rjp1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (on the jagged cliffs of Ngranek) (11/12/89)
In article (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >In article (on the jagged cliffs of Ngranek) writes: >> Even so, creating the group will not keep out the fundies, skeptics, >> or other posters whose sole purpose seems to be bent on detraction >> and/or harassment. Is moderation such a dirty word? > Yes, it is. There are people who have significant things to say, but > would be suspicious of anyone who wanted to moderate such a group, and > might not say what they really feel, or post at all; the freedom in > general to do what thou wilt, without depending on anyone else, is > central to the whole concept of paganism. A group of people with > such a focused common background should be quite capable of keeping > any outside flamage to a minimum without the restrictions of moderation; > moreover, how shall we find out, if we do not try? Thanks for your response! I am only curious as to the reader's feelings in this matter. I personally am not for moderation either, but the issue must be talked about at one time or another. Okay, on with the show.. (btw, I like t.r.earth as a name much better than t.r.pagan) -- -- rj pietkivitch att!ihlpa!rjp1
davidli@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dave Meile) (11/16/89)
In article <3346@hydra.gatech.EDU> gs26@prism.gatech.EDU (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >In the referenced article davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes: >>Without some form of moderation, any newsgroup such as the one proposed is >>doomed to be a repeat of the other talk.religion.xxxxx newsgroups. > >Did you not listen? Here, I'll do it again... > >>>moreover, how shall we find out, if we do not try? We _are_ trying ... with talk.religion.newage. Do you learn nothing from your own experiences in this particular newsgroup? >Did you notice that Joe, for whatever reason, hasn't been flaming of late >since we put up a concerted, reasoned, and polite effort to put an end to it? I've noticed that Mr. Applegate hasn't been posting ANYWHERE of late, including talk.religion.misc. Without confirmation, I can only conclude that he is not _able_ to post. This is _not_ the same as stating "having listened to the rational and polite effort of talk.religion.newage posters, Joe Applegate decided to cease from posting to that group". Do no confuse synchronicity with causation in this case. >This is how things would work in the new group.... There is a lot more >diversity, and a lot less ability to work together, in t.r.newage than there >would be in t.r.pagan. ] Proposed charter of talk.religion.pagan: ] ] This newsgroup shall be unmoderated, and for the discussion ] of religious issues concerning pagans (as well as related issues ] of religious rights and religious persecution). If your own idea of religious issues concerning pagans is as broad as my own, you would not think there would be _less_ diversity in the proposed newsgroup! The issues which concern, for example, those Wiccans who follow Gardnerian craft are vastly different from the issues which concern those Wiccans who follow Dianian craft [ackward adjective there folk -- feel free to let me know of a better one...] Then, there are those of us who practice no craft, but who appear "pagan" to those in the monotheistic religions. And religious persecution falls upon many of the so-called "new age" religions -- and is not limited to Wiccans or neo-Pagans. What I expect you'd like is a forum for discussing things calmly, without invective, with the goal of proposing real solutions to real problems, without the annoyance of every fourth posting being from a net-evangelist. You're not going to get that forum without some level of moderation. > GIVE IT A CHANCE, guys. If we're still fighting >continuous flamage six months after creation, remind me. But don't just >give up. If you're still fighting cross-postings after six months, talk.religion.pagan will be as big a "flop" as you now see talk.religion.newage. Unfortunately, there won't BE a vote for a moderated group after that time ... people will look and say "Well, they couldn't make it with one newsgroup -- why should we bother to provide them with ANOTHER one?!" >There will always be negativity in the world. That doesn't mean we should >wimp out and not try to do the best we can. Since when does rational moderation imply "wimping out"? As far as I can tell, moderation wouldn't necessarily shut out the negative -- but it would keep the level of invective down _and_ serve to effectively shut out the net-evangelist from a forum where such does not belong. The "Talk" groups are _very_ loosely oriented, making it extremely difficult to focus on the topics with which most people are concerned. -- David Paschall-Zimbel