From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 03:08:00 -0800 (PST)
To: Igor Chudov <ichudov@algebra.com>
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
In-Reply-To: <199701240733.BAA10190@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <32E8B499.27B5@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> 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 have noticed that the 'sorting' of messages seems to be based
as much on personality as upon content. 
 
> The explanation that Sandy Sandfort gave me mentioned that he rejected
> my message because it continued a thread where Sandy noticed instances
> of "flaming". Note that my message was free of any flames, including
> its quoted part.

  The standard of what constitutes a 'flame' seems to rest very much
upon whom a comment is directed at, or merely 'vaguely toward'.  
There have been more than a few postings stronly lambasting various
generic grouping of individuals which have passed without censoring.
  Your post, however, included Dr. Dimitri's vague reference to
a homosexual 'elite'. While it was directed toward no one in 
particular, I suppose one could 'infer', from his past postings,
that it referred to certain individuals, or a group of individuals.
  So it would seem that, in quoting the posts of others, one must
take into consideration what various readers may infer from their
previous posts.

> Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the
> criterion by which he moderates this list.

  This was more than obvious to anyone who cared to cast an objective
eye on the process, but their input was pooh-paah'd by the 'washed 
masses'.

> I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy
> the current readership.

  Like all of the 'opinions' that were expressed prior to the censorship
of the list? I haven't seen any indication that these opinions were 
given the slightest consideration.  This is not the readership's list.
It is a private individual's list.

  My view of Sandy's moderation is that it is rather willy-nilly, and
not done particularly objectively. There have been personal insults 
directed toward various individuals, including myself, which seem 
not to have been considered 'flames', while there are more than a few 
posts which, even on the closest of inspection, I can see no reason 
for dumping the the 'flame-crapper', other than the fact that they 
are somewhat associated to the 'unclean' list members.
  The moderation, at best, seems to encourage 'snide' commentary
meant to be ill-disguised cheap-shots. I would much rather have 
list members taking strong, clean shots at their 'targets', than
to be subjected to two-faced people talking out of the side of
their mouths.

  In short, I don't see the moderation as being 'fair', and I don't
think it was ever meant to be.
  I don't have a problem with this, since it's a private list, and, 
as far as I am concerned, the list-owner can censor it, or have it
censored, any way he or she sees fit.
  I would like to point out, however, that anyone who has had their
posts 'sorted' into the 'flames list' is now a 'known flamer', as
evidenced by the fact that their post has been designated a 'flame'
on a list run by a champion of free speech on the electronic
frontier.
  It is obvious that some of the more intuitively intelligent list
members are aware of this, as is indicated by the nervous fear with
which they 'explain why' their post is crypto-relevant.

Toto