From: mece21x@jane.uh.edu (Yesudas, Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.kerala
Subject: Re: SCK, Moderation and other stories
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:10 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan22.032728.29281@colorado.edu>, paulchem@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Atharvan) writes...
> 
>   Positions of power also carry with them responsibility.
>   People who abuse that responsibility will lose power.

Why create a position of power at all?

> 
>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.

What if a moderator/moderators slash out these songs, etc which are the chief
pleasures? 
What about the kind of postings which will be thrown out by the moderator which
otherwise could have become chief pleasures to readers?

> 
> 
>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.

SCI has a very large readership and that increases the junk!

> 
>>(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.

Very MOOT point, which philosophers have discussed over centuries!

> SCI has nearly a 100 postings a day out of which only around 10 or 15 are 
>   worth reading the second line.
>
>5] As of now there is only one suggested criteria for moderation: religious 
>   propaganda. Such flame-wars would not come under the knife.

This is talking into future. At best shall we say "we don't know"

> 
>>(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.

And for changing them we go to polls again, right?

> 
>>(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.

No committee can create confidence in a person doing anything for the first
time. Certain things come through experience. Allow them to have experience.

> 
>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.
> 

No, I am not trying to convince you. (Afterall you can convince only those who
are willing to get convinced :-)

>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.
> 

We can, but should we? 
Stretched any further, this argument will turn morbid and so I will stop here.
Shall we agree to disagree?

> 
> 
>Paul Chemmanoor.

Sincerely
Michael