[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder

[susiequsie23]

> 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