Xref: utzoo news.groups:16245 rec.arts.movies:28227
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: REC.ARTS.CINEMA -- drawing the discussion to a close?
Message-ID: <50608@bbn.COM>
Date: 9 Jan 90 15:30:11 GMT
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@bbn.com
Lines: 91

It feels like it's about time to call a vote for REC.ARTS.CINEMA.
Before doing so, let me state explicitly the apparent resolutions of
the various arguments that have arisen (based on what I perceive to be
the majority opinion). If any of these points disturb you enough that
you will vote 'no' as a result, please speak up now.  If you support
the group as described here, you don't have to say anything further.

1. What's the name? REC.ARTS.CINEMA. I feel slightly guilty about not
putting this group under r.a.m, but considering that r.a.m is not in
fact as general as its name suggest, and considering the support for
r.a.c, I think I'll have to go with the latter. Not a perfect
solution, but the best one given the circumstances.

2. Should the group be moderated or not? Moderated, definitely. I
haven't heard any good arguments against.

3. Should the moderator reject articles on the basis of "poor
writing"? No, this is not sufficient cause for rejection, in general.
Only in extreme cases should an article be returned for this reason.

4. Can we discuss (seriously, of course) tv & video?  I'm unclear on
the consensus here -- my impression is that video is ok, tv movies are
ok, but regular tv programs are not ok except insofar as the
discussion is in relation to cinema. Other "serious" tv talk can
happen in r.a.tv.

So, given all that, here's the charter. For the most part, it's
Manavendra's revised version, with one major change (point 3, above). 



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.
-- [do we need to say something about 'video' here?]

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 without permission from the author. The
           moderator will not reject an article solely on the basis of
           minor spelling or grammatical errors.

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.

Moderator: Manavendra Thakur