[HPFGU-OTChatter] My Two Knuts (long)

[Laura Ingalls Huntley]

Joywitch:
> I'm going to do something that will doubtless piss off both sides in
> the recent debate, if not everybody on HPfGU, but I think it's time
> to stop bullshitting around and tell people the truth about what's
> going on around here.

Contrary to being pissed off, I'd like to thank you for your input, as 
an explanation of this sort is exactly what I'd been looking for from 
someone from "the other side" (or, at least, the middle ground) in the 
conflict.  Thus far the admin team (as an official body) has been very 
tight-lipped about the whole affair.  Not that I blame them exactly, as 
a "WELL, she did *this*!" post from the admin team as a group would 
hardly be seen as dignified or appropriate.  However, this *does* leave 
general list members with only one side of the story, and the general 
impression that poor Cindy is getting clobbered by the nasty and 
despotic list elves.

> Which is not to say that some of the issues Cindy is raising *aren't*
> valid.  I believe that HPfGU *should* be run more democratically.
> Perhaps the elves should be elected; although I'm betting if we held
> elections only a tiny percentage of HPfGU members would actually
> vote.

Well, the fact is, only a tiny percentage of all HPFGU membership is 
active on the list at any given time.  Still, I am really wary of the 
idea of the election being open for anyone to enter and, perhaps, even 
anyone to vote.  I don't want members of the admin team to feel 
insecure in their positions -- or, in fact, for the elves to *be* 
insecure in their positions.  IMO, this can only lead to more of the 
animosity between elves/elves and elves/listies that we are 
experiencing right now.  And I think we can all agree that this is not 
a pleasant thing.

> I agree that it is unfair to prohibit discussion of list
> policy, since there is clearly both a need and a demand by HPfGU
> members to do so.  I think that if the admin team and/or the OTC
> membership feel that OTC is not the proper place for it, then another
> list should be created on which HPfGU members can openly discuss list
> policy.

I second that idea.

> There is one thing I know for sure.  Either all of the current and
> past admin team members, including myself, are deluded, or Cindy is
> disruptive, destructive and – despite her continuing interesting and
> funny posts – is not someone I want to be a member of my community.

I'm still not sure banning her from the list is the appropriate action 
in these circumstances.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't list 
policy in the past been to place offenders on moderated status before 
ousting them from the list completely?  Assuming that Cindy has been 
acting in a way that deserves censure from the admin team, why should 
her case receive special treatment?  Also, her actual "rule-breaking" 
on-list has been, IMO, minimal.  Forwarding Ali's personal email to the 
list at large was *definitely* wrong, and discussing list policy 
on-list was (maybe) wrong, but other than that, her behavior does *not* 
seem outrageous, at least, IMHO, from the POV of the general list 
membership.  It seems that the admin team is responding to this case in 
a way that is not exactly in line with their normal policies, and this 
makes me nervous.  Despite the fact we should never have seen Ali's 
email, the fact is, we *have* seen it, and from my POV, it pretty much 
looked like the admin team was threatening to BAN Cindy from ALL of 
HPFGU if she "air[ed] disagreements with list administration again on 
OTC."

Given this information and the "no list policies" rule, the question in 
*my* mind (and, I'm sure, the minds of many other listies), is if 
publicly disagreeing with the list administration could get *me* 
banned, and what this means in relation to my membership in HPFGU.

Laura