|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
I am not in favor of a moderated group.
Alt.sex.wizards and alt.sex.bondage seem to flourish with less noise than
ASM. Have any of the powers behind the proposed shift to a moderated group
contacted Elf about how he accomplishes this? I'll bet adopting a similar
strategy would be less time consuming than establising and running a
moderated group, without calling upon people beyond those named on the
sidereal list of proposed moderators.
In another instance, alt.magick.sex attracted ads and spamming, so a new
group was formed, alt.magick.tantra. Just eliminating the word sex from
the title was enough to escape the attention of idiots who scan groups for
the key word, sex. So far amt has attracted virtually no noise. If the
powers-that-be are reluctant to pursue a strategy simliar to Elf's, then I
would suggest considering the formation of a non-moderated group without
using sex in the heading. Obviously something like alt.movies.erotica or
rec.arts.movies.erotica comes to mind, but there may be other adequate
alternatives. Don't be too quick to reply that spammers and other idiots
will simply shift to the new group. It hasn't happened with amt. And
perhaps judicious use of Elfin tactics in the newly formed group would
keep noise to a minimum and prevent it from spreading.
Noise is unpleasant. But the question is, is abandoning a non-moderated
group for a moderated one the solution? I think not. For one thing,
forming rec.arts.movies.erotica.moderated (ramem) will surely drain
support from ASM, dealing it a crippling blow, if not forever, then at
least for a long time until new readers join forces to shore up the
battered structure abandoned by the current cadre of ASM regulars.
For another, with one crucial exception--the winnowing of posts--policy
that is proposed for the moderated group can be applied just as readily to
ASM:
+ make explicit that ASM embraces discussion of "the whole spectrum
of erotic movies," including softcore and sexploitation films and videos.
+ talk about porn "in a free and yet mature manner."
+ "accurately [answer] frequently asked questions by referring
questioners to the FAQ."
+ "[incorporate] FAQs into the group-FAQ"
+ ensure freedom of expression [actually, the proposed group can not
claim freedom of expression since the charter explicitly states that
censorship will occur.]
+ send newbies e-mail pointers to FAQ when they ask questions
"*fully* answered in the group FAQ."
The proposed group really offers only one feature that current ASM does
not: reduction of noise. But what is the cost? Very high,in my opinion,
and it goes beyond crippling the current ASM as mentioned above. In my
opinion introducing moderators does more than filter noise. It introduces
an appartus that is designed to approve some posts and exclude others.
Such an apparatus inevitably establishes annoying and frustrating delays
in posting, inhibits the spontaneity of questions, opinions and
presentation of fresh ideas and personal experiences, and erects distance
between posters and the group, creating an atmosphere where judgement and
censorship prevails, just the kind of atmosphere you encounter in a
bureaucracy, in church, in education, and in most social organizations.
This is precisely the atmosphere the net seeks to avoid.
In particular, establishing a screening aparatus creates a formidable
obstacle to the free interplay of ideas relating to sex and porn. The
effect extends beyond the man or woman who wants to ask a question or make
a statement on the subject. ASM has encouraged industry insiders to
particpate, with various degrees of success. Who thinks they--that is,
actors, actresses, directors, editors, producers and distributors--would
be eager to submit their experience and knowledge to a group of moderators
for approval before being posted?
The proposed criteria for approval may seem benign, but I suggest that the
very existence of criteria casts a pall of censorship and expediency. In
the proposal the following is not allowed:
+ Nothing relating to *clearly* illegal material. Oh? Who determines
what is illegal? The moderators? The state itself doesn't know until
decisions are made case by case in courts. The moderators themselves admit
that child porn laws vary. Nevertheless, apparently the moderators will
determine what is illegal, except in gray areas, which may or may not be
extensive.
+ "Commercials of any form." OK. But wait. There are exceptions.
Moderators will judge on a case by case basis whether your commercial .sig
or your WWW page announcement meets with their approval. No guidelines are
offered, suggesting this may be another gray area.
+ "Binaries of ANY form."
+ "Clearly irrelevant material, such as pyramid schemes (read:
scams), political speeches."
+ Furthermore, no "baiting of the group participants" and no
"obviously destructive or antagonistic behaviour." Oh, oh, the moderators
are proposing to pull on steel gloves. No friction will be allowed. But
wait! "Flaming will NOT be moderated" ... except "in the case of repeated,
unprovoked attacks."
So it seems you can flame so long as you don't keep doing it and are not
baiting anyone or being hostile. However, don't even think about flaming
unless you're provoked. Is that clear? I think what is meant here is that
the moderators would prefer that everyone discuss porn in a civil manner.
However, under the proposed censoring apparatus, if you're annoyed, you
might as well send in your flame. The moderators will assess its
suitability.
I suspect that considerable time was devoted to identifying and simplfying
the above criteria. As straightforward as they may seem, however, these
criteria will inevitably require interpretation, a process that can become
quite a circus, let alone controversal, when the moderators themselves
offer conflicting opinions. The discussion of this proposal is only a
couple of days old and already the moderators find themselves in the
ludicrous position of attempting to resolve the issue concerning how much
unacceptable material a post might contain and still pass the censors.
I don't know how much time will be involved in screening all posts and
wrestling with items that fall into the gray areas. But it seems like a
lot. And I'd rather the moderators devote the time they would spend in
this endless activity to participating in discussion of porn in ASM.
The proposal for a moderated group focuses on the need to escape noise:
"Unfortunately, a.s.m. has fallen victim to the limitations
inherent in the alternative hierarchy: always easy to abuse,
it has recently been flooded with commercials, binaries,
pyramid scams, massive irrelavant crossposts and even
deliberate attacks by id-forgers. The result to the quality
of discussion has been crippling."
Ads and spammers do show up on ASM. Binaries, however, don't proliferate.
And it isn't like we have a pack of id-forgers running loose. It was my
impression that one guy is doing this, even though his recent mail bombing
the group may have appeared to be the work of an army. The solution
(beyond the two I offered at the beginning of this post) is to ignore the
noise, whether by using filters or by just scanning the names and topics,
which is what I do. So simple. So fast.
The agrument in the proposal claims that noise has crippled the quality of
discussion. I say that people--not noise--cripple discussion by not
participating. Noise exists in alt.sex.wizards and alt.sex.bondage, yet
the quality of discussion flourishes across a variety of threads, some of
which go on for weeks. Noise may be a convenient excuse for not
participating in ASM, and it may be a convenient explanation for the lack
of response to topics raised. However, I suspect other reasons are behind
the decline in discussion:
+ Contributors, perhaps even the "regulars," get discouraged when few
people respond to their articles and comments about porn or about the
operation of asm. These contributors stop participating.
+ These articles present subjects that simply don't interest most asm
readers. My guess is that most readers want info on current releases and
the current status of actors and actresses.
+ Many readers don't have the technical background to participate in
technical threads, or feel intimidated at the prospect of writing a formal
movie review complete with the esoteric ratings that the regulars seem to
favor.
+ The net is still new and intimidating to most industry insiders,
including actresses, producers, directors, editors, agents, distributors.
Very few even know how to log on the net. Those who do think of the net
think in terms of how to promote themselves or their business, not so much
in terms of being of public service to the army of porn consumers who want
to know more about the business.
+ Of the few insiders who do read asm, only several are willing to
participate, offering insight into how they do business. This may change
in time as more insiders gain access to the net and become willing to
share their experience.
I don't think we can lay the blame on noise. "The mature discussion of
erotic films and videos can be resumed" just as readily on asm as it can
on a moderated group. Mature discussion can occur in the presence of
noise. All that is needed is for people to participate. In fact, it seems
to me that the discussion of porn stands to grow more widely, more
abundantly, and in more unexpected directions under conditions of free
expression than under conditions of judgement, restriction and censorship.
lamont
--
"While isolation movements are excellent for shaping and
adding detail to a muscle group, the basic exercises are
best for increasing general muscle mass and improving
strength levels."
-- Tom Platz
Follow-Ups:
|