From: qut@netcom.com (Skip)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 13:09:05 +0800
To: ichudov@algebra.com
Subject: Re: PreRFD: comp.org.cypherpunks
In-Reply-To: <199608211928.OAA29624@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <199608220144.SAA21861@netcom.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


ON
! 
! if it is _robo_moderated, there would not be timing issues.

Exactly the same problem of one machine that can recieve and make the posts,
one script, one moderator in charge of the whole thing, which experience 
indicates they eventually abuse their resonsibility by keeping it after 
they lose interest in managing the group.

! igor
! 
! Skip, OBC wrote:
! > 
! > ! Jim McCoy wrote:
! > ! > qut@netcom.com (Skip) writes:
! > ! > > My suggestion number #1:
! > ! > > No moderation.
! > ! > 
! > ! > Suggestion 1 on how to diminish the feeble S/N ratio on cypherpunks:
! > ! > 
! > ! >         make it a newsgroup
! > ! > Suggestion 2:
! > ! >         make it an unmoderated newsgroup
! > ! 
! > ! How about making it a robomoderated newsgroup with only one enforced
! > ! rule, forbidding any crossposting?
! > 
! > If moderation, then why not moderator(s) who simply send out cancel 
! > messages to everthing that is crossposted?  Traditional moderated 
! > newsgroups are technically inferior because all posts go through netnews 
! > chokepoints and then depends on the moderator(s) who's inevitable 
! > position has been the irresponsible one of keeping the position long 
! > after they lose interest with the high volumes.  Even if their was such
! > a person, there is still are chokepoint problem which is stupid to  
! > engage in.
! > 
! > In any case, creation of comp.org.cypherpunks in no way means gatewaying 
! > or shutting down cypherpunks@toad.com .
! > 
! > 
! > --
! > Love, 
! > Skip, OBC
! > 
! 
! 
! 
! 	- Igor.
!