That might work, but why not come up with something more automated, where no one person makes the decisions. For lack of a better phrase, a "collaborative filtering" system for the list? Imagine something like this:
A short sig is appended at the end of all posts to the list containing a couple of clickable URLs. One you can click if you think this thread has gone off topic. One you can click if you think the person has demonstrated themselves "a kook" (again for lack of a better term, basically someone you think is harming the quality of the list), and you want them gone.
The backend software keeps track of the clicks, does it's best via cookies and whatnot to keep people from voting more than one time (for safety's sake I think some human will have to be responsible for checking up on what the software does to keep people from abusing it), and works with the list software to end bad threads and cut off people. It could post automated announcements to the list whenever a thread or kook gets cutoff to let people know what it did. The part I haven't worked out yet is how many "votes" does it take before it takes action. Perhaps someone who knows more about collaboritive filtering than me can help?
A system like this could be said to be self organizing, and I think more in line with the Extropian Principles, no?
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Brian Atkins <email@example.com>
> > Incentive: I'll agree to contribute a minimum of $10,000 per
> > year to ExI for at least 5 years if we can make some progress
> > on this.
> Someone at ExI needs to jump on this and secure that money! To do this,
> a specific plan needs to be worked out, and some sort of objective
> measurement for progress needs to be agreed to up front. Don't let this
> money slip away, and don't let this be a vague promise of support that
> never goes anywhere.
> There are many schemes for moderated lists. My proposal is to have all
> posts go through a team of moderators. Those that are off-topic get
> diverted to a second list called extropians2 (or something). In this
> way, no one is prevented from postings, and all conversations can
> continue and can still be followed by those who want to see them. Those
> who want to read the more on-topic list can subscribe just to the main
> list. The key here is not to judge posts or control posting, just to
> keep it on topic and divert off-topic posts to the secondary list. I
> think this will make everybody happy, but may slow down the list. For
> the kind of donation being offered, surely we can find volunteers to act
> as monitors around the clock. If you get enough volunteers, we can get
> full coverage with only a little time from each volunteer.
> If you don't like moderating, you can use automated keyword moderators
> that divert certain keywords to the other list. As soon as a thread
> starts that seems off topic, the keywords or title can be added to the
> automated list, and a message to the main list under that title can
> state that the thread has been diverted to the second list. This method
> allows implementation after the fact. Putting "guns", "TWA*800", "CIA",
> "UFO" into the keyword list would divert current kookiness.
> Maybe the number of posts sent to the secondary list can be used as an
> objective measurement of what has been dekiikified off the main list.
> Or maybe just the agreement that the chosen scheme (or any other) is
> agreeable and that while it is in place (up to 5 years) Brian's money
> will be donated.
> Harvey Newstrom <http://newstaffinc.com>
> Author, Consultant, Engineer, Hacker, Researcher, Scientist.