levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (01/23/90)
More than sufficient time for discussion having elapsed, the official
CALL FOR VOTES for rec.arts.cinema is being issued. After full
consideration of all opinions received, we have decided to put the
proposal under this name, with moderation, up for a vote. If you vote
for or against this proposal specifically because of one of these
issues, I'd be interested to know this; I'll attempt to summarize such
additional information after the vote.
VOTING INSTRUCTIONS:
Please send your vote to
levin@bbn.com (Internet or uucp; old style {backbone}!bbn!levin
should work, too).
or reply to this article.
Conditional or ambiguous votes will not be counted; please state
clearly whether you are voting FOR or AGAINST rec.arts.cinema as
proposed.
Votes must be received by noon (EST) on Tuesday, 13 February, 1990.
/JBL (official vote taker; Rich Shapiro has moved and his net
access appears to be spotty.
=====================================
CHARTER: REC.ARTS.CINEMA
This is a moderated group intended for serious articles addressing any
and all aspects of cinema. Topics appropriate for discussion include
(BUT ARE BY NO MEANS LIMITED TO) the following:
-- cinematic techniques
-- comparative analysis between cinema and other mediums of artistic
expression
-- film history
-- cinema as an entertainment medium
-- cinema as popular culture
-- interpretation or analysis of a particular film or set of films
-- financial, social, or legal issues that affect filmmaking (and vice versa)
-- the quality and/or success of film festivals and other film-related
events
-- and any other topic related to film that people want to discuss in
a serious way.
The following criteria shall be among those used by the moderator to
decide whether an article is acceptable or not:
-- Is the article making a sincere argument? A more precise
way to phrase this might be: does the author truly
expect the readers to believe the points being made? Or
a third way: is the article intellectually honest?
-- Are the points being made in the article cogent and
consistent? Have any important facts or data relevant to
the issues being discussed been left out? Are there any
gaping holes in the fundamental assumptions or the logic
being professed?
-- Is the article likely to be correctly understood?
If the moderator determines that an article is likely to be
misunderstood, it will be returned to the author for
clarification. The moderator will not alter an
article in any way unless the author indicates that this is
acceptable. The moderator will not reject an article solely
on the basis of minor spelling or grammatical errors.
Items that are specifically excluded from rec.arts.cinema:
-- Any kind of trivia questions/answers/games: use r.a.m instead
-- Simple lists (eg, movies made by director X): use r.a.m instead
-- Simple factual queries (eg "Who starred in x"): use r.a.m instead
-- Movie reviews (as opposed to analysis): use r.a.m.reviews instead
-- Queries/Reports of video availability: use r.v.software if it passes
-- Flames: If you are genuinely outraged by an article, count to 10,
collect your thoughts, and write another article in response.
Otherwise, the moderator will feel free to hose you to help you
cool off.
Moderator: Manavendra Thakur
=====================================
Nets: levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she
POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/26/90)
In article <51255@bbn.COM> levin@BBN.COM (Joel B Levin) writes: > > levin@bbn.com (Internet or uucp; old style {backbone}!bbn!levin > should work, too). > or reply to this article. > >Conditional or ambiguous votes will not be counted; please state >clearly whether you are voting FOR or AGAINST rec.arts.cinema as >proposed. Please vote no. This group should not be moderated. --Blair "I mean it."