Bhakti List Moderation Policy

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

As of a couple weeks ago, I am reviewing the posts

before I forward them to the Bhakti List. I started

doing this for a few reasons:

 

(a) to prevent illegible/encoded posts from being

posted

(b) to prevent blatant, accusatory personal attacks

from being posted, to keep the mood of the List

friendly

© to keep the messages readable -- i.e., to inform

posters of a series of articles to space them

out so we can all read them.

 

I have the time to do this at present; this may not

always be the case.

 

I want to emphasize that in no case do I ever edit

the content of the messages; if there is anything that

I deem offensive, I discuss it with the author of the

post before doing anything. No post is summarily rejected

(unless it is an exact duplicate of a previous post).

 

This is my very minimal moderation policy, designed to

keep discussions alive without getting vitriolic.

 

If anyone has any comments, please step forth so we

can discuss them. If the preponderance of members

prefer an unmoderated group, I will revert back to no

moderation at all.

 

Mani

 

P.S. One member suggested moderation by "a committee

of elders." Other than the obvious logistical problems

this involves (including its impossibility using the

current software), I am loath to have a committee

review each post to see its suitability. As stated

before, my moderation policy (as has always been the

policy of the List) is to encourage healthy, even

heated discussion, but to not start pointing fingers

and using offensive name-calling. My moderation for

the most part will be hands-off.

[Guest guest]

At 10:57 AM 8/12/1998 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>Dear Members,

>

>As of a couple weeks ago, I am reviewing the posts

>before I forward them to the Bhakti List. I started

>doing this for a few reasons:

>

> (a) to prevent illegible/encoded posts from being

> posted

> (b) to prevent blatant, accusatory personal attacks

> from being posted, to keep the mood of the List

> friendly

> © to keep the messages readable -- i.e., to inform

> posters of a series of articles to space them

> out so we can all read them.

 

 

There is no problem with (a) and (b) except that

the members must be permitted to pay tribute to

their acharyas at the beginning and the end of

their posts if they so choose. That should not

be curtailed in the name format moderation.

 

There are several problems with (b).

 

The reason we are having this discussion is

because one of the parama bhagavthas (obviously

not me :-)) of this list was asked to remove some

ostensibly offending paragraphs from his post.

 

A review of the archives will show that the civility of

discussions have not gone down. On the contrary,

the level of civility has never been higher. Way back

years ago an Acharyapurusha was severely criticized.

There were several posts by another individual almost

ridiculing the concept of bhakthi. Even then there was

no attempt to moderate for offensive posts at that time.

In the recent past there were one or two avoidable

remarks, but at least one person expressed regret

in the open in a rather poignant manner. Thus, what

is the reason for this sudden and significant change

in the traditional modus operandi?

 

However well intended, terms such as “facially accusatory”

and “offensive” are vague. For example, I did not find the

passages that were asked to be removed, either “facially

accusatory” or “offensive”. Neither were there any personal

attacks and pointing of fingers. Yet parts of it was found

to be objectionable. On the other hand, I personally thought

that parts of the post that the Parama Bhagavatha in question

was responding to, were offensive. Obviously, since the

first post has already appeared in the list, that post was

not deemed to be objectionable. Thus, it is clear there

is ample room for subjectivity. What some of us may

feel objectionable, others may find perfectly fine, and

vice versa.

 

The line between content moderation and censorship is

a fine one. However unbiased one may think he/she is,

it is impossible to be balanced or seen to be balanced

all the time. We are not above the grip of Samsara.

Thus, if the members feel moderation is necessary it

must not be left to a single individual to do it. There

must be an established procedure for asking an author

to change his/her content, and must be done by a group

of at least two respected elders known for their impartiality.

But this is a great burden worth taking _only_ if there is

an acute need. Where is such a need? I think most

would agree that there is no such need. The discussions

are well within the norms of decency and decorum, in

the most part.

 

Ours is not an Usenet group where any passer by can

drop a post and move on. This is a closed forum where

entrance is restricted. In such a forum, where mutual

respect and civility is clearly manifest, it is incongruent

to attempt to curb the free expression of ideas in whatever

manner the Bhavathas choose to express them. It is their

honor they risk with personal attacks and being offensive.

I submit to you, this is sufficient to keep the mood of

this list friendly.

 

Instituting moderation policy (b) without any demonstrated

need, at least in the recent past, in effect makes us all

potential offenders. I can't imagine anyone reading through

posts from the many bhagavthas who write in this forum

looking for offensive personal attacks. I would personally

feel such a scrutiny of my posts enough of an affront not

to make any more posts in this list if this moderaton policy

continues.

 

Finally, who will moderate the moderator?

>

>I have the time to do this at present; this may not

>always be the case.

 

If this is the case why start something that is not

even needed and offensive to boot?

 

 

-- adiyEn raamanuja dhaasan

[Guest guest]

A couple of follow-on points:

 

(a) Dileepan mentioned that I took issue as moderator

with some words used in an article by another member

of the List. After discussion with the author, he

and I agreed to post the article in whatever form

the author wished.

 

(b) There is essentially no restriction on who can join

or leave the list. The only reason to have a "subscription"

step is to have truly interested parties take that little

bit of effort to join, and to prevent known abusers

on the Internet (i.e., people who join mailing lists

simply to fight or post advertisements) from joining.

No known abusers have attempted to join, so I can remove

the subscription step as well.

 

In other words, there is really no subscription moderation,

as I do not know most of the people before they join the list,

and can hardly approve or disapprove of them.

 

© We are all, as far as I am concerned, parama bhAgavatas,

and as such, I ask all of you to take a moment to consider

what you think of the moderation idea, and contribute your

thoughts.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

 

I agree with Sri Dileepan's views.

 

But, moderation and editing is a sin-qua-non in any effort in publishing

views for public consumption. I believe, that the absence of such salutary

requirement was responsible for the kind of offensive posts which in turn had

to be met by needed rejoinders and repartees providing a tamasha for the

onlooker on the ringside.

 

This moderation or editing itself can be healthy *only* if it is not

*subjective* and *selective*, because no single individual can claim to be

above pride and prejudice in evaluating materials. There ought to a Board of

Editors maybe (2 and not more than 3) to go over *impartially*(albeit in a

cursory manner) to check for any inflammatory remarks. Even if it should take

a day or two for the article to appear in the list, it is well worth it.

 

If found too cumbersome and impractical, we may revert to the old practice ,

of course, after providing adequate safeguards.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy