[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
> This is Tim's first error of fact. I point it out not to insult
> him, but because it seriously affects much of the rest of his
> analysis. We are conducting an experiment. It will last one
> month. After that, it's over if list members want it to be over.
> If, on the other hand, moderation is seen by the list members as
> beneficial to their use and enjoyment of the list, the current
> form of moderation--or some variation will continue.
How will you allow list members to decide? - Here presumably we
have a self proclaimed anarchist in favour of direct democracy.
And if the subscribers can call off this "experiment" it seems rather
out of place that they did not institute it in the first place.
> > With no false modesty I tried awfully hard to compose substantive
> > essays on crypto-political topics, often more than one per day.
>
> I would hope that Tim will return to this practice irrespective
> of whether the list remains moderated or returns to its previous
> policies. More on this, below.
You genuinely expect a thoughtful writer and intelligent author of
posts to allow you to approve them or otherwise for general release?
> > (Others did too, but they seem to be tapering off as well, leaving the list
> > to be dominated by something called a "Toto," the "O.J. was framed!"
> > ravings of Dale Thorn, the love letters between Vulis and someone name
> > Nurdane Oksas,...
>
> Two points: Since Tim largely agrees with those in opposition to
> moderation, and because of the extraordinary nature of Tim's post,
> I did not send it to the "flames" list. It was a judgment call.
Why? - I saw nothing whatsoever in Tim`s post that would make it a
"judgement call" for any objective moderator^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcensor.
The real reason it was a judegement call was because it was critical
of Gilmore and yourself, in addition Tim`s points where too subtle
and deep for you to respond to without resorting to sophistry.
The reason on the other hand you did choose to post it to the
censored list was because you realised this and could not get away
with junking it to the flames list without incurring criticism.
> The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation.
> Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation.
Sophistry once again. I shall not even bother to explore in more
detail this issue as any intelligent reader can, even at face value,
see this to be a falacious argument.
> > Second, the list was consumed with
> > flames about this, many from Vulis, and many from others.
>
> It was consumed with flames before. Now, at least, the vast
> majority of folks on the list don't have to read them, nor jump
> through any hoops to implement some sort of dynamic filtering
> half-measure.
Three questions:
1. How do you see filtering to be a "half measure"
2. What hoops? - if you count implementing a simple filtering
measure to be "jumping through hoops" how do you consider that
readers of the list do not have to "jump through hoops" to subscribe
to the uncensored list.
3. What makes you think that your subjective and evidently self serving method
of moderation is any better than keyword filtering.
> What didn't work was "local filtering" which has no feed-back
> loop to engender comity. This might not work either, but I see
> no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a
> hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the
> Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some
> of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the
> extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of
> moderation is merely an artifact of inertia.
Cavalier? - I`ll bet you anything you like if you had set up a new
list for the censored articles and left [email protected] as an
uncensored list you would have seen the same results, that 2000 or so
would have remained where they were instead of trying to "unimbibe",
and a hardcore of 20 to 30 subscribers would have consciously taken
the decision to move to the censored list.
As we seem to be in "experiment" mood on the cypherpunks list at the
moment I challenge you now to re-configure the list as stated above.
The we shall see whose viewpoint is "cavalier"
> But to make things perfectly clear one more time, ANYONE WHO
> WANTS TO READ THE ENTIRE CYPHERPUNKS FEED SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO
> "CYPHERPUNKS-UNEDITED" AND/OR "CYPHERPUNK-FLAMES."
See above argument, the flock stay together. In addition other list
members are lazy, stupid, ignorant etc. And cannot/will not subscribe
to the uncensored list.
> But let's apply Tim's above definition for the sake of argument.
> Am I, thereby, a censor? Well I am examining "other material"
> and I am making judgments with regard to whether or not it is
> "objectionable," unfortunately for Tim's argument, I am neither
> "removing" nor "supressing" anything. Anybody can read anything
> that gets posted to Cypherpunks--in two places. I am sorting,
> but even my sorting can be completely avoided.
Waffle. There is a suprising profundity of waffle in this post
considering it is supposed to be refuting some very subtle and
eloquently stated arguments by Tim.
The fact is you are a censor, you are deciding what is seen on the
"main" cypherpunks list, you send any comments on your form of
censorship, apart from compliments, to the "flames" list in order to
protect yourself and John Gilmore.
> Very possibly true. Moderation is like crypto, perfection isn't
> and option. However, a 90% solution is a heck of a lot better
> than no solution at all. Yes, I've made what I consider to be
> errors, but I think on some, I've done a very good job overall.
>
> > * (Frankly, one of my considerations in leaving was the feeling that I
> > would never know if an essay I'd spent hours composing would be rejected by
> > Sandy for whatever reasons....
>
> Tim, I think this is disingenuous. I have been quite clear on
> my moderation criteria. You are too intelligent to feign such
> a lack of understanding.
Not at all, Even if you had been clear (and let me make it clear that
I do not believe you have been) you still would not objectively
follow those guidelines you had set for yourself. Your censorship is
subjective and unethical. However, I am deviating from the point as I
happen to be arguing from an anti-censorship point of view whoever
were carrying out said censorship.
> > * The decision to "moderate" (censor) the Cypherpunks list is powerful
> > ammunition to give to our opponents,
>
> Piffle. Letting spoiled children destroy the list puts a far
> more powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies.
Piffle, showing that even an anarchic list "requires" censorship is
the best ammunition we could have given them. We are better off
without a cypherpunks list at all than we are playing into the hands
of those who oppose us.
> > and Vulis is certainly gleeful that
> > his fondest wishes have been realized.
>
> I do not have a crystal ball. My Vulcan mind meld is in the
> shop. No one--neither Tim, nor I, nor probably even Vulis--knows
> whether he is gleeful about all this or not. And frankly, who cares?
> The question is, are list members happy or not with moderation.
> Tim was not. I am. By the end of the experiment, I dare say we
> will have a good idea what most list members think.
We already have a good idea what they think if we care to look at the
flames list where all their relevant comments are junked to.
Besides which you are not answering the question here, just picking a
random point to put forward an argument you wanted to.
> as far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic.
You mis-spelled self-serving.
Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
Paul Bradley, [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected]
Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
"Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"