1997-01-08 - Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks “moderation” experiment in Jan

Header Data

From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Message Hash: f99e716698b0061590d7e24425b063f0f7f54c1eb7ab781b00b945a9cfc26c42
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970108130901.28929H-100000@crl.crl.com>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.970105222016.23091B-100000@polaris>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-08 21:32:54 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:32:54 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:32:54 -0800 (PST)
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.970105222016.23091B-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970108130901.28929H-100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Black Unicorn wrote:

> How will borderline posts be dealt with?  Posts that contain a great deal
> of content and thoughful discussion and still manage to contain flames?
> Will flames be an automatic boot for a post (zero tolerance), or will they
> be balanced against post content?

Zero tolerance will be my first approximation.  I may modify 
that as I see how things really work out.  So far, though, I
don't recall see any of those "high content with flames" animals.
Most posts are one or the other.
> What is the threshold which, for example, constitutes an "insult" ?
> "Louis Freeh couldn't identify a directed well managed crypto policy if it
> bit him on his pimple speckled ass."

Truth (and relevance) are a defense.  :-)
> "You are so turned around on this issue one is prompted to wonder if you
> have any background in higher education at all."
> "For the new members of the list, [insert list member here] has a history
> of posting idiotic and useless posts, and generally wasting the list's
> time like an asshole."
> All of the above?  None of the above?

Sorry Black Unicorn, no declaratory judgments.  Everything gets
posted one way or another.  Let's see how it works in the real
> I believe the "flames" list should be maintained as long as possible.
> Continuing checks on the moderator (whoever it may be) are necessary and
> appropriate.  What better way than to directly provide a means to identify
> what the moderator has excluded?

This is my opinion as well.  However, John makes the very good
point that the unedited list has one very important advantage--
timeliness.  The other two lists (polite and flames) have a 
build in delay time because of the moderation.  I don't see it
as a problem, but John feels that quick turnaround is an 
advantage that some list members would prefer.
> A diversity of moderators makes a detailed stated policy on moderation an
> absolute must.

I agree.  We are not at that stage yet, however.  We are still
finding our sea legs for now.

 S a n d y