Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!srinath
From: srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath  Viswanathan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: talk.religion.eastern
Message-ID: <21778@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 22 Jan 90 18:21:27 GMT
References: <4460@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <21754@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <4552@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath  Viswanathan)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 57

In Article <4552@amelia.nas.nasa.gov] prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov
(Dinesh K. Prabhu) writes

]   Regarding the "soc" to "talk" conversion. This conversion stems from
]   a long correspondence I had with Greg Woods (the moderator of news.
]   announce.newsgroups) and the opinions posted by Tim Maroney and Dan
]   Veditz (see articles around 1/7-1/10 in this newsgroup). Apparently,
]   net precedent has it that unmoderated religion or politics newsgroups 
]   belong in the talk hierarchy and moderated ones belong in the soc 
]   hierarchy. Since the *.religion.eastern was proposed as an unmoderated 
]   newsgroup and the volume of discussion rather low, I decided it would 
]   be best to move it to the talk hierarchy. The idea was also to prevent 
]   a net war about the choice of hierarchies (a la sci.aquaria). Let us
]   assume (tentatively) that the proposed newsgroup will be in the talk 
]   hierarchy. Perhaps a clearer picture will emerge at the end of this
]   discussion period (Feb. 1 is when I want to bring this to a vote).
]    
]   I would like to hear people's opinions about moderation (regarding
]   the proposed newsgroup only). Some people have made compelling arguments
]   for moderation: prevent flames, prevent "loonies", brevity, etc. But...
]   the scope of the proposed newsgroup is too vast for a moderator. 
]   Ideally the moderator would have to be knowledgeable about the religious
]   systems that fall within the scope of this newsgroup. This is asking 
]   for a bit too much. One possibility would be have multiple moderators 
]   (like soc.religion.islam). Right now I don't have a clue as to 
]   how one selects a moderator and I don't want a personality contest
]   for the selection of one or more moderators. Any suggestions ?
]
]   If the majority opinion indicates that moderation is absolutely necessary
]   AND I can find one or more moderators then I would move the group into
]   the soc hierarchy where it would form a nice sister group to soc.religion.
]   christianity and soc.religion.islam. Opinions anyone ?
]
]   If most people are ambivalent about moderation then I would keep the group
]   as an unmoderated group in the talk hierarchy.

        While I understand the view of keeping to net precedent regarding
hierarchy vs. moderation, it seems to me that with serious discussions on
Christianity, Judaism and Islam already taken care of in the soc. hierarchy,
and with talk.religion.misc already present, it is a waste to have *.religion.-
eastern in the talk hierarchy. It also seems to me that the present guideline
is just that, a guideline, than the iron-clad rule it is being purported to
be. I also believe that moderation for *.religion.eastern would be against
the essential principles of most eastern philosophies. In the interest of
obtaining a forum for *open*, *serious* discussions on eastern philosophies
without incurring the wrath of the net, I suggest that at least some thought
be given to why an unmoderated soc.religion.eastern would not be viable. I
find it difficult to believe that the exchanges in an unmoderated
soc.religion.eastern would be any more vicious than those I have seen in
soc.culture.indian, where the idea for this group first surfaced.


]   Dinesh Prabhu
]   (prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov)

                                                      Srinath
                                             srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu