From: paulchem@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Atharvan)
Subject: Re: SCK, Moderation and other stories
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:27:28 GMT


In article <21JAN199310565447@rosie.uh.edu> mece21x@rosie.uh.edu (Yesudas, Michael) writes:
>
>It is a matter of delight that the present alt.culture.kerala group would
>soon get promoted as soc.culture.kerala, assuming everything works out. And
>as I understand it, it might be a moderated one. Paul has already presented out
>the view as to why the news group should be a moderated one. Let me put forward
>the other side of the coin, as I know it.
>
>(1) Done at random or otherwise, every article that is posted there is
>going to be at someone's sweet will. This will hamper a lot of stuff that we
>see on the present day ACK. For e.g. I HATE broccoli, I hate it so much that
>I have not even cared to look up its spelling. So any broccoli fry which is
>being made known by the stalwarts of cooking would be very conveniently thrown 
>out. So all those broccoli lovers would never even come to know that there 
>was somebody out there who wanted to give them recipe for broccoli.

1] :-)
   You spelt brocolli right.
   Actually the example you chose was particularly unfortunate.
   George Bush hated broccoli and even made a public announcement
   and I can assure you george bush was in a position to affect
   broccoli growers more than moderators would affect ack/sck :-)
   George Bush had to apologize to broccoli growers even though he
   was the president of the united states, precisely because he
   had no business talking about broccoli. His scope of responsibilities
   did not include making public statements about his eating habits.
   Similarly moderators have no business tampering with things they
   are not explicitly empowered to do. If there is any problem
   there is a redressal mechanism: moderators@cs.purdue.edu

   Positions of power also carry with them responsibility.
   People who abuse that responsibility will lose power.

   Besides Michael, I can assure you people can and do things in the
   name of their responsibility even though it goes against their 
   personal likes.

   By the same token I should have deleted all the articles 
   that went against my point of view when I was the only
   mail serving site.

>
>  Or let's say that somebody wants to learn a song. As many people do it, they
>put it up on the net
>
>Aaathmavidyalayamay....
>
>Please fill up the rest, Thanks in advance!!
>
>And invariably that comes through. Then there are subtle points like whether 
>if it was sung by Kamukara or Manna Dey. And whether it was from Forest Ranger 
>or Taxi Driver. Now what is the moderator going to do anyway for such things?


2] Simple answer: Nothing.
   The moderation proposed says nothing about such things.
   So the moderators would have to allow them.
   In fact I personally think such posts are the chief pleasures of ack/sck.

>
>(2) BY and LARGE, about 99% of the postings that I have seen have been of some 
>value or other. I really don't know how many people think the same way. But if 
>that is the case then why have a moderator only to cut down on a very small 
>percentage of the postings, which again is a matter of discretion of an 
>individual??
>


3] Perhaps you will also see very active reactions to junk postings which
    have a very strong effect and reduce their number.
    If you do not believe me take a look at sci or the other indian unmoderated
    groups.

>(3) The number of articles that are posted every day are of the order of 5 to 
>10 only. On the "promotion" to SCK I assume that it might just about double 
>or so. Do we really want to cut down on the traffic further in a group where 
>postings are rare and hard to come by??
>


4] :-)
   Thats a good question.
   Well I still think quality is better than quantity.
   SCI has nearly a 100 postings a day out of which only around 10 or 15 are 
   worth reading the second line.

>(4) Suppose there is a controversial and delicate issue being discussed, say 
>like dowry. There will be arguments and counter-arguments and some might be 
>stupid, some might be baseless, and some might be senseless. But then, it takes 
>all types to make up a world like ours. Or maybe some one wants to mock at the 
>issue. WHY NOT LET IT HAPPEN LIKE THAT?  
>


5] As of now there is only one suggested criteria for moderation: religious 
   propaganda. Such flame-wars would not come under the knife.
   So this point of yours is also not valid.

>(5) One of my main objections to having a moderator is the fact that, IT WILL 
>IN COURSE OF TIME BECOME STAGNANT, AND THE MODERATOR'S FUNCTIONING STYLE WOULD 
>DETERMINE THE PACE OF RETARDATION OF THE GROUP.
>

6] For every problem there is a solution.
   If a moderator/ moderators become unacceptable change them.

>(6) Above all, let's not forget that there might be people who are waiting out 
>there, to have a chance to post FOR THE FIRST TIME. They are not sure as to how 
>that is to be done, (when I say "how", it is not the technical details etc, 
>but as to how the others will react. It could be anybody. Someone who has never 
>been to Kerala, or maybe just that his/her grandfather has seen a Malayali, and 
>that is the only relation that they have.) and passing through the hands of a 
>moderator and being rejected would be a very humiliating experience. How many 
>of us would like that?


7] This is a specious argument.
   A post that somehow seems unsuitable because of the inexperience
   of the poster [ I can not imagine this happening ] the article will
   be returned along with a note and perhaps forwarded to the commitee
   created for this purpose who will probably help in boosting the
   persons confidence rather tahn the other way around.

>
>I would very strongly recommend an unmoderated group. 


I think there is merit in the concept of a moderated sck
but I am not so dead-set that I can not be convinced otherwise.

There is a cost associated with moderation, and perhaps the best
thing will be to wait and see if the disease it tries to cure is 
life-threatening and resists every other treatment.
I think we should wait a month or two to see how ack develops.


>Of course the final
>result would be what ever people think that is correct.
>


I agree.


Paul Chemmanoor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.    ~ ~                                                                     .
.    o o      signito ergo sum.              paul chemmanoor.                .
.     |    i sign therefore i am.            Computer Science department.    .
.     =                                      Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.     .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------