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....