From: “David E. Smith” <dsmith@prairienet.org>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6a82105ce9803cbde12bd34cce8e21d05495ef213f1044d086dca3a727ca13f5
Message ID: <3.0.32.19970130192408.006879d8@midwest.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-31 01:33:15 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:33:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "David E. Smith" <dsmith@prairienet.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:33:15 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: A comment on the censorship policy
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970130192408.006879d8@midwest.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 12:19 AM 1/30/97 -0800, Toto wrote:
> It is extremely easy to understand. Just read your own words.
> The key word here is 'accurate' criticisms. This makes them 'flames',
>in Sandy's mind, because the purpose of the 'censorship experiment'
>was to place total control of the list in the hands of a man who
>rarely posts and doesn't seem to participate in the list discussions,
>as well as for the purpose of suppressing any real dissent that may
>arise from list members.
Interesting interpretation. Mind you, I'm obliged to disagree.
My understanding was that the moderator is supposed to ONLY
filter out ads and utterly-content-free messages. (Mind you,
I took the smart out and subbed to cp-unedited, so I'm in
no place to judge.) If the idea was to place control in the
hands of someone who rarely posts, why not give it to me?
There are probably a few hundred of the real addresses on this
list (not the mail-echoers) that have never posted.
> Also, one of the reasons that the moderation process is so
>haphazard, is that posts from some individuals are automatically
>routed to the 'flames' list at some times, and viewed/censored
>at other times, so that a few can be posted to the censored
>list to give some half-hearted illusion of fairness in the
>censorship process. (which remains a bad joke, nonetheless).
Aha, a good point to be brought up: Sandy, are you autofiltering
anyone based on user name, or on certain keywords? Seems to
defeat the purpose of having a _human_ moderator.
dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQEVAwUBMvFJl3EZTZHwCEpFAQHGiQf/QjEj9QJ+9viADYdfSQJumpXhb8BF+MHQ
zbAYVGxLyt/WYA96cykFHYk2hCzkcfph/XDksSB6lmaStHFHfPCOAOHReu6xfHg2
3+3RyOI/eBJS8RS6z5dQBWTnKiu35sk5J2wMcnOWfMQXTWz8jYVAHnyBh9x39huP
+Iwj4jOE0Qelu4/FZhgVgo3tktw5sBGjmaZgOvu/24DoT2YPsG9EQ74i6suX0B15
eE1uPaP+2zumwYpV2ywYNbfFyExY2K9XM6k7M/ZNwpplMyf+plYigVUkNRP6KJWK
Gvp3bN6mAa2BF/bnoyCGTulC3By785Fk3s+EV2hUVknoZwH3SGF53w==
=Sl5a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to January 1997
Return to ““David E. Smith” <dsmith@prairienet.org>”
1997-01-31 (Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:33:15 -0800 (PST)) - Re: A comment on the censorship policy - “David E. Smith” <dsmith@prairienet.org>