[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH "moderation appeals committee" flaws
Vivek wrote:
> In article <4svf8c$p0h@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
[..]
>
> 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?
Speaking about what is and is not fair, why were Bon's posts deliberately
killed on SRV? Were you even aware of such a move? If so, did you protest
vehemently against it?
I'd like you to make this declaration:
"I, Vivek Sadananda Pai, hereby swear that prior to the fifteenth of July 1996,
I was completely unaware that some posts by Bon Giovanni or others to the
newsgroup soc.religion.vaishnava were deliberately killed even though such was
against the charter of soc.religion.vaishnava. If I have lied in my previous
statement, may KR^ishhNa not show mercy on me."
If you do swear, you get no points. If you don't, we understand.
[..]
>
> 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.
>
Suppose I argue that the keyword "ShaMbhu" be added to the auto-moderator of
srv, since ShaMbhu is mentioned as the "greatest Vaishnava" in the Bhagavatam;
can I suggest that a vote be taken in this regard? Keywords like "Balaram" and
"Prabhupa" are allowed, why not "ShaMbhu"?
How do I go about suggesting a vote?
> >> 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.
> >
You keep complaining about vague policies in srh. Considering SRV, who decides
which keywords are used in the srv auto-moderator? Is there a proper procedure
for arriving at such a decision?
> >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,
I'd again like to know about the policies on SRV. Who decided that Bon's posts
are to be killed? And how could a person take the law into his own hands
concerning this matter? Why was this decision not reported at all on on SRV or
any other place?
> 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.
>
Your question is not reasonable, that's why. You complain of demagoguery in
srh, but how is it that democracy failed in srv?
I didn't see a single posting by you on srv from the 15th to the 28th of July,
1996 asking questions about the tampering of the auto-moderator of srv to kill
Bon's posts, which is against the charter, and a VERY SERIOUS MATTER.
But you pick on the most insignificant points in SRH like whether or not posts
about British blah blah should be allowed, which hardly anyone cares about and
doesn't bother in the least if the decision goes either way. The following
is a typical example :
> 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.
And that's an earth shaking issue on srh.
>
> -Vivek
>
-Kartik
