[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Kal Yuga and SRH moderation
On 18 Jan 1996 07:24:28 GMT, SRH Editor <srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu>
wrote in soc.religion.hindu:
>On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Savio wrote:
>
>> How on Earth, did the following clear the submissions desk?
>>
>>
>[Post about Kal yuga deleted]
>
>> > --
>> --
>> Savio savio@cs.man.ac.uk
>>
>
>Namaskar,
>
>Because, there is no provision in the charter for SRH to reject a post
>such as this!!
I think what Savio was referring to was the formatting of the post,
not its content. (ie where control codes came out as numbers)
It is entirely within accepted principles of moderation to return
posts for "cleaning up" for a variety of reasons.
There is a difference between:
- "This post is rejected, sorry."
and
- "I find such and such problem with this post, can you clean it up?"
The latter can be done:
- In cases like "Kal Yuga" where the post was almost illegible.
- In cases where posts consist entirely of personal attacks, but where
the post would not be rejected out of hand, ie "Are you sure you want
to post this as submitted? Most people will reject your arguments as
a personal attack which will not reflect well on you."
Or "Wouldn't you prefer to change ' I'm looking for evidence that
shows this guru to be a fake. ' to ' I'm looking for people's opinion
on this guru ' ? "
A moderator is someone who makes things more moderate, which requires
action on those items which are not so moderate.
Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of the moderation is.
It has been said:
>Posts that violate the charter are regularly rejected. Commercial
>announcements, spams, personal attacks (direct), and anonymous posts
>saying "(Some) Hindu God is (some explicitive), are regularly rejected.
Well nowadays we can have commercial announcements and spams rejected
by software.
So, out of a dozen posts a year being rejected on all grounds, it
seems that very little are being rejected under the personal attack or
malicious attack on Hinduism rules.
Especially since I've received unsolicited e-mail from readers
previously unknown to me, commenting about the recently allowed posts
violating both those rules.
I can't see much difference if this newsgroup were unmoderated.
>I also urge Ken-ji to allow people some freedom, to post
>their (rather) off beat opinions, and not use the freedom granted on this
>forum to further the re-org debate.
This is actually the opposite of what is going on, as is well known to
you, since you received lengthy e-mails from me BEFORE the re-org
proposal about these very topics.
In fact, the re-org initially seemed sensible to me because I had
PREVIOUSLY noted:
- That long delays between postings inhibited some of the debates.
- That postings inimical to Hinduism were being allowed.
It seems to me a widespread opinion that the purpose of moderation is
primarily to create an environment that is supportive of the topic of
the newsgroup, and excludes viewpoints inimical to that topic.
For example, moderating soc.religion.bicycle is designed to eliminate
discussions of automobile vs. bicycle, and leave those discussions for
soc.religion.transport, so that bicyclists can get into the details of
aluminum derailers vs. steel derailers. :-)
Furthermore, the argument that "we'll allow those negative posts
because they'll enable us to counter-post and show them how wrong they
are" fails on two grounds.
First, if we are going to allow negative posts because they can be
countered by subsequent posts, then why do we need any moderation at
all?
Second, it is contrary to the purpose of LIMITING the discussion so
that people can concentrate on the details of the topic of the
newsgroup.
Controlling the quantity of posts by limiting irrelevant ones is an
important function of the moderator, perhaps the most important one -
otherwise why not just lump it all together as soc.religion or even
just soc ?
As such, since the Physical Immortality post did not reference
Hinduism it was off-topic. Similarly, just because Hinduism includes
Ayurveda, does not mean that all posts about any sort of Preventative
Health practice are allowable in this newsgroup.
Cheers,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
The message for 1996:
"Be filled with enthusiasm and sing God's glory!"
References:
