From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:32:36 -0800 (PST)
To: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Subject: Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
In-Reply-To: <v03007800af1ab0e7d67e@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <v03007800af1b4258d2a4@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Unfortunately, Sandy responded to my post with his own flames ("piffle,"
"disingenous," "straw man," etc.). Now he may well think his points are not
flames becuase they are "true," but to me they take the form of flames. But
then I have long disliked Sandy's method of argument. Nothing personal. But
I find Sandy's series of dismissals--in other posts from other people, not
just this one--to be "flamish." As Sandy says, your mileage may vary.

As Sandy did a too-common section-by-section disssection, I'll do the same
for his comments.

At 9:55 PM -0800 2/2/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>> I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call
>> it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of
>> reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated
>> list,...
>
>This is Tim's first error of fact.  I point it out not to insult
>him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his

How can this be an "error of fact" when I am clearly setting out a point of
view? Is it an error of fact that moderation was happening? Or is the
disagreement with my quotes around "their"? This was clearly an expression
of sarcasm. Hardly an "error of fact."

>> ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New
>> Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait
>> accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list
>> _founders_, at least not me) were being sought.
>
>Factual error #2.  There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to
>do so.  In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and

John's message did not say he was thinking about instituting censorship, it
said he was in the process of setting up such a system. As for the comments
solicited, I noticed no changes whatsoever.

(I guess the several dozen comments were "errors of fact," "piffle," and
"straw men." Can anyone think of a single one of the various points made
after John's announcement that changed the plan in any significant way?)

>> I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about
>> moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the
>> New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which
>> is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just
>> some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer
>> substantive essays.
>
>And I see something different.  Since previously, Tim actively
>filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his
>comparison.  As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri

That's an easy one, one I explained at least two or three times in the last
half year: I used Eudora Pro to sort mail into various folders. I'm quite
aware of what is going into various folders, and sometimes I even look in
them. Clear enough?


>has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks
>of this experiment then in the previous several months.  In my
>opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few
>self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has
>been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the
>experiment began.  YMMV.

Piffle. Nonsense. If you think the overall quality of posts is superior now
to what it had been, your bias in favor of your own brain child is so
powerful that it's warped your judgment.

Who else thinks the quality is now higher?

(By the way, I don't think the proper statistical method is to "average"
all of the posts, including the Vulisgrams and the scatolological insults,
as these were easily filtered by anyone with a clue. Rather, look at the
substantive and stimulating essays, the important ones, and ask if they
have gotten better. It's disingenuous to claim that filtering out the
childish insults has improved the quality of the essays. As I said, I've
seen the opposite. You apparently think differently.)

>> (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list
>> to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!"
>> ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name
>> Nurdane Oksas,...
>
>Two points:  Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to
>moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post,
>I did not send it to the "flames" list.  It was a judgment call.

Here Sandy is really going over the line. He is saying he _almost_ filtered
my message into the reject pile, where later he claims I would have no
problem writing an essay and not knowing whether it would be filtered into
the Good or the Bad pile. He later writes, in response to my point:

"(Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I
>> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by
>> Sandy for whatever reasons....
>
>Tim, I think this is disingenuous.  I have been quite clear on
>my moderation criteria.  You are too intelligent to feign such
>a lack of understanding."

So, given that I wrote my essay today, should I have known if it would be
filtered into Sandy's "Not Fit for True Cypherpunks" list, or the Approved
list? Sandy implies that he himself had to make a "judment call" on this
one.

Hey, people, this shows how fucked up things have gotten. Lord Almighty
Sandy says my long-considered, well-written essay was _almost_ shitcanned
("It was a judgment call"). And for what reason? Apparently because of a
single paragraph that mentioned "Toto" and Dale Thorn (oh, and Nurdane and
Vulis and their love relationship) in unflattering terms.

Is this the crap the Cypherpunks were founded to put up with? A petty
satrap deciding to filter out a long and substantive essay because he feels
some paragraph is insulting? What a state of affairs.

This more than anything demonstrates the truth of Lord Acton's maxim about
absolute power corrupting absolutely. Sandy feels free to flame away
(piffle, straw man, logical fallacy), but expresses umbrage at my very
accurate comments about ravings and rantings of certain list memmbers.

(Perhaps Sandy will censor this message, feeling you readers are not able
to handle my dismissal of his asinine views. This will leave the Censor
having the final word, which is "not unexpected." When a censor gets into a
debate with one of his charges, this is what often happens.)

>> * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the
>> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list
>> was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider
>> these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?...
>
>I think this is a Straw Man.  John and I have never argued that
>John "owns" cypherpunks.  When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in
>someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much
>to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the
>house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks").  As Tim
>is fond of saying, "my house; my rules."  I don't think this
>means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house.

This is precisely the point I made!

As for John instituting a censorhip policy, as I said, he is of course free
to do it. It may be foolish to do so, but he is free to do so. And those of
us who don't like what this all means are free to leave. Sounds fair to me.

>> 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).
>
>Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this?

I have no idea what John anticipated and didn't. But if he knew it wouldn't
work, why bother? Not only did Vulis actually start posting _more_, it also
consumed the list in a frenzy of posts about it.

(By the way, remember that we are here talking about the unsubscription of
Vulis by John. My reason for this reminder will be clear in a moment.)

>> Second, the list was consumed with
>> flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others.
>
>It was consumed with flames before.  Now, at least, the vast
>majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump
>through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering
>half-measure.

We're talking about Vulis being unsubscribed, not the list censorship episode.

>> 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.
>
>That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles
>on this issue.  I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some
>citations.

Again, we're talking about the Vulis unsubscription episode. Go back to the
archives covering this period. Declan McCullough wrote an article about
this, giving Vulis much publicity. And some of us were contacted by other
journalists asking for our views, for what this meant about for the list's
espoused philosophy about anarchy, etc. (I refused to comment, of course.)


>> Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the
>> Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic
>> ways."
>
>That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose.
>I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked
>me in private e-mail for improving the list.  Again, YMMV.

Once again, the subject of the section you're citing was about the Vulis
unsubscription matter. I think, Sandy, you need to read more carefully
before you denounce arguments.

>> (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....
>
>What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back
>loop to engender comity.  This might not work either, but I see
>no evidence that it has made things worse.  Remember, there are a

If you see no evidence that is has made things worse, then apparently you
haven't seen that I have not been posting for the past month. Whatever my
reasons, if you can seriously claim that you can see "no evidence" that a
change of some sort has occurred...

>hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the
>Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list.  Sure some
>of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the
>extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of
>moderation is merely an artifact of inertia.

I still maintain, as others have as well, that a better approach would have
been to announce the "Sandy-approved" list as a new option. Changing the
main list to the censored version was a way to exploit the name of the
list, etc.

(Consider if Eric Blossom's filtered list was suddenly declared to be the
"Cypherpunks" list. This is essentially what has happened. A major screw
up. And I don't really think it germane to cite how many are on each list.
Sheep are sheep, and, frankly, about 1850 of those putative "*2000*" on the
main list are never, ever heard from.)

....
>Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in
>this situation.  Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence,
>that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply.  I'm not
>sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree.
>
>But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument.
>Am I, thereby, a censor?  Well I am examining "other material"
>and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is
>"objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither
>"removing" nor "supressing" anything.  Anybody can read anything
>that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places.  I am sorting,
>but even my sorting can be completely avoided.

Sophistry.


>> * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his
>> choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor?
>
>John didn't choose me, I approached him.  I offered my opinion as
>to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions.  The
>short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a
>better job, go for it."  I accepted the challenge, so here I am.
>I don't want this job.  If the list members decide to keep the
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By the way, how is this to be "decided"? A democratic vote of the herd? Do
all "*2000*" get a vote? Are we moving from benevolent dictatorship to
direct democracy?


>> * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line
>> scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through,
>> based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some
>> reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket.
>
>Very possibly true.  Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't
>and option.  However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better
>than no solution at all.  Yes, I've made what I consider to be
>errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall.

You seriously think that establishing the idea that "even the Cypherpunks
group accepts the need for censorship of unpopular views" is worth the
minimal bandwidth savings of not having some of the scatological one-liners
and insults? The huge amount of list animosity (so much for "comity") and
bandwidth on this censorship issue dwarfs the bandwidth taken up by the
Vulisgrams.

>> * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I
>> would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by
>> Sandy for whatever reasons....
>
>Tim, I think this is disingenuous.  I have been quite clear on
>my moderation criteria.  You are too intelligent to feign such
>a lack of understanding.

As I noted earlier, you yourself said it was a "judgment call" for you to
not put my message in the flames pile. So, did I truly not understand your
criteria for approval (which means I wasn't feigning ignorance), or did I
understand that which you yourself acknowledged having to make a judgment
call (kissing cousin to a "guess" where I come from) on?

If you are unsure whether to dump a major, substantive essay into the
flames pile or allow it to be read by the main list, then this makes my
point precisely. I don't want Sandy Sandfort sitting in judgment on my
posts, deciding what the Cypherpunks--a group I co-founded for God's
sake!!!!--are to be allowed to read and what they may not.

(Saying what Sandy is doing is not "censorship" but is only "sorting" is
pure sophistry.)


>> maybe he might think my essay was off-topic,
>
>Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.

Another part of the problem is that the standards have not been clearly
stated. "Flames" have not been defined in any meaningful way. Apparently
it's OK for you to refer to my arguments as "disingenuous" and "piffle,"
but referring to someone's repeated ravings about how O.J. was framed is
"flaming."

Piffle.

>> * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful
>> ammunition to give to our opponents,
>
>Piffle.  Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far
>more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies.

See what I mean? "Piffle."

("piffle, n. Foolish or futile talk or ideas")

Hardly a substantive argument. I'd call it an insult. And I'll bet that if
Phill Hallam-Baker dismisses an argument with a "foolish" one-line
characterization, it will be viewed as a flame. (Well, not now, now that
Sandy is apprised of this.)



>> and Vulis is certainly gleeful that
>> his fondest wishes have been realized.
>
>I do not have a crystal ball.  My Vulcan mind meld is in the
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah, a non-flamish way of making an argument. Dismissive jokes substituting
for responding to my _opinion_.


>> (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a
>> libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to
>> get a leftist rant past him.)
>
>I sorry Tim gives me so little credit.  Rather than merely post a
>self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's
>supposition.  To the best of my recollection, I have sent only
>one post of Phill's to the Flames list.  It flamed Jim Bell.  As
>far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic.

Again, look at what the Cypherpunks list has become! Because some of the
barnyard insults were getting to some people, we now have a situation where
a thoughtful commentator like Phill H-B (who I rarely agree with, by the
way, but his essays show he's thinking about issues deeply) has his stuff
sent to the scrap heap because he "flamed" Jim Bell? Or was it a critique
of Bell's "assassination politics" ideas and the way he presents them,
perhaps with a single flamish comment (a la the comment I made that caused
Sandy to almost mark my entire essay as unfit for Cypherpunks)?

I urge Phill, or others, to retrieve this offending article and repost it.
Or use "*%&$" symbols where the banned flame language was contained, so it
will pass muster with Sandy. Then we can better judge just what we're
giving up in order to have the kind of "comity" which Sandy thinks he is
creating.


--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."