At 01:18 AM 1/11/97 -0600, Igor Chudov wrote:
Bill Frantz wrote: ...
Let me rant a bit about the "ideal" moderation structure. Igor Chudov's software lets people like Matt Blase and Bruce Schneier post whatever they want. (I would add people like Black Unicorn as well. YMMV) Other posts go into a pool accessible to all moderators. If one moderator approves, the message goes out. If N reject, it is rejected. These rejections could either be anonymous or be included in an x-moderators-rejecting: header for the "worst of cypherpunks" list.
I think that Bill proposes a very interesting idea. His suggestion would eliminate a lot of [well-grounded] suspicion about arbitrary rejections at a "whim" of moderators.
My only concern is that there will be more work for moderators, because in his scheme each "bad" message has to be reviewed by N people instead of 1.
It is a tradeoff between a more liberal policy and efficient use of moderators' time.
As long as a number of moderators have access, then why not also include in the header information the number of available moderators that gave the content a "thumbs up". If this were tacked on to the front of the subject field, (for people like me whor are using Eudora Lite), then messages could be chosen, by the readers, based on the number of moderators that gave it approval. Ideally, a relatively large number of moderators would be on hand so that the scale would be an accurate cross-reference of the groups opinions.