[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups is the Goal
In article <4d73b4$8fk@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@hague.ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>In article <4d4hru$6ma@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Ken Stuart <kstuart@snowcrest.net> wrote:
[...]
>>Since this is what you want, it very strongly implies:
>>
>>1) You don't object to adding soc.relgion.hindu.info and
>>talk.religion.hindu on grounds of not enough traffic, since you
>>yourself have just proposed 5 new hindu newsgroups.
>
>Well, some of us have other objections. First of all an unmoderated talk group
>is something I am strongly opposed to.
Moderated talk groups generally don't exist, as far as I can tell.
>Second an info newsgroup is absolutely
>unnecessary. How many info posts do we get now? Practically none. This
This logic is interesting, since it contradicts the logic used by Ajay
in proposing his 5 groups. So, if we were to apply your logic
consistently, then I assume that some of Ajay's groups would be
opposed by you?
>certainly is not due to the "delays" in srh.
If I'm advertising an event which will take place in 4 days, then I
probably won't be sending an announcement to a moderated group which
doesn't clear articles that quickly.
>How about a talk kind of group on
>the model of srv? This will definitely reduce spam posts. Just the hint of
>moderation (auto or otherwise) will keep spam posts out.
I personally have no objection to reaching a compromise, but I
personally feel that these dicussions would be more productive if Ajay
actually said something. After all, I had several exchanges with Raj
Bhatnagar, and it seems to have been for nothing. So, no offense or
anything, but I'd like to see this from Ajay before expending any
serious effort on it, and I'd prefer to see the entire RFD addressed.
>Also delays will be reduced.
How will switching a group from unmoderated to auto-moderated reduce
delays?
>There may be a billion Hindus in the world, but most of them are not
>going to be on the internet for a long, long time to come. So
>an info newsgroup is probably a good idea 50 years from now.
It's probably a good idea now as well. After all, if you look at other
newsgroups, you can definitely see info groups being utilized, and
given that we most definitely have seen info post on SRH, I am willing
to bet that an info group would be utilized.
>I really wouldn't want to see the talk group degenerating like many other
>Indian newsgroups.
>
>>I'm glad that we've finally settled this whole situation, and look
>>forward to implementation of the compromise.
>
>No, we ain't :-).
Does that mean that you do not look forward to the implementation of a
compromise, or that you don't think this situation has been settled?
If it's the latter, then Ajay's post, where he goes on at length about
how the 5 groups he proposes are good, but TRH and SRHinfo are not,
baffles me, and I guess that this means that he's not willing to
support any compromise. If he is, I most definitely look forward to
hearing from him, since even my earlier questions regarding the RFD
went unanswered by him. Others most definitely answered, but he never
did. I'll repost them again...
Do you support the idea of having more moderators for SRH?
Do you support the idea of having an unmoderated group TRH and a
moderated info group under SRH?
Do you support the effort to move all purely political posts out of
SRH and into the unmoderated group?
Do you support the idea of banning from SRH posts which encourage
hate?
Do you support the idea of having guidelines for the behavior of the
moderators of SRH?
These are some of the points discussed in the reorg RFD, which
can be found at http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh.html
-Vivek
Sat Jan 13 14:12:26 CST 1996
