Text 1745, 267 rader
Skriven 2004-11-11 13:54:00 av Robert Couture (2114.fidonews)
   Kommentar till text 1731 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Re: Science 1/2
=======================
-=> Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Couture <=-

 >  MvV> By which you are saying that you do not presently
 >  MvV> recognise the FidoNews editor as moderator.

 > I did not say that.

 MvV> It is implied. If you say it "should be passed to the FidoNews editor",
 MvV> you imply that he does not presently have it.

A misunderstanding I think.  No one but the FidoNews Editor should have
moderatorship unless otherwise granted to another.

 MvV> Besides in another message you said that Jack Yates is the moderator.

 MvV> But lets not press this, further down you retract it.

So your statement is moot, isn't it? :)

 MvV> Hmm, now you seem to be introducing a third catagory. First you
 MvV> introduced the concept of "origin of an echo". You said echos should be
 MvV> run according to the rules pertaining in the zone of origin.

For echoes that are not FidoNet related (such as FidoNews) the origin of the
echo should be the basis for applying rules.

FidoNews is unique in a lot of cases.

 MvV> Now you want "international echos" to be under multiple traditions,

Why not?  It is fair.  But the scope should be limited to echoes that are
unique such as FidoNews.

 > I am saying that both traditions could be respected if people
 > were willing to try.

 MvV> And what if these traditions conflict?

Then act like adults and work it out.

 >  > I would hope that Jack Yates would pass that along.

 MvV> If that is what he wanted, he had plenty of opportunity to do it. If he
 MvV> was merely concerned about problems with the distribution if the echo
 MvV> was not listed, he could have listed it in the name of "FidoNews
 MvV> editor". It was suggested several times that he do so. Apparently that
 MvV> is not what he wants.

I know.  I said I hope that he would.

 MvV> Such as?

I have only heard from you on this matter.  I have not heard from Jack.

 > I do not often read this echo.  I may not have read
 > anything to do with it.

 MvV> If you engage in a discussion, you should at least read the messages
 MvV> addressed to you.

I did.  But I lost some tracking with circumstances of this week.  My mind
truly was elsewhere with my wife having surgery Monday, and having to take care
of my three young boys all by myself - hey Mom is better ayt it, I'll be honest
<g>  My wife had to go back in for a few hours yesterday due to complications
that left her severly dehydrated.

 MvV> It is well known fact that EVERY echo that is not moderated eventually
 MvV> turns into a general chat echo. Even in MAKENL_NG the chatter is
 MvV> coming...

So?  There is nothing wrong with a little chatter.  If it gets too much, then
it can be steered back on topic.  That does not mean that MAKENL_NG is
unmoderated.  The moderator just doesn't see a need to stifle a little friendly
conversation.

 > Which message?

 MvV> The message I wrote to you about a week ago in respons to the message
 MvV> where you said Jack Yates is the moderator of this echo.

See above.  I my mind has been elsewhere.

 MvV> But it didn't because a number of people did not respect the tradition.

I know.  How does that attitude get changed?  Suggestions?

 MvV> But he did. I don't recall the details of the justification he gave.
 MvV> Keep in mind that it was not me who invented the term "echolist mafia",
 MvV> it was Björn.

Perhaps Thom will tell me if I ask.

 > Would that not be the same as a "co-moderator?"  <-- Intended
 > in a humourous way. <g>

 MvV> The "no moderators emeriti" rule did not exist before...

So why should it now?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  However, you cannot
just say Moderators Emeriti either.  That is a little vague since that could
give moderatorship to someone that is not a member of FidoNet anymore :)

 > That was an unfortunate decision.

 MvV> Those that promote the echolist keep telling us over and over again
 MvV> that moderators are totally free in their choice to use or not use the
 MvV> echolist.

There is a double standard there.

 MvV> For a moderator who resides in Z2 and who runs his echo according to
 MvV> EP1, the logical choice is to not use the echolist.

Why is that logical?

 MvV> Björn however was pressured to "respect the wishes of the Z1 community"
 MvV> and so he reluctantly gave in and attempted to have the listing
 MvV> updated. I can fully understand that when he ran into an echolist
 MvV> keeper playing games, that he turned his back on it.

Yes.  This is a problem.

 > I would have made the listing without the Moderator Emeritus
 > as moderator, and put it in the DESC field.

 MvV> IOW, you would have danced to the tune of the echolist keeper.

Why call it dancing?  What is the necessity of turning this into a negativity
instead of seeing it for what it was - a positive step to a proper conclusion.

 > I then would have argued that it is not Thom's position to decide
 > if editors emeriti as second moderator should be allowed or not.

 MvV> Argue until you see blue in the face. You would be told (as I was told)
 MvV> that it is Thom's list and so he makes the rules.

So?  All that is need to ensure distribution on Z1 backbones for the entry to
exist.  It matters not what is listed besides the moderators name.  The rest is
basically frivolous.

 MvV> Frankly I don't understand why the Z1 community accepts such a system.
 MvV> When Ward makes a decision they are all up in arms crying "dictator".
 MvV> Ward is elected and derives his powers from a policy that we all say we
 MvV> uphold.

I'll leave Ward out of this because everything he did up to and shortly after
his removal violated everything within Policy.

I know you disagree, and I see no need to rehash that issue.

 MvV> The echolist keeper OTOH is not elected, makes his own rules, and is
 MvV> not even part of FidoNet. There is no body of appeal, he is lord and
 MvV> master over his list. What comes closer to a dictator than that?

Nothing.  But, as everyone pointed out with DNS, it is not a part of FidoNet.

 MvV> Yet when the echolist keeper makes an arbitrary decision that affects
 MvV> every echomail participant, the Z1 crowd unites in cheers.

 MvV> I don't get it.

I know.  It doesn't make much sense does it.

 > That was unfortunate.

 MvV> Yet I did not see you or anyone else who is now preaching "respect for
 MvV> other zone's rules and tradiions" rise up in protest.

This is also a fairly new concept.

 MvV> On the contrary. What I heard were smirking sounds to the effect of "it
 MvV> wouldn't have happened had Björn updated the listing."

Well, I hate to say it, but it is fact.

 > If so, I am going to have to retract that.

 MvV> Ok.

 MvV> So are you now going to ask the echolist keeper to correct the list?

Sure, Hey Thom, correct the echolist.  Do you really think he would listen?

 MvV> Well, tell him and see what happens...

Hey Jack, you shouldn't have done what you did.  Again, do you really think
that is going to change anything?

 > In an International echo, I think it fair that the
 > moderator's location should be important to the rules followed.

 MvV> So will you submit to the rules of EP1 for this echo? Considering that
 MvV> the moderator resides in Z2 and EP1 is accepted policy in Z2.

I have not read them.  Forward a copy to me and I will look at it and tell you
what I think.

There maybe areas that I would dispute so I will not submit to anything that I
haven't agreed with.  (Sound familiar?)

 MvV> That is what some keep telling us. And some others keep telling us
 MvV> otherwise. But we never get the oportunity to put it to the test.

I know.

 MvV> If that was his intention he should not have listed it with himself as
 MvV> first moderator. Also when he published his rules, He made it clear
 MvV> that preventing it from being dropped off the backbone was not his only
 MvV> intention. He signed it with "moderator". And he send a moderator
 MvV> message to me a few weeks ago. (In this echo).

Ah, okay.

 MvV> Z1 has been imposing their way of doing things on the rest of FidoNet
 MvV> for well over a decade. They have been getting away for it for a
 MvV> variety of reasons, one of them being sheer numbers. They were the
 MvV> biggest had the resources etc, etc. So Z2 submitted. They didn't like
 MvV> it, but there was little choice.

 MvV> But now the tide has turned. Z1 is no longer the biggest. Yet they are
 MvV> still trying to run the show. This of course does not fall well with
 MvV> many in Z2.

The problem is, several Z2 members have taken this to mean that they can try
and do the same thing back.  To me that is being just plain petty.  I would
think that they would have learned from it happening to them.

 MvV> This won't end without some serious concessions and toning down from
 MvV> the side of Z1. They are considered the oppressor, so they will have to
 MvV> make the first step.

Well, think on it this way.  If those in Z2 wouldn't try to make the same
mistakes Z1 made.  But I think they think along the liones of "revenge is
sweet."  And that makes them no better than those they accuse of doing the same
thing.

 > The logistics of that are pretty steep what with the
 > various methods of contact and stuff.  Not impossible,
 > but difficult.

 MvV> Why more difficult then electing the FidoNews editor?

There is a lot more software involved with the Echolist than with FidoNews. 
There is the domain hosting and so forth.

 > However, the FidoNews Editor and FidoNews are recognised
 > entities within FidoNet whereas the Echolist is not.

 > change it and convince the majority that it is a good idea.

 MvV> That majority has long been convinced that FidoNet is better of without
 MvV> an authoritative echolist. The idea seems good at first sight, but as
 MvV> always when too much power is concentrated in one spot, that power is
 MvV> abused and the cure becomes worse than the disease.

 MvV> That is why there is no longer a centrally maintained echolist in Z2
 MvV> and whatever there is on local lists certainly isn't authoritative.

 MvV> The majority is convinced. What now rests is to convince the minority.

Without the database, how does one prove moderatorship?

Robert.

 
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
--- SBBSecho 2.10-Linux
 * Origin: -=RuneKeep=- telnet://runekeep.darktech.org (1:229/440)