1997-01-05 - Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks “moderation” experiment in Jan

Header Data

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
Message Hash: b1c509c0cf708c0aedb2c8c65249094b20d85207c6c65159d216ab1f554029dc
Message ID: <199701052106.PAA00804@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <199701051939.LAA05342@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-05 21:10:43 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:10:43 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:10:43 -0800 (PST)
To: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
In-Reply-To: <199701051939.LAA05342@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199701052106.PAA00804@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

my moderation bot, STUMP, may be just for you. It is now used in four usenet
newsgroups (comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated, soc.culture.russian.moderated,
misc.invest.financial-plan, soc.religion.paganism) and it can also handle
mailing lists.

features include preapproved list of trusted posters, list of suspicious
keywords, optional (at the posters' discretion) positive poster
authentication via PGP, signing of approvals with PGPMoose, multiple
moderators, moderators' mailing list, and much more. There is a plugin
for Netscape that I called Modscape that allows moderators to work with
a pretty Netscape-like user interface for moderating (see the picture at
the web site). Modscape currently works under linux and can be easily ported
to any other unix where netscape plugins are supported.

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov  (go to STUMP page)

John Gilmore wrote:
> I agree with Sandy Sandfort and many others that things have gotten
> way out of hand on the list.  He and I feel that the only proposed
> solutions likely to succeed involve inserting human judgement in the
> cypherpunks posting process, rather than mere automation.  So I am
> supporting this experiment, primarily by setting up a few more mailing
> lists on Toad and by automatically moving the current set of
> subscribers to the moderated list.  You will be able to move
> yourselves back to the unedited list if you don't want to participate
> in the experiment, or if, partway through, you decide you don't like
> the results.
> Sandy will be gone til Tuesday evening, so don't expect further
> answers from him (or many from me, I'm swamped with other activities)
> until then.  Meanwhile I'm interested in your discussion (on the list)
> of the idea.  We'll modify it before starting, with good ideas from you.
> 	John Gilmore
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                          SANDY SANDFORT
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
> C'punks,
> Like many of you, I have become very disenchanted with the
> quality of discourse on this list.  As others have pointed
> out, I believe a great deal of the blame can be laid on the
> lack of civility between list (and non-list) members.  I
> think this, in turn, is the result of the list being open. 
> As such, it has no feedback mechanisms to discourage
> gratuitous insults and personal attacks.  The result has
> been an escalation of such behavior--something that no
> amount of personal mail filtering can rectify.
> Recently, I made a couple of rough proposals to John Gilmore
> to see if there was some way to reverse this trend.  We have
> gone back and forth on several issues, but we finally
> reached an agreement whereby I would partially moderate the
> Cypherpunk list for a one-month test period.  If the
> consensus of list members is that the test is going well, it
> can be extended.  If members think it sucks, it can be
> dropped or modified.  Even before we start, though, you may
> wish to contribute suggestions.
> The following is our general plan.  I'm sure there will be
> questions that have to be answered as they arise, but the
> basis outline is a follows:
> 1)  The test will run from January 11 through February 12.
> 2)  I will review all incoming messages for purposes of
> preserving decorum and reducing obviously unrelated spam.  Other
> then that, I will not overly concern myself with off-topic posts.  
> I will, however, expurgate all posts containing flames, insults 
> and other irrelevant personal attacks, as well as spams, before
> forwarding the remaining posts to the Cypherpunk list.
> 3)  Cypherpunks who wish to read all posts to the list may do so
> by taking advantage of either of two optional lists.  The first
> (cypherpunk-flames@toad.com), will consist solely of messages
> expurgated from the main Cypherpunks list.  (Those who subscribe
> to "flames" will be able to easily monitor my moderating
> decisions.)  The second (cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com), will
> contain all posts sent to Cypherpunks.  It will be the equivalent
> of the current open, unmoderated list.  It will appeal to those
> who don't want list moderation.
> 4)  During the test month, polite discussion of the test will
> always be on topic.  In the last few days before the 10th of
> February, I will call for opinions as to whether moderation
> should be continued, modified or eliminated.  John has agreed to
> abide by the consensus of the group with one proviso.  Because of
> the large volume of bandwidth eaten by the lists, he does not
> want to maintain both the "flame" and "unedited" versions of the
> list.  If list members decide to continue to have the list
> moderated, one of those lists will probably have to go.
> 5)  If list members decide on a moderated list, I will be happy
> to assist in the ongoing process.  Though I will continue to be
> available for duty as moderator from time to time, we will need a
> set of rotating volunteers to take turns acting as moderator. 
> Volunteers are always welcome.
> 6)  Because every message submitted to Cypherpunk will be posted 
> to two of the three sister lists, I don't intend to lose much
> sleep over whether or not this or that moderating decision was
> perfect.  I will do the best job I can, within the constraints
> listed here.  If I err, it isn't fatal.  Everyone who wants one
> will have two Cypherpunk venues for their posts.  Sounds fair
> enough to me.  What do you think?
>  S a n d y
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> PS:  The new lists aren't set up yet, so there's no point in trying
> to subscribe or unsubscribe to them yet.  We'll let you know when they
> are working.		-- John

	- Igor.