1997-01-11 - Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy

Header Data

From: Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Message Hash: 7a2962e063727a4100f2f38bd10a3dce0b5841ad57592724839fbadca5179177
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970109162541.11773A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
Reply To: <32D1EA88.7C4F@gte.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-11 00:12:06 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:12:06 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:12:06 -0800 (PST)
To: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
In-Reply-To: <32D1EA88.7C4F@gte.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970109162541.11773A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> 1. Sandfort is the person who would never drop an argument, no matter
>    how long, until he had the last word.  I know since I went rounds
>    with him a time or two.  As far as I can tell (not being a profess-
>    ional psychologist), Sandy has some emotional limitations that would
>    make him a poor choice to moderate such an intense list as this.
>    Certainly the moderated list would still be quite intense, since
>    the intent is to be a political/social forum. Sandfort unfortunately
>    appears to be a special friend of Gilmore's, and I don't think John
>    has taken the time to consider the outcome.

Sandfort isn't the only one who will do this, there will be a pool of 
moderators. Regardless of your personality conflict, I am sure that Sandy 
will remain fair and allow appropriate posts from you through. i.e. 
anything to do with crypto. :)

> 2. The only possible scheme that could work long-term would be a moderated
>    list plus a deleted (excised?) list of posts which didn't make the
>    moderator's cut. Having a moderated list and a full unmoderated list
>    is certain to fail, and I'm not too sure that they don't have this in
>    mind already.

What makes you say that there is only one scheme that can succeed?  Why is
having a moderated list and an unmoderated list bound to fail?  The plan
actually (unless it changed without my knowlege) is to have 3 lists.  1
moderated, 1 rejects, 1 unmoderated.  This can be optimized as 1 moderated
and 1 rejects as you propose, since asking for all is the same as asking
for moderated+rejects. 

> 3. Not making the unmoderated list first-up (i.e., cutting posts first,
>    then making the "full" list available later) is suspicious, or at
>    least a bad idea.

What difference does it make if a message is delayed for 10-30 minutes?  
Why is it a bad idea or suspicious?  If you post something and it doesn't 
make it at all, you can complain about it.  Is that what you fear?

The point was to optimize the sendmail to send moderated messages first.

> 4. Moving everyone to the moderated list and then having people who want
>    the full list unsubscribe and resubscribe is more evidence of bad
>    faith.  If what Sandy says is true (I don't believe it), the vast
>    majority of posts (excluding obvious spam, probably 75 or more a day)
>    will be in the moderated list, therefore I think anyone can see that
>    merely cutting the spam and bad flames is not the ultimate intent.
>    To do that, all they would have had to do is announce a bucket where
>    they're dropping the excisions, and let whoever wants them to pick
>    them up from there. Maybe they thought that would make them look bad,
>    but before this is over (if they continue on their present course),
>    they're going to look much worse.

Bad faith comes from the thousands of unsubscrive and such messages 
posted here.  People have no clue as how to do things.

In the interest of cutting the crap off this list which has virtually 
brought the list down to its knees because of our friendly KOTM dude, it 
is best to bring a bit of civility here.  If people want to see crap, let 
them subscribe to it.

It's bad enough to have spammers and advertisers on a list, but if we have
the majority of the subscribers immune to their spams, the spam will die. 
If everyone had the ability to filter out commercials, especially the
annoying ones, advertisers would go away.  The difference here is that the
ads don't support the station with $, they flood it with crap which
alienates discussions. 

> I just can't believe Gilmore wants to have Sandfort do this.  There's
> gotta be someone he can trust who has a viable reputation.  Then again,
> who with a decent reputation would want to moderate cypherpunks?

You have a personal problem with Sandford, it doesn't mean that Sandy 
will be unable to be a perfectly able moderator.  I'm sure Sandy will do 
a fine job, but that is my oppinion and it doesn't match yours.  From the 
looks of it, it's more the case that this is a clash of egoes rather than 
a complaint about the moderation.

.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "If  you're  gonna die,  die  with your|./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|boots on;  If you're  gonna  try,  just |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!"    |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|  --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================