGU resources brought to 
light as well.










From zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov  8 07:31:50 2006
From: zanelupin at zanelupin.yahoo.invalid (KathyK)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:31:50 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <eir5id+rnuv@...>
Message-ID: <eis156+14c3@...>

Eddie wrote:
> (*clears throat*)  This is my first post on Feedback.  I haven't 
> read all the threads, but I've read through the "5 posts per day 
> limit" thread, so I'm somewhat up to date on the issues.

KathyK:

> Eddie, I'm glad you decided to post over here. 

Eddie:

> * I think some (a lot?) of the problem with newbies asking obvious
> questions that have been hashed many times before ("Hey, did 
> anybody notice that Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightning 
> bolt?!"), is that Yahoo's group-list software makes it difficult 
> to find
> _INFORMATION_.  The software promotes posting and tends to demote
> searching.  The new Search functions help, but it's clear that 
> newbies aren't using it much before they post.  The number of 
> repetitive posts speaks for itself there, I think.

KathyK:

Well, I think that the Search difficulties certainly contribute to 
the problem.  It has improved greatly but still is inadequate for a 
group like ours, unfortunately.

The other big factor with newbie posts is Excitement.  Many posters 
are very enthusiastic when they first join and, in my experience, 
want to discuss what interests them.  Now, this means they are 
either not paying attention to the fact that said interests have 
been hashed out forty billion times from lots of angles, or they 
know what's been said but don't care because they haven't had the 
chance to to add their two cents.  Either way, even with improved 
search functionality, we'll always have repetition of ideas, IMO.  
Amazingly, there *are* HP fans out there who haven't picked up on 
the possibility that RAB is Regulus Black and really haven't 
theorized that the locket in OoP is the missing locket from HBP and 
really *do* want the chance.  For instance.

Eddie: 

> 3) To help newbies feel welcome, if they post a topic has been 
> covered before, we should encourage older hands to be nice and 
> provide a link to those older discussions and to remind people 
> about the search function.  *** NOTE: I'd suggest that 
> such "pointer" posts not count towards the posters daily 5.

KathyK:

I think several of our members who have been around are pretty good 
about this.  Not just about providing links to past discussions, but 
doing so in a manner that welcomes and encourages new folk rather 
than shutting down a thread or a poster.  Of course, not all newbie 
questions are greeted with links and quotes from the past.  I 
believe this is because not everyone is interested in all subjects, 
and some old hands do not want to post every time a new thread pops 
up.  And they, of course, do not have to.  

We do have a couple of recommended posts databases, so if something 
really strikes you, you can add it to the db, and then it would be 
around for future reference for newbies.  These databases, of 
course, are not comprehensive in any way.  Heh, I was about to 
suggest a database for different subjects that we could add message 
numbers to, but it seems a little catalogue-y (and therefore, 
redundant?). 
;-)

I do like the pointer posts not counting toward the daily five, but 
I'd also like to remind everyone that the limit is a loose one.  
Speaking personally, I only offlist posters about exceeding the 
limit if it's becoming a pattern or if someone were to go really 
crazy one day and posts much more than 5 times.  I'm not the only 
elf to follow this practice.

Eddie:
 
> 4) It would be nice if once a month (or maybe even once per week
> during wartime) an Elf/Admin could post a message with links to 
> useful places (Search button, Database, Files, HP-Lexicon, Harry-
> Potter Wikipedia pages, Google).  This Admin post could remind 
> everybody of the 5-post limit.
>    The point of this post is to prevent the useless posts before 
> they are posted.  It also gives the helpful old hands an easily-
> found place to point newbies to.

KathyK:

I like this.  I don't think it will necessarily prevent 
those "useless" or repetitious posts, but it's a good idea to remind 
people of these resources.  Sigh.  Those are things I point new 
folks to when I send them their welcome message.  Having to post 
this on list regularly makes me feel defeated.  Does no one read 
their welcome message?  *sobs in a corner*

Potioncat wrote:

Could someone start a discussion of good canon-based resources? I 
don't know, maybe a general post about which ones are good, or maybe 
a deeper weekly review of some?

It would let the old-times show off without being insufferable know-
it-alls. It might be good to have some the HPfGU resources brought to
light as well.

KathyK:

You mean like, "The Lexicon is a fantastic resource for Harry Potter 
fans, unlike KathyK's Fictitious www.lupinkilledsirius.com which 
takes serious liberties with canon?"

Or are you talking about our own resources?  Or both?

KathyK, speaking only for herself





From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov  8 13:56:15 2006
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:56:15 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <eis156+14c3@...>
Message-ID: <eisnlv+aq1v@...>

 
> KathyK:
> 
> You mean like, "The Lexicon is a fantastic resource for Harry 
Potter 
> fans, unlike KathyK's Fictitious www.lupinkilledsirius.com which 
> takes serious liberties with canon?"
> 
> Or are you talking about our own resources?  Or both?
> 
> KathyK, speaking only for herself

Potioncat:

Both. It could be as informal as asking it on the main list, or as 
organized as someone asking certain members to write a posts about 
specific sites.

It was the combination of Eddie's post here and Jeremiah's at on the 
main list that made me think of it:

>>>(Post 161178, Jeremiah)  But I like it when I have some far-
fetched idea that doesn't have a striaght forward answer and all 
these people can unearth all this evidence! Wow-zah!<<<

Look at his enthusiasm! 

You know, it's been years since I read the welcome letter, and, 
actually, I rarely look at our own resources. I doubt if I really 
know what's out there. Would it be OT to discuss some of the 
resources older members use to pull up canon? Or would this work?











From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov  8 17:29:40 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:29:40 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <eisnlv+aq1v@...>
Message-ID: <eit464+cdqs@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  
> > KathyK:
> > 
> > You mean like, "The Lexicon is a fantastic resource for Harry 
> Potter 
> > fans, unlike KathyK's Fictitious www.lupinkilledsirius.com which 
> > takes serious liberties with canon?"
> > 
> > Or are you talking about our own resources?  Or both?
> > 
> > KathyK, speaking only for herself
> 
> Potioncat:
> 
> Both. It could be as informal as asking it on the main list, or as 
> organized as someone asking certain members to write a posts about 
> specific sites.
> 
> It was the combination of Eddie's post here and Jeremiah's at on 
the 
> main list that made me think of it:
> 
> >>>(Post 161178, Jeremiah)  But I like it when I have some far-
> fetched idea that doesn't have a striaght forward answer and all 
> these people can unearth all this evidence! Wow-zah!<<<
> 
> Look at his enthusiasm! 
> 
> You know, it's been years since I read the welcome letter, and, 
> actually, I rarely look at our own resources. I doubt if I really 
> know what's out there. Would it be OT to discuss some of the 
> resources older members use to pull up canon? Or would this work?
>

Alla:

Duh! Read the thread, Alla, read the thread :) Never mind me, 
Potioncat.

But still, what about the books about HP? Do we want to discuss them?






From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov  8 17:28:03 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:28:03 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <eis156+14c3@...>
Message-ID: <eit433+hi7t@...>

> KathyK:
> 
> I like this.  I don't think it will necessarily prevent 
> those "useless" or repetitious posts, but it's a good idea to 
remind 
> people of these resources.  Sigh.  Those are things I point new 
> folks to when I send them their welcome message.  Having to post 
> this on list regularly makes me feel defeated.  Does no one read 
> their welcome message?  *sobs in a corner*

Alla:

Joins KathyK in sobbing in the corner. :)

 
> Potioncat wrote:
> 
> Could someone start a discussion of good canon-based resources? I 
> don't know, maybe a general post about which ones are good, or 
maybe 
> a deeper weekly review of some?
> 
> It would let the old-times show off without being insufferable know-
> it-alls. It might be good to have some the HPfGU resources brought 
to
> light as well.
> 
> KathyK:
> 
> You mean like, "The Lexicon is a fantastic resource for Harry 
Potter 
> fans, unlike KathyK's Fictitious www.lupinkilledsirius.com which 
> takes serious liberties with canon?"
> 
> Or are you talking about our own resources?  Or both?
> 
> KathyK, speaking only for herself
>

Alla:

Heee, I forgot to ask yesterday. Yes, Potioncat please clarify - zis 
a great idea :), but which resources are you talking about?

HP related books or more what KathyK said now?





From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov 15 12:24:14 2006
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:24:14 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <eit464+cdqs@...>
Message-ID: <ejf0te+qcrl@...>

 
> Alla:
 
> But still, what about the books about HP? Do we want to discuss 
them?
>

Potioncat:
Such book discussions have happened in the past---before my time. It 
seems that one of them was being revived, but I'm not sure what came 
of it. Are there any current books-about-Harry-Potter?

For that matter, would it be of any interest to go over Quidditch 
through the Ages or Fantastic Beasts? (Remember Dumbledore's forward 
and the theories that one generated?)

My original thought was that discussions about resources would help 
all of us. Sometimes they generate their own thread. I remember once 
quoting the Lexicon, and having that start a thread about whether the 
Lexicon had it right.

I was looking for the essay section the other day---I couldn't 
remember if it was at HPfGU or at the Lexicon---but I never did find 
it. (Alla, where do you find the Elkins posts? I'm looking for 
Porphyria's "Snape as the Satan.") But I'm sure lots of list members 
have no idea those articles are out there. 

What is the general feeling? Would discussions about other books or 
resources be considered OT, or would they be appropriate for the main 
list?







From heidi8 at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov 15 13:02:43 2006
From: heidi8 at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:02:43 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <ejf0te+qcrl@...>
References: <ejf0te+qcrl@...>
Message-ID: <1163595766.29FA69AB@...>


On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 7:50 am, potioncat wrote:
>
> I was looking for the essay section the other day---I couldn't
> remember if it was at HPfGU or at the Lexicon---but I never did find
> it. (Alla, where do you find the Elkins posts? I'm looking for
> Porphyria's "Snape as the Satan.") But I'm sure lots of list members
> have no idea those articles are out there.

Both have essays as does RedHen, but iirc, there's no searchable 
database for looking for specific ones. HPInkPot ( 
http://www.hpinkpot.org )  the essay section of FictionAlley.org, has 
that sort of searchability - you can find things by character, era, 
theme, when it was written, etc. The thing is, since it only launched 
last year, it doesn't have all the amazing essays pre-OotP in it - we 
haven't been able to get in touch with a lot of those essayists, so if 
you've ever written an essay about anything HP-ish that's over 500 
words, we'd love it if you submitted it to HPInkPot. Plus, unlike HPFGU 
posts, everything on HPInkPot is googleable, so people who google for 
specific topics will also be able to find your essays just by googleing.



From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov 15 15:06:58 2006
From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (Debbie)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:06:58 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <ejf0te+qcrl@...>
Message-ID: <ejfaei+jo9c@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  
> > Alla:
>  
> > But still, what about the books about HP? Do we want to discuss 
> them?
> >
> 
> Potioncat:
> Such book discussions have happened in the past---before my time. 
It 
> seems that one of them was being revived, but I'm not sure what 
came 
> of it. Are there any current books-about-Harry-Potter?

I'm quite interested in doing this.  While I think the biggest wave 
of HP books are now 2-3 years old, there's plenty out there. To 
succeed, though, we would need volunteers like we have with the 
chapter discussions to introduce each discussion topic.  The reasons 
the revival (which was pre-HBP) was dropped is that there were no 
volunteers to help introduce the topics, and not many responses to 
the ones that were posted.  With enough help, I'd be happy to do it 
again. 

 
> I was looking for the essay section the other day---I couldn't 
> remember if it was at HPfGU or at the Lexicon---but I never did 
find 
> it. (Alla, where do you find the Elkins posts? I'm looking for 
> Porphyria's "Snape as the Satan.") But I'm sure lots of list 
members 
> have no idea those articles are out there. 

Here is Porphyria's essay, which is titled "The Conundrum of Justice 
and the Divine Adversary."  It's in the files section under "Essays" 
in the main list.  It's a wonderful essay which I recommend to 
everyone.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YB1bRX2n3CAkolCsurZHkX-
XIyiEwtP1f7tXYTqxZWPUZjTMMXERp-gwN9WiaUA-
QrqnthgnPlss6tEO1yX0/Essays/job.html

> What is the general feeling? Would discussions about other books or 
> resources be considered OT, or would they be appropriate for the 
main 
> list?

No, definitely not OT as long as the books discuss the HP books and 
universe.

Debbie
speaking for herself






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov 15 22:26:29 2006
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:26:29 -0000
Subject: Snape as the Satan Re: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <ejf0te+qcrl@...>
Message-ID: <ejg46l+pc3m@...>

Potioncat:
> I was looking for the essay section the other day---I couldn't 
> remember if it was at HPfGU or at the Lexicon---but I never did find 
> it. (Alla, where do you find the Elkins posts? I'm looking for 
> Porphyria's "Snape as the Satan.") But I'm sure lots of list members 
> have no idea those articles are out there. 
>

Pippin:
It's in the HPFGU essays section as job.html

Pippin









From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Thu Nov 16 01:52:16 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:52:16 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <ejf0te+qcrl@...>
Message-ID: <ejgg8g+dber@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  
> > Alla:
>  
> > But still, what about the books about HP? Do we want to discuss 
> them?
> >
> 
> Potioncat:
> Such book discussions have happened in the past---before my time. 
It 
> seems that one of them was being revived, but I'm not sure what 
came 
> of it. Are there any current books-about-Harry-Potter?
> 
> For that matter, would it be of any interest to go over Quidditch 
> through the Ages or Fantastic Beasts? (Remember Dumbledore's 
forward 
> and the theories that one generated?)
> 
> My original thought was that discussions about resources would 
help 
> all of us. Sometimes they generate their own thread. I remember 
once 
> quoting the Lexicon, and having that start a thread about whether 
the 
> Lexicon had it right.
> 
> I was looking for the essay section the other day---I couldn't 
> remember if it was at HPfGU or at the Lexicon---but I never did 
find 
> it. (Alla, where do you find the Elkins posts? I'm looking for 
> Porphyria's "Snape as the Satan.") But I'm sure lots of list 
members 
> have no idea those articles are out there. 
> 
> What is the general feeling? Would discussions about other books 
or 
> resources be considered OT, or would they be appropriate for the 
main 
> list?
>

Others already mentioned Essay sections, but also a lot of great 
posts are in recommended posts databases ( including all Elkins 
famous posts)

Alla





From dama.silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Thu Nov 16 11:32:00 2006
From: dama.silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (a_silmariel)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:32:00 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <ejf0te+qcrl@...>
Message-ID: <ejhi7g+2t98@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...>
wrote:
> For that matter, would it be of any interest to go over Quidditch 
> through the Ages or Fantastic Beasts? (Remember Dumbledore's forward 
> and the theories that one generated?)
> 

I'd love to. Fantastic Beasts has some details worth discussing,
included the forward, and I'd like to see what others think about QTTA.

> My original thought was that discussions about resources would help 
> all of us. Sometimes they generate their own thread. I remember once 
> quoting the Lexicon, and having that start a thread about whether the 
> Lexicon had it right.

Yep, I think discussing resources would be a nice way for newbies to
grasp those fantastic posts and essays that can be found out there.

> What is the general feeling? Would discussions about other books or 
> resources be considered OT, or would they be appropriate for the main 
> list?

Books on HP have been discussed in the main list, if my memory doesn't
fail. I skip those discussions because I'm not interested, but I
didn't knew they could be considered OT.

Elkins vault:

http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/posts.html

Silmariel





From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Wed Nov 29 03:47:32 2006
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:47:32 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc
In-Reply-To: <ejhi7g+2t98@...>
Message-ID: <ekivsk+d784@...>

 "a_silmariel"  
> I'd love to. Fantastic Beasts has some details worth discussing,
> included the forward, and I'd like to see what others think about 
QTTA.

Potioncat:
So, erm, Debby is interested in a discussion about the books about 
Harry Potter and Silmariel is intereted in FBaWTFT---so, what's the 
next step?

I'd be interested in both.

Thanks to everyone who pointed out the "Snape as the Satan" location. I 
was glad to have it for my own "library" even if I did forget which 
thread I had intended to bring it up in.

KathyW






From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Sun Dec  3 03:02:12 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:02:12 -0000
Subject: Observations re limits, readability, search-ability, etc/ Fantastic Beasts.
In-Reply-To: <ekivsk+d784@...>
Message-ID: <ektenk+8oq7@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  "a_silmariel"  
> > I'd love to. Fantastic Beasts has some details worth discussing,
> > included the forward, and I'd like to see what others think 
about 
> QTTA.
> 
> Potioncat:
> So, erm, Debby is interested in a discussion about the books about 
> Harry Potter and Silmariel is intereted in FBaWTFT---so, what's 
the 
> next step?
> 
> I'd be interested in both.
> 
> Thanks to everyone who pointed out the "Snape as the Satan" 
location. I 
> was glad to have it for my own "library" even if I did forget 
which 
> thread I had intended to bring it up in.
> 
> KathyW
>


Alla:

Speaking for myself only, not for the team, but Potioncat - you 
inspired me to prepare a little discussion starter on Fantastic 
Beasts. Nothing fansy, just few questions and we shall see whether 
anybody else would be interested to join :)




From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Sun Dec  3 04:05:34 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:05:34 -0000
Subject: / Fantastic Beasts.
In-Reply-To: <ektenk+8oq7@...>
Message-ID: <ektiee+112re@...>

> Alla:
> 
> Speaking for myself only, not for the team, but Potioncat - you 
> inspired me to prepare a little discussion starter on Fantastic 
> Beasts. Nothing fansy, just few questions and we shall see whether 
> anybody else would be interested to join :)
>


Alla:

Sorry for replying to myself - it is done, please do not beat me up 
too much, instead do it to Potioncat if you dislike it. ;)