[HPFGU-OTChatter] Disheartened Newbie; read-only status?

[Morgan D.]

>    From: "Judy" <judy at judyshapiro.com>
> 
> Now, I have a question for you, and for everyone else here. Several
> people have suggested that new members be placed on "read only"
> status
> for a certain amount of time.  Think back to when you first joined
> HPfGU.  Would you have been upset if we had had this policy?  Would
> you have left, or would you have stayed and waited to be able to
> post? 

I'd say different people join a group for different reasons. Many join
because they have something to ask right away, and if they can't find
the answer in the FAQs or by searching the archives (or if they don't
have the patience to do that, which is a more common case), they want
to barge in immediately. For those, a temporary read-only status would
be a terribly cold shower.

Me? My story is, I was researching some stuff for my fics, and ended up
in the FAQ site. That was how I learned about the existence of the
HPfGU. Since many faqs had links to messages I could only read by being
a HPfGU member, I became a member. I got the BHF, was deeply impressed
and intimidated by it, and thought I would never have the guts to post
to the group ("My gosh, what if I make a mistake and get a Howler????")


But the debate in the list was, at the time, irresistible. Eventually
(after about one month of lurking, I think) I decided I really had to
join in for real and sent a long, carefully planned post about the
portrait of fat characters in the books. Got no response from the list,
but Elkins replied to me off-list with a very gentle "me too" (because
those are supposed to be off-list, and I knew that because I *had* read
the BHF). From them on, I lost my fear to post, but not my fear to make
mistakes. So I only posted when I had something to say, and was always
very careful about it.

And I thought that was how the game was supposed to be. I loved the
list precisely because of that. Because it wasn't a list for grown-ups
only in the name, and it didn't have a formal age restriction,
apparently aware that we can find maturity in teenagers and immaturity
in fifty-year-olds. No, the list simply had rules that demanded the
posters to be as mature as we could possibly be, and a moderating team
willing to enforce those rules. 

It is true that those who will enforce rules won't always be seen as
"nice". Moderators who are too worried about being nice usually have
very chaotic groups, as they don't have the heart to tell people to
change their habits. And I used to think the highest things about this
group because the MEG had the guts to do what they had to do to keep
things working as planned. I even changed the way I moderate a group of
mine, inspired by the way things were managed here. 

So the answer for your question, Judy: it wouldn't have made any
difference to me. I probably would still have waited (as I did) a lot
more than only two weeks before posting. I would have posted only when
I was ready to post, after assimilating the rules and learning the
group's dynamics, and not a moment before.

After all, it is one of the classical rules of Netiquette for groups:
lurk for a month, learning how the group works, before posting for the
first time. Just because very few people remember that one (or know
about it), it doesn't mean it's not a good advice.


Morgan D.
Hogwarts Letters - http://www.hogwartsletters.hpg.com.br

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com