[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH "moderation appeals committee" flaws
In article <4svf8c$p0h@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> 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
He was asked in private e-mail by the author, and he was also asked in
other newsgroups. He didn't have to reply on SRH.
>could've read the post in sci (where it was cross posted) to find out.
I did read the post, and I didn't find any of it to be sexually
explicit. In fact, it seemed quite academic, and if one were looking
for something hot and steamy, that post wouldn't have been it.
>> 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
[...]
>> 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.
The issue went on for a fairly long time, and when the author finally
pressed the issue, he was basically told that the moderator didn't
have to say what parts were objectionable. That's hardly fair, is it?
>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.
Except for one minor point - the post was specific in its supporting
information, namely episodes from the Ramayana and backing evidence
from the Kama Sutra as well as various temple carvings.
>How invasions made it
>difficult to follow Hindu Dharma is one thing and how sexual practices changed
>due to it is something else.
Let's put it this way - if the British changed certain views of the
religion, and forced that change onto all future Hindus, would you
consider that a viable topic of discussion on SRH? The author made the
point that the British made sexual topics taboo in Hinduism, and
sought to impose their own morality on the religion. I consider that a
valid avenue of discussion, since it's an issue of religious
revisionism.
>> 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?
The question had nothing to do with checking the web site - the
article itself very clearly advertised the use of hallucinogenic
drugs, and stated that the web site had more information.
I was asking for a clear policy on such posts, and the original reply
by the moderator stated that the article was approved because of its
information about Ganesh Baba.
The question I asked, and which still hasn't been answered, is this:
if the other article was rejected because it contained _some_ mention
of things sexual, shouldn't this article have gotten rejected because
it promoted drug use? Only a _minor_ part of that article even
mentioned Ganesh Baba.
>> 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?
All I seek is clear policies, and that's been my intent all along. I
don't intend on crucifying (sorry, wrong religion) anyone for a single
mistake, but it seems that reasonable questions should receive
answers, and so far, this question hasn't received an answer.
There are a lot of other questions that haven't received answers,
either, and that's why these issues keep coming up over and over - if
the "sexually explicit" rule had been clarified in some real way, it
would have provided the framework for handling this issue of drug use
promotion.
-Vivek
