N. Tiwari (ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu) wrote:
: GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: : COMPLAINTS ABOUT EXISTING MODERATION POLICY
:
: : Here are some complaints against the present moderation.
:
: : [i *definitely* know that there more complaints than what
: : i am presenting in this post]
:
: : grounds for complaints include (1) rejection of appropriate
: : posts, (2) acceptance of posts dealing with politics (3)
: : acceptance of posts that directly attack god-men of hindu
: : fold without any substantive reasoning, (4) improper formatting
: : of articles that make the articles 'illegible' (5)articles
: : with personal attacks etc. While it is imperative that the
: : posters should desist from making personal attacks, it also
: : the responsibility of moderator not to accept such posts, so
: : that is how Dhrubaji's advice to a poster to desist from
: : personal attacks also got included here.
:
: : Summary: The charter for moderation *needs* to be revised.
: : and that is what RFD attempts.
:
: My response:
:
: 1. I do not know anything about the Shiv-Purana episode. So
: I cannot comment on it. Further, it was on alt.hindu.
:
: 2. Reg. poorly formatted article, I agree. I think we should
: decide on a format, and stick to it. No problem.
I do agree that we should have a specified format. Some times,
artcles, after a few followup replies becomes unreadable or
quite messy.
:
: 3. Reg. the Nazi thing, look who all were participating in the
: debate. However, let us leave that. But did'nt you see that
: the thread actually stopped. So, the moderator can be advised
: reg. the relevance of the thread. Initially, the thread was
: there, since it had to do with the re-org. stuff. Later, it
: became a debate as to who was a Nazi, and was rightfully
: stopped (by the moderators or/and the people involved).
This kind of posting could be screened out. Anyway, seeing the
title, I skipped that thread, so I am not in a position to
comment on the content. However I would opine that if
the title was appropriate to its contents, it should not
have appeared in SRH.
regards,
Santhosh
