WELCOME TO SOC.HISTORY.MODERATED!

The newsgroup soc.history.moderated is intended as a general discussion
forum.  Moderation will be light, and the substantive text of an
article will not be edited by the moderators.  However, the moderators
will sometimes add notes, correct headers (especially subjects) or
format, or remove excess whitespace and/or quoted signatures.

Please check that your Subject header is appropriate, that long
included quotes have been edited, and that your lines fit on a standard
80 column terminal.  Also, no MIME- or ISO-derived articles with
strange characters will be handled by the moderators; be sure that your
article is in plain text.

The text itself will either be accepted as is, or rejected -- however,
if only a minor aspect of an article is inappropriate, the moderator
will usually suggest cosmetic changes.

Prospective posters will usually receive a confirmation letter as
soon as their article is approved (plus any delay in email delivery).
If this is not received in a few days and there is no sign of your
article on the net, please inquire at the administrative address
(below) to find out if there is a problem.  Please wait a few days
to account for any propagation delays.  Do NOT send queries to the
submission address.

In the case of rejection, a reasonable effort will be made to notify
the prospective poster regarding the reason.

Do NOT directly resubmit an article, corrected or otherwise, unless
specifically instructed to do so by a member of the moderation
panel.  Prospective posters who submit the same article more than
once will not look good in the eyes of the moderators -- such
actions may have repercussions.  If you have a query or complaint,
use the administrative address (below).

The moderators take NO responsibility for the content of accepted
posts, so long as they conform to the guidelines below.  There are
no endorsements, either explicit or implicit.



Submissions: soc-history-mod@bcm.tmc.edu
Administrative questions: history-mod@www.ee.washington.edu

These addresses will appear in the headers of most articles.

Note that properly functioning newsreaders are configured so as to
automatically send articles to the correct submission address.  In
this case, posting can be done normally; if not, please mail articles
directly to the submission address (above).

Submissions will be sent randomly (by software) to any of the active
moderators.  Because different people have different schedules,
there might be a difference in approval time for articles submitted
at the same time, depending on which moderator receives the
prospective post.  Please be patient (especially on weekend
submissions), since many moderators do not login outside working
hours.  Also, remember that your article must first reach us and
then make its way back to you -- it is probably "on the net" before
you see it, especially if your site is "far" from the moderator
who approved the article.  In return, the moderators will do their
best to remove their names from the active file when they will be
unavailable for more than a day or two.  Submissions are almost
always processed within 24 hours, usually sooner.

Finally, the moderation panel will endeavor to be consistent in its
decisions.

The following guidelines will be used:

***

I. Submission Acceptance Policy

This newsgroup is intended as a forum for historical discussion:
all viewpoints and levels of knowledge are welcome.  Moderation
exists primarily as a mechanism for curtailing high-volume topics
which are not of general historical interest.  Because history is
such a broad subject and because lively debate on historical issues
is encouraged, this group is moderated by a panel of several people.
A single moderator (chosen at random) will make the approval decision
on any submission (except for appeals, as discussed below).

Articles will NEVER be rejected based on whether the moderator(s)
disagree with the views expressed.

Prospective articles may be rejected for any of the following
reasons:

1) Lack of historical content:  The article in question contains
   no comments on or questions about history; the poster was
   apparently mistaken in using this group.  This point does not
   cover the nature of the historical content, and the fact that
   an article is posted does not in any way imply its factual
   validity or agreement from any of the moderators.  In other
   words, the moderators may believe that an article is totally
   inaccurate, but will not reject it (according to this point) so
   long as it is discussing historical events in some form.

2) Topic covered elsewhere:  The article in question concerns a
   topic which has generated enough volume to merit its own newsgroup;
   the poster will be directed to that group.  In cases where an
   article does contain material which belongs in another group,
   but also contains additional historical material which stretches
   the boundaries of that group, cross-posting or posting to this
   group will be permitted.  This point is meant to exclude
   (semi-)historical topics which already have dedicated groups.
   However, historical questions arising from threads in other
   groups are encouraged.  In the latter case, the first cross-posted
   article in a thread should contain enough context for readers
   of this group to understand the discussion.

3) More current events than history:  The article in question may
   have some small historical content, but is more properly concerned
   with current events; the poster will generally be referred to
   the talk.politics hierarchy.  Many posts fall into the "gray
   area" for this point, and in this case will usually be approved.
   However, as active threads move away from history, they may be
   directed elsewhere.

4) Excessive cross-posting:  Cross-posted articles will be dealt
   with more harshly than other articles; roughly speaking, the
   historical interest of the article should be proportional to
   the number of groups in the newsgroups line.  Follow-ups to
   cross-posted articles may be rejected as the subject of the
   thread moves farther away from history.

5) Repetitive content:  The article in question contains the same
   (or very similar) content as was recently posted to this group.
   Posters genuinely unaware of the repetitive nature of their
   article will be directed to the appropriate thread for information.
   This point will generally be used sparingly for "gray area"
   posts, but posters who are repeating their own material at length
   and over a short time interval will certainly have their articles
   rejected.  Articles which exactly repeat answers already given
   in response to a query on the group will be politely rejected,
   as a matter of house-keeping.

6) Excessive quoting:  The article in question contains long quotes
   from other sources.  In many cases, these posters will be asked
   instead to provide references either to the texts in question
   or to online means for obtaining the material.  The moderators
   are not responsible for copyright violations, and suggest that
   individual posters consider this issue for themselves.  In cases
   where the article in question contains material quoted from
   another article in this group, out of proportion to the length
   of the follow-up, it may be rejected at the discretion of the
   individual moderator; such posters are encouraged to make better
   use of bandwidth.  This point is largely designed to discourage
   posting of scanned text.  Generally speaking, quotes from off-line
   sources should contain original commentary and/or be in direct
   response to an active thread -- in both cases, the length of
   the quote should not be "excessive."

7) Personal attacks:  The article in question contains a high
   percentage of insults or "ad hominem" attacks.  In cases where
   there is nothing but insults serving as content, the article
   will be summarily rejected; in cases where there is some historical
   content, it will be up to the discretion of the individual
   moderator to decide whether the actual content more than balances
   the poor style.  There is also the possibility of rejection for
   vulgar or tasteless language/content.  Articles rejected for
   these reasons are encouraged to be rewritten and resubmitted.
   It is not the intention of moderation to completely sanitize
   the group, and this point may be used sparingly (or not) depending
   on the individual moderator.

8) Non-replyable email address:  The article in question was
   submitted with a return address which does not accept email.
   It is believed that anyone posting an article should be responsive
   to exchange both within the group and outside of it, and this
   situation implies otherwise.  People who are genuinely unable
   to receive email, but who nonetheless would like to participate,
   should make this known to the moderators (along with reliable
   contact information) for consideration.

9) Improperly submitted:  All articles to be posted on the
   group must be sent to the submission address (above).  If a
   prospective article is sent to an individual moderator, it cannot be
   approved, and will be directed to the submission address or
   forwarded there by the moderator.  In cases where an article has
   been temporarily rejected by an individual moderator, with the
   provision that some small point be changed, said article should be
   sent back directly to that moderator once it has been modified.  An
   article (or substantially similar articles) submitted more than once
   (outside of the appeal process) will not be approved.  Finally, this
   point also covers articles written by members of the moderation
   panel:  these must go through the same random distribution and
   approval scheme as those of any other poster.  This point does not
   cover purely administrative postings, which will be sent out
   directly.

10) No basis for discussion:  This newsgroup is intended primarily
    as a discussion forum, and although concise & relevant
    announcements will be approved, articles which simply list
    facts without sufficient introduction will be rejected.  This
    does not apply to articles in reply to an open thread, except
    that these replies may not tack on extra statements with no
    apparent connection to the rest of the article.  Likewise, a
    series of articles which continue to present evidence for a
    point which is not under discussion will also be rejected.  It
    is generally preferred that stand-alone documents of this type
    be put on a web site and announced in the group (subject to
    the rest of these guidelines, such as lack of repetition).
    Questions posted to the group which request "email replies
    only" can be rejected at the discretion of the individual
    moderator.  Posters who do not have the ability to read the
    group regularly should volunteer to post a summary of responses;
    this is on the honor system, but posters who fail to follow
    through on such promises will not have similar articles accepted
    in the future.


If an article is rejected for any reason by any moderator, and the
author feels that these guidelines have been wrongly applied, this
issue may be taken up with the panel of moderators as a whole.  In
cases where the moderation panel agrees that the article is
inappropriate, it will not be posted.  Of course, the author may
always post it to the unmoderated group soc.history.


II. Moderator Policy

The object of these guidelines is to have a clear policy, in the
event that there is conflict in the affairs of the moderation panel
itself.  It is generally believed that moderators will come and go
throughout the course of the group, and in all cases the goal will
be a consensus amongst the panel regarding the addition of new
moderators.  A standard group decision process will be followed:
a motion will be made to add a new moderator, and if there are no
objections it will go ahead.  Friendly relations are certainly
expected.

If there is an objection to a motion, and a group decision is not
reached by discussion, a vote can be carried out in accordance with
the statements below.  In any of the following cases, a secret
ballot may be requested -- and if a suitable (meaning: agreeably
neutral) volunteer on the panel to collect the ballots cannot be
found, will be carried out via point #5 below -- but voting will
generally be public (within the confines of the moderation panel
itself).

1. If it comes to a vote, new moderators must be approved by a
   supermajority (75% rounded downward, ie. two out of three
   moderators, eight out of eleven moderators, nine out of twelve
   moderators, etc.) amongst the moderation panel.  Abstentions
   will not affect the outcome of this vote, meaning that a
   supermajority among voting moderators must be obtained.  In the
   case of only two voting moderators who disagree, the prospective
   moderator will not be added.

2. Moderators who will be on vacation for more than a day or two
   are expected to have their names removed from the active file
   for that period.  This implies no permanent change in status,
   and they will be simply returned to active duty afterward.

3. New moderators will generally not be considered unless the number
   of moderators falls below eight, or unless several moderators
   have taken extended leaves of absence.  In the latter case, any
   new moderators will be "temporary" unless accepted by the
   returning members of the moderation panel.  People named as
   successors by retiring moderators will generally be given
   preference.

4. Moderators can be removed by a supermajority (as above) vote
   amongst the moderation panel (including the moderator in question).
   Abstentions will count as votes against removal.

5. If there is controversy amongst the moderators concerning the
   application of these guidelines, the moderation panel agrees to
   submit to binding arbitration by moderators-advice at UUNET.
   This situation covers true interpretive controversy, as well as
   such technical scenarios as: only two moderators, one wanting
   to remove the other; so many moderators on extended leave or
   genuinely unresponsive that the active panel cannot remove them
   to get on with business, etc.

6. Any votes or motions may be called into question by moderators
   returning from leaves of absence, though these ballots may be
   counted as abstentions in the interim.

7. All prospective moderators must agree to abide by these guidelines
   in their entirety before consideration for moderator status.
   By acting as a moderator, this point is implied, regardless of
   written confirmation.


III. Changes

It requires unanimous approval of the moderation panel to change
these guidelines, and they must remain within the boundaries given
in the original CFV charter.


Todd Michel McComb
14 March 1994
Last modified: 18 March 1995