re: Moderation, Tim, Sandy, me, etc * Reputation Capital

[Name Withheld by Request <nobody@replay.com>]

I found this post from Mr Gilmore deeply disturbing, and I thought
I'd take this chance to, as someone recently said, "Fly with the
Eagles."

John Gilmore said:
>Tim, the Cypherpunks have chosen to follow Sandy's lead for this 
>month.  I'll admit I made it easy for them, but the results are
>conclusive.  There are 1311 addresses in the cypherpunks list today;
>42 in the unedited list; and 19 in the flames list.  Forty people
>cared enough to read every posting; the other thousand either wanted
>to try the experiment -- or didn't care enough to send an email
>message.  Which, as we all know, is a very low threshold.

Careful. The statistics you are throwing around here are misleading.
So if 1350, say, subscribers were subscribed to an unmoderated 
cypherpunks list, what would that tell you? As has been pointed out,
beaten to death, and generally repeated: there are already filtered
c'punks lists. By filtering the main list, you are just making your own
life difficult and corrupting the reputation capital of "cypherpunks",
and the results are far from conclusive.

>all I want is something that works.  The cypherpunks list was unusable
>for this kind of discussion, only a month ago.  It's usable now.
>
>I'm definitely bugged by the community's attitude toward my
>"censorship".  Rather than being glad that someone, anyone, was doing
>something about the major problem on the list, 99% of the reaction was
>to create even more ill-considered, emotional flamage.  *I* didn't
>make the signal/noise get worse at that point -- *you-all* did.

Again, maybe that 99% is trying to tell you something? Maybe there is
some provocation for this outpouring of "emotional flamage." Also, here
you claim that the s/n ratio is worse than before, but above you said
that the "moderation" has made the list usable. These two statements
seem contradictory.

>Perhaps at that point I should have shut down the list, as Lucky is
>now suggesting.  "Asking the list what to do" was clearly not a useful
>option.  Sandy cared enough about the community to make some concrete

Not a useful option? Why not? If there aren't any ideas left in this 
community, I'm with Lucky. Pull the plug.

>gratifying.  You-all remind me of a passage from Booker T.
>Washington's book _Up From Slavery_, describing what happened on the
>night that news of the Emancipation Proclamation reached the South:
<quote snipped>
>Most of the people on the list haven't bothered to face that freedom.
>Your de-facto "leaders" have faced it for you.  It is a more serious

"You clearly don't take your freedom seriously. Now try a month without
it."

>Start a mailing list on another site!  Move this list to somewhere!
>Create and nurture an alt group!  Make an independent moderated list

My problem with this is that you are currently holding the reputation
capital tied up in the name "cypherpunks" hostage. If hosting this
discussion forum has grown so tiring, then you are free to pull the plug
in a heartbeat. I've heard a few even go so far as to ask "what's in
a name" when others get so upset about the list called "cypherpunks"
being moderated. Well, I'll tell you. Reputation capital. Thats why
so many lurkers have waded through the muck for so long. I've seen
the crown jewels that have surfaced here in the past, and spread the
word. "Cypherpunks" was where the action was. It was fast and loose and
inhabited by a prolific core of sharp minds. Old memes die hard, as
is evidenced every time we see a warning about the "Goodtimes Virus."

>The experiment will be over in a few weeks.  Who's going to take over
>deciding how to run the list, and running it?

As I said, if you don't want the list anymore, pull the plug. It will
pop up again elsewhere and you need never worry about it again.

This post from Mr Gilmore certainly is revealing. Perhaps inevitably,
he has assumed the traditional paternal role of authority when its
motives and/or power to regulate is questioned.

Golem