From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:04:55 -0800 (PST)
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
In-Reply-To: <199702030325.TAA09985@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199702032204.OAA24923@netcom9.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



<* The mechanics of the announcement troubled me greatly. To be blunt, I was
<seething with anger. I was mightily annoyed to read that John had made a
<decision to appoint Sandy as his Moderator, with no discussion on the list.
<I don't know if Eric Hughes and Hugh Daniel were asked their opinions, but
<I certainly know I was not. I feel that as one of the two or three
<founders, depending on how one is counting, and as a frequent contributor
<to the list since its inception, and so on, I (and others) should at least
<have been told of this plan. Better yet, have the plans discussed on the
<list, as some good ideas may have been generated.

hi timmy, a word to the wise: it amuses me that whenever I referred
to a cypherpunk "community" my eyebrows were flamed off, by people
who claimed there was no such thing. a community has certain properties,
many of which I believe the cypherpunks "crowd" has always lacked.

one aspect of the "crowd" that is lacking is LEADERSHIP. I have pointed
this out again and again. the cpunks believe that leadership is no
longer relevant in a digital society, somehow. the list is in the
shape it is in because of POOR LEADERSHIP.. neither you nor EH care
about what LEADERSHIP entails, or wish to exert the sacrifices that
it requires. hence, you have, and have always had, a LEADERSHIP VACUUM.
and now you are "mightily annoyed", "pissed off" etc. that as a
"founder" you were not consulted? you weren't consulted because you
weren't a leader in the true sense of the word. are you in or out?

imho leadership does not merely entail writing posts and having a
completely laissaiz fair attitude about every single issue under the
sun, particularly those of dear importance to the list, such as how
to deal with crappy signal to noise ratios, intentional provocateurs,
people who seem to have ulterior agendas, etc.

I think it is highly amusing for you to get a lesson about how your
views about "anarchy" really work out. what does this anarchy thing
mean, anyway? is someone else taking over the list your idea of
what is represented by anarchy?   imho anarchy is a power vacuum
in which the events which have transpired, and that you perceive
as unpalatable to say the least, are inevitable.

<I'll have more to say about my problems with how things were handled.
<Frankly, it smacked of the same kind of fait accompli decision John made
<with the unsubscribing of Vulis. While John had (and has) every legal right
<to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First,
<Vulis found other ways to post (duh). Second, the list was consumed with
<flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others. Third,
<journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of the week) lept into
<the fray with articles which gave Vulis the publicity he craved. Fourth, it
<sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the Cypherpunks have found
<it necessary to abandon their anarchic ways."

"enemies of liberty"? hee, hee. anarchy was not a practical way of
running the list, and never has been, and now that the REALITY of the 
situation is PROVING this to you in an inescapable existence proof,
you find it impossible to confront the obvious message. timmy, a little
tip: anarchy, as you seem to conceive it, doesn't scale well, 
and both usenet and the cypherpunks list are eminent evidence of this.

<(I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy
<virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and
<generated more crap. As you all should know, it was John himself who coined
<the wonderful saying, "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes
<around it." A delicious irony.)

which should encourage people to understand that there is a subtle 
difference between censorship and moderation.. or does the distinction
elude you? is there a difference in your opinion? you have plenty
of financial resources to start a mailing list of your own, what makes
you think it would be any more orderly than the one that is being run
here? in fact, do you understand how "anarchy" and "order" are mutually
exclusive, now that your own reality is shouting it to you?

<* The proper solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.

ah, so everyone should post 5 messages to the list, instead of 1, and
those that are quite should post 3. quite an elegant solution. do you
see how the silly rhetoric fails to hold up in reality? when will you
get a clue about where your own views are really leading you?

<* OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his
<choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor? 

"moderator"-- does the word mean anything to you?

<(I count Sandy as a friend, but I'm just being honest here. Sandy is just
<not a "Peter Neumann" (moderator of the "RISKS" list).

you were free to propose another  moderator. moderation is hard work.
it takes a lot of time. who volunteered other than sandy?

<* I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new
<list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff.
<After all, both Eric Blossom and Ray Arachelian already offer just such
<lists, and more would not hurt.
<
<But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things
<considerably.

anyone is free to subscribe to any list they choose, including the unfiltered
one. how is the reality different than that which you write? are you suggesting
that people are too lazy to make a coherent choose on their own? who
are you to argue with what everyone themself chooses?

<* The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful
<ammunition to give to our opponents, and Vulis is certainly gleeful that
<his fondest wishes have been realized. And it won't work. People are
<consuming even more bandwidth arguing the merits of John's decision, the
<traffic is presumably being slowed down by the need for Sandy to wade
<through the traffic and stamp "Approved" or "Rejected" on what he glances
<at, and people are "testing the limits" of what they can say and what they
<can't say.

what's a better solution, in your opinion, besides ignoring it all and
pretending there is no problem?

<In any case, my several years with the list have taken a huge amount of my
<time. Given the way this whole thing was handled, and the way the list is
<degenerating even further, it looks like it's good that I'm moving on to
<other things.

ah, quite convenient excuse to bail out when no elegant solution seems
possible. blame all the problems on faux-reasons rather than an opportunity
for soul-searching.

<- the decision to censor the list was made without any discussion on the
<list, without any discussion with at least some of the longterm core
<contributors, and was presented as a "fait accompli."

by their own construction, all insisted that everyone be treated 
identically on the list, and that no such distinction be made about
"longterm core contributors"


but thanks for showing up and clarifying your position, timmy. what
a tragedy not to routinely see your smiling face here. I for one
have "taps" playing on my computer whenever I read the list as
a suitable memorial to your past greatness. viva la cypherpunks!