From: Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:23:47 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
Message-ID: <199701132323.PAA02433@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 01:18 AM 1/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
>Bill Frantz wrote:
...
>> Let me rant a bit about the "ideal" moderation structure.  Igor Chudov's
>> software lets people like Matt Blase and Bruce Schneier post whatever they
>> want.  (I would add people like Black Unicorn as well.  YMMV)  Other posts
>> go into a pool accessible to all moderators.  If one moderator approves,
>> the message goes out.  If N reject, it is rejected.  These rejections could
>> either be anonymous or be included in an x-moderators-rejecting: header for
>> the "worst of cypherpunks" list.
>
>I think that Bill proposes a very interesting idea. His suggestion would
>eliminate a lot of [well-grounded] suspicion about arbitrary rejections
>at a "whim" of moderators.
>
>My only concern is that there will be more work for moderators, because
>in his scheme each "bad" message has to be reviewed by N people instead
>of 1.
>
>It is a tradeoff between a more liberal policy and efficient use of
>moderators' time.

As long as a number of moderators have access, then why not also include in
the header information the number of available moderators that gave the
content a "thumbs up".  If this were tacked on to the front of the subject
field, (for people like me whor are using Eudora Lite), then messages could
be chosen, by the readers, based on the number of moderators that gave it
approval.  Ideally, a relatively large number of moderators would be on hand
so that the scale would be an accurate cross-reference of the groups opinions.