P.M. remarked in exasperation a little while ago that he thought that some of the best minds had been lost in list attrition due to high traffic, naming some people who had seemingly dropped from the list (Bill Stewart? Phil Karn?) but what if these people had just stopped subscribing under their clear name? and started using a pseudonym? this brings to light the idea that credibility is hard won, and that it is hard to get, and that people need all the credibility that they can achieve. it seems that virtually all accomplishments are credibility-enhancing, and people only "notch down" their reputation estimations in extreme circumstances. hence, what I am suggesting is that one of the "stable attractors" that TM is always talking about may be a reality in which people pool most of their accomplishments under a single nym. furthermore, they will wish to avoid conflict with other nyms in respect to attribution. isn't this, functionally, the equivalent of the supposed anti-cypherpunk "true names"? now, I'm not suggesting that "if you want to do something in secret, you must have something to hide". (although that seems almost like a tautology to me). but what I am suggesting, is that if you want to get credit, it may pay to pool all your accomplishments under one nym (tracing it to a physical body is a whole separate issue-- the two should not be confused; although the concept of "true names" does tend to blur this distinction). in the case of PM, he thought that because some people ostensibly dropped from the list, the list quality had decreased. but he seemed to be making this conclusion based on their "real identity". what if they were still around, posting under pseudonyms? would he be able to tell? would the signal quality be the same? the point is that people seem to judge list quality based on criteria in which "true names" play a major role. I'm not saying this is the only way to do it, but I am saying that "true names" seem to be very much ingrained into human psychology, particularly in public forums and attributing credit, and the idea that they are wholly irrelevant to most human endeavor is very suspicious, at least deserving more than a few paragraphs of supposed proof. -- another problem with pseudonyms and list noise is the following. first, let me start by saying I think this list approaches the "dysfunctional" level at times when everyone is ranting about each other about staying on topic. there is an awful lot of hostility on this list. maybe people like it, I'm not sure. I'm interested in the sources of this hostility, though, and I think I can identify some good candidates. the list hostility and tension is quite palpable. when TM prefaces many of his posts, and many others do, with frequent apologies about being on topic, I am amazed to see this because I don't see people so self-conscious on other mailing lists. in my opinion, this is where the role of the moderator is absolutely critical. any mailing list with an AWOL moderator is only asking for total chaos, IMHO. in this case I'll use the word "moderator" and "list creator" interchangeably. the best recommendation to everyone who subscribes to the list, and to the moderator, is that THE MODERATOR DETERMINES WHAT IS RELEVANT. that means that no one else has the authority to do this, NO ONE. if you find a post that bothers you, FIRST WRITE THE LIST MODERATOR. ask the LIST MODERATOR to deal with the offending poster. the list moderator should make a judgement when the list is in a "noise" phase and try to be clear about what is relevant to the list and what is not. what this requires is a watchful eye and regular interventions, IMHO. a list where the moderator is never around may seem like a haven, but in my opinion it only turns into a grouch free-for-all subject to regular conflagrations that leave everyone *really* pissed off, as did a recent eruption by TM and PM. now, whenever you see someone write, THIS ISN'T RELEVANT TO THIS LIST!! THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CRYPTO!! IMHO you should gently remind this person in email that THEIR OPINION OF WHAT IS RELEVANT OR NOT IS NOT RELEVANT. tell them to write the list moderator first, IN EMAIL. jamming up the communication medium with meta traffic about what is an is not relevant is absolutely futile and useless and counterproductive and extremely anxiety producing. so, as you can see, IMHO people who are continually making judgements about what is or is not relevant to the list, and posting those opinions, are PART OF THE PROBLEM. (I am reminded of one himself talking about people who are part of the problem and who is part of the solution. well, IMHO, ironically, he is PART OF THE PROBLEM, and for a very obvious and clear reason that even an intelligent child could grasp). -- the Yin to the Yang of all this, however, is that the LIST MODERATOR MUST OCCASIONALLY SHOW HIS FACE and make unambiguous rulings about what is and what is not appropriate, especially when the noise level increases and people start to wonder. the problem with this is a list moderator who likes to use one or two pseudonyms. the pseudonyms may be so secret that not *anyone* on the list is aware of his identity, even close friends. this list moderator may be loathe to ever post under his "true name" or whatever name he used to start the list. anyway, you can see that this whole business of pseudonyms, while perhaps workable, is certainly fraught with pitfalls IMHO. at least in situations of *public forums*, I am going to go out on a limb and say that it is very troublesome. it seems that in any forum, there are people who will try to disrupt the proceedings so to speak. in real life you can throw them out, by identifying their *picture*. in a cyberspace that lacks true identities, you cannot throw out these "problem people". they continually come back to haunt you despite your best attempts to bar them. doesn't that bug you? doesn't that irritate you? doesn't that drive you crazy? or do you like the idea that the person you most hate in life might be posting behind any of the next few messages? and there's nothing you can do about it? because you in fact embrace the capabilities that let him do this, and you're pretty sure you're not a hypocrite? well, just some musings for those who unabashadly promote pseudonyms to contemplate. p.s. in regard to the above, about "people other than the moderator posting judgements about what is and is not relevant to the list", I am not making a judgement about what is and is not relevant on the list. I am making a judgement about making a judgement about what is and what is not relevant on the list. <g> --Vlad Nuri