With all the recent traffic about if moderation is the future of the net, it seems like an appropriate idea to get some brainstorming on some better forms of moderation. Specifically, I was thinking along the lines of a newsgroup where only selected individuals are able to post, but anybody who wants to can read the group. However, the "selected individuals" could fall into several categories. You could have one or very few "selected individuals" and the newsgroup would work almost exactly like the current moderated groups. You could have many "selected individuals" who may have been selected by proving that they read a FAQ or some other minimal criteria, which could theoretically cut down on newbie fever. You could have several dozen "selected individuals" who are selected by some means (a committee? a vote? a "trusted individual who selects more individuals") and have an unrestricted talk between these individuals. This way, you have a newsgroup where these experts can discuss topics in an unrestricted way. I'm thinking along the lines of the "boards" in _Ender's Game_, where a newsgroup is somewhat similar to a newspaper. Once the reporters get hired, they have a lot of freedom on what they can report about. There are a lot of details to be worked out, including: 1) Can such a system work? Are there protocols which can guarantee authentication on a large distributed system like news? I'm assuming that there would have to be some sort of cryptographic authentication to prevent wide-scale abuse. 2) Is such a system desirable? Is the current "anybody can post anywhere if they know how" system better? Which one promotes cypherpunk goals more? Can I anonymously prove that I am a "selected individual"? Remember, I'm considering this a brainstorming session, so I'd like to hear any comments you may have. -- Mike Gebis m-gebis@uiuc.edu Mean people suck. http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/m-gebis/