1994-05-12 - Re: Cypherpunks Goals: Bad debate drives out good debate

Header Data

From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
To: ecarp@netcom.com
Message Hash: 18b0920471eea673c26401d6b65782324f3ead4f8d8058cbe641fefb7570861d
Message ID: <199405121728.KAA00443@netcom.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9405120948.A11766-0100000@netcom10>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-12 17:28:07 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 12 May 94 10:28:07 PDT

Raw message

From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Thu, 12 May 94 10:28:07 PDT
To: ecarp@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Cypherpunks Goals: Bad debate drives out good debate
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9405120948.A11766-0100000@netcom10>
Message-ID: <199405121728.KAA00443@netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> How about auto-moderation?  I came up with this idea a while back for
> automatically moderating mailing lists.  Here's how it works:
> ...
> If a person becomes a nuisance, people send their votes in to the 
> moderator-robot, and it tallies the votes. If within XXX days more thumbs 
> down votes are received than thumbs up votes, the person is placed on the 
> disapproved list.

> The main advantage is, it's fast and easy to set up.  Comments?

This would be easy to set up, but instead of discarding message from
"disapproved" people I would suggest just tagging which messages are
sent by "approved" people and which are not.  That way all of the
information still gets out there, even if it's unpopular.

Peter





Thread