How about we keep a track of how many posts (NumPosts) each person has made, and where they are up to in the digits of PI (PIPos) to the right of the decimal point. Then, every time a post is received, you accept it if and only if numposts mod 10 = PIdigit (PIPos) ( = trunc(PI * 10^PIPos) - 10 * trunc(PI * 10^PIPos-1) ). Easy to implement, clear, unambiguous.
I've decided to self moderate, as moderation seems to be important to people now. But I don't think I'd be a good judge of my own content (bias), and I can't be bothered, quite frankly, in deciding to which category my post belongs.
So all of my posts from now on will be tagged as demonstrated in the subject line for this post.
Emlyn, purveyor of crap.
> Here's an interesting new filtering variant we've cooked up with
> Cris Rasch today.
> To recapitulate: my original proposal was to establish a pair of
> lists: extropians moderated/unmoderated. Everything rejected from
> extropians moderated would go to extropians unmoderated that anybody
> who subscribed to both lists would get the full feed, if so inclined.
> This scheme is simple to implement, but has obvious flaws. To avoid
> pressing anybody in a single quality metric it should be possible to
> associate each subscriber with a ranking matrix against the other
> participants (which could be inquirable remotely). With 1 k subscribers
> this means keeping track of 1 M short integers, which is tolerable
> nowadays (besides, this can be implemented as sparse matrix). Each
> mail will be attached a pair of urls/listserv commands to
> increment/decrement your individual ranking of the poster this mail
> came from. The matrix gets initialized with zero. All positive values
> including zero mean no filtering. -1 means every second post gets
> through, -2 every third, etc.
> This doesn't include topic filtering, but this can be addressed
> separately. To address this, we can agree on an initial keyword pool
> (META:SPACE:GUNS: etc.) and make the listserv let through only
> properly classified messages. If a message is unclassified it gets
> send back with a list of current keywords. There should be a mechanism
> of creating new keywords, and discarding obsolete ones (e.g. by aging).
> I'm fairly certain it would be possible to hack mailman into
> supporting this. Does anybody see any obvious flaws in the scheme?