Xref: utzoo news.groups:16134 rec.arts.movies:28081 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!mintaka!mit-eddie!thakur From: thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies Subject: REVISED CHARTER for rec.arts.cinema Message-ID: <1990Jan5.055309.5776@eddie.mit.edu> Date: 5 Jan 90 05:53:09 GMT References: <50326@bbn.COM> Reply-To: thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA Lines: 167 In article <50326@bbn.COM> rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >Several people have expressed approval for "rec.arts.cinema" as the >name of the proposed "serious movie talk" group, and no one has >expressed serious disapproval. Unless there are strong objections to >this name, I suggest we go with it. I think this is a fine name. Much better than rec.arts.movies.serious. >A charter might look something like the following. PLEASE feel free to >amend this in any way that seems appropriate -- it's just a starting >suggestion. > >REC.ARTS.CINEMA > >A moderated group for the serious discussion of movies. Any movie, >regardless of its artistic stature, is fair game for discussion, as is >any substantive approach to the subject. Explicitly *excluded* from >this group are the following: [List deleted] I have some problems with this charter. First of all, it seems that the proposed charter is too heavily geared toward keeping certain things out. While I can understand the sentiments that lead to this, I would prefer to expand the section that says what this group would be *for* rather than emphasize what this group is *not*. Second, "A moderated group for the serious discussion of movies" is too vague. Someone else made the excellent suggestion that we replace the word "movies" with "film" or "cinema". That will help, but I think we need to strengthen the definition of "serious discussion." Third, I think we need a list of examples of the kind of articles that we would like to see in this group. Fourth, I've seen a number of comments to the effect that the moderator should not act as an editor. I think that the distinction between the two is not nearly as sharp as it might seem. For instance, if I (as potential moderator of the as-of-yet uncreated group) decide that a submission is not appropriate for rec.arts.cinema, then it is only natural for the author to want to know why the article was rejected. As soon as I provide those reasons, the author has a basis for revising the article and submitting it again. I can't see how such a procedure is all that different from the review process that the author might go through with a professional editor at a serious periodical or journal. Any moderator will *by definition* have to take on some editor-like functions. I don't understand how a moderator could moderate anything otherwise. The real point is not whether the moderator acts as an editor but rather the precise nature of what the moderator is editing. I believe that a moderator/editor should focus primarily on maintaining a high discussion level (or signal to noise ratio, if you will) rather than regulating the specific conclusions or ideas expressed in the articles. Right then and there, that ensures the possibility that people can submit serious articles about Mothra movies if they so wish. And as I already stated in my previous posting, I would like to see articles that address all aspects of film (and all types of films), not just the ones that I personally am most interested in. To take care of these concerns, I propose the following revised 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 "serious" 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? -- Is the article well-written? Well-intentioned but poorly written articles tend to reflect thoughts and arguments that are best fuzzy or not well thought out. Nobody expects expect Pulitzer Prize-quality prose or poetic paragraphs. But if you can't be bothered to use good spelling, punctuation, and grammar, then you are calling into question just how much they really care about the arguments you are making. (This ties into the first criterion: one sign that an author is making a serious argument is that the author has taken the time to proofread the article before submitting it.) -- 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? NOTE: All of the above is entirely unrelated to the specific conclusions reached in the article or the particulars of the film(s) being discussed. The focus of the guidelines above is on 1) The intellectual coherency of the points being made and 2) the accuracy and completeness of the facts cited in the article. So if you have something serious to say about Mothra movies, and you make your points in a coherent and reasonably well-written way, then your article is perfectly fine for this newsgroup. The basic point is this: most readers of such this group will expect to read articles about film that are stimulating, interesting, and worth their time reading. This doesn't mean that readers have to agree with the *content* of what you're saying. But if readers find themselves thinking (for example) "This doesn't make any sense" or "The author clearly doesn't know much about the history of American musicals of the 1930s" then your article would not be appropriate for this newsgroup. The moderator is expected to exercise his/her discretion to pass on the good stuff, reject the bad stuff, and ask for revisions on borderline cases. And remember: if worse comes to worse, you are always free to post the article to rec.arts.movies or any other appropriate newsgroups. 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. -- Any other topic that might be excluded in the future by general consensus among rec.arts.cinema readers. (The moderator will post a revised list to inform everyone if such a consensus develops.) Moderator: Manavendra Thakur (End of my proposed charter.) Please make comments, suggestions, etc. on the above. Manavendra Thakur thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu thakur@eddie.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!thakur