From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 04:42:12 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
In-Reply-To: <199701251011.CAA23843@toad.com>
Message-ID: <aP731D20w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk writes:

> > I would like to start a thread to discuss the moderation and rejection
> > policy.
>
> No doubt we all would but such threads may, without recourse to proper
> moderation, all be thrown into cypherpunks-flames if Sandy believes
> they will be critical of him. (prove me wrong Sandy, send this to the
> moderated list).

Nope - Sandy tossed Paul's article to cypherpunks-flames, just like he
tossed a recent article pointing out that he's lying outright about his
moderation policies.

> > My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks
> > on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous
> > remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames
> > mailing list.
>
> I don`t think I read the article (even though I subscribe to the
> unmoderated list), can you forward me a copy.
> As I understand it though, from other comentaries, it was junked
> because it was in response to a message by Dimitri who, given that it
> is Sandy that is moderating the list, is no doubt filtered by
> different criteria than anyone else on the list, in my opinion a
> censorous and fascist restraint as Dimitri has recently been posting
> more crypto relevant material, besides which whatever the content of
> his posts they should be open to review before a decision is made on
> if they are to be junked or not.

Has Paul reversed his previous pro-censorship stand and decided to
learn something about crypto from people who actually know some?

> > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the
> > criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy.
>
> Yes Sandy, please enlighten us, what is the criterion you use to
> moderate the list if not crypto-relevancy. I suspect an element of
> self preservation and protection of the list fuhrer and diktat maker
> John Gilmore (who, until the disgraceful incident with Dimitri
> commanded some respect on this list).

I used to respect Gilmore until this series of incidents (unsubscribing
me, turning list moderated).  Now I only have disdain for him.

> > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy
> > the current readership.
>
> I don`t think this is the point, John Gilmore is free to appoint
> whoever he wants to moderate his list, he is free to censor all
> messages which criticise him and his censorship, however, subscribers
> to the list should be told they are being censored on these grounds
> and not on some facade of "crypto relevancy" or another thin veil
> drawn weakly over content based censorship to protect a certain class
> of list members.

Quite a few people have expressed interest in re-creating an unmoderated
cypherpunks list at another site if Gilmore decided to stick to his
"moderation experiment".

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps