From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 14:35:21 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Extropian Justice
In-Reply-To: <199405262104.RAA25305@umbc9.umbc.edu>
Message-ID: <9405262135.AA05871@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim writes:
> Most of my comments will be based on the material Ram Cromwell writes:
> 
> >    First let me explain something to people who don't know. The extropians
> > list has a legal arbitration system to help keep down flames. We have
> > rules against bringing verbal assaults into heated debates so that
> > if you feel someone is insulting you, you may 'press charges'. If
> > evidence is presented, the person usually gets a warning. 3 warnings
> > and your posting privileges get revoked for a period between 24-72 hours
> > to allow a 'cool down' period on the list. This was implemented out
> > of neccessity because the list was averaging between 150 to 300
> > messages a day with most of those coming from only a handful of
> > people.
> 
> Ironically, I found that the legal code *caused* many flames, for
> various reasons. This is my interpretation, and I "assign credit" (in
> genetic programming terms) for dozens of flames between various
> parties to the existence of a legal code that encouraged/facillitated
> the filing of charges and countercharges, the issuance of warnings and
> other judgements, and the seemingly endless debate about all of these
> issues, as well as of the charges.

  All true, there was a "shakeout" in the legal system which caused
huge debates over the fairness and objectivity of it. Everything
has settled down since the commercialization of the list and
since the big players have left.

> >    A common way of resolving a standoff debate on the Extropians list
> > is to put your money where your mouth is -- a bet. This causes someone
> > to get off their lazy ass and go look up the citation and present it
> 
> With due respect for Ray here, this worked better in theory than in
> practice. The issuance of a challenge typically resulted in each side
> firing new volleys of charges, of clarifications, and of boring public
> debate about the terms, judgement criteria, who would hold the money,
> etc. Ad nauseum. I recall only one fairly positive example: some bet

  I agree that it worked better in theory than in practice, but it did
seem to have the effect of shutting down a 'is so, is not, is so!, is not!'
flame. For instance, Perry would often get involved in a discussion
where each side was claiming a statistic and firmly standing by it
without offering a reference. Perry would often end a thread like
this by betting a huge sum of money that he was right. It seemed
to me, that it often quieted the other person down. The claims might
not have been resolved (because no one took up the bet), but the endless
standoff of counter claims would end.

  Besides bets, there was Derek Zahn's accountability society
which had one positive result and almost none of the negative flamage
that bets had. 

> By the way, so far as I am aware, *nobody* has ever been kicked off
> the Cypherpunks list. Not even Detweiler, who asked to be removed last
> Novemeber or so, as he was entering his terminal phase. 

   The disadvantage of this is that since your list software has no
filtering capability, I must deal with a huge flood of messages
everyday that Detweiler generates. For a simple list like
majordomo, I think deleting trouble makers is a good short term solution.

> There may be a lesson here. A formal legal code encourages "law
> hacking" by those with an axe to grind. A formal system which attempts
> to cover all possibilities encourages incompleteness, loopholes. (This
> is often analyzed as being the result of Goedel's Theorem, which I
> suppose it is in an informal sense :-}.)

  An interesting speculation. Legal systems are, after all, pretty
close to being 'formal systems' Nobody ever said a legal system had
to be consistent though. ;-)
 
> I like the Cypherpunks system a lot better. Instead of bogging down in
> claims, charges, formal bets, adjudication, appeals, etc., there are
> relatively few if any rules. Somehow the turkeys end up leaving.

  With much heat and light generated in the meantime which is fine for
some people, but irritating to others. Keeping in mind Coase's Theorem
and Spontaneous Order, Harry and I are going beyond the idea of
PPLs by attempting to create list software which allows 'personal
justice', filtering, reputations, etc. We personally believe that
the whitewater of noise which is out there now will become a tsunami
when Joe Sixpack gets his 'entitled' account. The only way to defend
yourself from this assault in cyberspace will be intelligent communications
software.

-Ray