Censorship/Forum dispute on the list

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 
I've reached a point where the volume is just too much.
 
LD's posts, despite the fact that my "n" key is near worn 
through, are simply disruptive, and annoying.
 
I am an extreme advocate of free speech, but it has really become
apparent that LD simply is not interested in the constructive
exchange that is at the heart of free speech.  Instead he chooses
to produce inflammatory and silly posts that include, among other 
things, exhaustive lists of the terms he would like to have 
censored on the list.
 
We all know that the first ten would have sufficed for his point,
which was weak in any case.
 
LD is more interested in obstructing the pursuits of cypherpunks 
and the list and its members by inflammation, bandwidth waste 
(which to his credit has caused quite a good deal of attrition), 
and generally associating himself with the list, causing I might 
add a general distaste for the list in general, much as there is 
a general distaste for anything cannibalisticly associated.
 
It is of course impossible to employ an "ignore him" policy as 
newbies, a resource I feel to be important and invaluable to the 
cause in general, are always going to be provoked to action.  
Especially in a list of such activity and size.  To try and 
ignore LD on this list is analogous to ignoring a screaming film 
critic in the middle of a theater playing a maverick and foreign 
film.
 
I dislike the idea of censoring Lance.  He is entitled to his 
opinion. Similarly I feel that it is not necessarily proper for a 
majority on this list or any other to exclude the minority who 
would like to converse with LD.  (S.Boxx and Executioner at least 
I'm sure.)
 
I propose the following solution.  Which probably will never be 
implemented, but I won't be able to sleep till I present it.
 
1>  A second list be established.  CypherpunkRisks@toad.com.
2>  The list be dominated by a charter providing that:
    A> All who apply are welcome.
    B> LD shall be appointed moderator for the purpose of
    maintaining the content of postings, but not to regulate
    users who may receive the list.
 
3>  The current cypherpunks list be renamed, or refocused to 
represent "cypherpunk advocacy."
 
4>  That the advocacy list STRONGLY discourage disruptive 
criticism not concerned with the merits of cypherpunks and 
cryptography in general.
 
5>  That reasonable enforcement of this premise (4) be executed 
to the extent required to maintain progress and not filter fair 
and reasonable criticism not violating item (4) above.  
Enforcement may reasonably be expected to include filtering of 
traffic by key word for human review and approval.
 
6>  That any enforcement of item (4) above shall be accompanied 
by a brief but unevasive notice of action and cause for said 
action including the identity of the poster, or nym, if available 
(such identity being a direct copy of the basic From: line, and 
not to be investigated in any extensive manner) the date of 
received posting, the basic keyword content of the posting, and 
the availability of the posting on cypherpunkrisks@toad.com 
(subject to moderator approval) and by archive.  (To be 
established and maintained.)
 
I consider this a forum resolution, and not censorship.
 
I think this is much like the solution some of the comp.sys 
groups used to separate advocacy and criticism without causing 
undue problems.
 
Of course, the matter is open to discussion.
 
- -uni- (Dark)
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
 
iQCVAgUBLQL1+BibHbaiMfO5AQE0ZgQAkVY8ljazwGdjOFwiRuupbHI5rjxbV4i5
WUQwdzdk1curybwS2mXYSh6klgR+4RP1+1JXDCjwhEoCRVLmlR2GRUEnBGBXfo+p
gPW/SEAjIBabADOEQ3j+qdj0kVn/zeIKqkeyVLM4XaqXLOXBfBfxowKG5uVLxwoV
Af6ohCaA3jQ=
=FvWa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----