From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: From the listowners (please read)
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:58:23 GMT


[ I'm posting this to the list because e-mail indicates that several people
  have similar comments.  If you see here what you were going to e-mail, you
  don't have to mail it now.  Ms McBurney and Mr Klepzig will get enough mail
  this week.  8-) ]

Since I have access to other lists and discussion groups, I will refrain from
voting.  Those who have access only to Christia get first pick, I think.

That said, I do have a few suggestions:

a) You might consider "approval voting" instead of straight voting.

Approval voting is where people vote for every option they consider reasonable
(`approve of').  If there are only two choices, approval voting makes no
difference.  However, if there are three or more choices, regular voting can
give results which do not follow the will of the majority (for a detailed
explanation, send me e-mail).  So, instead of saying "I like X best", people
could say "I like X & Y".


b) Any option which includes some sort of supervision or moderation should be
   careful to delineate exactly what is considered anti-social.

Maybe it's because I live in a country with a formal-rational legal system,
but I'm much happier when there are specific statements that everything can
be measured against.

It is my perception that there is a "political correctness" on Christia, and
something which is Politically Correct is judged much less harshly than
something which is not.

For example, we were just treated to descriptions of various people as "pro-
abortion", and provided with attempts to defend using that term.  Nobody
seemed to mind this at all.

However, if someone said this:

  Joe Blow claims that Hillary Clinton is anti-family.  That is bizarre.
  Ms Clinton is anti-child-abuse.  She has worked out a complex legal system
  to help protect children from abusive parents -- she wants to prevent sexual
  abuse of children.  Joe Blow, however, opposes this plan.  He is pro-child-
  abuse, and supports the sexual molestation of children by perverts.

there would probably be a cacophany of apoplectic fits.

The arguments are similar; the accusations are similar; the uses of highly-
charged terms in an emotional debate are similar.  But it is my considered
opinion that "Christia Political Correctness" judges unpopular opinions much
more harshly than it judges popular ones.

Whether something is a flame seems to depend more on what position you argue
for than it does on how you argue or how offensive you are.  If there is going
to be an official attempt to limit "unacceptable" comments, then I think there
should be an exact and official list of what is "unacceptable".  That way, it
is much less subjective, and comments from people in the "in group" will not
be given favoritism.

This is not to say that anybody sets out to be unfair.  But that's how these
things end up, and having set rules will help protect us from ourselves.

(Yes, that's "us".  I have no doubt that I judge flames which agree with me
 much less harshly than I judge flames which disagree with me.)

 -- 

If moderation, or more direct supervision, is implemented, you might want to
study Charles Hedrick's approach in Usenet's soc.religion.christian.  He's not
perfect, but he's pretty darn close.  (I'm sure there is some way to have
s.r.c. postings sent to you via e-mail, if you can't get to Usenet.)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU