Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan

I agree with Sandy Sandfort and many others that things have gotten
way out of hand on the list.  He and I feel that the only proposed
solutions likely to succeed involve inserting human judgement in the
cypherpunks posting process, rather than mere automation.  So I am
supporting this experiment, primarily by setting up a few more mailing
lists on Toad and by automatically moving the current set of
subscribers to the moderated list.  You will be able to move
yourselves back to the unedited list if you don't want to participate
in the experiment, or if, partway through, you decide you don't like
the results.

Sandy will be gone til Tuesday evening, so don't expect further
answers from him (or many from me, I'm swamped with other activities)
until then.  Meanwhile I'm interested in your discussion (on the list)
of the idea.  We'll modify it before starting, with good ideas from you.

	John Gilmore

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         SANDY SANDFORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

C'punks,

Like many of you, I have become very disenchanted with the
quality of discourse on this list.  As others have pointed
out, I believe a great deal of the blame can be laid on the
lack of civility between list (and non-list) members.  I
think this, in turn, is the result of the list being open. 
As such, it has no feedback mechanisms to discourage
gratuitous insults and personal attacks.  The result has
been an escalation of such behavior--something that no
amount of personal mail filtering can rectify.

Recently, I made a couple of rough proposals to John Gilmore
to see if there was some way to reverse this trend.  We have
gone back and forth on several issues, but we finally
reached an agreement whereby I would partially moderate the
Cypherpunk list for a one-month test period.  If the
consensus of list members is that the test is going well, it
can be extended.  If members think it sucks, it can be
dropped or modified.  Even before we start, though, you may
wish to contribute suggestions.

The following is our general plan.  I'm sure there will be
questions that have to be answered as they arise, but the
basis outline is a follows:

1)  The test will run from January 11 through February 12.

2)  I will review all incoming messages for purposes of
preserving decorum and reducing obviously unrelated spam.  Other
then that, I will not overly concern myself with off-topic posts.  
I will, however, expurgate all posts containing flames, insults 
and other irrelevant personal attacks, as well as spams, before
forwarding the remaining posts to the Cypherpunk list.

3)  Cypherpunks who wish to read all posts to the list may do so
by taking advantage of either of two optional lists.  The first
(cypherpunk-flames@toad.com), will consist solely of messages
expurgated from the main Cypherpunks list.  (Those who subscribe
to "flames" will be able to easily monitor my moderating
decisions.)  The second (cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com), will
contain all posts sent to Cypherpunks.  It will be the equivalent
of the current open, unmoderated list.  It will appeal to those
who don't want list moderation.

4)  During the test month, polite discussion of the test will
always be on topic.  In the last few days before the 10th of
February, I will call for opinions as to whether moderation
should be continued, modified or eliminated.  John has agreed to
abide by the consensus of the group with one proviso.  Because of
the large volume of bandwidth eaten by the lists, he does not
want to maintain both the "flame" and "unedited" versions of the
list.  If list members decide to continue to have the list
moderated, one of those lists will probably have to go.

5)  If list members decide on a moderated list, I will be happy
to assist in the ongoing process.  Though I will continue to be
available for duty as moderator from time to time, we will need a
set of rotating volunteers to take turns acting as moderator. 
Volunteers are always welcome.

6)  Because every message submitted to Cypherpunk will be posted 
to two of the three sister lists, I don't intend to lose much
sleep over whether or not this or that moderating decision was
perfect.  I will do the best job I can, within the constraints
listed here.  If I err, it isn't fatal.  Everyone who wants one
will have two Cypherpunk venues for their posts.  Sounds fair
enough to me.  What do you think?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS:  The new lists aren't set up yet, so there's no point in trying
to subscribe or unsubscribe to them yet.  We'll let you know when they
are working.		-- John

my moderation bot, STUMP, may be just for you. It is now used in four usenet
newsgroups (comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated, soc.culture.russian.moderated,
misc.invest.financial-plan, soc.religion.paganism) and it can also handle
mailing lists.

features include preapproved list of trusted posters, list of suspicious
keywords, optional (at the posters' discretion) positive poster
authentication via PGP, signing of approvals with PGPMoose, multiple
moderators, moderators' mailing list, and much more. There is a plugin
for Netscape that I called Modscape that allows moderators to work with
a pretty Netscape-like user interface for moderating (see the picture at
the web site). Modscape currently works under linux and can be easily ported
to any other unix where netscape plugins are supported.

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov  (go to STUMP page)

John Gilmore wrote:
> 
> I agree with Sandy Sandfort and many others that things have gotten
> way out of hand on the list.  He and I feel that the only proposed
> solutions likely to succeed involve inserting human judgement in the
> cypherpunks posting process, rather than mere automation.  So I am
> supporting this experiment, primarily by setting up a few more mailing
> lists on Toad and by automatically moving the current set of
> subscribers to the moderated list.  You will be able to move
> yourselves back to the unedited list if you don't want to participate
> in the experiment, or if, partway through, you decide you don't like
> the results.
> 
> Sandy will be gone til Tuesday evening, so don't expect further
> answers from him (or many from me, I'm swamped with other activities)
> until then.  Meanwhile I'm interested in your discussion (on the list)
> of the idea.  We'll modify it before starting, with good ideas from you.
> 
> 	John Gilmore
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                          SANDY SANDFORT
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> Like many of you, I have become very disenchanted with the
> quality of discourse on this list.  As others have pointed
> out, I believe a great deal of the blame can be laid on the
> lack of civility between list (and non-list) members.  I
> think this, in turn, is the result of the list being open. 
> As such, it has no feedback mechanisms to discourage
> gratuitous insults and personal attacks.  The result has
> been an escalation of such behavior--something that no
> amount of personal mail filtering can rectify.
> 
> Recently, I made a couple of rough proposals to John Gilmore
> to see if there was some way to reverse this trend.  We have
> gone back and forth on several issues, but we finally
> reached an agreement whereby I would partially moderate the
> Cypherpunk list for a one-month test period.  If the
> consensus of list members is that the test is going well, it
> can be extended.  If members think it sucks, it can be
> dropped or modified.  Even before we start, though, you may
> wish to contribute suggestions.
> 
> The following is our general plan.  I'm sure there will be
> questions that have to be answered as they arise, but the
> basis outline is a follows:
> 
> 1)  The test will run from January 11 through February 12.
> 
> 2)  I will review all incoming messages for purposes of
> preserving decorum and reducing obviously unrelated spam.  Other
> then that, I will not overly concern myself with off-topic posts.  
> I will, however, expurgate all posts containing flames, insults 
> and other irrelevant personal attacks, as well as spams, before
> forwarding the remaining posts to the Cypherpunk list.
> 
> 3)  Cypherpunks who wish to read all posts to the list may do so
> by taking advantage of either of two optional lists.  The first
> (cypherpunk-flames@toad.com), will consist solely of messages
> expurgated from the main Cypherpunks list.  (Those who subscribe
> to "flames" will be able to easily monitor my moderating
> decisions.)  The second (cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com), will
> contain all posts sent to Cypherpunks.  It will be the equivalent
> of the current open, unmoderated list.  It will appeal to those
> who don't want list moderation.
> 
> 4)  During the test month, polite discussion of the test will
> always be on topic.  In the last few days before the 10th of
> February, I will call for opinions as to whether moderation
> should be continued, modified or eliminated.  John has agreed to
> abide by the consensus of the group with one proviso.  Because of
> the large volume of bandwidth eaten by the lists, he does not
> want to maintain both the "flame" and "unedited" versions of the
> list.  If list members decide to continue to have the list
> moderated, one of those lists will probably have to go.
> 
> 5)  If list members decide on a moderated list, I will be happy
> to assist in the ongoing process.  Though I will continue to be
> available for duty as moderator from time to time, we will need a
> set of rotating volunteers to take turns acting as moderator. 
> Volunteers are always welcome.
> 
> 6)  Because every message submitted to Cypherpunk will be posted 
> to two of the three sister lists, I don't intend to lose much
> sleep over whether or not this or that moderating decision was
> perfect.  I will do the best job I can, within the constraints
> listed here.  If I err, it isn't fatal.  Everyone who wants one
> will have two Cypherpunk venues for their posts.  Sounds fair
> enough to me.  What do you think?
> 
> 
>  S a n d y
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> PS:  The new lists aren't set up yet, so there's no point in trying
> to subscribe or unsubscribe to them yet.  We'll let you know when they
> are working.		-- John
> 



	- Igor.

Thank you.  I look forward to more of the best of C'punks, without
having the hassle of continually  weeding out the vapid bullshit.
Apparently because of your philosophical orientation, you have stayed open
-- and kept the List open -- to this pattern of eggregious harassment far
longer than I would have thought possible.  I applaud your patience, but
for myself -- I have had more than enough!

	I think the way you choose to resolve the problem is admirable;
indeed, fair beyond belief -- and I wish any masochist who continues to
read the completely unmoderated list the best of luck.  It has been painful
to watch an often-challenging array of voices, from a wide variety of POVs,
become swamped by drivel from assholes whose only goal was to burden the
List with dung.  As was doubtless their goal, they chased many
once-faithful readers away.

	I trust the List will remain open to varied POVs.  Sternlight, FC,
and any others who might offer substantive challenges to Libertarian
boiler-plate should never be feared or denied a hearing.  I don't mind
strident voices. I enjoy a conflict of ideas.  But I abhor the emply spams
and automated gratuitous-insult machines we've all had to endure for so
long.

	Suerte,
		_Vin

         Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin@shore.net>
      53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

Dale Thorn melodramatically stalked in from Stage Right.

>Well, Vin, without commenting on your plug for censorship, I can only
>say that I hope you are *very* fond of Sandy Sandfort, since he becomes
>YOUR LORD GOD for cypherpunks list purposes.

>How many other gods do you have, Vin (if that's your real name, Vin)?

	When I get jumped by a guy like you, Dale (that your real name,
btw?) I am all but overwhelmed by the urge to snarl in response. (It makes
me wonder if _everything_ from _everyone_ hits you this way?  That would
explain a lot.)  And I generally enjoy weirdness.

	Many Gods? Real names? As usual -- I swear by all the Gods;-) -- I
haven't the faintest fucking idea what you are fussing, hinting, and going
into a hissing fit all about!

	Where, pray tell, is your "censor" when a moderator is merely
identifying a selection of the List's traffic as substantive?  (While you
and others of strong stomach are allowed to wallow in all the rest to your
heart's content?) I'd be willing to defend a far less liberal mechanism
against the slander of censorship. No one signed up to be force-fed this
crap!  (You need a audience, Dale, earn it -- don't try to trap the
C'punks.)

	On any day in the past two years, John G. could have selected his
proxy moderators by blind lottery from among the C'punks' subscribers...
and 90 percent of the slime-balls and empty rants (and most of Thorne)
would have been filtered out without going near a gray area.   Personally,
I don't mind the flames and smoke -- I just want a little meat somewhere on
the grill too.

	(Yeah, priceless prose like this post might not make the cut either
-- but I feel bad about enriching Dale's therapist further anyway.)  I wish
it wasn't necessary, but I think it is.  (I know maybe 8 folks who fled the
List in recent months.) I'm also heartened and impressed by the balance of
process and human judgment that will inform the moderation.

	Suerte,
	            _Vin

         Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin@shore.net>
      53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

Vin McLellan wrote:
> Thank you.  I look forward to more of the best of C'punks, without
> having the hassle of continually  weeding out the vapid bullshit.
> Apparently because of your philosophical orientation, you have stayed open
> -- and kept the List open -- to this pattern of eggregious harassment far
> longer than I would have thought possible.  I applaud your patience, but
> for myself -- I have had more than enough!

Well, Vin, without commenting on your plug for censorship, I can only
say that I hope you are *very* fond of Sandy Sandfort, since he becomes
YOUR LORD GOD for cypherpunks list purposes.

How many other gods do you have, Vin (if that's your real name, Vin)?

> Because of
> the large volume of bandwidth eaten by the lists, he does not
> want to maintain both the "flame" and "unedited" versions of the
> list.  If list members decide to continue to have the list
> moderated, one of those lists will probably have to go.

You could maintain all options *and* still strictly reduce traffic on
toad.com by encoding the moderator's decision in a header line. Then
letting people subscribe to one of cypherpunks@toad.com or
cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com.

The first could forward only messages somehow approved, and the other
would forward *all* messages, *with the decision shown in the headers*.
Those of us who want to use the moderator's decisions as only advisory
or who want to monitor the moderation process can subscribe to the full
list and use the header in whatever manner we want.

If the decision is available as a message header in the full list,
there is no need for the "flames" list. The drawback is that the full
list is now delayed by the moderation process (for the very few here
who still seem to read in real time.) Keeping two versions of the list
one delayed and one not delayed is not so good anyway because it makes
it harder to use the decision as "advisory".

Advantages of moderation headers:

a) A more general solution, maybe later letting more than one
moderation group step in (should we ever manage to muster that much
manpower) maybe even letting people filter (on their own machine) on
the basis of several moderator's decisions. At any rate, leaving space
for any option we may want later. Initially, subscribing to moderated
and flame is equivalent to a header solution. For that matter, it *is*
a header solution.

b) Strictly reduced traffic on toad.com by keeping some on the full
list, and others on the reduced list. No need to ever subscribe to any
two lists as the full list would show the moderators' decision(s).

c) Keeps the two versions of the list more in sync (same delay), making
it painless to switch from one version to the other at any time. 'more
reading time' vs 'less volume'.

d) If the moderators are into that level of dedication and software
complication, they *could* now detail their decision: 'grumph, ok',
'mostly drivel', 'drivel', 'utter drivel', etc... ;-)

Otherwise, I fully agree that if some are willing to help filter, I
would like to be able to use their review (and I would provide reviews
myself now and then),
Pierre.
pierre@rahul.net

John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> writes:

> I agree with Sandy Sandfort and many others that things have gotten
> way out of hand on the list.  He and I feel that the only proposed
> solutions likely to succeed involve inserting human judgement in the
> cypherpunks posting process, rather than mere automation.  So I am
> supporting this experiment, primarily by setting up a few more mailing
> lists on Toad and by automatically moving the current set of
> subscribers to the moderated list.  You will be able to move
> yourselves back to the unedited list if you don't want to participate
> in the experiment, or if, partway through, you decide you don't like
> the results.

Have you considered using a system like NoCeM (see http://www.cm.org)?
I think such a system has many advantages over centrally controlled
moderation.  The basic idea of NoCeM is that instead of moderating a
newsgroup or mailing list, people post lists of articles to be
ignored, and you can configure your mail/newsreader to pay attention
to NoCeM's by whichever people you trust.

NoCeM would prevent any message delays which moderation might
introduce (sure, I might see the last few hours worth of spam, but at
least when I come back after a week away I don't have to wade through
a week's worth of "Timmy May hurt my feelings, blah blah blah").  This
means the more frequently you read the mailing list, the more spam you
will see--quite an acceptable trade-off given that people who check
the list often are probably those who would want to avoid message
delays.

NoCeM would also prevent anyone from accusing you of censorship.  Even
if such accusations are weeded from the list (via moderation), it's
still a drag to lend credibility to such asinine accusations by
actually blocking those people's posts.

NoCeM would ensure that no one is held legally responsible for the
contents of someone else's messages.  If we continue to get important
messages like implementations of the RC2 and RC4 ciphers, a moderator
could be found responsible for approving such an article.

Obviously there are some issues related to NoCeM.  Not all mail- and
newsreaders support NoCeM.  However, there are definitely solutions to
those problems.  For instance, a perl script could be used to delay
messages and apply NoCeM's, so that people can subscribe to customized
filtered versions of the list.  I might even be willing to write such
software if there is interest.

Against Moderation writes:
> 
> Have you considered using a system like NoCeM (see http://www.cm.org)?

NoCeM doesn't appear to do mail yet.  At least not according to the
info on the web site

> I think such a system has many advantages over centrally controlled
> moderation.  The basic idea of NoCeM is that instead of moderating a
> newsgroup or mailing list, people post lists of articles to be
> ignored, and you can configure your mail/newsreader to pay attention
> to NoCeM's by whichever people you trust.

There's nothing in John and Sandy's proposal that forbids
doing that.  Just apply it to the cypherpunks-unmoderated list.

> NoCeM would prevent any message delays which moderation might
> introduce

NoCeM for mail would require a delay (for the 'retromoderation' or
whatever it's called message to arrive) otherwise you'd see the spam.
Unlike news, once email's delivered it can't be deleted by a cancel.

> NoCeM would also prevent anyone from accusing you of censorship.

The unmoderated version of the list doesn't do that?

> If we continue to get important
> messages like implementations of the RC2 and RC4 ciphers, a moderator
> could be found responsible for approving such an article.

If such a message were to arrive and the moderator felt it would
be too illegal to post it, it would still go to the unmoderated list.
Remember, _everything_ goes to that list, before it's looked at
by the moderator. 
 
> Obviously there are some issues related to NoCeM.  Not all mail- and
> newsreaders support NoCeM.

It appears that NO mailreaders support it. :-)

>  However, there are definitely solutions to
> those problems.  For instance, a perl script could be used to delay
> messages and apply NoCeM's, so that people can subscribe to customized
> filtered versions of the list.  I might even be willing to write such
> software if there is interest.

I don't mean to sound really negative, NoCeM looks like an
interesting solution to the problem of Usenet spam.  But it's not
ready for mailing lists.  We need a solution now, and the proposed
solution does not make it any harder to use something like NoCeM
when it's ready.


-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

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

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, John Gilmore, quoting Sandy Sandfort, wrote:

> 3)  Cypherpunks who wish to read all posts to the list may do so
> by taking advantage of either of two optional lists.  The first
> (cypherpunk-flames@toad.com), will consist solely of messages
> expurgated from the main Cypherpunks list.  (Those who subscribe
> to "flames" will be able to easily monitor my moderating
> decisions.)  The second (cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com), will
> contain all posts sent to Cypherpunks.  It will be the equivalent
> of the current open, unmoderated list.  It will appeal to those
> who don't want list moderation.

To reduce the load on toad.com, I think it would be better to have just
"cypherpunks" and "cypherpunks-unedited".  Messages approved for the moderated
list would be tagged with an "Approved:" header and sent to both lists.
Rejected messages would still go to the unedited list, but would not have an
"Approved:" header (this would, of course, require that the moderation
software rename or delete "Approved:" headers).  The only problem with this
is that the lag time for distribution of the unedited list might increase.

> 6)  Because every message submitted to Cypherpunk will be posted
> to two of the three sister lists, I don't intend to lose much
> sleep over whether or not this or that moderating decision was
> perfect.  I will do the best job I can, within the constraints
> listed here.  If I err, it isn't fatal.  Everyone who wants one
> will have two Cypherpunk venues for their posts.  Sounds fair
> enough to me.  What do you think?

I think it's a good idea.  As long as an unedited version continues to be
available, it shouldn't effect people who want unfiltered list traffic.


Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMtAw8SzIPc7jvyFpAQGIqwgAhXQ373u94xnUag34nzusF6L6w4b9ml26
IiA4QbdXqtJWq+9wgG7znnobbL+y9EsMc9CzjAslwcyh7WMYTxRPXlM1z1r/m/Jm
8j6MJW5UHbhHZoTZiLdXYJqhBm3saPgSVqUle4+0dJ06pzvG6FrARB1SitFbnxn6
C+lKBLWbBmF1tBVzz/tswetNJLf9hcn1P1NeVLNHgMFOYfr46tZOuxkUqYWM1+UI
VSp9i7U79seLAo2C9aopr7t6JyjSMAXA0EG9swwJ4omoQeePQTYRa2URjOgQ0VJx
zWHKzX99b34BvhGhenFDyj/cHSDXoHznLNr6eZaRar7381cUkobC7g==
=MoCG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com> writes:

> To reduce the load on toad.com, I think it would be better to have
> just "cypherpunks" and "cypherpunks-unedited".  Messages approved
> for the moderated list would be tagged with an "Approved:" header
> and sent to both lists.  Rejected messages would still go to the
> unedited list, but would not have an "Approved:" header (this would,
> of course, require that the moderation software rename or delete
> "Approved:" headers).  The only problem with this is that the lag
> time for distribution of the unedited list might increase.

Other people are suggesting things like this.  I think it is a bad
idea to tag the -unedited version of the list with moderation
decisions, because then even the -unedited versions of messages would
be delayed until a moderation decision had been made.

Some people already have suitable mail/news filters, and would rather
make their own article selections.  Please don't make those people
wait for moderation decisions.

Instead, moderation summaries (for instance in NoCeM format) could be
posted to another list, for those who want to know about moderation
decisions.

No matter what happens, there should definitely be some address
through which people can receive a completely unedited, undelayed,
unmoderaded copy of the mailing list.  So if you want a tagged version
of the list, there should also be a cypherpunks-raw or something.

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

On 6 Jan 1997, Against Moderation wrote:

> Other people are suggesting things like this.  I think it is a bad
> idea to tag the -unedited version of the list with moderation
> decisions, because then even the -unedited versions of messages would
> be delayed until a moderation decision had been made.
> 
> Some people already have suitable mail/news filters, and would rather
> make their own article selections.  Please don't make those people
> wait for moderation decisions.

The problem with making an undelayed, unedited version of the list available
is that it would increase the burden on toad.com.  I suppose someone could run
a mail exploder that would receive the raw version and mail it out to all
subscribers.  I don't see the increased lag as much of a problem.  If an
automatic moderation program is used, the lag should be insignificant for most
posts.

> Instead, moderation summaries (for instance in NoCeM format) could be
> posted to another list, for those who want to know about moderation
> decisions.

This would not only increase the load on toad.com, but would also make it more
difficult for people who want to receive the moderated version and monitor the
moderators decisions.  Mail filtering can be done simply on many mail programs,
but checking a list of moderation decisions against the mailing list traffic
would be just too complicated.  NoCeM is a nice idea, but most people on this
list probably do not have the platform needed to run the software.

> No matter what happens, there should definitely be some address
> through which people can receive a completely unedited, undelayed,
> unmoderaded copy of the mailing list.  So if you want a tagged version
> of the list, there should also be a cypherpunks-raw or something.

This would cause the same amount of load as having the three separate mailing
lists.  In fact, it would be even worse if cypherpunks-raw was treated as a
completely separate mailing list instead of being aliased to the spam and
moderated lists.


Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMtGKxSzIPc7jvyFpAQE/lgf/W8sUlvNHYUUOoGwVNlNJpJeQ/PH7z3EA
bu7hNEDVFmV4igSjcnGLQF3EiMaPVM8d3VWMkT6NHXs2OzLomsJqgKkaSV6l6GG7
fcYazsht9rtjo04ru/mYhl5EpZUbFUo/G2QC2giIcvaW1zyEYuQBXaRHD1hf0UuM
5H4U9b+nnzYOBVY22MmFI8b9xsOjOPTYV+tB9lKEOXNnZJeq6s37ainElh63eiXZ
Ur90sX7StVQqWiXLJb62vIINBJd0/rkoHtAVQIrJxaqudOKgqQLv/vPGAhscy1Up
4/JKdzPobG37984/AwkpfbuV1jMO4tcyJVWQjawnxlNHxOW2L+mvRg==
=kzCe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I like it.

My take on the issues I see here:

1) Moderator liability and anonymous posting. The open nature of the
   list means that "copyright violations" threads and the like are
   thought more or less safe for the people who own toad.com. With
   moderation, this is less likely to be as "safe." Without calling
   for a blanket assault on copyrights (I do have friends who make
   their living as writers), and speaking only selfishly, I think it    
   would be a shame to lose the "copyright violations" posts. So I
   think we need a way to diminish or at least distribute moderator 
   liability. Let's revisit the "Member of Parliament Problem" thread
   of a month or so ago for solutions. Presumably STUMP or some other
   moderation tool could be modified to support a secure anonymous-
   approval protocol.

2) "Vote of confidence in Sandy." No. I agree with Igor Chudov.
   Absolute power corrupts; confidence, and particularly votes of
   confidence (this isn't a popularity contest), are the wrong way
   to go. Try "trust, but verify." As many of you know, I'm still
   barred from a list run by another cypherpunks subscriber for
   reasons I consider totally invalid. While I have confidence in
   much of what this person writes, and don't mind if other people
   have full confidence in him (because he's usually on the right
   side), this content-based censorship, and particularly the lack
   of transparency about it (his list never had this kind of
   discussion, nor do most of his subscribers even know that some
   people are banned), bugs me.

3) Full v. filtered v. flame lists. I'd choose to dump the full
   list, keeping the flame & filtered. People who want to can
   simply subscribe to both, and filter them into the same incoming
   mailbox, for the same effect. Only minor problem I'd forsee is
   that the flame list might propagate faster than the filtered
   list because it would have fewer subscribers.

4) "Qui custodiet ipsos custodes." When I first saw that thread
   title, I thought it pertained to the moderation proposal. It
   could. That's why I'd like to see the rejected messages archived,
   at least for a while, as they are with Chudov's STUMP. What I'd
   like best, since I don't particularly want to waste bandwidth or
   my disk space with what would, by definition, be mostly crap, is
   a hks.lists.cypherpunks.flames on the open nntp port I'm using
   to read cypherpunks today. As some of you have noticed, I'm not
   on the list now, because most of it is junk; I just point
   Netscape at HKS Inc's open port whenever the whim strikes me,
   and grab the few messages that look interesting. I'd like to do
   the same with the "flame" list, every couple days. Of course, HKS
   and the other public archives would make that decsion, and I
   thank them for the free service they've provided me so far.

5) "[Mostly libertarian] off-topic political junk." As someone who
   disagrees with a lot of, variously, Tim's, Lucky Green's, and
   attila's politics, I strongly agree with them that that's what I'm
   on cypherpunks for. The alternative is not just coderpunks, but
   also Perry's cryptography@c2.net, which is dedicated to the issues
   that cypherpunks were apparently originally about. (I can't really
   say for sure, because the majority of messages have been off-topic
   since about January 1996, and I only joined in October 1995.) I
   don't think it's a capitulation to admit that cypherpunks has
   evolved/devolved to a forum that bears little resemblance to its
   original charter. What we are is a bunch of mostly (but not all)
   libertarian ranters and ravers who are, for various and not
   necessarily consistent reasons, interested in the theme that         
   ubiquitous strong crypto is a good thing. (I just edited the
   previous sentence to change "believe that it's a good thing" to
   "are interested in" because I wouldn't mind having a Denning or a
   Sternlight here.) Not all threads need have *anything* to do with
   that theme for the forum to be useful to me. This happens to be the
   only place I get to hear people like Lucky Green and Tim May rant
   and rave about all sorts of other topics (I mean that in a good
   way; I read most of what they write, and while I don't always agree
   with it, it's always important). I don't want to lose that unique
   opportunity just because it's "off-topic."

-rich

Thanks, Rich, for a thoughtful post.

Rich Graves wrote:
> My take on the issues I see here:
> 
> 1) Moderator liability and anonymous posting. The open nature of the
>    list means that "copyright violations" threads and the like are
>    thought more or less safe for the people who own toad.com. With
>    moderation, this is less likely to be as "safe." Without calling
>    for a blanket assault on copyrights (I do have friends who make
>    their living as writers), and speaking only selfishly, I think it    
>    would be a shame to lose the "copyright violations" posts. So I
>    think we need a way to diminish or at least distribute moderator 
>    liability. Let's revisit the "Member of Parliament Problem" thread
>    of a month or so ago for solutions. Presumably STUMP or some other
>    moderation tool could be modified to support a secure anonymous-
>    approval protocol.

I hope that lawyers here could comment on this, and I hope that it
is relevant to the cupherpunks issues at hand.

You gave us another example of why charters that restrict moderators'
ability to reject posts are good. In soc.culture.russian.moderated
we had a similar problem (now resolved completely), when certain anonymous
posters posted articles that looked like articles from newspapers.

After long thinking, moderator board has come with the following 
solution: 

	1) We do not know for sure if a certain post violates
	   some copyrights or not
	2) We do not have a duty to verify copyrights or check
	   whether posts are libelous. Verifying it is not very
	   practical.
	3) Our co-moderators reside in different countries and these
	   countries may have different copyright laws
	4) Since the moderation is done by many people, it is hard to
	   say (as long as you did not see our logs which we regularly
	   delete) who really approved the questioned article
	5) Our charter does NOT give us a permission to reject copyright
	   violations (which may be and are freely posted to unmoderated
	   groups and lists anyhow).

There is also a related issue of moderators' responsibility for libel.
Our position was the following: libel involves some lies that damages
people's reputations. We cannot verify truthfulness of articles,
therefore we cannot tell libel from non-libel.

A classical example was the following: we have an Orthodox Jewish
poster. Suppose someone else posts an article where he describes that
poster as eating pork regularly. Such an article can, in theory, be
rather damaging for that person, and would be libelous if untrue.

We are not necessarily aware that Jewish customs involve prohibition
on eating swines, and so we cannot know that the post could be
damaging. Nor do we have any practical way of checking what that person 
eats.

We are required to reject flames if we consider them harassing, but we
do not accept responsibility for telling libel from non-libel.

We also add the following header fields to each article:

X-SCRM-Policy: http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/usenet/scrm/index.html
X-SCRM-Info-1: Send submissions to             scrm@algebra.com
X-SCRM-Info-2: Send technical complaints to    scrm-admin@algebra.com
X-SCRM-Info-3: Send complaints about policy to scrm-board@algebra.com
X-Comment: moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
X-Robomod-Version: STUMP 1.1, by ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)

> 4) "Qui custodiet ipsos custodes." When I first saw that thread
>    title, I thought it pertained to the moderation proposal. It
>    could. That's why I'd like to see the rejected messages archived,
>    at least for a while, as they are with Chudov's STUMP. What I'd
>    like best, since I don't particularly want to waste bandwidth or
>    my disk space with what would, by definition, be mostly crap, is
>    a hks.lists.cypherpunks.flames on the open nntp port I'm using
>    to read cypherpunks today. As some of you have noticed, I'm not
>    on the list now, because most of it is junk; I just point
>    Netscape at HKS Inc's open port whenever the whim strikes me,
>    and grab the few messages that look interesting. I'd like to do
>    the same with the "flame" list, every couple days. Of course, HKS
>    and the other public archives would make that decsion, and I
>    thank them for the free service they've provided me so far.

STUMP also regularly (once a week if so instructed) creates
really pretty WWW archives of rejected articles, like this: 

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/usenet/scrm/archive/maillist.html

(see also http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/usenet/scrm/index.html)


	- Igor.

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
> You gave us another example of why charters that restrict moderators'
> ability to reject posts are good. In soc.culture.russian.moderated
> we had a similar problem (now resolved completely), when certain anonymous
> posters posted articles that looked like articles from newspapers.

Since not a lot of people on this list read soc.culture.*, I'll give a
slightly different view of how Igor's moderation works in practice.

The charter of s.c.r.m prohibits flames and gratuitous obscenities.
However this rule is not enforced.  Certain friends of Igor (including
some of the s.c.r.m moderators) habitually cross-post articles between
soc.culture.russian.moderated, soc.culture.russian (unmoderated), and
a dozen other newsgroups saying things like: "<The s.c.r FAQ maintainer>
is a cocksucker and a motherfucker and has been arrested for sexually
molesting small children".  The targets of the flames are not permitted
to respond on soc.culture.russian.moderated (there's a "blacklist" of
people whose submissions are junked automatically, w/o a human moderator
ever seeing them).  Some time ago Igor invited me to post to s.c.r.m.
I submitted an article and was given to understand that I'm not welcome
to post to s.c.r.m irrespective of what I have to say.

I'm sure that this model suits "cypher punks" well.

---

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
> > You gave us another example of why charters that restrict moderators'
> > ability to reject posts are good. In soc.culture.russian.moderated
> > we had a similar problem (now resolved completely), when certain anonymous
> > posters posted articles that looked like articles from newspapers.
> 
> Since not a lot of people on this list read soc.culture.*, I'll give a
> slightly different view of how Igor's moderation works in practice.
> 
> The charter of s.c.r.m prohibits flames and gratuitous obscenities.
> However this rule is not enforced.  Certain friends of Igor (including
> some of the s.c.r.m moderators) habitually cross-post articles between
> soc.culture.russian.moderated, soc.culture.russian (unmoderated), and
> a dozen other newsgroups saying things like: "<The s.c.r FAQ maintainer>
> is a cocksucker and a motherfucker and has been arrested for sexually
> molesting small children".  The targets of the flames are not permitted

That is incorrect on several counts. First of all, our charter does not
prohibit flames. It prohibits harassment and spells out what should
be considered harassment:

Charter> Posts of the following types shall be off-topic in
Charter> soc.culture.russian.moderated:
Charter> 
Charter> 6. Harassing posts (of the typical form "[...] is a
Charter>    [Nazi|pedophile|forger|...]. Complain about [his|her|its]
Charter>    evil ways to [ISP|employer|Unesco|Cthulhu|Usenet Cabal|...]."
Charter> 
Charter> The proponent recognizes the distinction between patriotism and
Charter> jingoistic hatemongering.  Further, the distinction between
Charter> good-natured jokes and harassment is necessarily subjective.  The
Charter> moderators will use their best judgement to extend unbiased and
Charter> thorough consideration to submissions.
Charter> 

Second, nobody on scrm called Alex Iatskovski, whom you mentioned above
as SCR FAQ maintainer, "cocksucker", "motherfucker", or "child
molester". In fact, Dejanews search and my private archive indicate that
words cocksucker, motherfucker, molester were not used at all in our
group.

Note that I do not suggest that s.c.r.m. moderators are always fair
or always right or that we always interpret our charter correctly or
that our charter is perfect. The proposal and practice of moderation
is controversial. As you and I know, there are cases when we think that
moderation is justified, and there are cases when we think that it is
not justified.

> to respond on soc.culture.russian.moderated (there's a "blacklist" of
> people whose submissions are junked automatically, w/o a human moderator
> ever seeing them).  

This is, again, incorrect. Neither Alex Iatskovski nor any other person
associated with you has ever been on the black list. The purpose of the
black list is not to ignore people whom we do not like, but to prevent 
mailbombing of moderators.

	- Igor.

This is an example of soc.culture.russian.moderated traffic.

This is what Armenian forgers want.

From: ivan@manifesto.nihonkai.jp (Ivan Zimogorov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.russian.moderated
Subject: Re: Where can I find extensions for Russian TeX?
Message-ID: <5535100AXW.0AXX091996@manifesto.Nihonkai.jp>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 18:16:18 CST
References: <199611032246.QAA13585@manifold.algebra.com>
Organization: Bacterial Bee Peekers
Lines: 38
Approved: SCRM Approval Key <scrm-approval-key@algebra.com>
X-SCRM-Policy: http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/usenet/scrm/index.html
X-SCRM-Info-1: Send submissions to             scrm@algebra.com
X-SCRM-Info-2: Send technical complaints to    scrm-admin@algebra.com
X-SCRM-Info-3: Send complaints about policy to scrm-board@algebra.com
X-Comment: moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article.
X-Robomod-Version: STUMP 1.1, by ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)
X-No-Archive: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP soc.culture.russian.moderated

(0) Go to your Linux CD, change directory to where your tex is;
(1) cd ./lib/texmf/mf; grep -i vulis *

  It should print out "cyrti.mf:% I wouldn't even know the real one
  existed were it not for Dimitri Vulis"

(2) you're on your own now :)

Igor Chudov <ichudov@algebra.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.russian.moderated
> Subject: Where can I find extensions for Russian TeX?
> Date: Sun Nov  3 16:45:13 CST 1996
>
> subj sez it all.
>
> thank you
>
> igor
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBMn0grMJFmFyXKPzRAQGG7gP/ZmD+zgkBXkM5l0dzwmi8kvwAdUbh5/uy
> /sCqBTvLVApgsgRKylnVp/lUvOhLW/pR0r3Oh4pFYFk3DT5aHtefAymxlBbcWQjP
> C+HC7NPricd0oRcwsUmNzVfcQ8ki5BujMvYLibbEu8cH7FxnSE7QxFheINGvovg5
> pTCOuuYz3UM=
> =aEEb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
                  _
                  /
Ivan Zimogorov, _/\_ pupil of deliverance


========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT
MOD: The right file is _usr_local_tex_texmf_doc_help_TeX-index . Thanks. Igor.

---

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

Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com> very correctly mentions:

> 1) Moderator liability and anonymous posting.

I agree that this is actually a critical problem with a filtering
moderation scheme. Such a scheme appears to provide the capability to
filter out possible "copyright violations" posts. From what I remember
of the Netcom/CoS case (without going back to the sources), that may
mean more liability for the reviewers (and the operator of the
machine). That's a major point against simple filtering moderation.
(Which is considered principally because that's way that's most
compatible with current mail readers, really.)

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) responded:

> [in another forum]
> After long thinking, moderator board has come with the following 
> solution:
>
> 1) We do not know for sure if a certain post violates
>    some copyrights or not
> [and more in the same line 2,3,4,5]

Would any of this have mattered in Netcom/CoS?

Instead, a system that would forward reviewers' opinions *after the
fact* does not have any of this problem. And we have already mentioned,
it is also more powerful (real time initial feed, easy multiple
feedback feeds, fully compatible with anything else...) although it
does not reduce bandwidth requirements.

Pierre.
pierre@rahul.net

Sandy writes:

>Sounds fair
>enough to me.  What do you think?


I think temporarily moderating c-punks is a good idea. It could be that, if
we are indeed the target of a cancelable attack on usenet, all this garbage
could go away after a while (he said, wishfully). However, I think our
current problems are more a function of the size of the list itself. So,
if, in fact, the crap *doesn't* abate over time, it wouldn't be the end of
the world if the more abusive behavior here were removed mechanically --
before it went out to almost 2,000 people.

Thus, I don't think that moderating the garbage out of cypherpunks is the
functional equivalent of a neuticle installation. :-).


Measuring the effectiveness of this exercise, with the ability to peek
ocassionally into Sandy's sludge pile, keeps the whole thing honest.
Frankly, if we could figure out a way for Sandy to easily split the feed
into "cypherpunks" and "trash", that would be the best *permanent*
solution. Unfortunately, the physical mechanics of list moderation will
probably swamp poor Sandy as it is, much less the permanent addition of
forwarding the dreck somewhere else at the same time. I hope he understands
that he's about to take a shower with a firehose. For instance, it's work
enough mechanically for me to filter out the good 40% of cypherpunks, and
the 10% average of the 30 or so other lists I follow on a daily basis for
e$pam. If I were also responsible for sending the relevant contents of my
trash folder to another feed, it would probably be too much to mess with,
because I've got other stuff in there besides email list noise.

Of course, having an intellegent moderator of cypherpunks also cuts down on
the value of e$pam itself... Hmmm...

Heavy sigh. ;-).

Oh, well, it's all in the cause of a good signal...

Go for it, Sandy, and good luck!

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox,
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/
FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://offshore.com.ai/fc97/

I believe that every "EASY $$$ MONEY" posting ought to be forwarded
to the webmaster at the site from which it originated.
  Those who are harboring these generous souls should also be afforded
the opportunity to rake in the cash. I can hardly see how anybody 
could possibly resent being reminded of the wonderful opportuninties
they are making it possible for us to learn of.

Toto

Robert Hettinga wrote:
> solution. Unfortunately, the physical mechanics of list moderation will
> probably swamp poor Sandy as it is, much less the permanent addition of
> forwarding the dreck somewhere else at the same time. I hope he understands
> that he's about to take a shower with a firehose. For instance, it's work

With STUMP robomoderator, the great majority of posts are autoapproved,
because they come from preapproved posters. In the newsgroups moderated
by STUMP, moderators review only a small fraction of incoming messages.

It gives two benefits: 

	1) Saves lots of potentially billable time for moderators
	2) Increases speed with which posted articles reach the public.

	- Igor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

> Measuring the effectiveness of this exercise, with the ability to peek
> ocassionally into Sandy's sludge pile, keeps the whole thing honest.

I also think it allows the moderator to shoot from the hip a
bit more loosely.  Nothing gets lost, after all, just sorted.
I'm going to cut myself a fair amount of slack for occasional
mis-sorts.

> Go for it, Sandy, and good luck!

Thanks,  I'm sure I'll need it.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                          SANDY SANDFORT
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> 

[...]

> dropped or modified.  Even before we start, though, you may
> wish to contribute suggestions.
> 
> The following is our general plan.  I'm sure there will be
> questions that have to be answered as they arise, but the
> basis outline is a follows:
> 
> 1)  The test will run from January 11 through February 12.
> 
> 2)  I will review all incoming messages for purposes of
> preserving decorum and reducing obviously unrelated spam.  Other
> then that, I will not overly concern myself with off-topic posts.  
> I will, however, expurgate all posts containing flames, insults 
> and other irrelevant personal attacks, as well as spams, before
> forwarding the remaining posts to the Cypherpunk list.

A specific statement of what constitutes "flames, insults" and etc. might
be a good idea.

How will borderline posts be dealt with?  Posts that contain a great deal
of content and thoughful discussion and still manage to contain flames?

Will flames be an automatic boot for a post (zero tolerance), or will they
be balanced against post content?

What is the threshold which, for example, constitutes an "insult" ?

"Louis Freeh couldn't identify a directed well managed crypto policy if it
bit him on his pimple speckled ass."

"You are so turned around on this issue one is prompted to wonder if you
have any background in higher education at all."

"For the new members of the list, [insert list member here] has a history
of posting idiotic and useless posts, and generally wasting the list's
time like an asshole."

All of the above?  None of the above?

> 3)  Cypherpunks who wish to read all posts to the list may do so
> by taking advantage of either of two optional lists.  The first
> (cypherpunk-flames@toad.com), will consist solely of messages
> expurgated from the main Cypherpunks list.  (Those who subscribe
> to "flames" will be able to easily monitor my moderating
> decisions.)  The second (cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com), will
> contain all posts sent to Cypherpunks.  It will be the equivalent
> of the current open, unmoderated list.  It will appeal to those
> who don't want list moderation.

Excellent idea.

> 4)  During the test month, polite discussion of the test will
> always be on topic.  In the last few days before the 10th of
> February, I will call for opinions as to whether moderation
> should be continued, modified or eliminated.  John has agreed to
> abide by the consensus of the group with one proviso.  Because of
> the large volume of bandwidth eaten by the lists, he does not
> want to maintain both the "flame" and "unedited" versions of the
> list.  If list members decide to continue to have the list
> moderated, one of those lists will probably have to go.

I believe the "flames" list should be maintained as long as possible.
Continuing checks on the moderator (whoever it may be) are necessary and
appropriate.  What better way than to directly provide a means to identify
what the moderator has excluded?

(Also, if the flames and non flames lists are maintained, how is this more
bandwidth than the former condition where both flames and nonflames will
posted together?  In fact, if this has a deterant effect on flames (one of
the main reasons for instituting the policy) the bandwidth should be less.
Its only more bandwidth if the unmoderated list is maintained.

Perhaps the unmoderated list should be eliminated, as subscribing to both
the flames and the non-flames will have the same net effect...?

> 5)  If list members decide on a moderated list, I will be happy
> to assist in the ongoing process.  Though I will continue to be
> available for duty as moderator from time to time, we will need a
> set of rotating volunteers to take turns acting as moderator. 
> Volunteers are always welcome.

A diversity of moderators makes a detailed stated policy on moderation an
absolute must.

> 6)  Because every message submitted to Cypherpunk will be posted 
> to two of the three sister lists, I don't intend to lose much
> sleep over whether or not this or that moderating decision was
> perfect.  I will do the best job I can, within the constraints
> listed here.  If I err, it isn't fatal.  Everyone who wants one
> will have two Cypherpunk venues for their posts.  Sounds fair
> enough to me.  What do you think?

Excellent until the flames list is eliminated.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Black Unicorn wrote:

> How will borderline posts be dealt with?  Posts that contain a great deal
> of content and thoughful discussion and still manage to contain flames?
> 
> Will flames be an automatic boot for a post (zero tolerance), or will they
> be balanced against post content?

Zero tolerance will be my first approximation.  I may modify 
that as I see how things really work out.  So far, though, I
don't recall see any of those "high content with flames" animals.
Most posts are one or the other.
 
> What is the threshold which, for example, constitutes an "insult" ?
> 
> "Louis Freeh couldn't identify a directed well managed crypto policy if it
> bit him on his pimple speckled ass."

Truth (and relevance) are a defense.  :-)
 
> "You are so turned around on this issue one is prompted to wonder if you
> have any background in higher education at all."
> 
> "For the new members of the list, [insert list member here] has a history
> of posting idiotic and useless posts, and generally wasting the list's
> time like an asshole."
> 
> All of the above?  None of the above?

Sorry Black Unicorn, no declaratory judgments.  Everything gets
posted one way or another.  Let's see how it works in the real
world.
 
> I believe the "flames" list should be maintained as long as possible.
> Continuing checks on the moderator (whoever it may be) are necessary and
> appropriate.  What better way than to directly provide a means to identify
> what the moderator has excluded?

This is my opinion as well.  However, John makes the very good
point that the unedited list has one very important advantage--
timeliness.  The other two lists (polite and flames) have a 
build in delay time because of the moderation.  I don't see it
as a problem, but John feels that quick turnaround is an 
advantage that some list members would prefer.
 
> A diversity of moderators makes a detailed stated policy on moderation an
> absolute must.

I agree.  We are not at that stage yet, however.  We are still
finding our sea legs for now.
 

 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> C'punks,
> 
> On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > How will borderline posts be dealt with?  Posts that contain a great deal
> > of content and thoughful discussion and still manage to contain flames?
> > 
> > Will flames be an automatic boot for a post (zero tolerance), or will they
> > be balanced against post content?
> 
> Zero tolerance will be my first approximation.  I may modify 
> that as I see how things really work out.  So far, though, I
> don't recall see any of those "high content with flames" animals.
> Most posts are one or the other.

Haven't you been reading my stuff?

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> > C'punks,
> > 
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > 
> > > How will borderline posts be dealt with?  Posts that contain a great deal
> > > of content and thoughful discussion and still manage to contain flames?
> > > 
> > > Will flames be an automatic boot for a post (zero tolerance), or will they
> > > be balanced against post content?
> > 
> > Zero tolerance will be my first approximation.  I may modify 
> > that as I see how things really work out.  So far, though, I
> > don't recall see any of those "high content with flames" animals.
> > Most posts are one or the other.
> 
> Haven't you been reading my stuff?
> 

Indeed, I suggest a zero tolerance policy for posts of Prof. Black 
Unicorn where content is mixed with flames.

	- Igor.

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:

> Black Unicorn wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > 
> > > C'punks,
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > > 
> > > > How will borderline posts be dealt with?  Posts that contain a great de
> > > > of content and thoughful discussion and still manage to contain flames?
> > > > 
> > > > Will flames be an automatic boot for a post (zero tolerance), or will t
> > > > be balanced against post content?
> > > 
> > > Zero tolerance will be my first approximation.  I may modify 
> > > that as I see how things really work out.  So far, though, I
> > > don't recall see any of those "high content with flames" animals.
> > > Most posts are one or the other.
> > 
> > Haven't you been reading my stuff?
> > 
> 
> Indeed, I suggest a zero tolerance policy for posts of Prof. Black 
> Unicorn where content is mixed with flames.
> 
> 	- Igor.

I suggest zero tolerance of Black Unicorn unless and until someone
reveals his real name.

ObModeratorFodder: Fuck the Armenians. Asshole censor John Gilmore
likes to suck big dicks.

---

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

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > What is the threshold which, for example, constitutes an "insult" ?
> > 
> > "Louis Freeh couldn't identify a directed well managed crypto policy if it
> > bit him on his pimple speckled ass."
> 
> Truth (and relevance) are a defense.  :-)

If your approval is your certification of truthfulness of articles,
you might be held liable for libel. Is that correct?

	- Igor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:

> Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> > Truth (and relevance) are a defense.  :-)
> 
> If your approval is your certification of truthfulness of articles,
> you might be held liable for libel. Is that correct?

Gosh, I hadn't thought about that.  Maybe I should reconsider
this whole crazy idea.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
> 
> > Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> > > Truth (and relevance) are a defense.  :-)
> > 
> > If your approval is your certification of truthfulness of articles,
> > you might be held liable for libel. Is that correct?
> 
> Gosh, I hadn't thought about that.  Maybe I should reconsider
> this whole crazy idea.

Call me crazy, but is there any way to set up an anonymous moderator
scheme? The messages hit toad.com, and are forwarded via the remailer
network to someone. The actual moderator can change from time to time. 
Only posts that aren't "preapproved" are actually forwarded to the
moderator. The moderator approves the postings by signing them with a PGP
key. It's then sent back through the network to another address at
toad.com, and passed on to the list members. 

Or does this just put toad.com in hot water?

--
Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay.