[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg: the real moderation policy
In article <4bf36j$bim@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
|> Namaskar,
|>
|> I must admit that I am somewhat saddened by such comments. Saddened,
|> but not really surprised. Since Vivekji has quoted my entire post,
|> *except* one paragraph!
How about this one - the same logic which is used to defeat
the other N arguments also applies to that paragraph? How
about the fact that your argument can't be taken seriously?
|> So, the conclusion, one has to draw is that either you agree with
|> the following paragraph, or have no response to it.
I sometimes babysit my friend's 2-year old daughter, and when
she says things like "feed the doggie", and is holding a samosa,
I don't reply to her either. I know better than to give a
dog a samosa. My absence of a reply doesn't mean that I agree
with her, or that I have no response. It means that I don't
reply to every statement I hear.
I would have hoped that this would be obvious, but I guess it
isn't. In any case, your "quote" of the RFD snipped a sentence
in the middle, and you omitted a sentence right after it which
further clarified the matter.
|> In that case,
|> I am glad that you agree that the current moderation policy is pretty
|> good!
Let me make this clear, then - my not responding to that
paragraph is not because I agree with it, or with your moderation
policy, but because I thought it was nonsense. However, since
you seem to want my comments, I will comment on it.
|> Since Vivekji left out this paragraph, I am re-posting it:
|>
|> ----------------------------------------
|> 6. Perhaps some past commentrator (3023 years ago) would have considered
|> Mahabharat as a matter of politics between Kaurava and Pandava and
|> rejected the postings,
The Mahabharat is filled with tales of great personalities, not
mediocre politicians. If you think SRH's political posts even
come close, I laugh at the suggestion. I would prefer one Krishna
or Arjuna over all of the politicians in India and America combined.
To suggest that your politics are even _close_ to the Mahabharata
is a suggestion I find revolting.
|> or consider Ramayan as a matter of politics between
|> Lord Shree Ram and Ravan...
Here are the keywords: "Lord Shree Ram". Let me not put too fine
a point on this - it would take an utter idiot to not figure out
that what God does and says is obviously related to religion.
|> So the ideal moderation policy is what SRH already has.
No, it is not, and your attempt to drag Krishna and Rama into
this is pathetic.
|> Allowing all the sides to be heard in a personal attack free
|> environment.
That would be a nice start. However, look at the first post you
approved by Raj Bhatnagar when this RFD came up.
|> A forum where the voice of all the Hindus can be heard
Nobody has suggested otherwise, as long as they are talking
about Hinduism. After all, there are many Hindus talking about
wanting to hire C++ programmers, and _most_ of them don't get
heard on SRH.
|> Surely, an un-moderated newsgroup for such discussion is proposed. But
|> why not allow such discussions in a moderated personal attack free
|> environment?
If you are talking about discussions of politics, then they should
go somewhere other than soc.RELIGION.hindu. If you are talking about
articles which include politics, then the RFD clearly indicates that
as long as they have a broader appeal, they may be posted. I've
pointed this out several times already.
|> ------------------------------------------
|> So, Vivekji, why did you leave out this particular paragraph?
Because I didn't think it was worth responding to.
|> It is these double standards that you employ, whether it is in regards
|> to the charter of SRV vs. charter of SRH,
>From the FAQ: http://www-ece/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
" IV.5 Are there double standards? Why are SRV and SRH different?
It has been pointed out that the charter for soc.religion.vaishnava and
the RFD proposal for SRH are significantly different, and that this
indicates some evil intentions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Soc.religion.vaishnava is an auto-moderated group, which means that all
moderation decisions (for lack of a better term) are made by a computer
program. Basically, the software makes sure that a series of conditions
are met, such as
a) the article must contain at least one of a large number of
publicly-posted keywords, such as Krishna, or Vishnu, or Bhagavatam, etc
b) the article must be properly formatted (less than 80 columns, not
in all caps)
c) the article cannot be cross-posted
d) one person may submit only a small number of articles per day
These are the only criteria used to accept or reject posts to SRV, so
the charter of that group can be significantly simpler than the
charter for a group to be moderated by humans. After all, much of the
RFD for SRH discusses what sort of postings are suitable for SRH*, and
how the moderators are to handle the various groups. It also discusses
what a moderator may or may not do, and what happens when a moderator
resigns or is forced to leave for unethical behavior.
Needless to say, none of these conditions really apply to the computer
program used to moderate SRV, so it is not surprising that the RFD for
SRH does not look like the RFD for SRV did. After all, in terms of
complexity, the moderation software for SRV, while not trivial, does
not have any "intelligence" - if a post meets all those conditions,
it is accepted. The only content-based check is the check for a keyword,
and that's fairly simple.
In comparison, the moderators for SRH are _expected_ to use their own
judgement, and since no two people are identical, some rules need to
be made explicit regarding what is expected of the moderators. The RFD
is somewhat like a "contract" between the moderators and the
readership of the group. It explains what is expected of both parties."
|> whether Vaishnavas are Hindu or not Hindus, etc.,
Also from the FAQ: http://www-ece/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
" IV.4 Have the proponents/moderators refused to call themselves Hindu?
Have they said Vaishnavas are not Hindu?
The answer is no on both counts, and this is another misinterpretation
of what was said during the soc.religion.vaishnava discussions. The
proponents do not by any means refuse to call themselves Hindu, and,
in fact, most are involved with a number of Hindu organizations. The
second question is also a distortion of what was said during the
discussions. The proponents _never_ said that all Vaishnavas are not
Hindus by default. What _was_ said was that there are people
(especially outside of India) who follow Vaishnava religious
practices, but are not culturally Hindus. There was no attempt made to
imply that one could not be a Hindu and a Vaishnava at the same time."
|> that pains me as a Hindu,
Your repeated lies should also pain you as a Hindu.
|> and it is for this
|> reason, that I have called this re-org. move personal vendetta and petty
|> politics driven.
Here's another quote from you:
"I hope that the re-org issue can be discussed in an environment of
trust and honesty and not emotional outbursts"
It's hard to reconcile your two quotes, isn't it, Ajay?
|> I am appending your post, so the readers can verify the facts for
|> themselves, and opt for SRH moderation policy that is toward inclusion and not
|> exclusion of all Hindus on the net
Need I remind you about the Shiva Purana post you rejected, which was
a post that quoted straight from a Hindu religious text? You seem to
want to even censor Hindu texts to further yourself. That should
pain you as a Hindu. If a Muslim tried to censor a Hindu text, you'd
be up in arms, but when you do it, you seem to see nothing wrong with
it. No wonder you tried to drag Rama and Krishna into this - you seem
to feel that you're on Their level, and can censor whatever you want.
-Vivek
(submitted around Fri Dec 22 15:05:02 CST 1995)
Follow-Ups:
References:
