From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 28 19:32:12 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:32:12 -0000
Subject: Calling the argument ridiculous, moved from MAIN
Message-ID: <fv58ns+5tau@...>

Carol responds:
I also don't much appreciate having my canon-supported argument
described as "ridiculous" by a List Elf, of all people. Disagreement
and counterarguments are one thing; but disparaging someone's
carefully expressed and canon-supported arguments is another.

Alla:

So I would have just written this offlist, but I would hate for 
anybody to believe that it is somehow against the rules to call the 
argument ridiculous. I am of course speaking only for myself and my 
fellow list elves may disagree with me, but it is always been my 
understanding that it is perfectly allowable to call the argument " 
WEAK, SILLY, RIDICULOUS, even ABSURD",  as long as I am not calling 
you any of those things.

I do think that there are words, which while characterizing the 
argument still come dangerously close to characterizing the person. I 
would never call your argument for example idiotic or stupid, because 
I believe that it comes dangerously close to calling person those 
things, NO I do not believe that your arguments are idiotic or 
stupid,  just saying hypothetically. I would also never say that 
because you argue certain thing, that you are somehow WRONG in 
thinking whatever it is I am arguing against.

But ridiculous **argument**? Eh, sure. And if I think your ARGUMENT 
is silly, yeah, I am going to say so.  And of course my arguments had 
been called ridiculous and silly quite a few times, why not. 

It also does not matter much to me whether argument is canon 
supported or not if I think that it is ridiculous. Of course yours 
was canon supported and I gave my canon reasons why I think it is 
ridiculous. I did not just say ? oh yeah this is ridiculous, bye.

Moreover, BELIEVE me that now I am usually so tired of debates and 
prefer discussions for the most part that even if I think that 
argument is silly or ridiculous, I will often not say so. The thing 
is if I decided to SAY SO, I do not believe that I am wrong in any 
way. I am being more confrontational, SURE, but I think I am within 
the limits.



Alla AKA Alika elf speaking only for myself ONLY.






From justcarol67 at justcarol67.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 28 20:30:51 2008
From: justcarol67 at justcarol67.yahoo.invalid (Carol)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:30:51 -0000
Subject: Calling the argument ridiculous, moved from MAIN
In-Reply-To: <fv58ns+5tau@...>
Message-ID: <fv5c5r+9j5c@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
> I also don't much appreciate having my canon-supported argument
> described as "ridiculous" by a List Elf, of all people. Disagreement
> and counterarguments are one thing; but disparaging someone's
> carefully expressed and canon-supported arguments is another.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> So I would have just written this offlist, but I would hate for 
> anybody to believe that it is somehow against the rules to call the 
> argument ridiculous. I am of course speaking only for myself and my 
> fellow list elves may disagree with me, but it is always been my 
> understanding that it is perfectly allowable to call the argument " 
> WEAK, SILLY, RIDICULOUS, even ABSURD",  as long as I am not calling 
> you any of those things.
> 
> I do think that there are words, which while characterizing the 
> argument still come dangerously close to characterizing the person. I 
> would never call your argument for example idiotic or stupid, because 
> I believe that it comes dangerously close to calling person those 
> things, NO I do not believe that your arguments are idiotic or 
> stupid,  just saying hypothetically. I would also never say that 
> because you argue certain thing, that you are somehow WRONG in 
> thinking whatever it is I am arguing against.
> 
> But ridiculous **argument**? Eh, sure. And if I think your ARGUMENT 
> is silly, yeah, I am going to say so.  And of course my arguments had 
> been called ridiculous and silly quite a few times, why not. 
> 
> It also does not matter much to me whether argument is canon 
> supported or not if I think that it is ridiculous. Of course yours 
> was canon supported and I gave my canon reasons why I think it is 
> ridiculous. I did not just say ? oh yeah this is ridiculous, bye.
> 
> Moreover, BELIEVE me that now I am usually so tired of debates and 
> prefer discussions for the most part that even if I think that 
> argument is silly or ridiculous, I will often not say so. The thing 
> is if I decided to SAY SO, I do not believe that I am wrong in any 
> way. I am being more confrontational, SURE, but I think I am within 
> the limits.
> 
> 
> 
> Alla AKA Alika elf speaking only for myself ONLY.
>

Carol:

Thank you for that honest response. I, however, consider labeling an
opponent's argument as "ridiculous" to be both rude and ineffective as
a counterargument. I had hoped for an apology and am disappointed not
to receive one.

I do think, however, that you misconstrued the argument you regard as
"ridiculous." See the main list for clarification of that point.

I have, BTW, seen a number of arguments on HPfGu that genuinely
qualify as ridiculous, but I would never use that label. Instead, I
would use rational counterarguments and canon evidence in an attempt
to correct what I considered to be a misconception.

And the HPfGu guidelines specifically state, "Observe basic netiquette.

    "* No ad hominem attacks (flames): you can challenge ideas, but
don't insult people."

As far as I'm concerned, calling my post ridiculous doesn't
*challenge* my ideas. It insults *me.* By all means, challenge my
argument by presenting rational counterarguments and counter my canon
with counterexamples. By all means state that you disagree with me and
why (that is, make clear which specific point you disagree with). But
please don't resort to ad hominem tactics, especially since you're a
List Elf and need to set an example for other posters.

Carol, apologizing for the public response but since Alla posted here,
I thought I'd respond here in hopes of getting a clarification on what
constitutes an acceptable response from other List Elves




From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 28 20:57:00 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:57:00 -0000
Subject: Calling the argument ridiculous, moved from MAIN
In-Reply-To: <fv5c5r+9j5c@...>
Message-ID: <fv5dms+qn31@...>

Carol:
<SNIP>
As far as I'm concerned, calling my post ridiculous doesn't
*challenge* my ideas. It insults *me.* By all means, challenge my
argument by presenting rational counterarguments and counter my canon
with counterexamples. By all means state that you disagree with me and
why (that is, make clear which specific point you disagree with). But
please don't resort to ad hominem tactics, especially since you're a
List Elf and need to set an example for other posters.


Alla:

We disagree on that - that calling argument ridiculous  is ad hominem 
tactic.
Actually, no strike that ? it may insult you, but I believe that 
there 
should be a balance between what list member may consider offensive 
and 
what should be considered offensive. There were times where I was 
insulted by some posts and I still thought that they were perfectly 
within rules. I would NEVER say that because I was insulted, this was 
actually insulting as in violating the rules. 

I cannot predict which word you will take offensively and vice versa. 
I do think it is ridiculous if every time one takes offense at the 
word it should not be used anymore. I think there are should be some 
common grounds - what many people will consider offensive.

Like for example I CAN predict that being called idiotic, even if the 
argument can cause offense, sure.


I AM sorry that it insulted you. I am not sorry for using that word 
and 
will use the word as relates to argument I am challenging as I see 
fit.

I am trying to be careful with the words, as I said I do not do that 
often, but TRUST ME, I struggled to find the word . 

> Carol, apologizing for the public response but since Alla posted 
here,
> I thought I'd respond here in hopes of getting a clarification on 
what
> constitutes an acceptable response from other List Elves
>


Alla:

If list elf is being rude list elf should get an owler or howler just 
as any list member, who is not a list elf.




From justcarol67 at justcarol67.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 28 21:22:30 2008
From: justcarol67 at justcarol67.yahoo.invalid (Carol)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:22:30 -0000
Subject: Calling the argument ridiculous, moved from MAIN
In-Reply-To: <fv5dms+qn31@...>
Message-ID: <fv5f6m+dm8c@...>

Carol earlier:
> <SNIP>
> As far as I'm concerned, calling my post ridiculous doesn't
*challenge* my ideas. It insults *me.* By all means, challenge my
argument by presenting rational counterarguments and counter my canon
with counterexamples. By all means state that you disagree with me and
why (that is, make clear which specific point you disagree with). But
please don't resort to ad hominem tactics, especially since you're a
List Elf and need to set an example for other posters.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> We disagree on that - that calling argument ridiculous  is ad
hominem tactic. Actually, no strike that ? it may insult you, but I
believe that there should be a balance between what list member may
consider offensive and what should be considered offensive. <snip>
 
> I cannot predict which word you will take offensively and vice
versa. <snip>

Carol:
Oh, I think you can safely predict that someone who has spent time
presenting reasoned arguments and supporting them with canon is not
going to take kindly to having her arguments labeled as ridiculous,
whether they've been properly understood or not. 

And I should add, speaking as a former college English teacher, that
calling an argument ridiculous is considerably as a means of refuting
that argument than providing reasoned counterarguments and evidence to
support them. Calling an argument ridiculous doesn't make it
ridiculous any more than calling Snape evil makes him evil.

Alla: 
> I AM sorry that it insulted you. 

Carol:
Thank you. And I'm sorry that we have to have this public, erm,
disagreement, but I think it's important, especially given that others
will follow your example, that we determine whether it's acceptable to
call someone's argument ridiculous or not. (I think we agree that it's
not acceptable to characterize a fellow poster as Umbridge, as also
happened to me recently, but that poster has apologized for her
misunderstanding of my post and for her rudeness, and I've publicly
accepted her apology.)

I am not sorry for using that word and I will use the word as relates
to argument I am challenging as I see fit.

Carol:
Well, we'll see what the List Elves have to say with regard to
acceptable use of that word. As an argumentative tactic, it proves
nothing. It's more effective (and easier), IMO, to prove that an
argument is *wrong* than that it's "ridiculous," which remains the
opinion of the poster. And civility is always more effective than
contemptuous dismissal of someone else's argument, again, IMO.
> 
> I am trying to be careful with the words, as I said I do not do that
often, but TRUST ME, I struggled to find the word . 

Carol:
Struggled to find the word "ridiculous"? why not simply say that you
disagree, state the point that you disagree with, and explain why?

Carol, who disagrees with Alla on this and many other matters but
would not think of insulting her ideas by labeling them as ridiculous




From ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid  Tue Apr 29 19:39:06 2008
From: ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:39:06 -0000
Subject: Calling the argument ridiculous, moved from MAIN
In-Reply-To: <fv5f6m+dm8c@...>
Message-ID: <fv7tgq+pvfe@...>

Carol:
> Struggled to find the word "ridiculous"? why not simply say that you
> disagree, state the point that you disagree with, and explain why?

Ceridwen:
Hi, guys.  I hope I'm not crashing here!  You're both so nice and 
settled, and...  *sqinting*... are those eclairs on the table over 
there?

I'm not involved in the thread you're talking about, so I don't know 
how it's going.  Apparently, there seems to be an impasse.  Could it 
be semantic?  You're debating canon points, not ideas, right?  And we 
all know there are a lot of different interpretations of canon that 
can be found.  I suggested one a while ago, the Evil Weasleys.  It 
was all tongue-in-cheek, of course, but sufficient canon could be 
found to, IMO, support at least the raising of a question concerning 
this all-too-squeaky-clean red-headed league (with a wink to Sir 
ACDoyle).  So, canon points don't always, unless they're 
painstakingly pointed out within canon, lead to a single assumption 
or conclusion.

As far as Alla debating in the thread, she's debating as Alla, not as 
a list-elf.  Her views may not be shared by other elves, for one 
point.  For another, becoming an elf doesn't mean the elf has to give 
up posting as a member.  I think fewer people would become elves if 
that was the case!  I'm not even sure if elfy identifications are 
commonly known.  Of course, they can be, but that doesn't mean 
everyone has an interest in knowing who may or may not be an elf, so 
there will be people who don't look that information up.  Alla's 
posting won't necessarily encourage others to emulate her style is 
what I'm saying.

On the word 'ridiculous', I'd have to narrowly agree with Carol that 
it can be taken offensively, even if it isn't applied to the poster 
but to the argument.  We're all sort-of wedded to our arguments, 
unless we're playing Devil's Advocate, which some of us do at times.  
Even then, yes, a lot of time is put into crafting the argument.

HOWEVER!  Alla stated she looked for a better word to describe her 
impression, but couldn't come up with one.  At least, that's how I 
interpret "struggling to find the word".  Alla, correct me if I'm 
wrong!  'Ridiculous' was not the best word, IOW, but the only one 
Alla could access.  I really hate to use this argument, but I feel it 
does apply here.  Alla is English-Subsequent-Language.  Others of 
this sort - English not the first language, or different generational 
connotations of a word, or even different countries or even regions 
within one country, may view the word 'ridiculous' as somewhat 
innocuous and not as insulting in any way if not directly applied to 
the member but only to the argument.  The baggage of the word doesn't 
apply across the board.  I take umbrage at it (and I'm not sure any 
more if I'm spelling the character or the term which inspired her 
name!!!  Dictionary.com is our friend), but I know a lot of people 
don't see the nuances I see in it.  I'm older, I was raised by older 
parents, I read old books, I circulated in a certain set of people 
where the word was offensive while still being vaguely amusing.  I 
think Rowling may have circulated with the same sort of people, 
judging by her use for it (Ridiculus!).  Same with Umbridge/umbrage, 
and a few others which slip my mind at the moment.

Anyway, to make a long post longer, I think the nuances of the term 
are not universal.  I also think that maybe it's time to give that 
line of discussion a rest, but that's just me.  Everyone is getting 
something different from canon, as is often the case.

Ceridwen, speaking for myself only, but aptly aka "Vexxy Elf", since 
it's finals time and I'm sorely vex(x)ed over the mystifying logic 
behind exam scheduling!  Pass those eclairs and break out the 
firewhisky, please.




From kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 27 19:54:55 2008
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:54:55 -0000
Subject: Spam?
Message-ID: <g94bef+33pn@...>

Hey, everyone--

I was going through the management logs on main when I noticed 
that a person has been emailing loads of members.  The subject
line reads "Mary Frances wants t..."  Sorry the end is cut off, 
that's how it reads in the logs.  I feel 99.9% that this is 
spam, but I wanted to be absolutely sure before banning this
person.  Anyone recall getting anything like this?

Thanks, 

Kelley




From n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 27 21:21:16 2008
From: n2fgc at lee_storm.yahoo.invalid (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:21:16 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Spam?
In-Reply-To: <g94bef+33pn@...>
References: <g94bef+33pn@...>
Message-ID: <A301BB731051406081860601EE357A83@FRODO>

[Kelly]:
| Hey, everyone--
| 
| I was going through the management logs on main when I noticed 
| that a person has been emailing loads of members.  The subject
| line reads "Mary Frances wants t..."  Sorry the end is cut off, 
| that's how it reads in the logs.  I feel 99.9% that this is 
| spam, but I wanted to be absolutely sure before banning this
| person.  Anyone recall getting anything like this?

[Lee]:
No, but it might have been automatically deleted.  Sounds like it would be
spam, I agree.

Cheers,

Lee :-)

s
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 kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 28 03:27:51 2008
From: kelley_thompson at kelleyscorpio.yahoo.invalid (Kelley)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:27:51 -0000
Subject: Spam?
In-Reply-To: <A301BB731051406081860601EE357A83@FRODO>
Message-ID: <g955vn+ieuh@...>

Hi, Lee!  Thanks for the reply.

> [Lee]:
> No, but it might have been automatically deleted.  
> Sounds like it would be spam, I agree.


Kelley:
Yeah, I bet you're right, most probably were caught 
by spam filters.  I feel quite safe acting on the 
belief that this person's a spammer.

Thanks!

--Kelley




From justcarol67 at justcarol67.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 29 01:31:06 2008
From: justcarol67 at justcarol67.yahoo.invalid (Carol)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:31:06 -0000
Subject: Movie list
Message-ID: <g97jgq+hpdh@...>

Can anyone (List Elves, I mean) help out the Movie list? There's an OT
thread there that's getting out of hand, even to the point where one
poster called another a bigot. Not being an Elf, I'm staying out of
the thread. (I also wrote to the List Elves from the Movie list
itself, so if the problem is already being dealt with, please accept
my apologies for bringing it up in more than one place.)

Thanks,
Carol




From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 29 01:56:19 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:56:19 -0000
Subject: Movie list
In-Reply-To: <g97jgq+hpdh@...>
Message-ID: <g97l03+g3io@...>

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone (List Elves, I mean) help out the Movie list? There's an OT
> thread there that's getting out of hand, even to the point where one
> poster called another a bigot. Not being an Elf, I'm staying out of
> the thread. (I also wrote to the List Elves from the Movie list
> itself, so if the problem is already being dealt with, please accept
> my apologies for bringing it up in more than one place.)
> 
> Thanks,
> Carol


Carol, your message to owner was duly noted.

Thanks,

Alika elf.





From Schlobin1 at susanmcgee48176.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 30 04:27:04 2008
From: Schlobin1 at susanmcgee48176.yahoo.invalid (Schlobin1 at susanmcgee48176.yahoo.invalid)
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:27:04 EDT
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Movie list
Message-ID: <c73.390b9886.35ea2618@...>

 
In a message dated 8/28/2008 6:32:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
justcarol67 at ... writes:

Can  anyone (List Elves, I mean) help out the Movie list? There's an OT
thread  there that's getting out of hand, even to the point where one
poster called  another a bigot. Not being an Elf, I'm staying out of
the thread. (I also  wrote to the List Elves from the Movie list
itself, so if the problem is  already being dealt with, please accept
my apologies for bringing it up in  more than one place.)

Thanks,
Carol



Carol, if you're talking about me, why don't you email me  directly...?
 
After all, we do know each other......
 
Susan



**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel 
deal here.      
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


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




From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Sun Sep 21 16:50:22 2008
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:50:22 -0000
Subject: Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
Message-ID: <gb5u0e+7o29@...>

Greetings Elves--and Fellow Feedback members

I was thinking maybe it would add some volume on those days when 
threads start waving if we didn't have to count our replies before they 
posted. So I've come with a question. Is the 5 post per day limit still 
in effect?

A. Yes, and now we have our eye on you.

B. Yes, but we don't enforce it.

C. No, and why weren't you paying attention when it was announced?


Potioncat







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Sun Sep 21 17:43:11 2008
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
Message-ID: <606159.68394.qm@...>

Potioncat wrote:
> Greetings Elves--and Fellow Feedback members
>
> I was thinking maybe it would add some volume on those days when 
> threads start waving if we didn't have to count our replies before they 
> posted. So I've come with a question. Is the 5 post per day limit still 
> in effect?
>
> A. Yes, and now we have our eye on you.
>
> B. Yes, but we don't enforce it.
>
> C. No, and why weren't you paying attention when it was announced? <<<


SSSusan/Shorty Elf responds:

Heh.? Interesting multiple choice options you've provided there, 'cat.??:)? Here's how I'd answer your question, as Shorty Elf:

D.? Yes, we do still have the 5-post limit, and we do still enforce it, but we'd certainly welcome any discussion HPfGU members might wish to have about the pros and cons, the benefits and drawbacks, of the limit.

As SSSusan, I?would add that I *personally* still likes the 5-post rule.? While posting volume is much lower than in the time when we were still reading/still anticipating new canon, and so there are days when there is very little activity, I have always appreciated the posting limit for its effectiveness in preventing any one or two (or small handful of) individuals from dominating the board.? I think "tuning in" and seeing one or two persons' names over & over again in the message list can imply that there's not room for others.? 

Maybe that's really not now the danger that I think we had in the days before posting limits.? But I'll be honest, I was one of those people who sometimes posted 7 or 8 times a day and didn't do a very good job of 1) combining responses within a thread or 2) really thinking about whether yet another post from me was going to be adding anything helpful, useful or interesting?to the discussion.? I like the posting limit for helping with those two things.

Perhaps times have changed enough, though, that the issues we face are different?? Anyone else have thoughts?

Siriusly Snapey Susan, with a brief appearance as Shorty Elf

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




From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Sun Sep 21 19:48:15 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:48:15 -0000
Subject: Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
In-Reply-To: <606159.68394.qm@...>
Message-ID: <gb68dv+4c3o@...>

> SSSusan/Shorty Elf responds:
> 
> Heh.? Interesting multiple choice options you've provided 
there, 'cat.??:)? <SNIP of the whole post basically>


Alla/ Alika elf:

Indeedy LOL. I agree with what Susan said while wearing both hats of 
hers.

I just want to elaborate a little bit and yes of course I would love 
to hear what others think.

I know first hand how hard it is sometimes to stop when you are in 
the middle especially chat like discussion. I mean, not exactly chat 
like, but RL time discussion. These days of course I do not feel the 
desire to post a lot nearly as much as I used to, but sometimes these 
discussions still happen ( like you and me did today Potioncat) and I 
have to be really careful. I almost replied and then I realised that 
I posted two yesterday evening and I already used up my five.

I mean, to me the point about dominating the list is very important.

I know that lots of list members left the group, but we do have new 
members coming in still and I would absolutely hate for example for 
somebody who loves Snape to be turned off the group because they 
would think that there are so many posts from somebody who hates 
Snape and opposing point of view will not be welcome.

I would also not want anybody to think that we do only allow the 
certain length posts ( long), or vice versa. Does it make sense?






From sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid  Sun Sep 21 19:53:08 2008
From: sherriola at sherriola.yahoo.invalid (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:53:08 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
In-Reply-To: <gb68dv+4c3o@...>
References: <606159.68394.qm@...> <gb68dv+4c3o@...>
Message-ID: <001801c91c23$ac10b920$4001a8c0@Pensieve>

 

  _____  

From: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of dumbledore11214
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:48 PM
To: HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Posting limits--not the same as setting limits



SSSusan/Shorty Elf responds:
> 
> Heh.  Interesting multiple choice options you've provided 
there, 'cat.  :)  <SNIP of the whole post basically>

Alla/ Alika elf:

Indeedy LOL. I agree with what Susan said while wearing both hats of 
hers.

I just want to elaborate a little bit and yes of course I would love 
to hear what others think.

I know first hand how hard it is sometimes to stop when you are in 
the middle especially chat like discussion. I mean, not exactly chat 
like, but RL time discussion. These days of course I do not feel the 
desire to post a lot nearly as much as I used to, but sometimes these 
discussions still happen ( like you and me did today Potioncat) and I 
have to be really careful. I almost replied and then I realised that 
I posted two yesterday evening and I already used up my five.

I mean, to me the point about dominating the list is very important.

I know that lots of list members left the group, but we do have new 
members coming in still and I would absolutely hate for example for 
somebody who loves Snape to be turned off the group because they 
would think that there are so many posts from somebody who hates 
Snape and opposing point of view will not be welcome.

I would also not want anybody to think that we do only allow the 
certain length posts ( long), or vice versa. Does it make sense?
 

Sherry/Blinky Elf

I agree with both SS-Susan and Alla.  I remember when I first joined HPFGU,
after OOTP came out.  It was before there were posting limits, and I did
feel intimidated to send those first few posts.  I was worried that I would
have nothing new to say, that as a newbie, I would be overlooked, and that
maybe you had to be one of those 20 posts a day people to be really in, so
to speak.  Not exactly what I'm trying to say, but not finding the words.  I
just remember feeling intimidated and feeling freer to post, when there were
limits.

 

Sherry

 

Visit
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaGNmOW5xBF9TAzk3M
zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExNDMyMzIwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzU0NDEwOARzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwB
HN0aW1lAzEyMjIwMjY1MDI-> Your Group 
Only on Yahoo!

World
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13oci634t/M=493064.12016259.12445666.9963301/D=
groups/S=1707544108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1222033702/L=/B=obrUJkLaX9A-/J=1222026502
628548/A=5008814/R=0/SIG=10sulld0b/*http://starwars.yahoo.com/> of Star Wars

Meet fans, watch

videos & more.

Yahoo! News

Get
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13orqg1a8/M=493064.12016309.12445701.8674578/D=
groups/S=1707544108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1222033702/L=/B=orrUJkLaX9A-/J=1222026502
628548/A=3848627/R=0/SIG=10obc6i69/*http://news.yahoo.com/> it all here

Breaking news to

entertainment news

Featured Y! Groups

and
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o4pe48k/M=493064.12016306.12445698.8674578/D=
groups/S=1707544108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1222033702/L=/B=o7rUJkLaX9A-/J=1222026502
628548/A=4763760/R=0/SIG=11ou7otip/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/best
ofyahoogroups/> category pages.

There is something

for everyone.

.
 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=11432320/grpspId=1707544108/msgI
d=964/stime=1222026502/nc1=5008814/nc2=3848627/nc3=4763760> 
 


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




From gav_fiji at gav_fiji.yahoo.invalid  Mon Sep 22 01:29:39 2008
From: gav_fiji at gav_fiji.yahoo.invalid (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:29:39 -0000
Subject: Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
In-Reply-To: <gb5u0e+7o29@...>
Message-ID: <gb6se3+tpuc@...>

> Potioncat:
 
> I was thinking maybe it would add some volume on those days 
> when threads start waving if we didn't have to count our 
> replies before they posted. So I've come with a question. 
> Is the 5 post per day limit still in effect?

Goddlefrood:

The limit is still in effect and continually monitored.

My posting has obviously dropped off quite markedly since DH's 
release, but I wouldn't want to see the limit removed or extended 
again (it was 3 at one time), because the less frequent posters 
will have little to add to any thread if a few members dominate. 
Much of the time recently there have been only a handful of 
contributors to the list and it would be good to see more input 
from possibly reluctant posters. By the time some one, who 
speculatively does not spend all day online, comes along and 
sees something that is worth responding to, while bearing in 
mind the rule not to cover ground previously covered by others, 
and realises that what they wanted to say has been said already 
by a member with several posts on that day, he/she would not 
chip in. Should that continue a few times, in exasperation the 
member leaves the group and looks elsewhere for discussion. No 
doubt this has happened.

The group is currently haemorrhaging members, it's down to just 
over 27,000 from a peak of over 28,000. How many of these were 
people who were not getting any opportunity to contribute I don't 
know; I would give good odds that some of them fit in with the 
scenario above.

I'd actually argue that, now that the group is quieter than it 
once was, it's more important than ever to keep the list at a 
point where it is not possible for it to be overwhelmed by just 
a handful of members. If I had my way there'd be limits on the 
other lists too ;-)

FWIW, I suppose this was partially an elfy response, but I wanted 
it to be more from my perspective as a group member and hope it 
comes off that way.

 





From ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid  Mon Sep 22 10:47:52 2008
From: ceridwennight at ceridwennight.yahoo.invalid (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:47:52 -0000
Subject: Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
In-Reply-To: <gb5u0e+7o29@...>
Message-ID: <gb7t4o+n9u1@...>

Potioncat:
> Greetings Elves--and Fellow Feedback members

Ceridwen/Vexxy:
Salutations!

Potioncat:
> I was thinking maybe it would add some volume on those days when 
> threads start waving if we didn't have to count our replies before 
they 
> posted. So I've come with a question. Is the 5 post per day limit 
still 
> in effect?
> 
> A. Yes, and now we have our eye on you.
> 
> B. Yes, but we don't enforce it.
> 
> C. No, and why weren't you paying attention when it was announced?

Vexxy:
D.  Yes and we does count.  *looking smug until losing one paperclip 
holding tea towels together*

Ceridwen:
I agree with everyone who has answered so far.  New or occasional 
posters might get shy if a few people dominated the list.  Posting 
limits also encourage some martialling of thought and private 
exploration of a theory before posting, while unlimited posting means 
a person can go through the stages of refining a theory on the board, 
taking up a lot of time for people who don't always have a lot of 
time but who are still interested in that particular subject.

I also agree that we might have a discussion about this issue to see 
what everybody thinks.  We have had some slow days recently so maybe 
a lot of people are thinking about this.

Ceridwen/Vexxy Elf.




From dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid  Mon Sep 22 11:23:33 2008
From: dumbledad at dumbledad.yahoo.invalid (Tim Regan)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:23:33 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Feedback] Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
Message-ID: <000901c91ca5$a6814100$f383c300$@...>

Hi All,

Potioncat asked:
>>> Is the 5 post per day limit still in effect? <<<

As other's have pointed out ... it is. But I'd like to chime in with my
personal view that we should scrap it. I think it is very important that
HPfGU remains a group where post quality is valued over post quantity, and
at the height of posting volume the five post limit helped with that quality
drive. But now the list is at a more manageable post rate I think the rule
makes it less readable. Combining posts that span topics makes each post
less lucid; and if someone has  canon points to add to a number of posts,
then I think we should encourage them to post replies to each one
separately.

Cheers,

Dumbledad.


		
___________________________________________________________ 
All New Yahoo! Mail  Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html




From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Tue Sep 23 17:48:55 2008
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:48:55 -0000
Subject: Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
In-Reply-To: <000901c91ca5$a6814100$f383c300$@...>
Message-ID: <gbba67+c9ku@...>

Dumbledad: 
> As other's have pointed out ... it is. But I'd like to chime in 
with my
> personal view that we should scrap it. I think it is very important 
that
> HPfGU remains a group where post quality is valued over post 
quantity, and
> at the height of posting volume the five post limit helped with 
that quality
> drive. But now the list is at a more manageable post rate I think 
the rule
> makes it less readable. Combining posts that span topics makes each 
post
> less lucid; and if someone has  canon points to add to a number of 
posts,
> then I think we should encourage them to post replies to each one
> separately.


Potioncat:
I have to admit, everyone has come up with some very good reasons for 
keeping the limits in effect, but I really agree with Tim.

I've noticed lately a couple of posters ending with "...have reached 
my limits, will sign off now..." and I couldn't help thinking, "what 
more might they have to say after another couple of posts are entered?

And as much as I like having posts combined when they pertain to the 
same thread; it's a bit busy when the one post deals with multiple 
threads. 

Could we consider a trial period of no limit to numbers of posts, or 
of an encreased number to the limit? Perhaps with the next chapter 
discussion? 

Potioncat earlier: 		
 
> A. Yes, and now we have our eye on you.
> 
> B. Yes, but we don't enforce it.
> 
> C. No, and why weren't you paying attention when it was announced?

Potioncat now:
I really, really hope everyone understood this was supposed to be 
funny. I think someone put a dishumor hex on me, because all of my 
jokes over the weekend fell flat. Not just at HP.

By the way, it was pure coincidence that I submitted this idea on the 
day I hit 5 posts before noon. I don't think I've come close to 5 per 
day in ages.
:-)   Kathy





From dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid  Tue Sep 23 18:40:10 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at dumbledore11214.yahoo.invalid (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:40:10 -0000
Subject: Posting limits--not the same as setting limits
In-Reply-To: <gbba67+c9ku@...>
Message-ID: <gbbd6a+v6l4@...>

> Potioncat:
> I have to admit, everyone has come up with some very good reasons for 
> keeping the limits in effect, but I really agree with Tim.
> 
> I've noticed lately a couple of posters ending with "...have reached 
> my limits, will sign off now..." and I couldn't help thinking, "what 
> more might they have to say after another couple of posts are entered?
> 
> And as much as I like having posts combined when they pertain to the 
> same thread; it's a bit busy when the one post deals with multiple 
> threads. 
><SNIP> 


Alla:

Just want to comment on combining, I cannot comment individually on 
your point about trial period. I mean, I agree with you that combining 
multiple threads can make post too busy, you know?

But while we certainly encourage to combine posts on the same thread, 
limit does not mean that one HAS TO combine posts in the different 
thread you know?

I very rarely combine posts in different threads these days and for a 
long time for the reason you stated.

The main point to me of limit is sharing the list, you know, not making 
it HPFAlla list for example. I have a right to share my opinion with 
the list, but others have a right to, well, not being subjected to my 
opinion over and over and over. I mean, I am sure they had been anyways 
over the years, but you know what I am trying to say - balancing, etc, 
putting some sort of limits on me, as the one who often has the 
possibility to post a lot, which others may not have (not everybody's 
job involving being near computer many hours a day)

So combining CAN be effect of the limit, but it really does not have to 
be IMO. I mean, really if one wants to make a separate point, sure, 
make it tomorrow, or when 24 hours passed.

My opinion of course.

Alla