On Troublemakers and Torture Techniques

["L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>]

Hello, a long time ago I suggested on the cypherpunks list that
people be limited in the tentacles and anonymous IDs they be
permitted to use in Internet mailing lists and groups dedicated
to serious subjects and goals such as project development. This
fell on deaf ears at the time but perhaps the atmosphere and
climate is more suitable at this time for both groups to consider
ideas that will prevent their being tormented by troublemakers.

One of the best ideas I have I like for its utter simplicity. The
idea is this: the mailing list software tracks how long someone
has had their email address subscribed. When they post, a field
added by the list software broadcasts to the world how `old' they
are. This is an interesting measure of their `wisdom' on the
group. In the real world, we defer to people based on their age
all the time; it is a basic aspect of our human interaction.

Now, I know that there are objections to this kind of tracking,
but it seems to me they come mostly from people who like to
invade others attention with tentacles and anonymous posts. (Note
that under the scheme, all anonymous posts or for that matter
anything from `outsiders' gets a rating of 0 days old.)
Nevertheless I think that this is a very reasonable measure of
`credibility' and would be appreciated by everyone who is
interested in building their own filtering tools. We need to get
more information to individuals to make logical choices about
filtering; today it is `every man for himself.'

The second idea is this: let the list software track how much
that certain people's postings are *replied* to. In a sense, this
is a measure of their `relevance'. If I am continually posting
messages that get no response at all, I am probably doing
something wrong, like asking annoying newbie questions or posting
on topics that are outside the charter. On the other hand, if I
consistently get huge chains of interesting feedback on the list
started, it suggests that what I am writing about is inherently
interesting to everyone on the list. Now, when I post and an
extra header tells everyone how `interesting' I am by this
criteria, they can judge for themselves if I have a personality
that is `irrelevant' or `fascinating' and reply to the list or
privately based on that.

The `reply tracking' has some extra considerations. One of the
problems is that people tend to respond to posts that they think
are irrelevant with further flames. But this just tends to start
a chain reaction of meta-postings in which all the regular topics
are buried in. I think that this suggests a fundamental frailty
and deficiency in human nature: the inability to `turn the other
cheek' when offended. Imagine! In cyberspace, all you have to do
to neutralize a troublemaker is to delete his messages! But
people cannot even do that. They believe that in cyberspace, as
in all other realms of their life, justice is an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth and a flame for a flame. If someone makes
you miserable, the only justifiable response (so it goes) is to
make them miserable themselves.

So, I think this new list software that tracked *responses* to
messages would be very valuable in encouraging people to take the
`Christian' approach of not counterattacking a tormenter but
absorbing their hatred. Because, if you *did* respond to them
with flames, it would actually aid their `reply count' rating,
and you don't want to aid them in any way whatsoever, of course!
So perhaps these new rating systems will actually encourage
*real* `moderation' and forbearance. Once again, I urge everyone
`out there' to experiment with new systems to encourage
responsible and courteous Cyberspatial interactions.