From: paulchem@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Atharvan)
Subject: alt.culture.indian.moderated  Genesis-II [Let's change SCI] -- Icarus.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:27:39 GMT

In article <1i5grjINNove@bigboote.WPI.EDU> rajesh@juniper (Rajesh Raman) writes:
>Atharvan (paulchem@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <1i2mlaINNjja@bigboote.WPI.EDU> rajesh@juniper (Rajesh Raman) writes:
>: 
[...]

>  I honestly did not mean any
>  offence. 

:-) Never mind, no harm done.

>: 2] My reading or not reading sci is none of your business.
>:    Neither is my reaction to the mess on sci, any of your business.
>
>  But anything you write in SCI is everybody's business. 

Is it ? I seem to climb to unheard of net.stardom.
Imagine 80000+ people hanging on my words. :-)

>: 3] If you have any arguments against the formation of 
>:    alt.culture.indian.moderated state then instead of giving gratutious 
>:    advice.
>
>  I don't think you should just go about forming new newsgroups just
>  because you don't like what's going on in a newsgroup for sometime.
>  You could stop reading articles from some authors or some topics.

This is a valid point.
Why cant we just stop reading the articles by some authors and some topics ?
Because (i) every day new authors turn up with more filth.
        (ii) every day new topics are introduced and faught over which are
             related to religion and race and caste and nation.
            There is no one way to handle junk on sci.
        (iii) The filth on sci prevents the quieter sort from posting and 
              to remain silent spectators.
         (iv) When you post you do not know, what kind of net.animal is going
              to pick on you. Why would that bother you ?
              Simple: Why do you respond when someone flames you ?
          (v) The general reputation of sci and its traffic does not 
              attract the attention serious issues should.

I intended to form ACIM not because I wanted to split SCI, but to
provide a forum where people who explicitly desire that environment
can go to discuss matters relating to India, on the net.
Such a forum does not exist now.
If and when ACIM is formed, I expect it to be a low traffic [ probably 
around 5 articles a day ] low noise forum, with very intensive 
participation/lurking ratio. The intention of the net would be to
participate, ie, the readers are essentialy those who post, a kind
of discussion among peers, with some norms of behaviour built into
the charter itself.

>  Gratuitous! How do I come to know when my "advice" is gratuitous and 
>  when it is not ?

There are several meanings to the word gratuitous, differing only by nuances.
I think the most appropriate in this context is "uncalled for".
But thats in the past.

>
>: 4] Furthermore, that "moderated groups only stifle freedom of expression"
>:    is not a given.
>
>  I thought it was. If you were a moderator you wouldn't think so. But
>  if you weren't and the moderator shoots down some article which in your
>  eyes is perfectly legit, you get worked up like you do even now.
>  That's why I don't think it serves any purpose. 

Again look at the original article. A panel of moderators was mentioned,
not moderator in the singular. A panel presumably reduces the individual
biases. Let me get this clear, I am in complete agreement with you about
the ideal of "freedom of expression". In practice, in social forums, the
parties involved are implicitly involved in a social contract. 
If the "T.S. Eliot" society is holding a meeting to discuss the Four 
Quartets it would be very bad form if a poetry-hater rushed in and said
that Eliots mother was a prostitute. It is likely that the said individual
would be prevented from continuing in the same vein. Why ?
Because that group of people have come together in the social contract to 
discuss Eliots poetry and in particular his series The Four Quartets.
Not his mother. Or her Morals. But clearly the right to freedom of
expression of the individual is affected. Or is it ?

So with the usenet. 
When the end is "Freedom of Expression" and a group as large as sci
you will have a group like sci.
When the end is "Useful, satisfying discussion" this "freedom of expression"
is and has to be curtailed, as a price to pay towards the end.
We already have a group where "Freedom of expression" is an end: sci.
Forming acim will not take away this freedom from sci.

Further, I would like to state that, I propose forming this group not
primarily because I think "sci is so bad" as you seem to conclude.
It is more because I want to see a place where serious discussion can take
place, and I chose this time to mention it only because things have come to 
a head, with filth and anonymous posting services raising the din to 
previously unheard of levels in sci. I felt that there would be enough
motivation.

Do you think if we cut out the noise that goes on today in sci,
it would be the high point of intelligent discussion among
people from India who live abroad and have access to the net ?
I dont think so. I think Indians are capable of much better.


>:    The moderation proposed in alt.culture.indian.moderated is meant
>:   to disallow articles that in the judgement of the moderators is unsuitable.
>:   Does this seem to be incredible to you ? 
>:   Just remind yourself that even the freest of newspapers does not print
>:   anything it recieves, it is under the implicit censorship of the editor.
>
>  That's a tricky one. I have no answer to that one. I don't know where
>  to draw the line.
>

Yes its tricky, because it puts the whole freedom of expression thing
in perspective. It shows the difference between idealism and practice.
Perfectly acceptable levels of moderation are available to us from
real existing instituitions. 

If an article was rejected there will be a mechanism to redress 
any grievance the author feels, by various means, with reference
to the charter etc.

As I see it the moderation criteria will be minimal.

The usenet is an anarchy. All controls are by numbers and net.democracy. 

>: 5] Unfortunately your disclaimer does not match your article content.
>
>  I meant no offence. Honest. Again, I'm sorry I offended you. 

Lets forget about the offence given or taken.
Im afraid I have written quite a lot.
It would have been still longer. But we have come up against
precisely this question in a.c.k. during the discussion of
which a friend said many things that were worth saying,
although he disagreed with me.
I intend to prod him to write a comprehensive article about
it. So till then.



0] Anyone who agrees with my sentiments or would like to express
   support to the idea of forming alt.culture.indian.moderated
   or participate in the creation of the charter please send mail
   to paulchem@tigger.cs.colorado.edu.

1] I dont intend to sell ACIM, I want people to discover it, and
   use it only if they like it and want to.

2] Stay Cool.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.    ~ ~                                                                     .
.    o o      signito ergo sum.              paul chemmanoor.                .
.     |    i sign therefore i am.            Computer Science department.    .
.     =                                      Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.     .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:41870 soc.culture.tamil:4644