1997-01-11 - Secret Agenda?

Header Data

From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
To: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>
Message Hash: 78d56599aa6e9c61b55483ea8f36ba29879845e3ad7e6cbddeb1c65b8b0b458a
Message ID: <32D78420.56D6@sk.sympatico.ca>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970109162541.11773A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-11 10:38:53 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:38:53 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:38:53 -0800 (PST)
To: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>
Subject: Secret Agenda?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970109162541.11773A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
Message-ID: <32D78420.56D6@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Against Moderation wrote:

 The points you raise below are valid ones, as opposed to some of the
perceived 'parting shots' by those 'voting' for moderation in 
anticipation of the Iron Boot descending (on 'others', of course).
 I find it interesting that you keep refering to 'not understanding'
some of the purported reasons behind the proposed system. I am
finding myself getting the feeling that there is some underlying
future purpose or direction behind the 'changes' that is not being
fully revealed.
 Perhaps my sense of smell is declining in my old-age, but I'm getting
an odor that doesn't match with the dinner menu that has been 

> 10-30 minutes is potentially far less than it would take.  What about
> mail that arrives in the middle of the night, or what if all the
> moderators are away or busy.

> If you add delay before secondary moderators can even
> get the stuff, you are unfairly penalizing those who use a better or
> more efficient filtering scheme

> Fine for those who want the moderation, but why are you forcing
> everyone to use this scheme?
> There are plenty of moderation schemes that are way more cypherpunk
> than one central moderation authority.
>  But why not let those of us who write code experiment with other 
ways of moderating the list?  Please.
> What does it cost anyone to have a separate mailing list which
> immediately gets all cypherpunks submissions?  The only argument
> against this is "load", but that doesn't make sense.
> More importantly, if some significant number of people really do want
> to subscribe to cypherpunks-raw (as in enough that you would even
> start to think about load), then maybe centralized moderation is not
> the way to go.
> What is the advantage of not having a cypherpunks-raw?  I just don't
> understand it.  It costs you nothing, it shows your willingness to
> compete with other moderators or moderation schemes, and it will make
> people a lot more confident that you aren't suppressing some messages
> from cypherpunks-flames list.