From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:55:54
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 1 Sep 92 23:07:41 GMT

In article <78885@ut-emx.uucp> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:

>The issue has been raised that a/the modertor of soc.feminism has been
>inappropriately rejecting articles.

It would seem that all of the moderators have been accused of this
(actually, I'm not sure that anyone has accused me of this, but I
wouldn't be surprised...the one I have seen was ataylor's complaints
about something that I was not involved in), but the major complaint
that I have seen is not that, but that the moderators also post.

>The responses have been wild and emotional.

The accusations have been wild and emotional.

>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
>>*laugh*...right.  And all of you would leap to try to pull soc.feminism
>>down, even though you have made it clear that you have very little
>>understanding of what's going on there.  

>I ask you to reconsider.

Well, it's not really *my* decision.  There are three moderators (one
currently inactive).  The decision would have to be made by all three of
us, presumably at the request of a significant number of the readers of
soc.feminism, although I do not know if there is any set procedure for
this sort of thing.

>It is inconvienient to have two forums on the same topic.  It would be
>much simpler to let the large majority of readers to agree that the
>moderation is appropiate and have one group.

Why?  Some people have written to me since the creation of alt.feminism
and said that they are much happier with a moderated group.  Others have
written saying that they disapprove of moderation.  Why should both
groups not be satisfied?

>his is not an issue of
>moderation or no moderation - it is an issue of appropariate
>moderation.

Really?  That really isn't how it looks.  It seems to me that a *lot* of
people want a completely unmoderated group.  Perhaps you should survey
the readership of both groups before claiming that the issue is not
moderation.

>>Look, you've got your place now, why not just live in it?  If
>>people are really so unhappy with soc.feminism, they will all 
>>post here and soc.feminism will quietly die away.

>Wouldn't that be nice, there would be the one group of people whose
>articles biased moderator likes/tolerates, and then the other group.

Well, when you say "tolerates," what do you mean?  We "tolerate" any
article that is relevant to feminism, until a point is run around in
circles many times.  Either moderators *moderate*, which means to reject
some articles, or you have an unmoderated group, and you might as well
dispense with moderators, who just slow down the whole process.  Indeed,
it seems to me that that is exactly what you have done.

>That is not the problem
>with that group as it stands, the problem is the articles which are
>missing.

WHICH articles are "missing"?  Again, it sounds like you're arguing that
all articles should be posted, in which case moderation does not make
any sense.

If you are actually in favor of moderation, which articles would you
have rejected?

>Kind of like south Africa making a little country just for
>the blacks, so they won't get in the way...

Well, if you want to make that comparision, you should note that it is
not the antifeminists segregating us, it is the feminists.  Are you
trying to say that feminists are in a majority?  Tell me where, so I can
move there...it sure as hell isn't anywhere around here (virtual world
or real world).

>It seems that the least that could be done is some sort of election
>for new moderators - seeing that your short.  Again, I would bow
>out of such an election upon Muffy's request.

The last time they went looking for moderators, there were very few
volunteers.  I only recall myself and a guy in Europe whose connectivity
was very bad.  I would be interested to see the results of your
attempting to find moderators.  Somehow, I suspect that most of them
would be confirmed feminist-haters.

I'd say the first step is to determine what the general Usenet procedure 
for replacing moderators is, or to get one created.  Then, follow that
procedure.  Once again, the decision is not mine to make.  The only
decision I can make is whether or not to stop being a moderator, and I
do not intend to do that given the "reasons" that have been advanced so
far.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn