From: Bernie Doehner <bad@uhf.wireless.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:16:13 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970111003625.0069d61c@mail.io.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970111110027.602A-100000@uhf.wdc.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> I think that the move to human moderation is a good thing, and am pleased
> that Sandy will shortly begin to act as moderator.

Last night's barrage of SPAM convinced me that this is a really good
thing. 
 
> However, I think that forming lists of "approved people" and "unapproved
> people" and treating them differently is likely to do more harm than good,
> even if we have nice software which does it very efficiently. I don't like
> it for several reasons:

Why jump to conclusions about the moderator's behavior?  Lets give the
new moderators a chance - PLEASE!!!

I think our new moderators have been around long enough to know
what's appropriate and what's not. I for one am getting really tired of
seeing so many off topic messages (not necessary SPAM) on here. I have
been tempted to unsubscribe a couple of times, but I haven't because I
don't want to miss information on the DES/RC5 Challenge and other
important info.

I have been on well moderated lists, as well as had to ask a friend of
mine who was on a closed list to forward postings to me (I couldn't get on
the approved list because I hadn't sent them $20).

> 1.	Political. It's symbolically disturbing, and it tends to shift the focus
> of the group (and of the moderation process) away from messages, and
> towards the people who post them. I think it'd be tempting to turn it into
> some sort of bureaucratic system, with punishments (being on the bad list)

In the case of this one closed list that I know of, I'd agree with you,
but I'd argue that this isn't generaly true. Let me ask you this: How many
of the messages posted to this list have you actualy read/found useful? 

I personaly don't find more than perhaps 5% useful.

> 2.	Technical. It requires that the people on the "good list" authenticate
> their messages (otherwise people will post with the names of "good people"
> to avoid moderation), which imports a lot of hassle with different
> platforms and signing and certification and key distribution and [...]
> which we don't have good solutions for yet.

I sort of see your point, but I don't think we have to go that far. A
moderator's main function is one of keeping the discussions on track (Ie.
SPAM selling Metamucil doesn't qualify). Authentication goes a little
beyond that. I think forcing authentication will really turn this into
a political problem.

Good luck Sandy and other moderator!

Bernie