cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-01-20 - Re: Thoughts re moderation, filtering, and name changes

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Message Hash: 7109859665303e40ad35e708095059c83410771096c3330d57bb236e0e1e96c4
Message ID: <32E2D795.4B0D@gte.net>
Reply To: <3.0.32.19970119160951.006c26ac@ricochet.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-20 02:25:49 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:25:49 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 18:25:49 -0800 (PST)
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts re moderation, filtering, and name changes
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970119160951.006c26ac@ricochet.net>
Message-ID: <32E2D795.4B0D@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Greg Broiles wrote:
> One approach to the name question would be to eliminate
> "cypherpunks@toad.com" and force old/new subscribers to choose between
> "cypherpunks-edited" and "cypherpunks-unedited". The advantage I see is
> that it provides more accurate feedback about what people want; the present
> method provides information about the perceived value of unmoderation
> weighed against the bother of dealing with subscribing & unsubscribing. The
> disadvantage is that it's likely to eliminate many subscribers, and that it
> tends to abandon the "cypherpunks@toad.com" history which is, by now, ~5
> years old.

A good thought, Greg.  One problem, though.  My suspicion is that
Gilmore/Sandfort really wanted to have all the current subscribers
to the old unedited list to automatically be part of the new edited
list.  I don't think your possible approach would be acceptable to
anyone I know, forcing people to re-subscribe (and implying that those
who don't do anything would be unsubscribed, which would freak the
list owners out for sure).

Thread