Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list

I would like to start a thread to discuss the moderation and rejection 
policy.

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.

You can receive a copy of my article by an email request.

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.

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

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

	- Igor.

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

> I would like to start a thread to discuss the moderation and rejection
> policy.

I predict that Sandy won't allow any posts on the censored list that
question his moderation poilicy - only the unanymous praises.

> 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.

A dishonorable act.

> You can receive a copy of my article by an email request.

Perhaps you want to start putting up rejected articles on a Web page?

> 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.

That's correct.

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

Sandy's personal likes and dislikes of certain posters are the criterion.

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

You won't be allowed to on this censored mailing list.

---

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

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

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:

> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

<snip>

> > 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'.  


Beauty, flames and censorship are all in the eyes of the beholder.  
However, by providing both "raw" and "cooked" versions of the list, Sandy 
is allowing readers to choose for themselves whether or not they want 
someone else's filters applied to their mailbox.  Personally, I choose to 
press the "Delete" key myself.

<snip>

> > 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'.

Note that Sandy also stated that the post in question would not be sent to 
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.

Agreed, and said private individual can do as s/he sees fit.  My only
objection is that the moderated version has the same name as the original
list (sounds like Rogers Cable's recent attempt at "Costs More Unless You 
Speak Up Now" channels).

<snip>

>   In short, I don't see the moderation as being 'fair', and I don't
> think it was ever meant to be.

Again, fairness is in the eyes of the beholder.  I don't object to the 
list being filtered, as long as everyone understands that this is 
happening.


What will happen, I wonder, if at the end of the trial period the number
of subscribers to the "raw" list outnumbers those who get the "cooked"
list, or vice versa?  Is that one of the criteria for determining the
"success" of the experiment? 

Cynthia

===============================================================
Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
E-mail:     cynthb@sonetis.com
Home Page:  http://www.sonetis.com/~cynthb/
PGP Key:    See Home Page
Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received.

        Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.

Cynthia H. Brown wrote:
> Beauty, flames and censorship are all in the eyes of the beholder.
> However, by providing both "raw" and "cooked" versions of the list, Sandy
> is allowing readers to choose for themselves whether or not they want
> someone else's filters applied to their mailbox.  Personally, I choose to
> press the "Delete" key myself.
> Agreed, and said private individual can do as s/he sees fit.  My only
> objection is that the moderated version has the same name as the original
> list (sounds like Rogers Cable's recent attempt at "Costs More Unless You
> Speak Up Now" channels).

I apologize for intruding, Cynthia, but I have a question about "doing
as s/he sees fit".  For example, what is the list?  Is it the equipment,
is it the software that runs on the equipment, or is it the contents of
the list (my writings, your writings, etc.)?  If I had to rank them, I
would rank the contents as being more important than the equipment or
the software.  That said, how can those contents be considered the
property of the list owner/manager to do with as they see fit?

I do understand that they have the right to manage the list as they see
fit, and to move the messages into whatever buckets seem appropriate,
but your phrasing suggested more to me, and I'm puzzled by it.