Xref: utzoo news.groups:16019 rec.arts.movies:27955
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Volunteer for rec.arts.movies.serious moderator/editor
Message-ID: <50239@bbn.COM>
Date: 31 Dec 89 19:20:01 GMT
References: <50208@bbn.COM> <1812@zerkalo.cfa250.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 33

In article <1812@zerkalo.cfa250.harvard.edu> thakur@cfa250.harvard.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes:
> At the risk of overcommitting myself, I will volunteer to
>moderate this newsgroup.  Or perhaps I could I moderate it in
>conjunction with one or two other people.  (Having an editorial board,
>as it were....)
>[impressive cv follows]

OK, that let's me off the hook. Consider my name (as possible
moderator) withdrawn. I hope all volunteers for the moderator job are
also volunteering to conduct the vote when the time comes, in the
event that I'm unable to do so.

>I belive such a newsgroup is an excellent idea.  I also think it for
>it to work, it would need to be moderated.

Apparently there are some strong feelings that moderated groups are a
bad idea unless the group is "technical" (I know of two people who
will vote 'no' for that reason alone). Since I don't want 'no' votes,
I'd like to address this issue up front. IF we want a group with a
sophisticated level of discourse, a level which presupposes some
expertise in the discipline in question (scientific or otherwise), why
isn't a moderated group the way to go?  Or, to put it another way, if
the level of discussion is what distinguishes "technical" groups from
other groups, why shouldn't this proposed group be regarded as
"technical" in that limited sense, regardless of its place in the
hierarchy? Certainly that's the kind of group I was thinking of both
for this proposal and the earlier r.a.m.classical proposal (in fact
that's exactly what distinguishes the proposed group from r.a.m).


I'm not wedded to the idea of having this group moderated. It's an
idea that makes sense to me right now, but I'm happy to listen to
counter-arguments and change my mind if appropriate.