From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: news.groups,misc.legal
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.legal.family moderated
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:57:45 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

> I've founded that 'No perspectives would be favored' and 'The group is
> moderated' to be frequently incompatible.

I'm sorry that's been your experience. I've had a different set of
experiences in which moderators have kept the topic lines consistent
with the particular aims of a group.

> If no perspectives are going to be favored, why is the group being moderated?

Because this particular topic has a very bad reputation on Use/Altnet
as deteriorating into flame fests, or delving so far off of the point
that many who were reading quit doing so because the value of the
group was lost.

Alt.child-support and alt.dads-rights have become bastions of the male
perspective. Since you participate there, you should be aware of this.
Many areas of family law have nothing to do with the male perspective,
or, for that matter, the female perspective. As one of my law profs
said to me once, "Law Is." 

Yes, there is favoritism in courts, and yes, there are areas in which
some inspection of the law might be a *great* idea. However, while the 
existing forums of the usenet might be a good place to agrgue the pro 
and con of the system in some regard, it doesn't do much for the people
who want to know the procedures and legal strategies/orientations that
apply to the law as it is.

Theoretical discussions have their place. They take place for edific-
ation and even entertainment. But when someone is looking for a "How
do I..." what they don't need is "The System Sucks." and "You suck
because you want to..." or "I was robbed/raped/whatever."

Over the previous six or so MONTHS, people have posted pleas to stay
on issue with the various groups. The universal response was "This is
AltNet, we can do whatever we want. This is ANARCHY man!" Even though
the pleas reminded that the anarchy was a *cooperative* one, this was
summarily dismissed as inconvenient by those who chose to dominate
the forums with their opinions and perspectives.

When the expression "No perspectives" is employed in the RFD, it means
that ALL perspectives will be allowed *IF* and ONLY IF the posts deal
in terms of the workings of the laws and courts as they are, not as 
one might wish. This is not a forum to propose change. It is a forum
to learn how to work with what exists today. Additionally, it means
that questions from a woman who wishes to commence a paternity action
or collect child support will be responded to with respect, as would
the post of a man who asked how to fight such actions. 

This, BTW, was an example. I hope that the forum would deal in many
more issues as well. While it will be (obviously) up to the group's
users to determine the topics discussed, it's my hope that diversity
will be the most common element of the group.

I was recently asked if gay/lesbian issues would be tolerated, and I
replied a definite YES. The only qualification to posts should be an
adherence to the current legal aspects of any issue... not someone's
opinion of them, but how they might be approached, overcome, and/or 
defended against.

> If certain things are going to be excluded from this group (a lot of the
> deadbeat dad's stuff _is_ rather repititious), I think a little more
> definition on what's going to be excluded and what's not and why is
> called for.

I think that I just stated it as clearly as I can. I had tried to be 
reasonably polite, and not step on toes. In doing so, perhaps I was
too vague. 

My apologies. 

But I hope this makes the proposal clearer in terms of the intent of 
the group. 


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: news.groups