Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.flame
Subject: Re: mod.all and net.fascism
Message-ID: <1709@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 01:36:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.1709
Posted: Fri Oct 26 01:36:40 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Oct-84 04:29:57 EDT
References: <374@amdahl.UUCP> <1612@nsc.UUCP> <222@bragvax.UUCP>
Organization: The Warlocks Cave, Castrovalva
Lines: 25

> Exactly how can this be accomplished if the moderator in question does
> not want to be booted?

Easy. Someone else sets up as moderator and everyone else mails to them
instead. There is nothing in the software saying that there is only ONE
moderator, and nothing in the software explicitly points to a moderator
except a single text file in /usr/lib/news for the 2.10.2 postnews. I think
that if moderators are carefully chosen, and they tend to be, malicious
moderators are going to be a minimal to non-existant problem.

> A malicious moderator can do more damage than 100 ordinary
> *ssh*l*s (sp?).
I may be dense, but I don't see how this can be the case? All a moderator
can really do is NOT publish something, publish something edited out of
context, or publish his own garbage instead. In all three cases the users
can go back to the net. until the moderator can be dealt with
properly (tactical nuclear weapons would be appropriate) so you really
haven't lost anything.

chuq
-- 
From the Department of Bistromatics:                   Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui  nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

  I'd know those eyes from a million years away....