[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re:SRH: Umpteen complaints about existing moderation policy
COMPLAINTS ABOUT EXISTING MODERATION POLICY
Here are some complaints against the present moderation.
[i *definitely* know that there more complaints than what
i am presenting in this post]
grounds for complaints include (1) rejection of appropriate
posts, (2) acceptance of posts dealing with politics (3)
acceptance of posts that directly attack god-men of hindu
fold without any substantive reasoning, (4) improper formatting
of articles that make the articles 'illegible' (5)articles
with personal attacks etc. While it is imperative that the
posters should desist from making personal attacks, it also
the responsibility of moderator not to accept such posts, so
that is how Dhrubaji's advice to a poster to desist from
personal attacks also got included here.
Summary: The charter for moderation *needs* to be revised.
and that is what RFD attempts.
begin inclusions:
==============================================================
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <4df2la$680@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
"[...]- the Shiva Purana post was
rejected, of course, from alt.hindu while you were still the
moderator, and while it had guidelines identical to SRH."
-Vivek
--------------------------------------------------
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <4dks8c$khh@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
[...]
If I submitted an article about "Ultras causing the Surat plague",
articles dealing with elections in India, or articles about political
maneuvering between Indian and Pakistan, would those be permitted?
Note that the first article on the list actually appeared on alt.hindu,
-Vivek
-------------------------------------------------
From: Savio <savio@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Kal Yuga
Message-ID: <4dkrro$kf9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
How on Earth, did the following clear the submissions desk?
[article deleted...]
-------------------------------------------------------
From: kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart)
Subject: Re: Kal Yuga and SRH moderation
Message-ID: <4dnd71$pl4@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
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
>>
>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.
---------------------------------------------------------
From: kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The Physical Immortality Project
Message-ID: <4dks3g$kh1@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
On 17 Jan 1996 07:23:38 GMT, wheez@ibike.com (wheez @ Sedona5) wrote
in soc.religion.hindu:
>ANNOUNCEMENT: The Physical Immortality Project
Is it my imagination, or does this have nothing whatsoever to do with
soc.religion.hindu ?
[....]
Clearly this is because there are more posts than he can deal with,
being only one person. Yes, this is because of the RFD discussion,
but can anyone say that there won't be another equally involving and
controversial topic soon ?
--------------------------------------------------------
From: pggopal@computer.net
Subject: Re: Sai Baba Exposed
Message-ID: <4dngh0$q8g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
I am not a follower of Satya Sai Baba, but I resent that an obvious ****
is trying to attack his movement as a cult.
[...]
(one word i replaced here with **** due to its offenceive nature: gopal)
-------------------------------------------------------
From: ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari)
Message-ID: <4dks0h$kfp@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
Ken Stuart (kstuart@snowcrest.net) wrote:
: Well, the status quo is definitely unacceptable to me.
: If we allow the following post which was just posted (not by Singam):
:>I am interested in any information about Sai Baba
:>which exposes him as a fraud
: then what exactly is it that the moderator is doing?
[..]
In a sense, I agree with Ken here.
But then, it is also a responsibility of
our readers (of s.r.h) that we know what we are writing. The moderators
can only exert there influence up to a limit. Beyond that limit, it
is all up to us.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari)
Subject: Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh
Message-ID: <4e16es$m0u@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
I think that the moderator should really stop this
thread. Reason:
It is increasingly becoming irrelevant to the s.r.h
issues (neither hinduism, nor the new proposal). The
heading of the thread says it all.
Nachiketa
-------------------------------------------------
From: mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com (Mani Varadarajan)
Subject: Re: Problem with SRH: Articles out of order
Message-ID: <4dpfo2$mvr@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
> > Dear Ajay,
> > Please note that you have posted articles out of
> > submission order again. This makes it very hard
> > to follow a thread in its logical sequence.
This was supposed to be a private email, which is why
I addressed Ajay directly.
[...]
Mani
------------------------------------------------
From: dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
Date: 17 Jan 1996 07:30:19 GMT
Message-ID: <4di8ib$fph@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
Dear [*name deleted here as a courtesy*: gopal]
I just wanted to point out that your message for Kenji may be viewed as a
personal attack. We need to collectively enforce higher standards of
communication in SRH, and watch what we write.
[..]
Dhruba.
-----------------------------------------------------
----------------end inclusions--------------
