Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: rec.arts.cinema: moderated or not?
Message-ID: <50437@bbn.COM>
Date: 4 Jan 90 21:08:21 GMT
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@bbn.com
Lines: 26

I received email from "jamsheed@atherton.com" about the moderator
issue. Reply email bounced, so I thought I'd address his concerns here
(somewhat). 

He writes:
>What's the deal with moderation? Why is there a need for one?
>Please post pros and cons.  

The pro's have been posted already (in fact, everyone who's expressed
an opinion is in favor for more or less the same reasons). Briefly,
the example of r.a.m demonstrates what happens to a 'movies' group
when it isn't moderated. Since r.a.c is designed explicitly to avoid
those things which have driven so many people from r.a.m (some are
listed in the proposed charter, but there are others), and since a
moderator is the only way to ensure the "seriousness" which will
distinguish r.a.c from r.a.m, it would seem that the group must be
moderated.

No one has offered any con's. If you have some in mind, please post
them! The consensus is clearly in favor of having a moderator, which
means that if you're opposed, you'll have to begin trying to convince
people. I urge you to send comments to news.groups about this -- if
you have strong reasons for not wanting this group to be moderated,
air them in news.groups.

.rs