Reply to cindy

[Heidi Tandy]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 9:25AM -0500, cindyspitz2003 wrote:
> Note:  I'm posting this message under a new Yahoo ID because I think
> (but can't be sure) that I'm moderated or banned under my old
> "Cindysphynx" ID.

Oh, but Cindy, don't you remember helping me test the moderated and 
banned powers on Yahoo when the mods, of which you were then a part, 
when y'all were trying to figure out how to keep the lists safe from 
deletion by the person or persons who deleted the main list and other 
hpfgu lists in March, 2002? It would say at the top of the webview 
screen if you were banned, and iirc you'd get an email to your primary 
email account as well.

So one *should* easily know.

Btw - I think the above is  technological knowledge and not list policy, 
so I think it was fine to share it with the list.

The rest of this, however, contains a bit of policyish stuff.

> Official communications from list administration -- howlers and the
> like -- that list members receive are not the same as a private
> off-list message.  We discussed this just last week on the "Fantastic
> Posts" list.  The elves, in answer to the question of whether a member
> could advise other members of disciplinary action taken, replied that
> the member "may do so if they wish."

Huh! I think it's a bit unfair to extrapolate policy on faq, which is a 
working group with a purpose, to otc, which, well, isn't (isn't a 
working group, I mean; clearly we have a purpose!).

I mean, you thought it was fine to block memberships of those who were 
interested in participating on faq, and I'm sure you had your reasons, 
but I can't imagine that you'd think anyone's participation on otc 
should be blocked, except perhaps spammers and those who were involved 
in the lists' deletion, although it's possible you've changed your mind 
about that, too.

> More to the point, though, is that official elf communications should
> be written such that admnistrators are indifferent if they are
> distributed to others.  The elves should be professional and
> evenhanded in these matters, but most importantly, they should be
> stone cold correct on their application of the rules to the poster in
> question.

I agree with you here, in theory, but sometimes it's hard to predict 
where the canny mind will create policies and then manipulate those 
policies for his or her own purposes. It's almost impossible to 
technically be 100% consistent, as situations sometimes change. I mean, 
I don't remember how I felt during the summer about having a list to 
discuss hpfgu-list policy, but I'm now of the mind that it makes sense.

I'm not sure I'd be able to participate much, but I can see the benefits 
to the community in having it.



Heidi, who once was an elf and still is a faqwriter