coleman@sdcsvax.UUCP (Don Coleman) (01/17/85)
Since screening of stargate broadcast news now seems inevitable, I propose we come up with a document describing the kind of articles that should be bounced back at their authors. I see no reason why all moderators should not agree to follow the guide lines in what ever document we come up with. All the "powers that be" should be involved in the formation of this document, and all people/corporations holding vetos on the project should be completely satisfied with its guide lines. I think it should be specific as possible, and should require that any article refused submission be bounced back at the author with a note stating what section of the guide lines caused it, in the moderators opinion, to be refused. I would also like to see a system set up whereby someone could appeal a moderators decision: This could be a news group, possibly net.stargate. There should also be a system for the removal/replacement of a moderator when he is judged to be unfit. Unfit is a broad term, and should be narrowed to a few specific cases, like too many "rejectable" articles not being rejected, or rejecting too broad a range of articles, or for being capricious in his rejections, or even for being too slow to respond to submissions. I don't really like the idea that we are going to have to screen stargate news, but I understand why the "powers that be" feel it must happen. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not sure I disagree either. If we are going have screening, we should have one that is fully exposed to the light. And for those of you who totally object to any form of screening, help us set up a system that will be as unobjectional as possible(given that screening *will* occur). I'm not sure who should head the development of this document, assuming you agree that we should develop one. I don't really want to do it, but if mark, or lauren, or somebody like that doesn't want to, I will: I'm busy, but probably not more then anyone else on this net. Why don't we talk about it for a couple weeks, then select someone to put together a draft, then talk about the draft for a couple more weeks, then come up with a revised draft, and so on and so on. Maybe we can submit the draft at the june usenix conference. We also need to get comments, and approval, from lauren and the broadcasting company. I hope that all of you will give this your consideration, Thanks, don -- coleman@ucsd.arpa [ ihnp4|decvax|ittvax|ucbvax ]!sdcsvax!coleman.uucp