[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH "moderation appeals committee" flaws
Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
> It's not necessarily the policy itself, but the fact that it was not
> reached by any sort of consensus, combined with the fact that it was
> not applied evenhandedly.
I don't think a vote needs to be taken for each and ever issue. That's in fact
the advantage of having a moderator. If for each and every decision the
moderator asked for a voting, there is no point in having him as a moderator
to decide.
> >There was a post which contained some sexual
> >material (I think) and was rejected by Ajay Shah based on that. After that
> >numerous posts were made by Vivek Pai haranguing about "rejection of posts".
>
> Once again, the more important issue was that the article was
> rejected, but the moderator refused to say what parts could be removed
> so that the article would be suitable.
How could he do that on srh if he felt that the parts were inappropriate? You
could've read the post in sci (where it was cross posted) to find out.
> Recall that it wasn't an article about the Kama Sutra, per se, but an
> article trying to discuss how the view of sexuality had changed as a
> result of the repeated invasions of India. In other words, most of the
> article should have been acceptable, but if there were some
> objectionable words, the moderator could have easily told the author
> about them.
>
> I asked what was objectionable, and so did the author. We were both
> refused answers.
I request Ajay Shah to please provide answers for such questions in the
future. Though I think the answer is obvious. How sexuality changed due to
invasions is hardly appropriate in srh. Sexuality is not restricted to Hindus
and is (as far as I know) not a consequence of Hinduism. How invasions made it
difficult to follow Hindu Dharma is one thing and how sexual practices changed
due to it is something else.
> >It's basically a no-win situation for Ajay. If he rejects it there will be
> >zillions of posts asking why he did it since it has some relevant material. If
>
> No, my question is this - if those articles were deemed inappropriate
> merely because they _mentioned_ sex, why is an article _promoting_
> illegal drug use allowed?
If I remember right Ajay Shah admitted his oversight, by not checking the
relevant web-site completely?
> Recall that the moderator actually defended the article, saying that
> it had some relevant parts aside from the drug promotion. However,
> this logic was the exact opposite used in the other matter - there,
> >As it is, his intention seems to be posting zillions of posts like this,
> >hoping that Ajay cannot keep up with replies, and point out to readers this
> >fact, and hence win some converts to the RFD.
>
> My intent has always been to clarify those policies which are horribly
> vague at best, and which, in practice, are being applied in an
> extremely arbitrary manner.
Perhaps, you should be a bit more forgiving and consider the fact that since
the moderator is after all human, he can be permitted to make a few mistakes
once in a while?
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
