An Elfly Reminder

[Kelley]

> 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