[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: INFO : Artificial Justification for Info Group
In article <ghenDvp3Au.5rF@netcom.com>,
Giri <gmadras@pinto.engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> That's a good point. I think you mean a situation like this
>(correct me if I am wrong).
[ exposition of the loophole deleted]
> Maybe the moderator can clarify what he does in such a situation.
>This is a kinda of dilemma.
Yes, you've got one part of the loophole correct. There are, of
course, innumerable variants. Another thing would be the dynamic
nature of the web. For example, let's say that person X posts a web
page that has a picture of (pick your favorite Hindu) and some
quotes. Now, as soon as the message gets approved and posted, person X
puts on the "real" content of the page, which could be anything.
You can't do anything to prevent this sort of situation if you tried,
so my thoughts on the matter are along the lines of "why try?" (within
bounds).
>What if the site contains lots of useful
>material but just one page of rejected material ?
Or what if a post contains pertinent material and one or two sentences
deemed impermissible?
These are the sorts of questions that I think should have some sort of
clear policy, because if someone gets his post rejected and sees posts
accepted which seem to be of lesser quality, that person will get
offended, rightly or wrongly.
My personal opinion is this - if we only allow posts which are
inoffensive and noncontroversial, we'll just end up with a lot of
Kabbadi posts. Speaking of which - Calvin Trillin described the basics
of Kabbadi in a Time Magazine article a few weeks back.
-Vivek
