What the hell does the Extropians list justice system have to do with the Cyperpunks list?, I hear many of you asking. It has to do with alternative (to government) justice, reputations, the handling of flames, and other issues related to crypto anarchich systems that are by nature outside the scope of conventional governmental systems. Flames on this list are (fortunately) rare, but still occur. And the recent Black Unicorn vs. Detweiler dispute shows that the conventional legal system can come into play. In any case, I spent 19 months on the Extropians list and was an active poster, so I have some direct observations to make. I hope they have some relevance to our own list. Most of my comments will be based on the material Ram Cromwell writes:
First let me explain something to people who don't know. The extropians list has a legal arbitration system to help keep down flames. We have rules against bringing verbal assaults into heated debates so that if you feel someone is insulting you, you may 'press charges'. If evidence is presented, the person usually gets a warning. 3 warnings and your posting privileges get revoked for a period between 24-72 hours to allow a 'cool down' period on the list. This was implemented out of neccessity because the list was averaging between 150 to 300 messages a day with most of those coming from only a handful of people.
Ironically, I found that the legal code *caused* many flames, for various reasons. This is my interpretation, and I "assign credit" (in genetic programming terms) for dozens of flames between various parties to the existence of a legal code that encouraged/facillitated the filing of charges and countercharges, the issuance of warnings and other judgements, and the seemingly endless debate about all of these issues, as well as of the charges. In my view, the Extropians justice system, especially as I saw it in the last several months on the list (I left in January, 1994), was an interesting experiment, but ultimately flawed, causing many times more problems as it solved. (Sort of like the real world court system, eh?)
A common way of resolving a standoff debate on the Extropians list is to put your money where your mouth is -- a bet. This causes someone to get off their lazy ass and go look up the citation and present it
With due respect for Ray here, this worked better in theory than in practice. The issuance of a challenge typically resulted in each side firing new volleys of charges, of clarifications, and of boring public debate about the terms, judgement criteria, who would hold the money, etc. Ad nauseum. I recall only one fairly positive example: some bet whose details I have mercifully forgotten that involved Robin Hanson (sometimes of this list). I recall that whoever lost made a statement of this, and may have even paid up. (But maybe not.) In all the other cases I saw, the "challenge" floated around for a while, got interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again, caused others to choose sides, and ultimately just kind of fizzled out. I was once asked to be a judge in one of these stupid, unresolvable debates about quantum computers (like we're gonna see one built, right?). I declined. No interest, and pointless. (Quantum computers are an interesting conceptual topic, but of zero practical interest in this century or the next. My "Russians Break RSA" satire is about all the sue I see for this stuff.) Consider this experience a data point. I'd be interesting in hearing about more recent experiences, espeically positive ones, but my observations lead me to suspect there are few. Just because the "theory" says these bets should uncover Truth and Fairness doesn't make it so. Decision Duels and Fact Forums are not with us yet. The best way to dismiss bogus claims is to ignore them.
The final act which led to his removal was that he circumvented the list security system by forging the headers of his message so as to appear to be Perry Metzger. This is a serious offense on the list software we run because each user has database information associated with their account, and our software is pay-for-use. Posting under someone else's account corrupts the list statistics, deducts list credits from their account, and could, depending on software limits set, use up their daily posting quota.
Yep, I saw this and was pretty surprised to see such forgery, I can't say who it was who did, as I didn't follow the details.
For the act of forgery, James Donald was deleted and for no other reason. Extropy, Inc. has given Harry S. Hawk full autonomy in managing
By the way, so far as I am aware, *nobody* has ever been kicked off the Cypherpunks list. Not even Detweiler, who asked to be removed last Novemeber or so, as he was entering his terminal phase.
The legal system has been used rarely since and things are relatively calm now.
There may be a lesson here. A formal legal code encourages "law hacking" by those with an axe to grind. A formal system which attempts to cover all possibilities encourages incompleteness, loopholes. (This is often analyzed as being the result of Goedel's Theorem, which I suppose it is in an informal sense :-}.) I like the Cypherpunks system a lot better. Instead of bogging down in claims, charges, formal bets, adjudication, appeals, etc., there are relatively few if any rules. Somehow the turkeys end up leaving. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."