1997-01-09 - Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks “moderation” experiment

Header Data

From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d03570132f560ce6aebc0288c68bf5a5bc364d3af48b3d5f24277662b9189405
Message ID: <32D44A93.2536@disposable.com>
Reply To: <v03007822aef8ebe9acd7@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-09 01:33:53 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:33:53 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:33:53 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment
In-Reply-To: <v03007822aef8ebe9acd7@[]>
Message-ID: <32D44A93.2536@disposable.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Bill Frantz wrote:
> As for the whole moderation idea, consider officially defining the
> list to be "occasionally moderated".  If the abuse is bad, start
> moderating it.  If there get to be few problems, stop moderating it. 
> (A separate issue is whether to tell anyone which way the list is
> currently running.)

Strongly disagree. That would be too arbitrary.

In practice, a system such as Chudov's STUMP reduces the latency and 
moderator effort considerably, as responsible posters get put onto the 
white list for auto-approval (to be degraded to hand-moderation if they 
lose it). For list regulars, it's as if the list were unmoderated.