|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
lamont (lamont@primenet.com) wrote: [snip] : 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. My understanding is that Elf himself has commented in private about how he favors a moderated group. : 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. Since "magick" and "tantra" are not well-known American words, and since most spammers and avertisers are American, it stands to reason that they would not flood that group with ads or scams. However, the problem with a.s.m. goes further than just commercial spammers. It goes to the problem of some individuals flooding the group on purpose with binaries and irrelevant posts from other groups, oftentimes changing the "reply to" line to some irrelevant, other group as well. The groups you mention have not had this problem, and therefore moderation has not bee proposed for them. : 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. But as noted by myself and others, cross-posting to r.a.m.e and a.s.m. will ikely occur, and rejected r.a.m.e posts will be directed to a.sm. The most LIKELY outcome is not that r.a.m.e. will flourish but that r.a.m.e. will have EXTREME difficulty in attracting posters while a.s.m. remains the group of choice for most people. Indeed, it is NO ONE'S duty or responsibility to insure that this group or that survives or dies. WHy you seem intent on imposing that is beyond my understanding from what you write above. : 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. While this has been suggested, it has NEVER taken hold there. Thus, a new group, more hospitable from the beginning to non-X erotic films, is beneficial. : + talk about porn "in a free and yet mature manner." Which occurs there and hopefully in r.a.m.e. I doubt either group will suffer a lack of "mature" postings, since cross-posting will be common. Indeed, a.s.m. already has its full share of "mature" (to use your term) postings, but the sheer noise DOES harm "mature" threads. I've seen it happen to "deep" threads I've started, and so many complained in private that I was VERY receptive to the moderation suggestion. : + "accurately [answer] frequently asked questions by referring : questioners to the FAQ." However, while this is done on an ad hoc basis in a.s.m., posters asking FAQ-answered questions suffer from 1) "nasty" posts telling them off while telling them to "read the *^$%#@ FAQ!"; and 2) often are responded to ONLY in the group where (often) newbie posters never return. R.a.m.e. solves this problem by 1) regulating "read the FAQ" answers, so that they come from responsible moderators who can actually POINT the individual to a section of the FAQ; 2) reply via email rather than on the group (thus catching those who post once and never return to read again); and 3) provides the ADDED advantage of using the FAQ-keepers as some of the moderators, insuring that frequently asked questions DO get into the FAQ in a more timely, orderly fashion. : + "[incorporate] FAQs into the group-FAQ" See above. Currently, this process is ad hoc and biased by the fact that the FAQ-keepers have to read the ENTIRE group in order to identfy frequently asked questions. Now, a formal process for this will be in place on r.a.m.e : + ensure freedom of expression [actually, the proposed group can not : claim freedom of expression since the charter explicitly states that : censorship will occur.] I suppose you would argue, then, that with 10,000 people shouting at one individual, that constitutes freedom of expression??? We propose eliminating "noise" on r.a.m.e so that posters are no longer "drowned out" by the commercials, spam, etc. Indeed, your single-minded focus on freedom of expression (none of which is lost if the poster follows up on a.s.m. AND includes a complaint of censorship on a.s.m. as well!) ignores COMPLETELY the argument that those non-American readers who pay by the byte will GREATLY benefit from moderation. This trade-off has been judged SO beneficial despite the loss of a minute amount of freedom of expression for ID-forgers, commercial posters, spammers, and binary-posters that it led to the suggestion of moderation. : + send newbies e-mail pointers to FAQ when they ask questions : "*fully* answered in the group FAQ." See above. At this point, your "suggestions" are repeating points made previously in your post. : 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. That apparatus is harmful ONLY if used. Indeed, the apparatus is neutral--a knife can be used by a surgeon to heal, or by the murderer to kill. Your quarrel is not with the appartus of moderation, but with the MODERATORS. If so, then you need to argue that the moderators in charge of the apparatus will be censorial to a degree not discussed in the RFD. Thus far, you have not done shown this. And as for "crippling" a.s.m. and/or adding some "costs", see above. : Such an apparatus inevitably establishes annoying and frustrating delays : in posting, "Annoying" and "frustrating" are terms to be applied to the current status of a.s.m. Indeed, as discussed in this thread, there will be at most a few hours' delay in posting due to moderation. At MOST a one-day delay is foreseen. How does this "frustrate"? One man's frustration is another man's reasonable delay. If you have a problem with delay, then I suggest framing it in more neutral language which does not rely on your own personal predilections and biases and more on rational, logical premises concerning "delay." : inhibits the spontaneity of questions, opinions and : presentation of fresh ideas and personal experiences, Blatantly untrue. If ALL posts are delayed 1 day, then there is no spontaneity lost. Spontaneity (really, you mean "equal opportunity to respond" I'd guess) relies more on everyone seeing the post at the same time and being able to respond to it in a first-come/first-served fashion. Moderation does not impede this process. : 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. I fail to see why "distance" is created. The only posters who suffer are commercial posters, spammers, ID-forgers, and the like. The vast majority of posters on a.s.m. has called for their ELIMINATION from any group dedicated to the intelligent discussion of erotic movies. Again, for you to suggest that the moderators (I will be one, admittedly) will censor posts or force their editing/re-working requires that you assault the good names and reputations of the moderators, Lamont. Thus far, you have asserted that the moderators will abuse their positions, but have not proven that they will. And you have fully and wholly ignored the "safety valve" of a.s.m. [Indeed, if r.a.m.e.'s moderation policy DOES become too strict, a.s.m. will be around for posters to complain openly in. This will not only provide an outlet for censored posters BUT keep a.s.m. alive--killing two of your arguments with one stone, to abuse a metaphor.] : 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 simple fact is that those industry insiders who have voiced an opinion have CALLED FOR moderation, Lamont. The evidence is against you. I'm sure we will see MORE insiders vote "yes" for moderation once the vote occurs. : 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. The operative word is "clearly." The RFD says that grey areas WILL BE POSTED. : + "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. We've discussed this privately, but I'll say it openly here: Commercial ..sig lines are okay. We've argued amongst ourselves, but we suggest that WWW page announcements will be accepted once. There are groups where such announcements are supposed to be made, but we will be permissive and allow them to be made once in r.a.m.e. : + "Binaries of ANY form." I notice that you cannot argue that permitting binaries is good for a discussion group. I guess you are granting that this is a GOOD reason to adopt moderation! :) : + "Clearly irrelevant material, such as pyramid schemes (read: : scams), political speeches." See the argument above for binaries. Advantage, r.a.m.e.-proponents. :) : + 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." What you call "steel gloves" I call "no fag-bashing" and "baiting". It's occurred often enough on a.s.m. and is a STRONG reason why the gay and lesbian posters refuse to post. Moderation is the ONLY cure for providing what many call "safe space" for such posters. This is only one instance of baiting that has been suggested as likely to be moderated. The so-called "Brandy bashing" on a.s.m. has also driven off the very industry insiders that YOU seek to protect on r.a.m.e, Lamont. Absent any protective mechanism on r.a.m.e., they will not only stay away from r.a.m.e. but from a.s.m. as well. (Or rather, CONTINUE to stay away from a.s.m.) And if someone wants to post a notice that IS homophobic, misogynist, racist, etc? There is always a.s.m. : 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. Our flaming policy is quite simple: Say anything you want SO LONG AS you ar argumentative and not simply calling someone a bad name. It's fine to say "Evanson, you bonehead, you low-grade moron, you ignoramus--you TOTALLY forgot that John Doe won an Acadey Award for his cinematography in 1986! HOW DARE you call him a 'lousy videographer'!" The "content percentage" policy Jeff Knapp enunciated earlier seems totally, easily, rationally applied here. : 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. And there is always a.s.m. A.s.m. is the safety valve, it is the outlet for complaints and rejected posts. R.a.m.e. is self-regulating in that manner, Lamont, a fact which you seem to consistently neglect. If r.a.m.e.'s moderation policies become too restrictive, it will die and a.s.m. will live. If those policies are too restrictive, a.s.m.'ers will hear about it and posters will post elsewhere. Indeed, Usenet itself offers a mechanism for restructuring overly-moderated groups. : 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. I'm a proposed moerator, and I know that my moderation policy is quite clear and simple. And in reading over the past week's worth of a.s.m. posts, I can honestly say I'd spend almost NO time moderating. : 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. Well, apparently you neither read the group this past week or have been a long-time reader. Binary posting has worsened DRAMATICALLY (even by your own admission, as you call it an "army"). As Ron Wilhelm has pointed out on a.s.m., it is not just "Piggie" posting but an ARRAY of posters--all of whom are bent on posting binaries. Almost all of these individuals are ID-forgers; I respond to almost ALL binary posts by asking the poster not to post any more to that discussion group. 19 out of 20 emails I send is returned as address-unknown. The solution is not filters. ID-forgers and commercial spammers (notorious among them is "pete collins") change IDs and subject lines routinely to AVOID filters. And filters do NOT solve the problem for off-line readers who pay by the byte! : 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. Thus, you'd argue that gay or lesbian posters should have to put up with homophobic attacks on their posts which are CLEARLY spam (not to mention horrific, IMHO), or that black or asian or latino posters (of which almost NONE exist on a.s.m.) should have to put up with racist posts, or that women should have to put up with misogynistic posts? Indeed, you are saying that I should keep talking DESPITE the fact that 30 or 40 other posters are "shouting me down" with commercials, spams, and binaries? This situation is MUCH worse for the off-line reader paying by the byte, since that individual suffers materially for this noise! And for the collegiate or other reader whose netreader permits only a limited number of posts per day to be accessed and/or whose netreader has a quick expiration date for posts, you would argue that that person should suffer such "noise" as well??? And for what purpose???? So the aggressive victimizer can exercise his or her freedom of commerical speech??? : 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. One man's flourish is another man's drivel. I would not characterize either group as flourishing. Again, Lamont, you have fallen into the use of emotionalizing language here rather than logical, rational argument based on neutral assumptions. [snip] : 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. And why do the people not respond? BECAUSE THEY HATE THE NOISE. : + 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. I would argue, as a.s.m.'ers have noted, that it is USELESS to post a complicated, intellectual, "deep" post when it will get lost in the noise, commercials, spam, and flames. Your guesses aside (which, I'd argue, show that your familiarity with the group is lacking; indeed, most posters have been trying to carry on discussions of the performances of the actors and actresses they like, the nature of "good" vs. "bad" erotic films, the careers of certain directors and the "series" films they produce, and the appearance of certain behaviors in erotic films and why they do or don't occur), "deep" threads simply are NOT occurring on a.s.m. From my own perspective, I can provide a list of over 25 gay posters (and not lurkers) on a.s.m., but there was only ONE active gay thread this week. Why is this? Because, as these gay posters have noted in email to me, they are sick and tired of the "damned noise" on a.s.m. : + 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. There have only been two "technical" threads, both occurring late in the summer. Your argument about a.s.m. lacking "technical" posters could be recitified by r.a.m.e., since "technical" readers would be drawn to a group whose obvious purpose is not commercials, binaries, or spams but intelligent discussion of the (among other things) technical side of erotic films. And your argument about "esoteric" ratings (I've seen only one intricate rating system, and it tends to be used by the two or perhaps three people who actually created it!) is, IMHO, sheer nonsense. Most "reviews" are a few paragraphs long, and use the classic "5 stars" or "4 As" rating systems. In fact, it is the "esoteric" reviewers who PERSIST in posting! The average reviewer, once common on a.s.m., has (like the Lorax) long disappeared--due to the "pollution" on the group. : + 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. The sheer amount of commercial posts, as well as Web sites, offered by industry insiders argues against your assertion that "few" insiders use a.s.m. Indeed, it contradicts your earlier assertion that moderation would drive the "droves" of insiders away from posting! (my word, there) In point of fact, most insiders have REFUSED to use a.s.m. as the venue for their commercialism. Rather, as was pointed out today on a.s.m., most see that group as a PROFESSIONAL way to interact with the consumer. And again, several insiders have openly noted that they WITHDREW from a.s.m. because of the noise, spam, and commercials. Your argument, which has now been repeated several times in this post, just doesn't hold empirical water, Lamont. : + 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. Repetitious argument from above. See my argument above. : 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. But it is not resuming, and the voices offered in this thread seem to be in near unanimity as to why: NOISE. Pure and simple noise is killing a.s.m. Moderation is the answer. : 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. Again, you attack directly the reputations, good names, and honesty of the moderators who hae said quite clearly that their intention is to eliminate noise and NOT steer the direction of posts in one way or another. I refuse to repeat myself any further to dissuade you; I will only say "see above." See ya... Tim -- References:
|