Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
on or about: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:51:47 -0800
in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May"
the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"?
{ much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided }
I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff.
But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably.
* Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the"Cypherpunks-Unedited) (or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger
But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.) {snip}
Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits. What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a style-over-substance complaint. Of course, I don't have my trifocals on just at the moment. It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited) In any event, please accept my .02 in the spirit in which it is intended ( constructive criticism ). /* */
in a message allegedly from: "Timothy C. May"
I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of Good Stuff.
But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things considerably.
But the clear message by having Sandy censor the main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the list we all know about, etc.)
Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have satisfied most of your objections: retaining 'cypherpunks' as the name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some, version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits.
That was the objectionable part of the moderation experiment to me.
What's in a name? Is perception more important ( to you ) than reality? If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how much labels need to matter. Is the title of the group more important the the content? From where I sit, this looks a lot like a style-over-substance complaint.
There is a lot in a name. The name `Cypherpunks' has, or had a reputation. Tricks like censoring the list are not helping that reputation. This wording indicates that the other two lists are to satisfy purists: (relevant output from sending message with body `lists' to majordomo@toad.com) : cypherpunks (THE MAIN LIST) Fermenting ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-flames (FLAMES DELETED BY MODERATOR) Ideas on crypto and society : cypherpunks-unedited (THE UN-MODERATED LIST) Ideas on crypto and society The naming convention indicates that cypherpunks is the main list, as does the ordering (moderated first). The text in the sign up message: (extracts from output from sending message with body `info cypherpunks' to majordomo@toad.com) : cypherpunks moderated to suppress spam and flames : cypherpunks-unedited all submissions, just as they arrived : cypherpunks-flames the submissions that didn't pass moderation Also I note in passing that if I recall correctly this section used to give Hugh Daniel's email address. Seems John is managing majordomo himself now? Is Hugh's no longer being list manager related to the moderation decision? : For other questions, my list management address is not the best place, : since I don't read it every day. To reach me otherwise, send mail to : : gnu@toad.com
It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit. When JG, Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two list names (i.e.: cp / cp-unedited)
It would be nice also if JG, Sandy et al, took some notice of the list
opinions next time.
It really would have been better to create a _new_ moderated list,
rather than take over the existing list address, and subscribers.
Maybe those who initiated the moderation experiment thought they
wouldn't get many people moving over to the moderated list if they had
to go to that effort.
Another alternative would have been to discontinue `cypherpunks' and
start `cypherpunks-edited' and `cypherpunks-unedited' forcing people
to choose. I wouldn't have liked that either, but it would have been
a better experiment. (Likely that would have lost many altogether,
who simply wouldn't have bothered to resubscribe at all).
Several times in the past, a USENET newsgroup alt.cypherpunks was
suggested. Some people were against it because they felt that it
would attract more noisy posters.
Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As
an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the
alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech).
Adam
--
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0
Adam Back wrote:
Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech).
An interesting idea. - Igor.
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Adam Back wrote:
Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech).
An interesting idea.
John Gilmore of EFF is a liar and a hypocrite who likes to claim credit for other people's accomplishments. He had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the alt.* Usenet hierarchy. Gilmore is a liar and a censor. On the other hand, creating an alt.cypherpunks sounds like a more robust idea than yet another mailing list. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Adam Back wrote:
Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech).
An interesting idea.
What's also interesting is Tim May posting after a long "absence", and in his post he repeats virtually sentence-for-sentence what a handful of people have been saying here for the past month.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Adam Back wrote:
Perhaps it is time to reconsider the benefits of alt.cypherpunks. (As an aside, it is ironic that John Gilmore was the guy who started the alt.* USENET hierarchy, specifically to facilitate freedom of speech).
An interesting idea.
John Gilmore of EFF is a liar and a hypocrite who likes to claim credit for other people's accomplishments.
Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore. They represent the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open in their critisism of the EFF in this regard. A large corporation waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend over you can be sure they'll bend over. Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF.
He had nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the alt.* Usenet hierarchy. Gilmore is a liar and a censor.
Is Mr. Gilmore making this claim?
On the other hand, creating an alt.cypherpunks sounds like a more robust idea than yet another mailing list.
And you could merely post this mailing list publically in the alt group of your choice--I find it interesting at times but not worth responding to in general since freedom of expressiion is not a given. Steve
participants (6)
-
Adam Back -
Dale Thorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
ISP_Ratings -
tmcghan＠gill-simpson.com