Bhakti Moderation Policy

[Guest guest]

The recent exchanges regarding the need (or lack of one) for

moderation make interesting reading.

 

Sri Mani writes:

> 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.

>....................................................................

> 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. A

>.................. other stuff deleted.....................

 

The rationale for moderation is self-evident, and it is difficult to

disagree with Mani's catholic intent in doing so. Further, this is

a task best performed at a minimally intrusive level (one that is

obviously difficult to enforce if a committee is in charge) and with

a view to ensure that content (as evaluated by Mani) is the only

criterion.

 

Couple of more points that we may wish to consider are:

 

1. Ask members who post translations or reproduce commentaries give

credit to the source. I have seen several instances where

commentaries are reproduced with no mention of the source, meaning

posters often take implied credit when the source is not specified.

 

2. Keep "stylized" material out of the bhakti digest for we should

not purport to be a forum for those with aspirations to be authors.

While anubhava pooritha writings, such as those by Sri Sampath

Rengarajan and other eminent Bhagavathas on this list, provide

valuable insight into aspects of anubhavam not commonly

available and are an immense source of joy (and represent the very

essence of this wonderful concept of an email-based list), some

times, material produced (such as a recent discussion on phala

shruthi where questions were asked so that the person asking the

questions could provide the answers), often appearing to be mere

exhibitionism, tends to dilute the content.

 

Sri Dileepan writes:

> 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.

 

While I can appreciate Sri Dileepan's concern about ensuring lack of

bias in the editorial policy, any group-based procedure would

essentially make the list dysfunctional. Also, Sri Mani, as the

creator/sustainer of the list (as well as on the basis of his very

evident and often-displayed impartiality in dealing with contentious

issues) is, in my opinion, in the best

position to provide the minimal levels of editorial control necessary

to ensure happy co-existence amongst a group of prapannas with

diverse backgrounds and view points who wish to exchange ideas with a

spirit of inquiry and for mutual benefit.

 

Ultimately, to me, the list represents the essense and a very real

manifestation of what our dear Sri Krishna says of his bhakthas:

 

math chitthA madgathah prANA

bOdhayanthah parasparam

kathayanthi cha mAm nithyam

thushyanthi cha ramanthi cha

 

After all, what can be more joyous than talking about His anantha kalyANa

guNAs or the incredible insights of Azhwaar/Acharyaal aruLiccheyals?

 

Azhwaar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar thiruvadigaLe sharaNam

 

sridhar