Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks
> on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous
> remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames
> mailing list.

  I have noticed that the 'sorting' of messages seems to be based
as much on personality as upon content. 
 
> The explanation that Sandy Sandfort gave me mentioned that he rejected
> my message because it continued a thread where Sandy noticed instances
> of "flaming". Note that my message was free of any flames, including
> its quoted part.

  The standard of what constitutes a 'flame' seems to rest very much
upon whom a comment is directed at, or merely 'vaguely toward'.  
There have been more than a few postings stronly lambasting various
generic grouping of individuals which have passed without censoring.
  Your post, however, included Dr. Dimitri's vague reference to
a homosexual 'elite'. While it was directed toward no one in 
particular, I suppose one could 'infer', from his past postings,
that it referred to certain individuals, or a group of individuals.
  So it would seem that, in quoting the posts of others, one must
take into consideration what various readers may infer from their
previous posts.

> Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the
> criterion by which he moderates this list.

  This was more than obvious to anyone who cared to cast an objective
eye on the process, but their input was pooh-paah'd by the 'washed 
masses'.

> I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy
> the current readership.

  Like all of the 'opinions' that were expressed prior to the censorship
of the list? I haven't seen any indication that these opinions were 
given the slightest consideration.  This is not the readership's list.
It is a private individual's list.

  My view of Sandy's moderation is that it is rather willy-nilly, and
not done particularly objectively. There have been personal insults 
directed toward various individuals, including myself, which seem 
not to have been considered 'flames', while there are more than a few 
posts which, even on the closest of inspection, I can see no reason 
for dumping the the 'flame-crapper', other than the fact that they 
are somewhat associated to the 'unclean' list members.
  The moderation, at best, seems to encourage 'snide' commentary
meant to be ill-disguised cheap-shots. I would much rather have 
list members taking strong, clean shots at their 'targets', than
to be subjected to two-faced people talking out of the side of
their mouths.

  In short, I don't see the moderation as being 'fair', and I don't
think it was ever meant to be.
  I don't have a problem with this, since it's a private list, and, 
as far as I am concerned, the list-owner can censor it, or have it
censored, any way he or she sees fit.
  I would like to point out, however, that anyone who has had their
posts 'sorted' into the 'flames list' is now a 'known flamer', as
evidenced by the fact that their post has been designated a 'flame'
on a list run by a champion of free speech on the electronic
frontier.
  It is obvious that some of the more intuitively intelligent list
members are aware of this, as is indicated by the nervous fear with
which they 'explain why' their post is crypto-relevant.

Toto

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


In <199701241411.GAA25271@toad.com>, on 01/24/97 at 09:09 AM,
   Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca> said:


>  I would like to point out, however, that anyone who has had their
>posts 'sorted' into the 'flames list' is now a 'known flamer', as
>evidenced by the fact that their post has been designated a 'flame'
>on a list run by a champion of free speech on the electronic
>frontier.

Intresting....

Does a single flame make a flamer??

I have in the past been involved in heated arguments on just about every
list/newsgroup I have been involved in. :)

I think this goes back to the topic of reputation capital. IMHO the occational message
that get's droped into the 'flames list' would have little effect on ones reputation.
While a complete ban all of ones posting or even a majority of ones posts making it to the
'flames list' could/would have a detrimtal
effect.

Hmmmm... Actually there could be an intresting side affect of a moderated list to a
posters reputation. Lets take the following example:

John Doe likes posting rants & flames 90% of the time. The other 10% of the
time he posts intelegent messages. Now on an un-moderated list a majority of
subscribers would get tierd of his rants, write him off as a kook and kill-file him. His
10% of intelegent posts would be lost in the 90% of noise and his
reputation would be adversly effected within the group.

Now on a moderated list the 90% of rants & flames would never be seen by the
list only the other 10%. His would wind up having a much higher reputation
among the group compaired to if all his posts were seen. 

I am not quite sure how to judge this effect. Should one take into account
the kooky behavior of a poster when veiwing his 'non kooky' posts? Does
moderation have a detrimental effect to establishing a reputation based system for a group
(how would Don Woods reputation faired if his rant's on OTP's
& ISP had been filtered out?)


>  It is obvious that some of the more intuitively intelligent list
>members are aware of this, as is indicated by the nervous fear with
>which they 'explain why' their post is crypto-relevant.

IMHO this is sheepish though I have noticed it before moderation started.

If I have somthing to post to the list I see no reason to justify why I am
posting it. This post I am making now has zero crypto-relevance and I make
no appoligies for it. Do I think it is relevant to the list? Yes otherwise
I would not have posted it. Either way no explination for the post is needed.



- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
                          
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
- -----------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: See the Future; See OS/2.  Be the Future; Run OS/2.

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

iQCVAwUBMunqw49Co1n+aLhhAQEhUQQAikxVlOQuCQuNq2DoZgIhj85RvfaEOkvO
6QqoecASeunSyvh5gtXH+p6n3kq6i/NLAUwcmPYUtkdpKdPaRk4/OkhTVGNuVEHM
eEQroUNNJ02g+42Gz9vEm2ZtWxWC9zAdIbmY/Hnw6SUyW/jgJKWNadd8Nh2HQYxV
CXMUpweNbdg=
=8pqg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> writes:
> >  It is obvious that some of the more intuitively intelligent list
> >members are aware of this, as is indicated by the nervous fear with
> >which they 'explain why' their post is crypto-relevant.
>
> IMHO this is sheepish though I have noticed it before moderation started.
>
> If I have somthing to post to the list I see no reason to justify why I am
> posting it. This post I am making now has zero crypto-relevance and I make
> no appoligies for it. Do I think it is relevant to the list? Yes otherwise
> I would not have posted it. Either way no explination for the post is needed.

Sandy is irrelevant.  Why should we care if he tosses an article
to cyphepunks-flames or to the censored list?  Just subscribe to
cypherpunks-unedited and ignore Sandy.  If Gilmore persists in his
disgraceful behavior, create an unmoderated list elsewhere.

I think a lot of intelligent people have been wasting too much time
and energy analyzing the behavior of a twit who simply doesn't
deserve the attention his moderation effort has been getting.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps