[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder

[Jordan Abel]

> 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.