Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"

[Brad Dolan <bdolan@USIT.NET>]

How do you encourage people to use resources more-or-less wisely?

1.  The socialist/nanny model - take charge and give 'em orders

We've tried that and it apparently didn't work out.

2.  The market model - charge people for what they use

A while back, omebody suggested a system which would be self-funding, by
charging people for each post they made.  Maybe we should try it?  If
each little piece of ASCII art cost a poster a buck or two to send, he
might send fewer.  On the other hand, we don't want to discourage
interesting posters, so I think some system to reimburse interesting
posters would be useful.

I'm not the guy to set up the system, but I'll happily buy a modest amount
of "posting tickets."

Brad



On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, John Gilmore wrote:

> Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis
> submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about
> Sandy's employer.  He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to
> follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because
> to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer,
> I'm not).  His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for
> a few days.
> 
> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the
> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19).  And it's a good thing,
> too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its
> whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the
> cypherpunks list any more.  It's not the true assholes that brought me
> to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the
> list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve
> things.  I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time,
> money, or machines to help out.  Almost all the suggestions were
> advice for *other* people to implement:
> ...