|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
I find one aspect of the RFD contradictory and troublesome. The RFD plans to: >relegate discussion of the morality of erotic >movies to a.s.m. while preserving r.a.m.e. as a forum for the >discussion of the movies themselves. And the definition of "clearly irrelevant material" includes "political speeches" and "baiting of group participants". Meanwhile: >Discussion should be limited to reviews of current and not-so-current >releases, gossip, behind the scenes stories, social, economic and >legal issues surrounding erotic films, and discussion of actors and >actresses (and directors and producers and...). I think that limiting the discussion to "the movies themselves" would too greatly limit the scope of the group. If that stricture were to be interpreted too literally, the much-desired gossip, behind-the-scenes stories and social, economic and legal issues would all be moderated out of the group. And I don't see why the discussion of the social issues surrounding erotic films should be delimited to exclude consideration of the moral aspects of the industry. The thread which discussed the difference between an adult video performer and a prostitute featured moral discussion, as did the thread on the poll which reported that 1/3 of the U.S. population believes that the Devil has a hand in the creation of porn movies. (Of course, that was before the entrance of Jona-- um, Damian Hell-X.) One of the problems I have always had with the religious groups on both Usenet and IRC is that many don't want to hear Bean One from someone who disagrees with them. It would be a pity if r.a.m.e. were to be that closed minded and exclude posters who sought to challenge our foundation beliefs. I would prefer to debate them instead of editing them out of the group. And such a rule seems not to be needed because a.s.m. has not been targeted and deluged by a grotesque number of "You are all going to Hell" threads. The handful that do exist seem not to be aimed at a.s.m. but to have been cross-posted to much of alt.sex.*. Consequently, I believe that discussion of the inherent morality, immorality or amorality of erotic movies should _not_ be moderated out of r.a.m.e. Similarly, "political speeches" with any nexus into our topic should be fair game. Perhaps a post on Clinton's and Dole's opposing views on the money supply should be subject to moderation, but I have not seen a single "political speech" on a.s.m. that I thought was completely off-topic. Certainly, I have not seen enough to find such an exclusion warranted. And one person's "baiting of group participants" is another person's strongly (or poorly) worded opinion. That being said, I find the rest of the proposed group's moderation rules to be excellent -- as written. How well they work _as applied_ is a different issue that can only be resolved over time. N.P. Trist --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to [email protected] For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to [email protected] If you have any problems, address them to [email protected]
|