RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

[Sean Roach <roach_s@alph.swosu.edu>]

At 02:04 PM 1/27/97 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
...
>Eric, would like to require a deposit ($20 was the example he
>gave) from subscriber/posters.  Non-subscribers would not be 
>allowed to post.  Subscribers who voluntarily left the list, 
>would get their deposit back.  Subscribers who flamed twice 
>(every dog gets one bite) would be kicked off the list and their 
>deposit would be forfeited (or perhaps turned over to the flame 
>victim).

I know that this wasn't your idea, and am not critisizing you.
This idea would be great if everyone had an equal access to funds.  Persons
willing to part with funds could flame people indiscriminately.  Persons
with more money, meaning no bills or very few in relation to capitol, would
be more willing to part with funds.  Suddendly, the rich control the press
again, at least to the extent that they would be able to say anything.  The
rich would be more equal.
The plan could be hacked.  With several accounts, perhaps stolen, forged,
etc. a person submits the $20, flames h[is/er] victim, unsubscribes,
collects h[is/er] deposit, resubscribes under a new name, and repeats the cycle.
Plus, as has been said before, the definition of a flame is subjective.  It
has been shown that children with more symettrical faces get along better
with teachers.  It has been shown that even uncorrupted babies know what
physical beauty is.  If there is any ability to pre-judge a persons
character before reading the post, than the post is more likely to be judged
accordingly.
I hope that you will be fair in your determinations, and I assume that you
will do your best.  But I still worry, only because that you are human.
And humans make mistakes.
At least the current moderation doesn't cost any one twenty bucks.