Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"

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

I've been quiet about the moderation experiment (and I never posted
frequently anyway) but something Sandy wrote requires comment.  In
responding to Tim, Sandy points to the number of people on the censored
list as evidence of the acceptance of the filtering.  I am included in
that group and object to my silence being interpreted as support.

As Tim has pointed out, the bulk of the 2000 or so people who have
remained on the filtered list have never been active participants on the
list.  As we have never heard from them, we don't even know that they were
bothered by the flames and noise of the pre-filtered list.  And, even if
we did know, I don't think that there opinions should count as much as
those of the more active participants to the list.  A subscription to the
list does not make one a member of the Cypherpunks "community".  It is the
opinion of the members of the community and not the observers of it which
should matter.  (Even within the community, some people are more a part of
it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.)

As for the rest of us on the filtered list who are active (or occasionally
active) participants, our remaining on the list still can not be taken as
support for censorship.  Moderation of the list was announced as a one 
month experiment.  I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to
the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was
willing to participate in the experiment.  You can't ask someone to try
something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in
that month evidence that they like it.

As long as I am writing, I may as well write the rest of my thoughts.  While
there was a period between the announcement of moderation and the start of
it during which people could (and did) comment on the change, the
announcement was clear that there would be moderation.  It was indeed a
fait accompli.  The moderated list should have been offered but not
imposed.  Then the experiment would have determined how many people
thought the list was so bad that they would seek moderation, rather than
determining how many thought moderation was so bad that they would seek to
avoid it.

Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began
moderating.  How could you think otherwise?  When you send an article to
the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse
otherwise.  I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in
determining if moderation is a good thing.  I think there is a conflict of
interest there.

- --------------------
Scott V. McGuire <svmcguir@syr.edu>
PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir
Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E  96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05



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

iQCVAwUBMvZ3lN7xoXfnt4lpAQGjbgQAs9qqrOZCgHeT19yh6LOS8rsXVAglssVI
2VLCiKb/X0Ny1+p3kzTiit42uykv5IhoCn+GdJF0X08zW02ymRf6JIv2sLksW2ln
E+SZuUoLFk18emLIJMEVGNPW7cJEl7/a75IdETrU14RcdBN8F86bm5VK36kyNMIY
kPfB825uWxU=
=N3va
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Scott V. McGuire allegedly said:
[...]
> I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to
> the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was
> willing to participate in the experiment.  You can't ask someone to try
> something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in
> that month evidence that they like it.

I agree.  But there is more.  As much as anything else, I didn't
change lists because of inertia and laziness.  I suspect that most 
people are like me in this regard.  I suspect that if the tactic had 
been to require people to subscribe to the moderated list we would 
see just the reverse of the current numbers.  In fact, in the 
interests of fairness, integrity, and adherence to the scientific 
method, I suggest that after this month trial has passed that we 
reverse the lists, and see how many change to the moderated list.

[snip]

> Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began
> moderating.  How could you think otherwise?  When you send an article to
> the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse
> otherwise.  I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in
> determining if moderation is a good thing.  I think there is a conflict of
> interest there.

Absolutely no doubt that there is a conflict of interest.  In Sandy's shoes 
a saint couldn't be objective.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F