[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why Is SRH Reorg RFD Biased: Moderation Policy Comparision
In article <4b5kbe$9kk@babbage.ece.uc.edu> editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (digest editor) writes:
> When we pointed out personal vendetta and petty politics, the proponents
> of the SRH (Soc.Religion.Hindu) Reorg. RFD pointed out that their goals
> are not these, but only the betterment of the newsgroup SRH. They
> suggested that the charter of SRH was poorly written, and that the
> moderation policy was ill defined etc. etc.
>
> Since many of the proponents of the re-organization of SRH were amongst
> the proponents and/or most vocal supporters and/or moderators of SRV,
> I looked up the charter of the newsgroup Soc.Religion.Vaishnava, and found
> that most of the proposed changes for SRH are not in SRV charter as well.
>
> Surely, most of the readers will sense double standards here.
To the Moderator of SRH:
There is no double standard. The two newsgroups are very
different. Soc.religion.vaishnava functions as an auto-moderated
newsgroup, so there is no human moderator. Comparing the
two is like comparing apples and oranges.
Now, if you want to make soc.religion.hindu an auto-moderated
newsgroup, then we can talk once again. But I suspect neither
of us would like that solution as the flame-wars would get
far too hot for any productive discussions to go on, auto-
moderation notwithstanding.
There is no political or personality conflict here, just a
proposal to promote fairness.
Please read the RFD with an open mind and decide for yourself.
Mani
