[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg: the real moderation policy
In a moderated newsgroup, the readers have to work and live
with the understanding (and assumption) that the moderator is
reasonably intelligent. If that were not the case, the whole
point of having the moderator use his or her own judgement in
following the rules for moderation would be pointless.
I believe that the proposed moderators for SRH* are intelligent
people, and I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. In a
previous pair of posts, Ajay worked on the assumption of a
naive moderator in order to try to criticize the RFD. I don't
find that basis for attack particularly useful, but I did reply
to all of his points and show why they were erroneous.
The following post discusses some allegations Ajay made about
my previous responses. I have added quite bit of context which
was missing in Ajay's post.
In article <4bfp28$5sl@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> writes:
|> Namaskar,
|>
|> I would like to thank Vivekji, one of the proponents of SRH re-org for
|> speaking for me,
Nowhere did I make the claim that I am speaking for you, Ajay.
|> however, since I seem to be able to speak for my self,
|> I would appreciate it, if he let me speak for my self.
By all means, I encourage you to speak for yourself.
|> I showed a simple example, where a fight for a just and right
|> cause such as the Mahabharat War and Lord Shree Ram's fight against Ravan
|> could be misconstruded as petty politics by some naive interpreter of
^^^^^
Keyword here - you tried to raise a bogus issue. You tried to
somehow state that the RFD would not allow _any_ politics onto
the newsgroup, but you ignored the part of the RFD which discussed
the issue. Here it is again:
" Political announcements, hortatory articles, calls-to-action,
reminders of past misdeeds, special-format postings, etc., will be
rejected, as will postings that espouse hate. Moderators will
discourage political discussions, but will permit postings that
mention politics, as long as such are of an interest to a
non-political audience."
So, the politics of hate are clearly excluded, but politics involving
religion aren't. Both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata have some
political connections, since the parties in them were rulers, but
make no mistake about it - they are religious, and only a naive
person would suggest otherwise.
When you tried to claim that some naive interpretor could suggest
that these works wouldn't have been allowed at some point in history,
you intentionally ignored the part of the RFD which discusses issues
related to this.
|> history. Just as many would interprete the struggles of ISKCON
|> temples in UK and Armenia and the burning of Hindu temple in Fiji.
We rely on intelligent moderators.
|> And since the proposed moderation policy does not allow for the call for
|> action against such atrocities to be posted, one wonders if one of the
|> central themes of Shree Bhagwad Gita, fight for righteous cause is lost.
No, it is not lost - see the second sentence of the quoted portion
of the RFD.
|> So, the following are the paragraphs that I never said or implied!
That's very strange - all of the quotes you gave are my responses
to what you wrote. Nowhere did I even attempt to say that I was
writing what you said or implied. It was obvious that I was responding
to what you wrote.
|> I am sure that Vivekji knew that, but I suppose he wants
|> me to say it. OK, Vivekji, that's the least I can do for you :-)
I would be very surprised if someone had gotten what I wrote
confused with what you wrote.
[ the following lines are the lines from my post which Ajay
seems to find objectionable ]
|> > 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.
This was in response to Ajay's attempt to draw parallels between
politics on SRH and the Mahabharata. His exact statement was:
|> 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,
And that's why I said:
|> > To suggest that your politics are even _close_ to the Mahabharata
|> > is a suggestion I find revolting.
When Ajay tried to suggest something similar with the following
statement:
|> or consider Ramayan as a matter of politics between
|> Lord Shree Ram and Ravan...
I replied with:
|> > 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.
When Ajay stated that the current SRH moderation policy was
"ideal" - not good, mind you, but "ideal", I replied with:
|> > No, it is not, and your attempt to drag Krishna and Rama into
|> > this is pathetic.
Ajay also stated that "It is these double standards that you employ"
and then went on to misrepresent my stand on Vaishnavism in
relation to Hinduism. He then stated how he was pained as a Hindu,
to which I replied:
|> > Your repeated lies should also pain you as a Hindu.
Finally, Ajay went on to say something about "inclusion", but
he neglected to mention his view on censoring material from
the religious texts. He once rejected a post based on _one line_,
and that line came _straight_ from a Hindu religious text. Even
when this was pointed out to him, he still didn't accept the
post. That's why I said:
|> > 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.
|> Since I never censor anything outside the moderation policy as a
|> moderator of SRH (and you have not produced any proof)....
You have censored before as the moderator of alt.hindu, and the
reason you claimed for the censorship still exists in the SRH
charter, so I can reasonably assume that you still believe your
censorship of that post was valid.
|> Now, please tell me, why these vengence filled personal attacks? Do you
Pot. Kettle. Black.
|> wonder why most of the readers of SRH feel that the re-org move is
|> driven by personal vendetta and petty politics?
I have seen _few_ people make that claim.
|> Once again, I urge you
|> Vivekji, and the other proponents of this re-org to reconsider your plans
|> to destroy the present SRH.
Replace the word "destroy" with "improve", and the picture becomes
much clearer.
|> All because I suggested the word "Hindu" in
|> the name of the newsgroup, Soc.religion.Vaishnava.
Once again, you know that this isn't true.
-Vivek
(submitted around Sat Dec 23 16:22:22 CST 1995)
