Delivery-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:25:23 -0500
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,URIBL_BLOCKED
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93F9A1E0FBF
	for <archiver@seul.org>; Sat,  7 Mar 2015 15:25:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7780E336B2;
	Sat,  7 Mar 2015 20:25:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0892A3369B
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat,  7 Mar 2015 20:25:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id Uilo8UT-xcfU for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Sat,  7 Mar 2015 20:25:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org
 (pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org [54.191.214.3])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BED33680
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat,  7 Mar 2015 20:25:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 1254 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at eugeni;
 Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:25:13 UTC
Received: from smtp6.ore.mailhop.org (172.31.18.134) by
 pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org id hvdf9620r84m for
 <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:32:28 +0000 (envelope-from <tor@lakedaemon.net>)
Received: from pool-72-84-113-125.nrflva.fios.verizon.net ([72.84.113.125]
 helo=io)
 by smtp6.ore.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <tor@lakedaemon.net>) id 1YUKSw-0003Ao-Ig
 for tor-talk@lists.torproject.org; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 19:32:50 +0000
Received: from io.lakedaemon.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8E5803AB
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat,  7 Mar 2015 19:32:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP
X-Originating-IP: 72.84.113.125
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@duocircle.com (see
 https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information
 for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19Yl1P67FX5D3jzbbdUUIwsJFoEhMTlOmI=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.6.8 io 2E8E5803AB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lakedaemon.net;
 s=mail; t=1425756766;
 bh=BZQLSKYf+5ErZGqM1Zl3ezL4P4+tIsJStC4rfCTnbgw=;
 h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=rikY1pp8wFpa8xjNVr2GQLfzqFyWInxUGqAY75YuSotWymY2o+KUHw0e+Pqn5zhFC
 w1Y0jqwdk3hGEsXiDTx+hilAWL3RJWcMnFnYWnUy8vjTjZdYzqvLw2BAh4ERrLjEoP
 PHXx0KSB7ijZnq7V5gep7DmzwnLQCJuq1hj8JysSZqAwZuktuXy+Rz525IEjr0ohCE
 4sZaMD8C63utthQkFkMnRcCfyp8pfOjaaC+XXY+B145WrxvwKDKrz8JLFYh6UfTRvX
 CH5BkrPodvwnF9bGxjQon6mb5BIVQ1Xig6OgYD+63u75FeWEO0xxtT3duGGHffTiXS
 gCTmf/ipiGkVQ==
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:32:45 +0000
From: Jason Cooper <tor@lakedaemon.net>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Message-ID: <20150307193245.GA21207@io.lakedaemon.net>
References: <54F7E990.40607@riseup.net> <54F7FC67.6070700@yahoo.com>
 <54F80B60.9080909@tlbean.com>
 <CABMkiz5yJbdxp8Zdc7t_o4fowtnoZrx=210nbpd9avxtR2b1QA@mail.gmail.com>
 <54F848FD.6090205@tlbean.com>
 <20150305125651.181157cf.mbm@rlogin.net>
 <54F872BA.3090401@emails.veryspeedy.net>
 <00D0406ADE300643BB2398773FE89466116D1833@msgb12.nih.gov>
 <CADop2NH6nGrAv7iyR1LddmeoDdPRC500dfm+wi-VWhPRWbSBdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150307182819.GA9963@thinkpad.hsd1.pa.comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150307182819.GA9963@thinkpad.hsd1.pa.comcast.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Blocking Baseless Speculation
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 01:28:19PM -0500, Libertas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 09:40:59PM +0800, Virgil Griffith wrote:
> > > If a list stops fulfilling these criteria, people like us unsubscribe,
> > > leaving the list to its inevitable decline,
> > > destined to join the ever-lengthening roll of moribund, flame-filled
> > > lists that no longer exist or have ceased > to serve any useful function on
> > > the net.
> > 
> > I personally support more aggressive blocking of mad tinhatters.
> > 

Sorry, I disagree.  This forum-mentality really throws a wrench in the lessons
we (the online community) have learned over the past 30+ years.

The concept of 'banning' someone is found worthless on any sort of serious
inspection.  You aren't banning a person, but an email address.  The annoying
person simply creates a new email address, commence whack-a-mole.

Just because a piece of technology gives you the ability to do something,
doesn't mean exercising that ability is a good idea.  ref:
govt/Internet-mass-monitoring.  Banning someone makes the banner feel
self-righteous, but inflames the banned.  Free-speech suffers.

The correct answer has always been "Don't feed the trolls".  It works well.
Annoying people are simply attempting to elicit a response.  Upon failing to
get one, they move on [1].  People have a right to say whatever they want,
that's what free speech is.  The corollary to that is that no one has to
listen.

If you are *really* offended by a particular person's continuous rants, you
have many tools available to you.  Procmail the address to /dev/null, ignore
the thread in your mail client, blacklist the address in your addressbook,
etc.  The difference being, each person is choosing what to ignore, vice one
person choosing for everybody.

If you accept that banning causes email address rotation, then banning actually
breaks the ability of individuals to ignore trolls.

> Seconded. Allowing people to question the project is important, but the
> loonyism that we've had recently distracts people and drowns out
> legitimate discussion.

Until listmembers get in the habit of ignoring trolls, it may be helpful to
have recognized leaders on the list reply to trolls with a gentle reminder:
"Please don't feed the trolls."

Just my 2c.

thx,

Jason.

[1] The most stubborn one I've ever seen was the anti-systemd troll on lkml
over the past year or so.  Rotating email addresses, etc.  But eventually, he
did give up.  I might agree with his point (but not his method), but lkml
didn't get him anywhere.  Out of probably 50 to 70 (maybe 100) emails, I don't
think he got a single response.  He was ignored by everyone just like the
patches that aren't for a subsystem you care about.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

