[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization

Please note: Some discussion about this has appeared on
soc.religion.hindu, and if you are interested in knowing what is said
there, you may wish to follow that newsgroup as well, for the duration of
this RFD discussion. If you post any replies there, please do make sure to
post them to news.groups as well, for the good of all concerned. Thanks.

In article <4b5ai5$hq7@sundog.tiac.net>, vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik) wrote:

> I've only left in the portions of the RFD I wish to comment on.
> 
> shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
> 
> >Moderation policy:
> 
> >Each moderator will serve until he resigns voluntarily, or is
> >dismissed by an unanimous vote of the other moderators. New moderators
> >will be appointed as needed, taking into account the sentiments of the
> >SRH.* readership, by a unanimous vote of all moderators, or by a
> 
> "taking into account the sentiments of the SRH.* readership"
> 
> This needs to be spelt out more clearly.  Since you state that the
> currently serving moderators will  announce their candidate  for the
> new moderator to the SRH. *  and plan to  allow one week for comments,
> you should set some sort of number for retracting the candidate if
> enough people object.   Would the objections of 10 or  20,  ...
>  people be enough to derail a nomination?

I suppose it would. However, I'd be wary of defining a figure of, say 10,
and saying "if ten people object, then the proposed new moderator is to be
considered unacceptable." As you are aware, there is no real way on UseNet
of telling people apart, and one or two people setting up trolls could
seem like ten. On the other hand, if we _don't_ say ten are required, and
in fact only one or two people object to a new proposed moderator but do
so intelligently, then it is quite likely the moderators will take the
hint. 

Thus, for both these reasons: that a few dishonest people can have too
much influence even if they have nothing of substance to say, and that a
few honest people will have less influence than necessary even if they are
cogent, such a condition is not likely to be useful. If you think
otherwise, please do clarify. 

> <snip> Reasons for rejecting a post:
> 
> >1>  completely irrelevant postings, and off-topic responses;
> >2>  postings with ad hominem attacks;
> >3>  personals and personal messages;
> >4>  postings with large ASCII graphics;
> 
> Just how large a signature file can someone have?  4 lines? 10 lines?

I believe a limit of four or five lines is considered good Netiquette.
However, I am not aware that any moderation policy I have ever seen
specifies a limit of a certain number of lines, for the signature. If
others know of such, and feel this would be a useful addition, it can
certainly be added.

> >5>  special-format files, such as binaries, MIME, BinHex, etc.;
> >6>  grossly profane or indecent writings;
> 
> Indecent?  Would discussion of the Kama Sutra be banned?

No, it would not. I don't think the Kama Sutra is indecent in and of
itself, although I do not consider it very interesting either. As I'm sure
you are aware, the Mahaabhaarata, the Old Testament, and other scriptures
sacred to some, contain descriptions of sexual organs, activity, etc.,
that rival anything written in the Kama Sutra, Lady Chatterley's Lover, or
whatever text is considered indecent. Although I firmly believe there is
such a thing as indecency, I don't know if it can be rigorously defined,
and would think indecency is in the approach rather than in the content. 

> I think indecency is a rather Victorian concept.  If you mean
> references to sexual organs/activities not grounded in a religous
> context but as part of an ad hominem attack, say so.  Although in that
> case, such language would be covered under item 2 above.  However, if
> someone does want to discuss the religous significance of certain
> sexual practices in detail, it should not be excluded.

> "grossly profane"  differs slightly in meaning from "profanity".
> 
> If you mean, "profanity"  you'll hear no objection on my part.
> 
> But if you mean "profane", i.e, attacking a specific religous belief
> or practice,  when does such an attack "cross the line" from vigorous
> religous debate and achieve the status of a "grossly profane"
> utterance?

I would say even "profanity" has the same problem. It is certainly
possible for someone to use words that are considered unprintable, etc.,
in decent discourse. At the very least, it is certainly the case that many
such words have synonyms that are not considered indecent. A gynaecologist
would, in the course of describing his field, use such words, and be
considered perfectly decent. So I would say that the place where the
"line" is crossed, is hard to pinpoint; I at least know of no reasonably
short definition for it, that would help identify all instances as
"profane," or "not profane," in a meaningful way. At the same time, not
having any restriction at all, would mean that _no_ posting can ever be
rejected for indecency, which is also unacceptable.

Thus, I would leave it to the judgement of the moderators, to settle on a
level of decency. Having read their postings for a while, and having
exchanged mail with them, I am quite satisfied that they will do well. The
provision for having rejected articles overseen by another moderator also
means that at least two moderators must accept that a certain aspect of a
posting is indecent, before it is rejected.

> >7>  badly formatted postings (lines over 80 characters long, entire
> >    paragraphs written in capital letters, too many blank spaces, etc.);
> >8>  postings violative of Netiquette, such as discussions of ongoing RFDs;
> 
> And here's where you are getting back at the current moderator.

No, we're not getting back at anybody anywhere. A clear moderation policy
is considered desirable, and that's what we have tried to achieve. The
points apply no less to the proponents themselves, as to anyone else.
Criminal laws are not considered as being discrimination against people
who commit crime, because they apply uniformly to all, and it is only the
case that some people suffer under those laws because of their own
actions. So also, all of these provisions have the a quite-equal effect on
all, tho perhaps some will have to correct themselves to a greater degree
in order to fit them.

> >14> articles with excessive quoting -- those that:
> >    i)  quote all or much of a previous long posting only to make a short
> >        comment;
> >    ii) quote long passages from copyrighted works, without extensive
> >        commentary as required for fair use.
> 
> And here is where you are getting back at Jai Maharaj for his posts of
> the Gita.

Well, there are many other instances not by him, as well.

> >In addition, material whose copyright is not owned by the poster, or
> >specifically given to the poster by its owner, may, at the moderator's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >discretion, not be accepted for posting, to avoid any possible charges
> >against moderators of complicity in copyright infringement.
> 
> An exception should be made for the case when an author or translator
> places a copy of their work in the public domain, or explicitly states
> that it may be copied for non-comercial use.  In such cases, your
> rationale about avoiding charges of copyright infringement would not
> apply.

Quite obviously, in that instance:

1> Another moderator could pass the posting.
2> The poster could inform the author of the carte blanche permission that
   exists.

Note that "specifically given to the poster" does not mean "specifically
given to the poster in a personal communication." Your example is also a
case of "specific" permission being given to all who would use the
material for non-commercial purposes. 

> Otherwise, just think.  Jai Maharaj is going to have to dig up a turn
> of the century translation of the Gita.   You might find it amusing,
> but why perpetuate 90 year old translation errors?

Why perpetuate any translation errors at all? Would a 90-year old
translation be restricted by copyright? -- I wonder. I think that would
depend upon whether or not the translator has been dead for 60 years. At
least in India (and probably in the U.K. and other Commonwealth nations),
the law is that material is copyrighted by the author during his lifetime,
and by his successors for 60 years thereafter. 

> >If a moderator is of the opinion that a posting submitted for
> >soc.religion.hindu.info is more appropriate on SRH.moderated, or vice
> >versa, he will inform the author of the posting of this, and offer the
> >latter the choice of either withdrawing the posting, or having it
> >posted appropriately.
> 
> The moderator should also give the reason why.  In the unitarian-univ
> FAQ file, the corresponding policy reads:
> 
> !Moderators will only return submissions that violate this charter.
> !Any returned article will have an explanation attached to it about
> !which charter provision was violated.

Good point. This will be added.

> >In case an author/poster willfully and repeatedly submits clearly
> >inappropriate material to hassle readers or moderators, the moderators
> >may, by a unanimous vote, announce that person banned from the
> >moderated groups for a certain period.
> 
> The length of the "certain period" please.  And perhaps an escalating
> punishment, spelt out, rather than left to the vagaries of chance?
> 
> For example:
> 
> 1st   offence:   one week
> 2nd offence:  one month
> 3rd and subsequent offences:  3 months

That again is dicey. I would like to hear other comments. Do people feel
the length should be spelled out? I personally do not feel that the
moderation policy should also include specific penal code provisions for
violations, and think the ban will never be used (it has been made almost
impossible to use, since I don't think any group of three or over will
ever achieve unanimity in banning someone). The provision exists only as a
psychological deterrent to keep people from abusing moderators. However,
as I said, others may have different views, which should be stated. 

> One week might not seem like much for a first offence, but the "shock"
> of being banned from a newsgroup, for even a short period of time,
> will probably prevent continued "transgressions" against the
> moderation policy.

Sounds reasonable, but some may think it is either too light or too heavy,
or that the steps are not rightly spaced, etc. Are there any moderated
groups that spell something like this out?

> >No person serving as moderator of the SRH.* groups may claim status as
> >such in any message except communication in his capacity as moderator
> >(such as with authors of postings to SRH.* groups), and in
> >administrative postings to said groups that relate to the newsgroup(s)
> >themselves. Specifically, no moderator may use the official
> >moderator's account for any purpose except performance of moderation
> >duties. Any claim to status in matters unrelated to the SRH.*
> >newsgroups, or misuse of the official moderation account for any
> >purpose other than performance of moderation duties, will be
> >considered grounds for automatic dismissal.
> 
> Again a subtle attack on the current moderator.  Moderators should be
> able to comment on RFDs that are relevant to their group and be able
> to state that they are the moderator as that does give their opinion
> added weight in a debate.  Perhaps this should be the only exception
> to the policy above, but it is a reasonable one.

I think giving "added weight" is exactly the thing some would like to
avoid. If a moderator wishes to state his own personal view about
something, that's fine. Let him. However, the "added weight" of status
implies that (1) the moderator speaks for a majority of his newsgroup's
readers/posters; (2) any views contrary to his are more likely to earn
rejection in that group. I believe both these are to be avoided.

> I'd like to close by stating that it would do a great deal to mend
> ruffled feelings if you were to  go ahead and  state that if the
> current moderator ever wishes joint the group of moderators at any
> time in the future, he will be allowed to do so.

I have, in a message, made clear to the current moderator that if he
wishes to change his mind and accept our offer, any time upto the CFV, he
is most welcome to do so. This is not a political move, for the simple
reason that if it were, then it would be extremely messy to have him
accept and then go back on our word. Thus, a good way to find out if we
are sincere or not, is for Sri Shah to accept the offer. The reason I
cannot go further and make a promise for any indefinite time in the
future, is that I will have no say over who becomes moderator, after the
groups actually come into being. That will be taken care of by the
proposed moderators and their successors. 

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> Arun Malik
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.