caadams@triton.unm.edu (Clifford A Adams) (06/09/91)
The recent comments and postings about "base language" in
sci.virtual-worlds were very interesting to me. I believe the
moderator to be sincere in his intentions to "never cut content", and
that "Filtering is a moderator's responsibility." Isn't one of the
main (perhaps *the* main) topics of this group the presentation of
information using radically different means (filters)? One of the
recognized points of debate is how different presentations affect
one's view of the presented data. If "DO NOT BELIEVE!" 'signs' were
continually presented in a VR, I think there would be somewhat of a
loss in "presence". In my opinion, a similar loss occurred with the
moderator's additions to the postings by Handelman and Maddox.
I am considering writing a short paper on issues of obscenity and
control in new interactive media. Is anyone else interested in the
topic? For instance, what if a group of people used an image of a
blue dodecahedron for extremely sexually suggestive comments--would
the geometric figure become obscene? How many people have to accept
it as obscene before it becomes so? What about obscenities (or
taboos) that are truly innocent in other cultures/contexts? (Example:
"shit" is used as a Romanized syllable to guide pronunciation of
Japanese.) I could go on...and will if someone is interested.
[Perhaps I could post it to alt.cyberpunk too... :-]
--Cliff
P.S. Please do not misinterpret this article as an attack on the
moderator who has done excellent work in this newsgroup. I have,
however, resubscribed to alt.cyberpunk to get "alternative" views.
--
Clifford A. Adams --- "Understanding is inasmuch as becoming."
caadams@triton.unm.edu | 457 Ash St. NE/Albuquerque, NM 87106 | (505) 242-4519
Programmer in the USENET Moderation Project: new tools to provide benefits of
moderation (such as meaningful keywords and subjects) for unmoderated groups.
--
[MODERATOR'S NOTES: As I explained in an earlier posting, Maddox's and
Handelman's clever spoof posted on alt.cyberpunk was cross-posted here,
but without any contextual clues that it was a spoof. Listen, I hear
from lots of people who make important contributions here everytime there
is an alt.cyberpunk cross-posting, even though you may not see the squawks.
It's my consideration that keeping the cyberpunkish expressions to the
lowest possible roar improves the quality of discourse on sci.virtual-
worlds. Anyone who wishes to explore the vast, varied, and presumably
valuable alternatives provided by alt.cyberpunk is certainly encouraged
to do so!
[I should also add that I almost lost my previous job because of a
defense against telephone company censorship of adult-adult communications,
so I'm pretty aware of the issues and would be glad to talk about them in
private email. The difference is that this is not a common carrier medium
yet and that I have to exercise editorial judgment to keep the newsgroup
happy, healthy, and productive.
[Having said these things, I do welcome Maddox's and Handelman's future
postings inasmuch as they are insightful guys. They should exercise a
bit more care in email etiquette, however, and know that if a joke needs
context online, they have to provide it -- we have no other cues to go by.
[For more discussion of such issues, I have proposed creating a new
newsgroup, comp.online, in the newsgroup, news.announce.newgroups. Your
insights are welcome. -- Bob Jacobson]