paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk writes:
I would like to start a thread to discuss the moderation and rejection policy.
No doubt we all would but such threads may, without recourse to proper moderation, all be thrown into cypherpunks-flames if Sandy believes they will be critical of him. (prove me wrong Sandy, send this to the moderated list).
Nope - Sandy tossed Paul's article to cypherpunks-flames, just like he tossed a recent article pointing out that he's lying outright about his moderation policies.
My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames mailing list.
I don`t think I read the article (even though I subscribe to the unmoderated list), can you forward me a copy. As I understand it though, from other comentaries, it was junked because it was in response to a message by Dimitri who, given that it is Sandy that is moderating the list, is no doubt filtered by different criteria than anyone else on the list, in my opinion a censorous and fascist restraint as Dimitri has recently been posting more crypto relevant material, besides which whatever the content of his posts they should be open to review before a decision is made on if they are to be junked or not.
Has Paul reversed his previous pro-censorship stand and decided to learn something about crypto from people who actually know some?
Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy.
Yes Sandy, please enlighten us, what is the criterion you use to moderate the list if not crypto-relevancy. I suspect an element of self preservation and protection of the list fuhrer and diktat maker John Gilmore (who, until the disgraceful incident with Dimitri commanded some respect on this list).
I used to respect Gilmore until this series of incidents (unsubscribing me, turning list moderated). Now I only have disdain for him.
I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy the current readership.
I don`t think this is the point, John Gilmore is free to appoint whoever he wants to moderate his list, he is free to censor all messages which criticise him and his censorship, however, subscribers to the list should be told they are being censored on these grounds and not on some facade of "crypto relevancy" or another thin veil drawn weakly over content based censorship to protect a certain class of list members.
Quite a few people have expressed interest in re-creating an unmoderated cypherpunks list at another site if Gilmore decided to stick to his "moderation experiment". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps