Not exactly an Admin, Was: Compromise: WAS Factual Errors

[Amanda Geist]

No: HPFGUIDX 77482

Ravenclaw Bookworm (love that name) said:

> In the interest of sanity and harmony, I propose a little
> compromise.  Posters will make every *reasonable* attempt to see if
> the information is already there.  And readers will just skip the
> messages that have been answered to their satisfaction.  Afterall,
> we still have several years to go before book 6.  Most of what we
> are saying now will be discussed many many times again before then.

List Geist on deck, serving that "word to the wise" function of Geists.

Listen.

People get details wrong. The Yahoo search function sucks. If you only see a
subject discussed six times in one year, you're lucky. New people are
excited and want to jump right in to discussion and most don't read the
archives. Some people are conscientious about subject lines and some aren't
and some forget to change it. These are facts of life.

>From the perspective of nearly three years on this list: even L.O.O.N.s*
slip up and post things that are flat wrong. And even when you've seen a
topic brought up multiple times, each time is usually an original thought,
for that particular poster, and they're genuinely interested and want input.
They don't do it to irritate; in fact, I get very tired of the apologetic
way people post--"sorry if this has been covered," etc. This isn't a college
course, where a topic is discussed and laid aside. This is a living and
growing (at an alarming rate) list.

Usually, if I feel like responding yet again, I'll try to recap the high
points of some of what has been mentioned for them; if I'm really feeling
dutiful, I'll find them a link to the relevant Fantastic Post or a couple
likely past post numbers. But I, and most of the older listmembers, do this
in the spirit of "here's what some other people had thought," not "hey,
we've already covered that." I mean, realistically, newcomers didn't read
the archives when there were only a couple thousand posts there. Or a couple
hundred. *I* didn't.

The admins do a terrific job, but they can't be everywhere. We depend on the
quality of our listmembers to help us maintain the atmosphere of the
list--to be tolerant, patient, and in catching factual errors, to show their
mettle for possible L.O.O.N. membership. [I suspect many of you in this
particular thread are potential L.O.O.N.s; Ms. Curmudgeon, I, and the
esteemed Mr. Lardbottom will have to begin paying more attention.]

People *do* join this list who have read the books only once and are idly
interested in discussion. Not everyone has a steel-trap memory, and not
everyone shares the same level of passion about details. I cannot possibly
number the times I've clarified What Snape Knew and When in the Shrieking
Shack, whether Ron or Hagrid tells Harry that all bad wizards were
Slytherins, etc. *It happens.* If it irritates you, *don't respond.* In the
past, the theory was that someone would set them straight. If that were true
when there were only a couple hundred members, it's certainly true now, when
there's close to 10, 500.

And in that spirit, I wish to warn everyone now: I haven't been following
*diddly* on this list for the past few months. If I choose to make an
observation, I do so in the full knowledge that it's probably been
discussed. But honestly, if it's been discussed more than a week ago,
there's a couple hundred newcomers who didn't see it; and in my experience,
there's almost *always* another angle to examine. That's part of the fun. I
mean, Kelley and I found a previously undiscovered Flint in GoF, two days
before OoP release! If you don't want to revisit a topic, don't; and if you
don't want to correct yet another factual error, don't; but if you do, my
experience has shown that it can lead to new and interesting perspectives.

So let there be peace. At least until I break out the balloons.

~Amanda, list poltergeist, founding L.O.O.N., and premier Snapologist (who,
to be honest, has allowed the number of times she's read new versions of the
same Snape theories to affect *her* list participation)

*League Of Obsessive Nitpickers, for those of you who don't know; people who
obsess about tiny HP details to an extent involving considerations of their
sanity or quality of life. To wear the title they must be publicly
acknowledged as a kindred spirit by a sitting L.O.O.N.