christian@geneva.rutgers.edu (05/25/90)
Based on some responses I've been getting, I think now might be a good time to review the charter of this group. As I understand it, this is a group for discussion of Christianity and issues related to it. It is not per se a Christian group. By that I mean that contributions from non-Christians or even heretical Christians are welcome. However they should be relevant to Christianity. As to why this is, I can cite two things: - Tradition. This group was created by a vote, and many of the people voting for it would not have consented to a moderatorial policy that judged postings based on their theological views. - Usenet and University policy. Usenet uses lots of resources of various universities and governmental agencies. It would be inappropriate to use these resources for an overtly religious group. I take a wide definition of Christianity. For the purposes of this group it includes Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Christian Science, etc. (This doesn't necessarily represent a personal endorsement of these groups.) The purpose of moderation is primarily to increase the "signal to noise ratio" of the group. Most postings (about 83% at the moment) are accepted. Those that are rejected generally fall into one of the following categories: - personal attack, or postings that are likely to generate discussions that are primarily ad hominem - redundant postings. This means that if I got lots of responses saying the same thing, I may choose just some of them. It also means that when a discussion seems to have gotten to the point where the same thing is being said over and over, I will sometimes close it off. - postings irrelevant to the subject matter - postings that do not make sense on their own (see below) - postings falling into certain specific categories for which there are specialized groups. This includes talk.origins - discussions of evolution and related issues, in their scientific aspects. The theological implications of creation and exegetical issues involving the creation account are fair game. sci.med.aids - discussions of the medical and social aspects of AIDS talk.abortion - all aspects of abortion I almost always send mail when I reject a posting. This means that if you don't see either the posting or a reject notice, some communications failure has probably happened. The most difficult judgement to make is "postings that do not make sense on their own". There is a tendency in Usenet groups for postings to include other postings, sometimes nested several levels deep. These discussions very quickly become impossible for anyone other than the participants to make sense of. This may require some thought. It's generally a bad idea to start out with someone else's posting and just insert random comments. It's better to start with a blank screen and try to come up with something that makes sense on its own. I may make some edits to postings. These changes fall into one of the following categories: - where a posting includes a previous posting, I may abbreviate the included material, or replace it with a summary. I may also supply additional background about the context of the discussion if it seems to be necessary. Doing this intelligently takes time. I'd far prefer for authors to do this themselves. Please try to keep down the quoted material to a few lines. - I sometimes correct obvious spelling and grammatical errors. In fact I do this very seldom, but sometimes it is obvious that English is not an author's native language, and I take pity on them. - I will sometimes add my own comments. I normally do this when there's a fairly obvious response, in an attempt to avoid getting 50 identical responses. I will also sometimes suggest fruitful issues that I'd like responders to think about, if it seems likely that when left on its own a posting would tend to generate mostly flames. These comments are always in brackets and signed with my initials [like this --clh] I do not modify postings in other ways. A few times in the past I have gotten postings that were mostly fine but had one paragraph that was offensive or otherwise unacceptable. Removing one portion of a posting -- even when I included an explanation of what I did and why -- has always resulted in bad feelings. My own views should not affect the way I do moderation. However in the interests of openness, I will tell you what they are. I am an Elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA). My theology is very strongly influenced by Calvin. I do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but I am at the conservative end of those who do not. I am a Vulcan. This is visible both in my philosophy and my temperament. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations is central to my view of the way God works. This commitment is very useful for a moderator.