~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDY SANDFORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'punks,
Where to begin? Tim May has taken the time to write broad and
thought provoking essay on this list's current moderation
experiment. I appreciate his analysis--and candor. While I do
not agree with all he has written, I enormously respect his
dedication to his point of view.
On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:
> I chose not to write a "departing flame" (or message, but some might call
> it a flame) when I unsubscribed several weeks ago--within an hour of
> reading that John and Sandy had decided to make "their" list a moderated
> 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.
> ...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New
> Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait
> accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list
> _founders_, at least not me) were being sought.
Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to
do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and
Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't.
Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the
end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first.
> I see vast amounts of bandwidth consumed by arguments about
> moderation, about the putative biases of the Moderator and Director of the
> New Cypherpunks World Order, about alternative moderation strategies (which
> is stupid, as John and Sandy announced what they were going to do, not just
> some of their preliminary thoughts), and so on. I've also noticed fewer
> substantive essays.
And I see something different. Since previously, Tim actively
filter the list, I'm not sure on what basis he can make his
comparison. As just one example (though a signicant one) Dimitri
has posted more non-flaming, on-topic posts during the two weeks
of this experiment then in the previous several months. In my
opinion, other than for the hysterical posts of a very few
self-righteous loudmouths, the overall quality of the posts has
been far superior to what it had become in the weeks before the
experiment began. YMMV.
> 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.
> (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.
The problems Tim describes, did not arise with moderation.
Indeed, they were the imputus for the moderation.
> * But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the
> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list
> was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider
> these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?...
I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that
John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in
someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much
to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the
house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim
is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this
means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house.
> While John had (and has) every legal right
> to do with his property as he wished, the effect was very negative. First,
> Vulis found other ways to post (duh).
Tim, do you really believe that John did not anticipate this?
> 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.
> Third, journalists (who love sizzle over substance any day of
> the week) lept into the fray with articles which gave Vulis the
> publicity he craved.
That's what journalist do, though I wasn't aware of ANY articles
on this issue. I would appreciate it if Tim could give us some
citations.
> Fourth, it sent a message to enemies of liberty that "Even the
> Cypherpunks have found it necessary to abandon their anarchic
> ways."
That's one message that one could take from all this, I suppose.
I don't see it that way, nor do several list members who thanked
me in private e-mail for improving the list. Again, YMMV.
> (I'm well aware of the issues with pests like Vulis, who seek to destroy
> virtual communities like ours. But the solution John used did not work, and
> generated more crap....
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.
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."
> * "Censorship" is another overloaded term. I don't think the "Definition 1"
> of dictionary definitions, about _governmental_ restrictions, is the only
> meaningful definition. Everybody knows what it meant when we say that
> "Lockheed is censoring the views of employees," even though we know
> Lockheed is not using government power. A censor is one who censors. And
> even my "American Heritage Dictionary" gives this as its "definition 1":
>
> "censor n. 1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other
> material and to remove or suppress morally, politically, or otherwise
> objectionable."
Tim and I disagree on which definition of "censorship" applies in
this situation. Dale Thorne, and others, have argued, in essence,
that there is censorship if ANY definition would apply. I'm not
sure time is going that far, but if so, I respectfully disagree.
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.
> * OK, even given that John had decided to censor "his" list, what about his
> choice of Sandy Sandfort as the censor?
John didn't choose me, I approached him. I offered my opinion as
to what I thought HE ought to do about the list disruptions. The
short version of his answer was, "if you think you can do a
better job, go for it." I accepted the challenge, so here I am.
I don't want this job. If the list members decide to keep the
list moderated, I hope to keep my involvement as a moderator to a
minimum. Any volunteers?
> * Nor do the announced criteria make any sense. While the inane one-line
> scatological insults have been filtered out, many "flames" make it through,
> based on what I've seen in perusing the hks archive site. And some
> reasonable comments get dumped in the flame bucket.
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.
> maybe he might think my essay was off-topic,
Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.
> or used one of the Seven Deadly Words,
Clearly not a criterion I ever enunciated.
>or was "too flamish."
Bingo (with the proviso that it be a personal attack on a list
member as opposed to the substance of his or her argument).
> * 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.
> 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 is gleeful about all this or not. An 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.
> (I would venture a guess that a Duncan Frissell would almost certainly get a
> libertarian rant past Sandy while a Phill Hallam-Baker might easily fail to
> get a leftist rant past him.)
I sorry Tim gives me so little credit. Rather than merely post a
self-serving denial, I would ask that Phill confirm or deny Tim's
supposition. To the best of my recollection, I have sent only
one post of Phill's to the Flames list. It flamed Jim Bell. As
far as moderating political rants go, I'm agnostic.
Look folks, when you stop trying new things, and stop questioning
conventional wisdom, you are as good as dead. Maybe moderation
is the best think since sliced bread; maybe it sucks. How about
we give it a good-faith try for the next 2+ weeks and see how it
goes? If the consensus is it sucks, I intend to be gracious in
defeat. If it goes the other way, I hope that the neighsayers
will accept it and let the list get on with its role as a forum
for the protection of privacy.
Thanks again, Tim, for sharing your views with us.
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
