Re: Banning any subscriber

I said:
>>I personally disagree with censorship. It would be impossible to enforce
>>anyway. A move of this type would simply drive Detweiler to use the
>>Cypherpunk remailers which would be harder to detect. Then what do we do?
>>Stop accepting mail from our own remailers?

Eric replied:
>Basically, yes, except for signed letters from previously
>authenticated pseudonyms.  This is a simple form of a positive
>reputation system.  A kill fill is a negative reputation--'not that
>person'.  A positive reputation rejects all but a particular set of
>identities.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you wanted to erect a barrier against
anonymous newbies, such as "wonderer" and "Dark Unicorn" were recently. You
know, Detweiler might get a new account under a new name, better seal the
list to only postings from "previously authenticated" accounts too. Then
we'd be all happy and safe from the dreaded Detweiler.

Don't let this guy screw up the positive aspects of the list. His irritant
is the by-product of the free world that we are trying to create. You can't
stop his communication without comprimising our own goals. (You can delete
it without reading it or kill file him or once we are on extropians list
software, ::exclude him.)

>Much of the debate on cypherpunks magically incants 'reputation
>systems' to solve all sorts of sticky problems, but none have ever
>been implemented in software, except for killfiles, which are not
>effective against disruption in an anonymous environment.
>
>Necessity is the mother of invention.  A motivated individual trying
>to disrupt a communications forum and who has to avoid a kill file
>will be necessary to create the need for a positive reputation system.
>Once the need is there, the software will follow.  LD could become the
>most valuable participant in the endeavor of creating a positive
>reputation system, namely, the irritant at the center of the pearl.
>
>Let us encapsulate him well.
>
>Eric

I'm not entirely against positive reputation systems, but they really need
to be implimented on the user end, or at least be user settings, as on the
extropians list.

But the main problem with positive reputation systems is dealing with the
zero reputation newbies. I don't want to see these guys shut out.

Think well, before you act on this impulse.

_______________________________________________________________________
Geoff Dale    -- insert standard disclaimers here --    plaz@netcom.com
        "Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease."
                        - Peter McWilliams

>>>Stop accepting mail from our own remailers?

>>Basically, yes, except for signed letters from previously
>>authenticated pseudonyms.

>I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you wanted to erect a barrier against
>anonymous newbies, such as "wonderer" and "Dark Unicorn" were recently. 

The point is not to erect insurmountable barriers against anonymous
newbies.  In an environment where 'free speech noise' is a problem,
some barrier to entry should be expected.  The cypherpunks list
already uses one barrier to entry, namely, we use a mailing list
rather than a newsgroup.

Pseudonyms don't come free, neither in time, effort, nor money.

Authentication, in this context, can take many forms.  It could be as
simple as sending a key to the mailing list server.  It could be
developed to require someone to vouch for the pseudonym.  It could
require a sponsor who would read and repost until a separate
reputation develops.

The point is to put a bound on the noise from disrupters both
inadvertent and intentional, not to completely prevent noise.

Eric