LD and reputation

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 
 
- ->
 
To: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
From: plaz@netcom.com (Geoff Dale)
Subject: Re: Banning any subscriber
 
I said:
>>I personally disagree with censorship. It would be impossible to 
enforce
>>anyway. A move of this type would simply drive Detweiler to use the
>>Cypherpunk remailers which would be harder to detect. Then what do 
we do?
>>Stop accepting mail from our own remailers?
 
Eric replied:
>Basically, yes, except for signed letters from previously
>authenticated pseudonyms.  This is a simple form of a positive
>reputation system.  A kill fill is a negative reputation--'not that
>person'.  A positive reputation rejects all but a particular set of
>identities.
 
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you wanted to erect a barrier against
anonymous newbies, such as "wonderer" and "Dark Unicorn" were 
recently. You
know, Detweiler might get a new account under a new name, better 
seal the
list to only postings from "previously authenticated" accounts too. Then
we'd be all happy and safe from the dreaded Detweiler.
<-
 
Why am I always an example?
:(
 
What needs to be addressed, is what this list is.  Is it private
in the sense that we exclude anyone?  Are we in a position to
regulate disruptive posters?  Frankly, LD's posts simply take a
lot of space and time.  I could care less if LD is a reputable
person.  Just so long as he is not disruptive.  Frankly, he could be
a moron (yes yes, I know...) and I still wouldn't mind because
correcting his mistakes is part of what this group is all about
(to me anyhow).  We were all newbies once, even if it was before
this list was around.  That says to me that if we want to promote
cryptographically literate users with this group, we simply cannot
exclude.  Even a bloody twelve year old might be obnoxious at first,
but who knows what we might spur into him/her?  Could it not
be that we might foster a loyal supporter of cryptography in this
twelve year old?
 
At the same time, we must deal with disruptive elements.
LD isn't posting for any real constructive purpose.  Even he
knows it.  Perhaps he is having fun, but it is at our expense.
Fine.  1>  Ignore it (this never works, as we are proving even now)
2> Address it (this just encourages him)  3> Remove it. (ethical
questions abound).
 
If the problem is to prevent disruption without excluding it seems
to me that you have to use a negative reputation system.  A system 
that
gives everyone a chance, without disrupting unduly.
Why not a probatory check?  Every member of the list is given
the chance to contribute constructively, newbie or not.  If and when
our example newbie user gets out of hand, his/her messages are to be
moderated.  This cuts down on the man power required to moderate
the entire list and still gives newbie user the opportunity to reform.
I'm not sure if we can find a willing moderator, but it seems to
be a system that would cut down dramatically the LD type problems.
 
Frankly, the traffic on this list is excessively high.  (I'm as guilty as
anyone I'm afraid.)  I can deal with high and valuable traffic, not
high and disruptive traffic.
 
Eric ->
Authentication, in this context, can take many forms.  It could be as
simple as sending a key to the mailing list server.  It could be
developed to require someone to vouch for the pseudonym.  It could
require a sponsor who would read and repost until a separate
reputation develops.
 
The point is to put a bound on the noise from disrupters both
inadvertent and intentional, not to completely prevent noise.
<-
 
I agree, but prior authentication is a little excessive no?
 
- -uni- (Dark)
 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
 
iQCVAgUBLPqJcxibHbaiMfO5AQEyFQP9FEypBg25aPS/RPZTfaChsORrRrApgcKc
L0DUoYkaySZFIemI6a/vtNbN6jnSlJ/0MY50Z9PnFNhnTX2MsvPK9eibSkpQdMrt
hC53ZnTn9NbW9p6gMrfWEKFuTCPg92KEa3CXDOhZznI4LBBMoj7FCUkes+eT6cyp
p//99+WPW1g=
=1xby
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----