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.
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
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.