Who maintains ruby-talk?

[Josh Cheek]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Might be losing. Might not. Part of the point is that you think a bit
about what you WANT from moderation -- then you set things up to get it.

And then your Frankenstein eats you ;|

And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some
pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone
from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly.

If that's the case, you have a legitimate point, but I see it as distinct
from establishing a moderator.

This is precisely the case in which I feel a moderator should step in.
Relying on "the community" to police itself is silly.

Are you people really just a bunch of anarchists? I like moderation.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty
than to those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

**********

I find it rather curious that in the thread Tony starts, out of concern for
spammers and security holes, he posts 4 times in a row over the course of
ten minutes, and links to code that can be used to remove anyone from the
list.

Isn't he advocating an institution which, upon it's inception, would be
obligated to ban him?

 

[Josh Cheek]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Non-sequitur. "Liberty" does not mean that anyone who wants can disrupt
anything, or harass anyone, they want. Decent moderation does not
noticably
impair liberty.

More generally, a liberty which is useless has been effectively removed.

I think a better non sequitur is going from not wanting a moderator to being
an anarchist. But that's not the point anyway, I'm not talking about their
liberty, I'm talking about mine. I would rather have a few people spam a few
threads than have to censor my posts out of fear of moderation. You can say
moderation doesn't noticeably impair Liberty, but Jefferson also pointed out
that "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government
to gain ground. "

 

[Phil Romero]

 

[Robert Klemme]

Not at all! This is believing in maturity of people. I know, people
can be nasty and sometimes I don't see any good in the human nature.
But most of the time it's different - especially in this list.
Compare that community with others and you'll know what I mean.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much libert= y
than to those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

I could not agree more. And yes, there is a particular difference
between anarchists and liberals. I would rather think of us as grown
ups who know how to get along well with each other and help those who
do not - or forget it for a moment.

Kind regards

robert

--=20
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

 

[Justin Collins]

As someone who has built a supersyndication system (in Ruby!), I completely
do not buy this argument. As far as I am aware, the MLM of
(e-mail address removed) is the central authority of the state of the mailing
list, and everything else is just syndication.

You're arguing that because ruby-talk is syndicated means it's
uncontrollable? Bullshit. Unless I'm confused the MLM is the central
authority.

And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some
pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone
from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly.

I am not sure that is a correct view of the system, but I am sure
someone will correct me if I am mistaken. As I understand it, there are
three ways to "input" posts and three ways to view posts. They can and
sometimes do operate independently, although when they do it is
considered a malfunction, because we don't want to isolate part of the
community. They essentially replicate each other, so I do not think any
one part is considered a central authority.

As for your security concerns, they should be addressed to Matz if you
have not already done so.

As for your moderation concerns, I do not share them, nor do I really
understand your vehemence (my perception!) on the issue. Trolls should
not be fed, spammers should be blocked. Threads I don't care about are
not read. I am with Robert in saying we should be a community that gets
along without the need of supervisors. If there is one rule in our
anarchist mailing list/forum/newsgroup, it is "Matz is nice so we are
nice." That is enough of a moderator for me.

-Justin

 

[Dylan Northrup]

A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Justin Collins wrote:

:=As for your moderation concerns, I do not share them, nor do I really
:=understand your vehemence (my perception!) on the issue. Trolls should not be
:=fed, spammers should be blocked.

In the absence of moderation or some central authority, spammers cannot be
blocked. Or, more properly, it's up to each individual subscriber to block
a spammer at the point of receipt.

:=Threads I don't care about are not read. I am
:=with Robert in saying we should be a community that gets along without the
:=need of supervisors. If there is one rule in our anarchist mailing
:=list/forum/newsgroup, it is "Matz is nice so we are nice." That is enough of a
:=moderator for me.

This is a fine philosophy until someone is not nice. Recently someone,
namely thunk, has been "not nice". If more people are "not nice" ruby-talk
goes from being a valuable community resource to "that place where there's
too much noise and not enough signal."

I do not share the same strident opposition to central authority that others
on this list seem to feel. I've been a list owner, a list moderator and a
member of lists where I've been moderated. As said previously, having
someone with the ability to say "Dude, stop being a wanker" and having the
ability to back that up is nothing new on the Internet. Hell, moderated
e-mail lists were nothing new 20 years ago when I got my first e-mail
account. If you believe having a moderator (or group of moderators) will
make the list a tool of control by the dictator(s) at the top, your belief
goes against the vast majority of historical examples of moderated e-mail
lists. The more important question would be whether you could find enough
candidates a) trusted by the majority of the community who b) would be
willing to spend the extra time and deal with the hassle that is being a
list moderator. Libertarian ideas of freedom from tyranny might be academic
concerns if only because nobody would want to moderate the list in the first
place.

 

[Peter Hickman]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

As annoying as thunk was he appears to have gone. I had forgotten about him
already.

If thats your worst example then I think we can live without a 'posting
czar'. Same with spam, there is very little of that on the list.

Chill, it's not as bad as you think.

 

[Robert Klemme]

If you believe having a moderator (or group of moderators) will
make the list a tool of control by the dictator(s) at the top, your belief
goes against the vast majority of historical examples of moderated e-mail
lists.

Maybe I want to continue to believe that the Ruby community is special
- at least in some ways (for example, because it does not need
moderation). You might call that "romantic" (which I believe I am
generally not) but you would have to concede that it has worked out
remarkably good for the longest time. If you argue with a recent
hiccup in favor of getting rid of a tradition then this is a weak
argument in my eyes.

Kind regards

robert

 

[Robert Dober]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Robert Klemme

That should make you wary of moderation, shouldn't it?

Honestly I really do not know. I have this tendency to see everyone's
arguments, I see Tony's I see your's, I guess I need a mind of my own,
anyone having one to spare .
Seriously I believe much in liberty of expression thus I kind of like
my second thought to have a filtered condensed version rather than a
moderation.

Cheers
R.

 

[Aldric Giacomoni]

Maybe I want to continue to believe that the Ruby community is special
- at least in some ways (for example, because it does not need
moderation). You might call that "romantic" (which I believe I am
generally not) but you would have to concede that it has worked out
remarkably good for the longest time. If you argue with a recent
hiccup in favor of getting rid of a tradition then this is a weak
argument in my eyes.

I have the same point of view as Robert. I like 'us'. Ruby-talk, in my
eyes, does not need moderation. There is a difference between:
- holding back a joke because it is inappropriate
- holding back a joke because one would get banned

I also realize it's not -exactly- the kind of moderation you meant, but
there's a small step from one to the other.

I gave thunk his own forum. All he wanted was a place to write stuff on
the internet. He can yell as loud as he wants over there; he is even the
admin. He is not evil, just misguided. Ever notice how the worst
children will suddenly become great kids when they get a toy they like?
(damn - my analogy breaks down again. When they get bored, they become
'terrible' kids again!)

When ruby-talk grows further, there may be a need for moderation - but
without a pattern, I think we may be jumping the gun.

 

[James Britt]

As annoying as thunk was he appears to have gone. I had forgotten about him
already.

If thats your worst example then I think we can live without a 'posting
czar'. Same with spam, there is very little of that on the list.

Chill, it's not as bad as you think.

Indeed.

Threads about spam/troll problems tend to overwhelm the actual
spam/troll problem.




--
James Britt

www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
www.neurogami.com - Smart application development

 

[Walton Hoops]

And as I realize code speaks louder than words, here you go. Here's some
Ruby code to unsubscribe someone from ruby-talk without their permission.
This particular snippet is set up to unsubscribe thunk from ruby-talk.
Feel free to modify it to unsubscribe whoever you like:

http://gist.github.com/365142

I send you this only to point out that ruby-talk is very much insecure,
especially for anyone who reads it via email.

Actually, all that will do is cause the user to get a confirmation
e-mail asking if they really want to unsubscribe. I suppose it could
lead to some annoying spam, but I hardly think it's a critical security bug.

 

[Tony Arcieri]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Actually, all that will do is cause the user to get a confirmation
e-mail asking if they really want to unsubscribe. I suppose it could
lead to some annoying spam, but I hardly think it's a critical security
bug.

That's what a secure MLM would do. The ruby-talk one does not. If you
don't believe me I can run it against your email address.

 

[Walton Hoops]

That's what a secure MLM would do. The ruby-talk one does not. If you
don't believe me I can run it against your email address.

Go ahead, I already did.

 

[Walton Hoops]

Go ahead, I already did.

Hmm... just a moment ago I got this e-mail:

unsubscribe

unsubscribe-confirm 2010041602504610836465093473 walton vyper.hopto.org

Please reply this mail to confirm your unsubscribe request
and send this to (e-mail address removed)
If confirmed, you are removed from MAILING LIST <[email protected]>.

(e-mail address removed), Be Seeing You!

************************************************************

Help: <mailto:[email protected]?body=help>
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe>

If you have any questions or problems,
please contact (e-mail address removed)
or
send e-mail with the body "help"(without quotes) to
(e-mail address removed)
(here is the automatic reply, so more preferable)

e.g. on a Unix Machine
(shell prompt)% echo "help" |Mail (e-mail address removed)

************************************************************

I wonder how that could have happened ;-)

 

[Tony Arcieri]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Strange... when I do it to myself it unsubscribes me with no confirmation.

 

[Walton Hoops]

Strange... when I do it to myself it unsubscribes me with no confirmation.

That is strange. A by account setting maybe? Looking through the
'help' command I'm not seeing anything like that though. Probably a
question only Matz could answer.

 

[Aldric Giacomoni]

Strange... when I do it to myself it unsubscribes me with no
confirmation.

Maybe it does a slightly more thorough check than you realize. Are your
fingerprints on your keyboard?

/tinfoilhat off

 

[Justin Collins]

A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Justin Collins wrote:

:=As for your moderation concerns, I do not share them, nor do I really
:=understand your vehemence (my perception!) on the issue. Trolls should not be
:=fed, spammers should be blocked.

In the absence of moderation or some central authority, spammers cannot be
blocked. Or, more properly, it's up to each individual subscriber to block
a spammer at the point of receipt.

Oh, as for that, Matz blocks spammers on the mailing list, and Google
has spam filtering on its side for the newsgroup. I am not sure about
the forums.


-Justin

 

[Jonathan Nielsen]

Oh, as for that, Matz blocks spammers on the mailing list, and Google has
spam filtering on its side for the newsgroup. I am not sure about the
forums.

The forum makes a user evaluate a ruby program in order to register.
Which would be ridiculously easy for a bot to do, but it would have to
be targetted specifically at the forum.

Actually, it's not a very good CAPTCHA at all imo, since it's
something that is easy for a machine to do and hard for a regular
person to do. But... I'm not in charge. Thank goodness.

-Jonathan Nielsen