Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy

At 01:18 AM 1/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
>Bill Frantz wrote:
...
>> Let me rant a bit about the "ideal" moderation structure.  Igor Chudov's
>> software lets people like Matt Blase and Bruce Schneier post whatever they
>> want.  (I would add people like Black Unicorn as well.  YMMV)  Other posts
>> go into a pool accessible to all moderators.  If one moderator approves,
>> the message goes out.  If N reject, it is rejected.  These rejections could
>> either be anonymous or be included in an x-moderators-rejecting: header for
>> the "worst of cypherpunks" list.
>
>I think that Bill proposes a very interesting idea. His suggestion would
>eliminate a lot of [well-grounded] suspicion about arbitrary rejections
>at a "whim" of moderators.
>
>My only concern is that there will be more work for moderators, because
>in his scheme each "bad" message has to be reviewed by N people instead
>of 1.
>
>It is a tradeoff between a more liberal policy and efficient use of
>moderators' time.

As long as a number of moderators have access, then why not also include in
the header information the number of available moderators that gave the
content a "thumbs up".  If this were tacked on to the front of the subject
field, (for people like me whor are using Eudora Lite), then messages could
be chosen, by the readers, based on the number of moderators that gave it
approval.  Ideally, a relatively large number of moderators would be on hand
so that the scale would be an accurate cross-reference of the groups opinions.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In <199701132323.PAA02433@toad.com>, on 01/13/97 at 07:23 PM,
   Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu> said:


>As long as a number of moderators have access, then why not also include in
>the header information the number of available moderators that gave the
>content a "thumbs up".  If this were tacked on to the front of the subject
>field, (for people like me whor are using Eudora Lite), then messages could
>be chosen, by the readers, based on the number of moderators that gave it
>approval.  Ideally, a relatively large number of moderators would be on hand so that the
>scale would be an accurate cross-reference of the groups opinions.


Not a bad ideal but I would have to dissagre with adding the information on the subject
line. It would better be put on a x-moderator: line or somthing similar. Adding
information to a subject line adds an extra level of complexity to the end users filtering
process. This has always been a beef with me when lists
modify the subject line.

- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!!
Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice

Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts
Get Work Place Shell for Windows!!
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
                          
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
- -----------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: Walk through doors, don't crawl through Windows.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMtsD/49Co1n+aLhhAQFgkQQAmnY6mSTscwriK9QEOefCbsS4UYPxFA5Q
6jRYfCYht4+QbwBqIksn5b08Qe5btXrFo1bdgO4CzBwr4B8UdRxPHQC4tcEIVlIK
rmp7Nrq6c599GjddeJAs1kcZygYzf+g0K756BkigNKXqhNsGbdp+MCTvkCJzUqNp
P6WekB0Xo5A=
=uc/R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----