Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu.edu!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.cinema: moderated or not?
Message-ID: <5200@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 6 Jan 90 01:19:53 GMT
References: <50437@bbn.COM>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 61

In article <50437@bbn.COM> rshapiro@bbn.com writes:
>Briefly,
>the example of r.a.m demonstrates what happens to a 'movies' group
>when it isn't moderated.

You mean, it discusses MOVIES?

Sorry to say, rs, but r.a.m is one of the few groups that actually
does do what its name implies, and does it both broadly and deeply.
I'd not mind having r.a.cinema around (if only because I got A++'s
on all my papers in lit. crit. and film analysis classes and love
an opportunity to get pedantic where it will be appreciated), but
there's no way I'm going to unsubscribe r.a.m, where listing of
pedestrian movie matters can develop into philosophical discussions
on the esoterica that pervade the history of film.

What I mean to say is, Rec.Arts.Cinema or Fight! but don't
you step on my rec.arts.movies.

On the matter of moderators, I vary from ambivalent to
contrary.

Certainly a moderator can seive out the rampant bozos, but
who moderates the moderator?  Will we be lucky and have an
intelligent, understanding moderator who recognizes the
difference between flamage and scatological oratory?  Or
will we instead be fettered with a den mother who rejects
repetitive ideas, grades spelling, and interjects comments
into others' essay?  One who understands that an accounting
of films delineating purposeful ambiguity is not the same
as a list of actresses one would most like to shtup?  Or
one who asks all the time "what does this mean, where it
says, 'mise-en-scene'?"

No, I have always felt that it is the purview of the group
to police itself, and a moderator only becomes an editor,
an unknowable force that prevents free expression.

More important, what happens to the two-thirds of a group
that leaves frustrated during the initial year of its
existence, which will be spent crossposting to news.groups
argument of proper method for moderation of spoilers and
spoiler warnings, and what to the further one-sixth who
abandon it because of the eventual choice of methods?

>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.

Here it is.

I'd no sooner see rec.arts.cinema moderated than I'd see the
nude scenes cut out of Ecstacy.

				--Blair
				  "Now THERE are some
				   out-takes someone
				   should dig up..."