Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!hsdndev!cfa203!thakur
From: thakur@cfa.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Re: More Posts
Message-ID: <1991Jun8.224034.8360@cfa.harvard.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 91 22:40:34 GMT
References: <1991Jun8.222345.8252@cfa.harvard.edu>
Sender: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Lines: 72
Approved: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu


[To help foster discussion on the dearth of postings to
rec.arts.cinema, here is a copy of the charter of the newsgroup.  This
is the charter that was debated and voted upon by people on the net
before the newsgroup was created on February 22, 1990.  Perhaps a new
discussion should take place as to whether this charter should be
amended?  -- MKT]

=====================================

CHARTER: REC.ARTS.CINEMA

This is a moderated group intended for serious articles addressing any
and all aspects of cinema.  Topics appropriate for discussion include
(BUT ARE BY NO MEANS LIMITED TO) the following:

-- cinematic techniques
-- comparative analysis between cinema and other mediums of artistic
   expression
-- film history
-- cinema as an entertainment medium
-- cinema as popular culture
-- interpretation or analysis of a particular film or set of films
-- financial, social, or legal issues that affect filmmaking (and vice
   versa)
-- the quality and/or success of film festivals and other film-related
   events
-- and any other topic related to film that people want to discuss in
   a serious way.

The following criteria shall be among those used by the moderator to
decide whether an article is acceptable or not:

        -- Is the article making a sincere argument?  A more precise
           way to phrase this might be: does the author truly
           expect the readers to believe the points being made?  Or
           a third way: is the article intellectually honest?

        -- Are the points being made in the article cogent and
           consistent?  Have any important facts or data relevant to
           the issues being discussed been left out?  Are there any
           gaping holes in the fundamental assumptions or the logic
           being professed?

        -- Is the article likely to be correctly understood?
           If the moderator determines that an article is likely to be
           misunderstood, it will be returned to the author for
           clarification. The moderator will not alter an
           article in any way unless the author indicates that this is
           acceptable. The moderator will not reject an article solely
           on the basis of minor spelling or grammatical errors.

Items that are specifically excluded from rec.arts.cinema:

--  Any kind of trivia questions/answers/games: use r.a.m instead

--  Simple lists (eg, movies made by director X): use r.a.m instead

--  Simple factual queries (eg "Who starred in x"): use r.a.m instead

--  Movie reviews (as opposed to analysis): use r.a.m.reviews instead

--  Queries/Reports of video availability: use r.v.software if it passes

--  Flames:  If you are genuinely outraged by an article, count to 10,
    collect your thoughts, and write another article in response.
    Otherwise, the moderator will feel free to hose you to help you
    cool off.

Moderator: Manavendra Thakur

=====================================