Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!yale!hsdndev!cfa203!thakur From: jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema Subject: Re: More Posts Message-ID: <1991Jun9.064801.11064@zerkalo.harvard.edu> Date: 9 Jun 91 06:48:01 GMT References: <1991Jun8.222345.8252@cfa.harvard.edu> <1991Jun8.224034.8360@cfa.harvard.edu> Sender: thakur@cfa.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema Organization: Consultant, Toronto Lines: 132 Approved: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu In article <1991Jun8.224034.8360@cfa.harvard.edu> thakur@cfa.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: > >[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] Well I think that the discussion is underway as of now. :-) Actually, to maintain a moderated group like this one it would have been helpful if you sent down the charter about once per month to remind people of its mandate and yes, to inspire postings assuming they are desirable. And that's not something that should be assumed. The Net is not a BBS and if an area has outlived its usefulness, it *should* be allowed to die and be removed. Otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth, which costs money. >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: Well this is the crux of the problem. The general mandate is co-extensive to the 'rec.arts.movies' area. At most, the details simply boil down to "this group is serious" and "rec.arts.movies is a free-for-all." >-- cinematic techniques That's ok, but it's being discussed everywhere. >-- comparative analysis between cinema and other mediums of artistic > expression Again, nothing that's not being discussed elsewhere. >-- film history Same comment again. >-- 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. ditto, ditto, ditto, etc. >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. And all this simply says "here we're being serious." >Items that are specifically excluded from rec.arts.cinema: > >-- Any kind of trivia questions/answers/games: use r.a.m instead This is ok. >-- Simple lists (eg, movies made by director X): use r.a.m instead Well this I disagree with. A "simple list" is valuable as reference material and is "serious". >-- Simple factual queries (eg "Who starred in x"): use r.a.m instead I don't see why this should be excluded. >-- Movie reviews (as opposed to analysis): use r.a.m.reviews instead Well this is debateable. It seems to me that the "reviews" could have been included in this group, but then again, maybe people didn't want them "moderated". >-- Queries/Reports of video availability: use r.v.software if it passes I checked our node and we don't have an area called 'rec.video.software' if that's what it's supposed to be called. Is this area simply missing from our node or has it been killed? >-- 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. > I wasn't around at the formation of this group, so I wonder if there was a specific problem being addressed with its creation. Nothing in the mandate speaks to any particular need except possible getting rid of shear bulk (redundency and noise postings) in the 'rec.arts.movies' area. And that's a laudable thing to attempt. I look at the message count in 'rec.arts.movies' and generally I won't even start to read through the messages there. I don't feel like wasting that much time. But if that was the point, it looks like people have voted with their usage to use the simpler expedient of using the one group rather than trying to decide which to post in. All in all, yeah, I think if nobody is going to use it, then it might as well be killed. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura