[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: An Elfly Reminder

[Jordan Abel]

> 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.