thakur@cfa250.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) (12/31/89)
From article <50208@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro): > rec.arts.movies.serious > > Anyway, let's forget the "classical" idea and the more general idea of > fragmenting r.a.m and focus instead on discussing the merits of this > proposal: a moderated group for serious/scholarly discussion of any > and all movies. Moderation is essential here, I think, otherwise it > will be no different from r.a.m. There are probably a few things we > should exclude from the start: any kind of lists, contests, trivia, > movie or actor identification, etc. On the other hand, we should NEVER > exclude articles solely because of the movies they discuss: if someone > has something serious to say about Mothra movies, fine. > > If interested people agree that the group should be moderated, we need > a moderator. Volunteers? I'm willing though not anxious (and possibly > not able -- see below). Anyone else? I belive such a newsgroup is an excellent idea. I also think it for it to work, it would need to be moderated. I've been waiting for this kind of newsgroup for a long time, and I very much would like to help it succeed. So... At the risk of overcommitting myself, I will volunteer to moderate this newsgroup. Or perhaps I could I moderate it in conjunction with one or two other people. (Having an editorial board, as it were....) As for my qualifications, I have posted a number of in-depth reviews of films over the past two years, and all of these are available from Evelyn Leeper (the moderator of rec.arts.movies.reviews). People have sent me email saying they didn't necessarily agree with what I had written, but most of the letter-writers did think that my reviews made interesting points and were well-written. I have not posted anything to the net in about six months, but I have continued writing reviews for the MIT student newspaper. In the past several months, I have concentrated mainly on expanding my horizons by watching large numbers of films. I saw 48 films in ten days at the Toronto Film Festival this September, and I attended about a dozen screenings at the New York Film Festival in October. In November, I covered the Jewish Film Festival here in Boston. And, of course, I've been attending screenings at local theaters all along (usually 8-9 films a week). In the past few years, I have had the chance to interview noted directors such as Louis Malle, Jan Troell, and Henry Jaglom, and I've also written articles about (for example) the state of American cinema, compared the popularity of FIELD OF DREAMS to the success of politicians like Ronald Reagan, as well as other articles related to cinema as a whole. (Not all of these were posted to the net, but I can make them available to anyone who wishes to see them.) I've worked as a projectionist at the Harvard Film Archive for more than two years, during which I have been exposed to many many films (and their directors) from around the world, with all their attendant differences in point of view. For the past three years, I have organized and conducted talks at MIT during the January intersession about the use of music in films and what a good score can do for a film. As for writing and editing skills, I have been exposed to both good and bad editors at the MIT student newspaper. The worst editors were the ones who couldn't care less about film as a medium of serious study, and consequently did a large amount of casual rewriting of my reviews, often over my loudly stated objections. (One told me that "kid sibling" was preferable over "kid brother or sister" because the former is "more journalistic." I just stared at him in disbelief.) The best editors, to the other hand, cared about film, and they took the time to sit down with me and work with me to improve the quality of my articles. If they didn't understand what I meant in a particular passage, they would ask me to clarify and perhaps reprhase or rewrite those passages. If I did not want to change something, they listened to my arguments and then made a judgment taking both my concerns and their experience into account. If I was really adamant about something, they would usually let me have my way while making sure that I understood the reasons for their objections. Having gone through such experiences, as well as interacting with Evelyn Leeper with rec.arts.movies.reviews, I have a good sense of what a moderator/editor should be like. Working with my fellow reviewers at the newspaper on their own articles gave me additional experience that I can rely on now. I am very much devoted to thinking and writing about film as a medium worthy of serious study. I agree that such study should not be limited to "art" films, although I do think that these so-called art films are more likely to reveal interesting things if studied closely. But film is a popular entertainment medium as well as an art form, and I would like to see intellectually honest articles that address all aspects of film, not just the ones that I personally am most interested in. Accordingly, I would be very grateful to have the opportunity to moderate and edit this new newsgroup if it is created. I think I have a great deal to offer, and I would welcome the challenge of serving in this capacity. Manavendra K. Thakur thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu thakur@cfa.harvard.edu
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/01/90)
In article <1812@zerkalo.cfa250.harvard.edu> thakur@cfa250.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: > At the risk of overcommitting myself, I will volunteer to >moderate this newsgroup. Or perhaps I could I moderate it in >conjunction with one or two other people. (Having an editorial board, >as it were....) >[impressive cv follows] OK, that let's me off the hook. Consider my name (as possible moderator) withdrawn. I hope all volunteers for the moderator job are also volunteering to conduct the vote when the time comes, in the event that I'm unable to do so. >I belive such a newsgroup is an excellent idea. I also think it for >it to work, it would need to be moderated. Apparently there are some strong feelings that moderated groups are a bad idea unless the group is "technical" (I know of two people who will vote 'no' for that reason alone). Since I don't want 'no' votes, I'd like to address this issue up front. IF we want a group with a sophisticated level of discourse, a level which presupposes some expertise in the discipline in question (scientific or otherwise), why isn't a moderated group the way to go? Or, to put it another way, if the level of discussion is what distinguishes "technical" groups from other groups, why shouldn't this proposed group be regarded as "technical" in that limited sense, regardless of its place in the hierarchy? Certainly that's the kind of group I was thinking of both for this proposal and the earlier r.a.m.classical proposal (in fact that's exactly what distinguishes the proposed group from r.a.m). I'm not wedded to the idea of having this group moderated. It's an idea that makes sense to me right now, but I'm happy to listen to counter-arguments and change my mind if appropriate.
reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (01/03/90)
In article <50239@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >Apparently there are some strong feelings that moderated groups are a >bad idea unless the group is "technical" (I know of two people who >will vote 'no' for that reason alone). Since I don't want 'no' votes, >I'd like to address this issue up front. IF we want a group with a >sophisticated level of discourse, a level which presupposes some >expertise in the discipline in question (scientific or otherwise), why >isn't a moderated group the way to go? Or, to put it another way, if >the level of discussion is what distinguishes "technical" groups from >other groups, why shouldn't this proposed group be regarded as >"technical" in that limited sense, regardless of its place in the >hierarchy? As far as I'm concerned, the group will never work if it isn't moderated. The net is regularly flooded with new people unfamiliar with the way things work. They invariably post things to newsgroups that seem plausible. If it's a movie newsgroup, then why shouldn't they post their query about what a key grip is? If it's a serious newsgroup, so much the better, because it's a serious question to them and serious people are more likely to know, right? Even if no one is consciously trying to break the rules, junk will leak in. One joker who thinks that the idea of "serious" discussions of film is ridiculous can also sabotage the idea maliciously. Such people have appeared in rec.arts.movies in the past. The main argument against moderation is that the moderator might moderate improperly. A moderator has the power to impose the censorship of their own views on a newsgroup. For instance, "_The Road Warrior_ isn't a serious movie, so nothing you have to say about it belongs in this newsgroup." Actual cases are likely to be less blatant, but the fear is that the moderator will reject appropriate articles for inappropriate reasons. Some people feel that the real problem isn't that someone will knowingly censor the group, but that fuzziness of the boundaries of appropriateness will make some censorship unavoidable. As Richard earlier mentioned, should the "Blade Runner" discussions about whether the central character is a replicant be included? They involve careful analysis of the film by people who care about it very much, so maybe they should. On the other hand, that strand of discussion eventually led to a lot of trash. The moderator would have to choose a point for cutting it off, and that choice is bound to offend someone. Despite this argument, I don't think this newsgroup will last without moderation. If it can't be moderated, it's hardly worth doing at all. Does anyone actually know of a case where a newsgroup had serious problems with its moderator? I've never heard of one. If it is moderated, however, I feel very strongly that it should be moderated only on the basis of inclusion/exclusion. I don't think that the moderator should serve as an editor, beyond possibly pointing out the reasons that an article was rejected. Most articles on the net are not intended to be publication-quality writing. Forcing people to write at that level is likely to have a chilling effect on postings to the newsgroup. People will decide not to post an article, as they know that the moderator will only return it to fix some spelling errors and unsplit an infinitive. Also, it raises the fears of moderator censorship even more. In addition, it places a greater burden on the moderator. The more burden the job carries, the harder it will be to carry out and the slower the output of articles. They've got to move through the moderator system at a rapid clip in order to make the newsgroup work. (Slowness of response is perhaps the second greatest argument against moderation.) If a serious, publication- quality discussion of film is really wanted, the electronic magazine model of OtherRealms is a better model than a moderated newsgroup. I'll probably vote for this newsgroup, no matter what form it takes. However, I do have doubts about its viability. Is there some good reason not to try a mailing list for a couple of months, to see whether there is enough interest in serious discussions of film to warrant a newsgroup? Peter Reiher reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov . . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/03/90)
In article <2477@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> reiher@onyx.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Reiher) writes: >[arguments in favor of having a moderator; I agree, so I won't >respond directly] > If it is moderated, however, I feel very >strongly that it should be moderated only on the basis of inclusion/exclusion. >I don't think that the moderator should serve as an editor, beyond possibly >pointing out the reasons that an article was rejected. In general, yes. It may happen once in a while that the moderator perceives that a submission is likely to be misinterpreted or misunderstood. In this case, some editorial work on the moderator's part would be useful, especially if the submission is likely to be misinterpreted as a flame. >I'll probably vote for this newsgroup, no matter what form it takes. However, >I do have doubts about its viability. Is there some good reason not to try a >mailing list for a couple of months, to see whether there is enough interest >in serious discussions of film to warrant a newsgroup? Because of the difference in outreach between mailing lists and newsgroups, I don't think it's appropriate to use a mailing list as a testing ground. If there already is a working list, maybe that's another story. But creating a new one as a test seems wrong to me. In general, I think a (newly created) mailing list only makes sense when there's a large interested group, but not large enough to pass the newsgroup requirements (lists that are *too* small sputter and die because they don't reach 'critical mass'). The only way to determine this is to have a vote. Therefore I would say it makes more sense to take the vote first. If it's a resounding 'yes', we'll just create the group. If it's not so resounding, but nonetheless there are lots of 'yes' votes, we can consider setting up a mailing list (and we'll have a good base of names to work from). If there aren't many 'yes' votes, we can drop the idea altogether. Rather than trying to predict in advance how much interest there is, and choose mailing list or newsgroup accordingly, let's let the voting determine that for us. Then we can make an informed decision based on real numbers instead of on speculation.
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (01/03/90)
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >Apparently there are some strong feelings that moderated groups are a >bad idea unless the group is "technical" (I know of two people who >will vote 'no' for that reason alone). [Rest of paragraph deleted.] >I'm not wedded to the idea of having this group moderated. It's an >idea that makes sense to me right now, but I'm happy to listen to >counter-arguments and change my mind if appropriate. I strongly urge that rec.cinema (or whatever name comes to pass; this one is my favorite) be moderated, if we're aiming for the kind of quality discussions that have been talked about. Otherwise, I predict that there are going to be arguments and flamefests and lots of energy expended complaining about inappropriate postings. There are appropriate forums for arguments and flamefests, but I don't think that rec.cinema needs to have that kind of colorful-discussion- sliding-into-libel. The thought of having current release noises replaced by arguments over the group content seems like a pretty fruitless and distasteful exercise to me. I get my fill of verbal attack in news.groups. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..uunet!everexn!karen ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen "I don't care what people think! I just care about my reputation!" Grant Linowitz
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (01/03/90)
In article <2477@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> reiher@onyx.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Reiher) writes: > ... Does > anyone actually know of a case where a newsgroup had serious problems with its > moderator? I've never heard of one. I believe one of the religion or politics group had a bit of a fuss at one point, but I doubt that sort of problem would arise here. We can burn that bridge when we come to it (as my nephew would say). > I don't think that the moderator should serve as an editor, beyond possibly > pointing out the reasons that an article was rejected. ... > ... People will decide not to post an article, as they know that the > moderator will only return it to fix some spelling errors and unsplit an > infinitive. As the moderator of a group that has some connection with the discussion at hand (all right, rec.arts.movies.reviews, if you must know :-) ), I never send an article back to have spelling or minor grammatical errors fixed--I just fix them. Only if I think there is some question what the writer meant, or it I want to change major parts (sometimes the case if I'm taking something from rec.arts.movies that's stuck in the middle of a discussion thread and want it to stand alone) would I send it back to the author with questions. Of course I do only one or two a day, whereas the traffic for rec.arts.movies.serious would presumably be higher. However, I know that Saul Jaffe, moderator of SF-LOVERS DIGEST, also corrects spelling errors and he processes several dozen articles a day. I'm all in favor of this new group. Especially since someone else will be moderating it. :-) 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
illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) (01/03/90)
My own two cents...
Why do we need to have this group moderated? People write that a
moderator would be there to correct errors <maybe> and question what
one might mean in a statement. To me, that doesn't seem like enough to
show the need for a moderator.
Under what circumstances would a moderator of this group not post
an article <with the exception of those articles that would not be related
to movies whatsoever>? If I write an article regarding some aspect of a
movie could I expect it to be returned if the moderator didn't consider
it to be serious enough?
Don't get me wrong! I'm in favor of the group and am not trying to
trash someone. I just don't see the need for a moderator. I just feel
that those who want to continue to post articles about BTTFII and
Hoverboard will continue to do it in r.a.m and those who want to discuss
the technical and artistic aspects will include r.a.m.s in their daily
reading.karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (01/05/90)
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >In article <2477@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> reiher@onyx.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter >Reiher) writes: >>I don't think that the moderator should serve as an editor, beyond possibly >>pointing out the reasons that an article was rejected. >In general, yes. It may happen once in a while that the moderator >perceives that a submission is likely to be misinterpreted or >misunderstood. In this case, some editorial work on the moderator's >part would be useful... [rest deleted] If there's going to be a moderator for rec.arts.cinema, then I think it's important to reach concensus on the moderator's scope. While I agree with Evelyn's posting on moderators correcting articles for spelling and grammar, because I think that makes things nice for the reader, I also agree with Peter that the moderator should not edit. Too often, I think, we assume that we know what the writer is trying to say; while, really, only the writer knows his/her intentions, and the rest of us are educated guessers. I know that I would object to having someone mess with something that I wrote, unless s/he were to return it to me first for my approval. As for the mailing list idea: I've been on mailing lists, and am on mailing lists, and they're a pain. I think that rec.arts.cinema has plenty of people who will support the forum. Richard suggests that we take a vote and see what comes of it. Sensible and pragmatic. And I do like the name .cinema--sorry that I don't have available the name of the fellow that suggested .film, but I do want to say that I, also, am into semantics, and to me "cinema" sounds classy, not snooty. Hopefully, the newsgroup will be as classy as the name. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..uunet!everexn!karen ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen "I don't care what people think! I just care about my reputation!" Grant Linowitz
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (01/05/90)
In article <702@hq.af.mil> illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) writes: | My own two cents... | . . . . I just don't see the need for a moderator. I just feel |that those who want to continue to post articles about BTTFII and |Hoverboard will continue to do it in r.a.m and those who want to discuss |the technical and artistic aspects will include r.a.m.s in their daily |reading. My two cents: my experience tells me that there will be a lot of spillover and those who now want the separate "serious" or "cinema" group will then be in the same situation they are now in r.a.m. /JBL = 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."
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (01/05/90)
In article <702@hq.af.mil> illgen@hq.af.mil (Keneth..Illgen) writes: > Why do we need to have this group moderated? ... > Don't get me wrong! I'm in favor of the group and am not trying to > trash someone. I just don't see the need for a moderator. I just feel > that those who want to continue to post articles about BTTFII and > Hoverboard will continue to do it in r.a.m and those who want to discuss > the technical and artistic aspects will include r.a.m.s in their daily > reading. I read comp.unix.questions and comp.unix.wizards, which are designed to be in some sense parallel to rec.arts.movies and rec.arts.cinema (as proposed): one for serious ("heavy") question, one for everything else. Neither is moderated. If I had a dollar for every article cross-posted to both that belonged only in c.u.q because it was a basic question, but where the poster had decided to post to every group that looked reasonable to her/him, I'd be a wealthy lady. People who think those who want to post about BTTFII will stay out of rec.arts.cinema are, I believe, overly optimistic about the facts of Usenet life. Another, perhaps less important reason, is that many sites refuse all rec/soc/talk groups except those that are moderated. They do this on the basis of cost and disk space rather than any great love of moderation itself. 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
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/07/90)
In article <1990Jan4.205018.9072@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >[re: moderator as editor] >>It may happen once in a while that the moderator >>perceives that a submission is likely to be misinterpreted or >>misunderstood. In this case, some editorial work on the moderator's >>part would be useful... [rest deleted] > I know that I would object to >having someone mess with something that I wrote, unless s/he were to >return it to me first for my approval. Yes, this is what I meant -- returning an article to the sender for clarification (rather than the moderator "fixing" it himself). I continue to think that this is a useful function, though I'd like to restrict it to the situation I described (a rare one, I think). Spelling mistakes and the like shouldn't be touched by the moderator and shouldn't be considered important enough to return a submitted article for correction. >And I do like the name .cinema--sorry that I don't have available >the name of the fellow that suggested .film, but I do want to say >that I, also, am into semantics, and to me "cinema" sounds classy, >not snooty. Hopefully, the newsgroup will be as classy as the name. Accusations of snootiness or elitism are inevitable in this case, we might as well get used to it. Another good reason for having a moderator...