I think that the move to human moderation is a good thing, and am pleased that Sandy will shortly begin to act as moderator.
Last night's barrage of SPAM convinced me that this is a really good thing.
However, I think that forming lists of "approved people" and "unapproved people" and treating them differently is likely to do more harm than good, even if we have nice software which does it very efficiently. I don't like it for several reasons:
Why jump to conclusions about the moderator's behavior? Lets give the new moderators a chance - PLEASE!!! I think our new moderators have been around long enough to know what's appropriate and what's not. I for one am getting really tired of seeing so many off topic messages (not necessary SPAM) on here. I have been tempted to unsubscribe a couple of times, but I haven't because I don't want to miss information on the DES/RC5 Challenge and other important info. I have been on well moderated lists, as well as had to ask a friend of mine who was on a closed list to forward postings to me (I couldn't get on the approved list because I hadn't sent them $20).
1. Political. It's symbolically disturbing, and it tends to shift the focus of the group (and of the moderation process) away from messages, and towards the people who post them. I think it'd be tempting to turn it into some sort of bureaucratic system, with punishments (being on the bad list)
In the case of this one closed list that I know of, I'd agree with you, but I'd argue that this isn't generaly true. Let me ask you this: How many of the messages posted to this list have you actualy read/found useful? I personaly don't find more than perhaps 5% useful.
2. Technical. It requires that the people on the "good list" authenticate their messages (otherwise people will post with the names of "good people" to avoid moderation), which imports a lot of hassle with different platforms and signing and certification and key distribution and [...] which we don't have good solutions for yet.
I sort of see your point, but I don't think we have to go that far. A moderator's main function is one of keeping the discussions on track (Ie. SPAM selling Metamucil doesn't qualify). Authentication goes a little beyond that. I think forcing authentication will really turn this into a political problem. Good luck Sandy and other moderator! Bernie