SCREEN-L Archives

December 1994, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Arthur Lizie Jr <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:20:15 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
Although I am new to Screen-l, I would like to raise a hand for
moderation of the list.  While my volume of mail is not a concern and it
is not a major problem to glance over a redundant post, I can see
benefits in reducing mail volume/redundancy through moderation.  Two
examples:
 
1) I posted a request for undergrad silent film texts.  While most of the
responses have been helpful (thanks), there was a post to the list
encompassing the revelation that the person could offer no assistance.
Did this piece of mail need to reach the list?   Would its absence
constitute ideological censorship?  I don't think so.
 
2) The recent request for Schoolhouse Rock information is a great example
of redundancy (my own post included).  Many people posted
(altruistically, nostalgically, redundantly) that they remember the
show, that there was a video, a play, a cover band, a vinyl album
(i.e., mostly anecdotal evidence), but all of this could have been
reduced to one or two posts with relevant information (hard facts:
distributors, phone numbers, etc).  I see the same thing happening with
the rare video distribution thread.  A FAQ would handle this situation.
 
Is the redundancy issue a big problem?  No.  Would it make screen-l more
appealing if the redundancy was eliminated?  I think so.
 
The redundancy issue does not even breach the hate-mongering and
tangential path issues (usually , it seems, about
peripheral race/gender/ethnicity issues, political correctness and/or
Rush Limbaugh) that plague many unmoderated lists.  And, when these
areas are broached, there is (often more annoyingly) the backlash of
people complaining about waste of the elusive-but-ever-so-popular
bandwith/let's get on with the subject at hand.
 
I am against censorship, but on a forum such as this, meant to be a free
exchange of constructive ideas, I think the idea of a moderator is not
censorship, but sanity.
 
I mean, how often to you want to have to read a polemic diatribe such as
this when you can be talking about film scholarship?
 
arthur, who should be working on his film genre paper instead of being a
blowhard

ATOM RSS1 RSS2