rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/05/90)
I received email from "jamsheed@atherton.com" about the moderator issue. Reply email bounced, so I thought I'd address his concerns here (somewhat). He writes: >What's the deal with moderation? Why is there a need for one? >Please post pros and cons. The pro's have been posted already (in fact, everyone who's expressed an opinion is in favor for more or less the same reasons). Briefly, the example of r.a.m demonstrates what happens to a 'movies' group when it isn't moderated. Since r.a.c is designed explicitly to avoid those things which have driven so many people from r.a.m (some are listed in the proposed charter, but there are others), and since a moderator is the only way to ensure the "seriousness" which will distinguish r.a.c from r.a.m, it would seem that the group must be moderated. No one has offered any con's. If you have some in mind, please post them! The consensus is clearly in favor of having a moderator, which means that if you're opposed, you'll have to begin trying to convince people. I urge you to send comments to news.groups about this -- if you have strong reasons for not wanting this group to be moderated, air them in news.groups. .rs
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/06/90)
In article <50437@bbn.COM> rshapiro@bbn.com writes: >Briefly, >the example of r.a.m demonstrates what happens to a 'movies' group >when it isn't moderated. You mean, it discusses MOVIES? Sorry to say, rs, but r.a.m is one of the few groups that actually does do what its name implies, and does it both broadly and deeply. I'd not mind having r.a.cinema around (if only because I got A++'s on all my papers in lit. crit. and film analysis classes and love an opportunity to get pedantic where it will be appreciated), but there's no way I'm going to unsubscribe r.a.m, where listing of pedestrian movie matters can develop into philosophical discussions on the esoterica that pervade the history of film. What I mean to say is, Rec.Arts.Cinema or Fight! but don't you step on my rec.arts.movies. On the matter of moderators, I vary from ambivalent to contrary. Certainly a moderator can seive out the rampant bozos, but who moderates the moderator? Will we be lucky and have an intelligent, understanding moderator who recognizes the difference between flamage and scatological oratory? Or will we instead be fettered with a den mother who rejects repetitive ideas, grades spelling, and interjects comments into others' essay? One who understands that an accounting of films delineating purposeful ambiguity is not the same as a list of actresses one would most like to shtup? Or one who asks all the time "what does this mean, where it says, 'mise-en-scene'?" No, I have always felt that it is the purview of the group to police itself, and a moderator only becomes an editor, an unknowable force that prevents free expression. More important, what happens to the two-thirds of a group that leaves frustrated during the initial year of its existence, which will be spent crossposting to news.groups argument of proper method for moderation of spoilers and spoiler warnings, and what to the further one-sixth who abandon it because of the eventual choice of methods? >No one has offered any con's. If you have some in mind, please post >them! The consensus is clearly in favor of having a moderator, which >means that if you're opposed, you'll have to begin trying to convince >people. I urge you to send comments to news.groups about this -- if >you have strong reasons for not wanting this group to be moderated, >air them in news.groups. Here it is. I'd no sooner see rec.arts.cinema moderated than I'd see the nude scenes cut out of Ecstacy. --Blair "Now THERE are some out-takes someone should dig up..."
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/06/90)
In article <5200@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <50437@bbn.COM> rshapiro@bbn.com writes: >>Briefly, >>the example of r.a.m demonstrates what happens to a 'movies' group >>when it isn't moderated. > >You mean, it discusses MOVIES? >Sorry to say, rs, but r.a.m is one of the few groups that actually >does do what its name implies, and does it both broadly and deeply. It discusses a handful of movies in a highly restricted way (but in tremendous volume). It doesn't come close to living up to its name (the art of cinema is not exactly a topic of choice on r.a.m). It can hardly be called 'broad' when 90% of the postings cover this week's hot movie; it can hardly be called 'deep' when major topics are "who would make a better Batman than Michael Keaton" or "in what movies does Michelle Pfeiffer appear nude". There are things r.a.m is useful for (lists of various kinds, simple factual queries, casual reviews of very current movies). General, substantive, historically informed discussion of cinema is not something r.a.m is useful for. >there's no way I'm going to unsubscribe r.a.m Of course, no one suggested that you should. Ideally, there will be no overlap between the two groups. >More important, what happens to the two-thirds of a group >that leaves frustrated during the initial year of its >existence, which will be spent crossposting to news.groups >argument of proper method for moderation of spoilers and >spoiler warnings, and what to the further one-sixth who >abandon it because of the eventual choice of methods? This is an interesting hypothesis. Is there any real basis for it? One fact I do have: a significant number people have *already* abandoned r.a.m, in frustration. What happens to *those* people? This proposal is trying to address their concerns. Speculaton about people leaving a group that doesn't even exist yet seems a bit premature, to say the least. The evidence at hand is this: r.a.m is not meeting people's needs, in part because it's unfiltered. A new, moderated group can help fill the gap.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/12/90)
In article <50487@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >In article <5200@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >>In article <50437@bbn.COM> rshapiro@bbn.com writes: >>>Briefly, >>>the example of r.a.m demonstrates what happens to a 'movies' group >>>when it isn't moderated. >> >>You mean, it discusses MOVIES? >>Sorry to say, rs, but r.a.m is one of the few groups that actually >>does do what its name implies, and does it both broadly and deeply. > >It discusses a handful of movies in a highly restricted way (but in No, it discusses all movies (more than 30,000 of them, if you're still watching MPAA numbers) and in whatever way happens to slip past the gestalt-dazed freely associating minds of its readers. Recent topics range from Vangelis soundtracks to the feasibility (tongue-in-cheek or otherwise) of using actual magnetic repulsion to make a simulation of antigravity reasonable enough to be filmed and post-produced into the history of "movie magic." >tremendous volume). It doesn't come close to living up to its name >(the art of cinema is not exactly a topic of choice on r.a.m). It can I don't know a student of film and/or cinema who doesn't make that very obvious distinction between the high art of the medium (usually called "films") and the supporting bulk of the medium (always called "movies"). It's stuffed in there with the "arts" because of denotative technicalities, like rec.arts.tv... (0.015625 :-)) >hardly be called 'broad' when 90% of the postings cover this week's >hot movie; As well it should. In many ways, in _very_ many ways, rec.arts.cinema will be _very_ much less broad than is r.a.m. I personally will be concentrating on Renoir and Woody Allen (but damn you if you want a list... :-)). There are probably fewer than a hundred films that fit into anyone's categorization of serious cinema. >it can hardly be called 'deep' when major topics are "who >would make a better Batman than Michael Keaton" or "in what movies >does Michelle Pfeiffer appear nude". Let's put that one into the "broad" category (pun recognized, you worry about intentions). >There are things r.a.m is useful for (lists of various kinds, simple >factual queries, casual reviews of very current movies). General, >substantive, historically informed discussion of cinema is not >something r.a.m is useful for. Sure it is. Rec.arts.cinema would be better, is all. >>there's no way I'm going to unsubscribe r.a.m > >Of course, no one suggested that you should. Ideally, there will be no >overlap between the two groups. Gak! Death. I'll crosspost on those infrequent occasions when it makes sense to do so, and I'll thank the r.a.c readers (this includes the inevitable moderator) to appreciate it. >>More important, what happens to the two-thirds of a group >>that leaves frustrated during the initial year of its >>existence, which will be spent crossposting to news.groups >>argument of proper method for moderation of spoilers and >>spoiler warnings, and what to the further one-sixth who >>abandon it because of the eventual choice of methods? > >This is an interesting hypothesis. Is there any real basis for it? One >fact I do have: a significant number people have *already* abandoned >r.a.m, in frustration. What happens to *those* people? That's their choice to deny their interest in the subject. You have to be a self-made usenet martyr to cut out the net's only source of information on what you would now claim to be so important that you would heft the opprobrium of politicking for it. ^--------^ (Daffy bait.) >This proposal is trying to address their concerns. >Speculaton about people leaving a group that doesn't even >exist yet seems a bit premature, to say the least. Speculation about needing a moderator for a group that doesn't even exist yet has been demonstrated to be premature, and has even been claimed not to have been controversial (re earlier reports that there had been no good arguments against it, and more recent assertions that those reports were damn lies.) I would be much more comfortable with something that resembles comp.unix.wizards, where the sheer inapproachability of the discussions keep the neophytes and lurkers out of print, and the occasional infestation (e.g., c.u.w's bout with "what makes a wizard / how do you pronounce *") can be dealt with by quietly admonishing the transgressors through email. >The evidence at hand is this: r.a.m is not meeting people's needs, in >part because it's unfiltered. A new, moderated group can help fill the >gap. R.a.m is not moderated, and there's been no evidence that anyone's asked for it to be. There's never been much more than cursory complaint regarding the volume of the group. The fact that it's not meeting a need is separate; it isn't constructed in a manner that would encourage more intelligent discussion, but it's never actually discouraged it. I've written some long and rather involved postings to it on such things as Renoir's oeuvre and a rational, consistent interpretation of Tampopo. They were ignored, but not any more than they would have been if they had been posted into rec.arts.cinema. Frankly, I don't understand your apparent need to denigrate rec.arts.movies. There is no need to do so as justification of rec.arts.cinema. Rec.arts.cinema is justified by its definition. Throw off your insecurity and lets get on to the damn vote. --Blair "But I still think cahiers.cinema is the newsgroup name not to be lost."
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/12/90)
In article <5246@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >I would be much more comfortable with something that resembles >comp.unix.wizards, where the sheer inapproachability of the >discussions keep the neophytes and lurkers out of print I agree. This newsgroup is supposed to include indepth discussion on a variety of historical, artistic and technical subjects. That alone should be enough to make it self-moderating.
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/12/90)
In article <5246@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In many ways, in _very_ many ways, rec.arts.cinema will be _very_ >much less broad than is r.a.m. I personally will be concentrating >on Renoir and Woody Allen (but damn you if you want a list... :-)). >There are probably fewer than a hundred films that fit into anyone's >categorization of serious cinema. But remember that ANY MOVIE WHATSOEVER is fair game for this group. The important point is that the articles be serious and substantive. We made it explicit in the charter that we would not be restricting ourselves to "art films". >it. I've written some long and rather involved postings to >it on such things as Renoir's oeuvre and a rational, >consistent interpretation of Tampopo. They were ignored, >but not any more than they would have been if they had been >posted into rec.arts.cinema. I hope that turns out to be untrue -- that's the whole point of the proposal. If you post serious articles to r.a.c, and it stirs up as little interest as such articles attract in r.a.m, I'll certainly be disappointed. The group will be something of a failure in that case. >Frankly, I don't understand your apparent need to >denigrate rec.arts.movies. There is no need to do so >as justification of rec.arts.cinema. Rec.arts.cinema >is justified by its definition. Throw off your insecurity >and lets get on to the damn vote. My rhetoric may have gotten carried away. I wasn't denigrating r.a.m, I was pointing out its inadequecies because those inadequecies are the strongest argument in favor of r.a.c (and, in my opinion, a strong argument in favor of moderation as well). I had the distinct feeling that you were missing this point. 1000 pardons if I misconstrued your intent :-) As for the vote, I think we should wait until the issues are as settled as they're going to get. I don't want to call for a vote while discussion is still active.
steves@rat.cica.indiana.edu (Steve Scher) (01/13/90)
In article <10954@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >In article <5246@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >>I would be much more comfortable with something that resembles >>comp.unix.wizards, where the sheer inapproachability of the >>discussions keep the neophytes and lurkers out of print > >I agree. I don't. I plan to make r.a.cinema the first new group I ever vote 'yes' for, because I really enjoy those types of discussions, and I find them very interesting and educational. I will probably not post, because I don't feel competent to do so. However, I do want to be able to UNDERSTAND the postings. I want them to be "approachable," but still well reasoned, well researched, and well written. Is there a way that we can do a three tiered vote? 1) Do we want the group? 2) Do we want it moderated? 3) The name? I find it hard to believe that people would change their vote for/against a group just because it is moderated. I find it even harder to believe that the name would affect people's votes. OK. Can we vote now? I'm eager to see this group get going. Steve Scher Program in Measurement and Affect 744 Ballantine Hall Indiana University Bloomington, In. 47405
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (01/13/90)
In article <10954@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <5246@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > >I would be much more comfortable with something that resembles > >comp.unix.wizards, where the sheer inapproachability of the > >discussions keep the neophytes and lurkers out of print > > I agree. This newsgroup is supposed to include indepth discussion > on a variety of historical, artistic and technical subjects. That > alone should be enough to make it self-moderating. As of today, 40 out of 176 articles in comp.unix.wizards are cross-posted from comp.unix.questions (out of 311 articles there). *My* feeling is that self-moderation is not working in this instance, but others may disagree. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/13/90)
In article <10954@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > I agree. This newsgroup is supposed to include indepth discussion > on a variety of historical, artistic and technical subjects. That > alone should be enough to make it self-moderating. Trish: A sensible, calm, benevolent posting sans shoulder-chip. Could you make *all* your postings like this one? Jeff Daiell -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/14/90)
In article <32941@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> steves@rat.cica.indiana.edu (Steve Scher) writes: >I find it hard to believe that people would change their vote for/against a >group just because it is moderated. Because many of us believe very strongly that without concrete, de- monstrable proof that moderation is absolutely essential, no news- group should be moderated. If you want a nice neat clean sanitized network with nice neat clean sanitized newsgroups then go subscribe to CompuServe or some other service. And if you want nice neat clean informed well-written and well-edited articles brimming with clearly presented information then go subscribe to a few film journals or go to the library. And besides, you get photographs with the journals. Usenet is for us -- it's for individuals to express their opinions, ideas and thoughts. Moderation restricts that, it's always a subtle psychological presence and at times it's outright censorship. I'm not saying that moderation is never appropriate, I'm saying that we should not resort to it unless it's absolutely necessary. I find it even harder to believe that the >name would affect people's votes. Yeah, me too. yours for nets & mods, . t r i s h a o t u a m a
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/14/90)
In article <3364@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: >As of today, 40 out of 176 articles in comp.unix.wizards are cross-posted from >comp.unix.questions (out of 311 articles there). *My* feeling is that >self-moderation is not working in this instance, but others may disagree. Evelyn, my response was obviously directed towards the self-modera- tion that is clearly in effect in that newsgroup (as well as hun- dreds of others) with regards to the content and subject matter of the articles posted there. I don't deny that xposting is a problem in many groups, but is no reason to moderate the proposed newsgroup. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that all newsgroups with high rates of xposting be moderated?
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/14/90)
In article <=6118NExds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >A sensible, calm, benevolent posting sans shoulder-chip. Could Yeah, well, those Intel chips, what the fuck I can say. If it had been Motorola that never would have happened. >you make *all* your postings like this one? Certainly not. I have no intention of giving up my reputation for blood, guts and glory just to suit your notion of ladylike manners and compliance, Jeff.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/15/90)
In article <3364@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: >In article <10954@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> In article <5246@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >> >I would be much more comfortable with something that resembles >> >comp.unix.wizards, where the sheer inapproachability of the >> >discussions keep the neophytes and lurkers out of print >> >> I agree. This newsgroup is supposed to include indepth discussion >> on a variety of historical, artistic and technical subjects. That >> alone should be enough to make it self-moderating. > >As of today, 40 out of 176 articles in comp.unix.wizards are cross-posted from >comp.unix.questions (out of 311 articles there). *My* feeling is that >self-moderation is not working in this instance, but others may disagree. And you'd be right on that latter point. But not the feeling. Most of the crossposting in those groups is perpetrated by utter neophytes who have problems on which their lives (even slightly) depend. A mixture of panic and uncertainty leads them to the economically rational choice of erring in their plea for help on the side of excess. Meanwhile, almost all of the traffic in rec.arts.movies consists of discussions of leisurely matters by the regulars, and only occasionally do newbies appear. A cogent effort to make it known periodically that rec.arts.cinema is not rec.arts.movies will keep the regulars from making more than the most obnoxious transgressions and may with luck catch the neophytes before they mistakenly crosspost. Further, a little conspicuous noblesse oblige by the rec.arts.cinema regulars will maintain the utility of rec.arts.movies, so that questions of r.a.m merit about films more naturally suited to r.a.c can still be expected to be answered entirely in the movies group. Also, by not raising an enormous fuss about the crossposting, and by not in many cases even noticing it, comp.unix.wizards regulars do not exacerbate the problem with unnecessary flames. Finally, a great portion of those crosspostings are, as I expect any in rec.arts.cinema will be, justified by some ambiguity or universality. Clearly, if the effects of self-moderation, and of active ad hoc moderation, which I practice by email to blatant offenders, even to acknowledged unix gurus who lose their composure, were not felt in comp.unix.wizards, then much more than a mere 14% of the postings to comp.unix.questions would be arrogantly copied to the elevated group. Reevaluating my position in light of this analysis, and considering the tack that recent discussion of the moderator's duties has taken[*], makes me realize that any sympathy I may previously have expressed for the moderation of rec.arts.cinema was entirely underthought. [*](e.g., whether the moderator should actually do something so obnoxious as to impose his own uncertain grammatical and lexicographical know- ledge on postings; would you bounce a message posted by Milos Forman simply because he can't keep straight "their", "there", and "their"!? and who is Milos Forman compared to any of us, anyway? Only the french think Jerry Lewis is a genius!) Rec.arts.cinema must not be a moderated group. --Blair "Moderation is anathema to the expansive, free exchange of ideas facilitated by the excess capacity of the internet, and as long as these leased lines pass over american soil this net will remain free... ...but I digress..."
thakur@athena.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) (01/18/90)
In article <5292@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: [...] > > [*](e.g., whether the moderator should actually > do something so obnoxious as to impose his own > uncertain grammatical and lexicographical know- > ledge on postings; Let me try to remove some of this "uncertainty." Your posting was perfectly readable and clear and made substantive points (although I disagree with your conclusions). Here is the point: I'm not asking for anything more than that. Now, just how much time did it take you to write up your posting? Fifteen minutes? A half-hour? An hour, tops? Whatever it took, it's clear that you had something serious to say and you said it in a way that I could perfectly understand. THAT IS ALL I'M ASKING FOR WHEN IT COMES TO REC.ARTS.CINEMA POSTINGS! Is that too much to ask? I don't plan to nitpick a proposed article to death. I don't have *time* to nitpick an article to death. > would you bounce a message > posted by Milos Forman simply because he can't > keep straight "their", "there", and "their"!? Absolutely not! Where in the world did you get the idea that I would bounce it? Just how long do you think Milos Forman would continue to submit articles if they kept getting rejected solely because of grammatical mistakes? Just how stupid do you think I am? The far more intelligent thing to do would be to take him aside, point out the mistakes, and ask him to revise it. After all, the article will be posted under his name, and someone of his stature will look mighty foolish if he repeatedly keeps on making these kinds of mistakes. And as I've said several times already, I *know* what it's like to have an article butchered by an uncaring/unfeeling/fascist editor. Several of my articles for the MIT newspaper have been hacked up in this fashion, and I have absolutely no intention of perpetuating the practice to rec.arts.cinema. I am NOT that type of person. Ok? I hope this clears up any misconceptions you might have had about how I would go about moderating the newsgroup. You may still not think moderation is a good idea, but at least you can understand that if your posting had been submitted to rec.arts.cinema I probably would not have changed a thing. So what's the fuss all about? Manavendra K. Thakur thakur@eddie.mit.edu thakur@cfa.harvard.edu ...!harvard!zerkalo.harvard.edu!thakur
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (01/23/90)
A few comments on the whole moderation issue:
a) Blair's e-mail policing or not, there will be a certain amount of
r.a.movies overlap onto rec.arts.cinema; the amount may be minimal, but
it may not be, either. Obviously, we all have to put up with a certain
amount of static in various groups, but if it goes on in rec.arts.cinema
(or whatever the name is), we'll basically end up with rec.arts.movies
in stereo, making the moderation of .cinema of more-than-normal value.
b) Moderation of rec.arts.cinema is not going to Infringe your Personal
Freedoms, if handled as it has been in other moderated groups I've had
experience with. I've been submitting articles to
rec.arts.movies.reviews for about two years now, and Evelyn Leeper has
never given me (or anyone else, as far as I know after scanning r.a.m
and n.g) since the groups inception. She leaves what I wrote alone,
warts and all, though she's gone Above and Beyond once or twice and
dropped me a quick note pointing out some real grammatical or historical
boner. In each instance she asked in the most polite terms if I'd like
to change it, being quite clear that it was entirely up to me; in almost
every case I made the correction, and was thankful that she had pointed
it out.
I'm certain Manavendra will do as good a job, basically acting as a
Subject filter; his last few articles lead me to believe that is just
what he envisions the job to be, as well. And if all the Great Power
entrusted to rec.arts.cinema moderator ever went to his head and he
woke up one morning with a net-fascist complex, I'm sure we'll be able
to get him out without bloodshed. Luckily, this condition doesn't
seem to afflict real people much.
c) Those who see rec.arts.cinema moderation as the first step to a
net.dictatorship might do well to step back from it all, and take a deep
breath. Personally, I'm a bit more worried about recent Supreme Court
decisions and American military actions, but that's what you happens
when you get your news from foreign magazines...
In summary, I'd have to say that I'll continue to read (and to post) to
rec.arts.movies, and that I'll vote yes for rec.arts.cinema (or any sensible
name), moderated or not, with the provision that we could turn it into a
moderated group later on. I'd rather start it moderated, because I don't
believe it would we be detrimental in any way; and there's no guarantee that
we'll have as capable a candidate for moderator if we decide to moderate it
sometime in the future. While there are very few groups which would benefit
from moderation, I do believe that rec.arts.cinema would be one of them.
"If God created us in his own image we have more
than reciprocated."
-- Voltaire
---
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/23/90)
In article <14161@fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) writes: >b) Moderation of rec.arts.cinema is not going to Infringe your Personal > Freedoms, if handled as it has been in other moderated groups I've had > experience with. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case though, Jeff, and that's quite clear from Manavendra's latest series of articles. >c) Those who see rec.arts.cinema moderation as the first step to a > net.dictatorship might do well to step back from it all, and take a deep > breath. "Net.dictatorship" is your term, Jeff, I don't think any of us view this issue in such extreme terms. Those of us who oppose moderation of this newsgroup do so because we don't think any newsgroup should be moderated except as a last resort. Perhaps those of you who are so convinced that this newsgroup will be overrun with great hordes of unwashed r.a.m proletariat would do well to step back from it all and take a deep breath yourselves. >In summary, I'd have to say that I'll continue to read (and to post) to >rec.arts.movies, and that I'll vote yes for rec.arts.cinema (or any sensible >name), moderated or not, with the provision that we could turn it into a >moderated group later on. Well, yes, that was my suggestion, offered as a compromise in an ef- fort to reach a group concensus on the moderation issue. Unfortunate- ly Joel Levin decided concensus wasn't necessary.
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (01/24/90)
In article <11108@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <14161@fluke.COM> moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) writes: > >In summary, I'd have to say that I'll continue to read (and to post) to > >rec.arts.movies, and that I'll vote yes for rec.arts.cinema (or any sensible > >name), moderated or not, with the provision that we could turn it into a > >moderated group later on. > > Well, yes, that was my suggestion, offered as a compromise in an ef- > fort to reach a group concensus on the moderation issue. Unfortunate- > ly Joel Levin decided concensus wasn't necessary. If by consensus you mean unanimity, we are not going to reach it. (Sometimes I think that on the Net if you said the sun was farther away than the moon, you'd get an argument!) It is obvious (well, to me anyway) that there are those who think this group should start out moderated, and those who think it should start unmoderated. None of the arguments being presented is getting anyone to change his or her mind. If we wait for consensus, we'll all be in that big movie theatre in the sky before r.a.c gets going. If by consensus you mean general agreement, it seems to me that the only way to determine that is by a vote. And that's just what Joel is doing. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel