Text 1826, 395 rader
Skriven 2004-11-15 18:01:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1745 av Robert Couture (2114.fidonews)
Ärende: Science 1/2
===================
Hello Robert,

 >
 > MvV> It is implied. If you say it "should be passed to the
 > MvV> FidoNews editor", 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.

That is the tradition anyway.

I don't think this tradition is holy though. If the FidoNews editor were to
hand it over to someone else I would have no problem with it. In fact some
arguments can be found for separating the heads.

But that is not the issue here. The moderator hat was NOT handed over.


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

Another complication. Define "FidoNet related".

 > FidoNews is unique in a lot of cases.

FidoNews, the magazine is, as it is defined in policy. FIDONEWS, the echo is
not defined in policy and so it is just another echo.

I don't like this idea of introducing yet another category of echos beside the
"zone originated" one. It just gives something else to argue about, as surely
there will be disagreement about which echos are "Fido related".

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

 > Why not?  It is fair.

Hmmm.. some would disagree. Anyway, as some of the traditions conflict, it is
difficult.

 > But the scope should be limited to echoes that are
 > unique such as FidoNews.

And so we saddle ourselves with an additional problem: to agree on which echos
are "unique 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.

If that were as easy as it sounds, we would not have all these arguments.

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

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

 > I know.  I said I hope that he would.

And it appears it is not going to happen.

 > MvV> Such as?

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

In the meantime Jack has made clear what his stance is.


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

I understand. Sometimes life gets in the way of a hobby.

 ><g>  My wife had to go back in for a few hours yesterday due to
 > complications that left her severly dehydrated.

I hope she has a speedy recovery.

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

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

I really have no idea. To be honest I don't think it is possible. I have never
in real life see the attitudes of people change significantly. What happens is
not that people change their attitude, but that they are replaced with other
people with other attitudes.

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

 > Perhaps Thom will tell me if I ask.


By now Thom has made some comments. Any wiser?

 > 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.

Why not? What if someone changes his legal name to "Moderators Emeriti". Can
he/she not be a moderator then?

 > That is a little vague since that could give moderatorship to
 > someone that is not a member of FidoNet anymore :)

You were wise to add the smiley or I would have missed the joke. Yes, we can't
have that can we: moderators that are just users on someone else's system and
who do not have a node number of their own. ;-)

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

 > There is a double standard there.

There is more than a double standard here. There is an attempt to for the ways
of a minority onto a majority.

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

 > Why is that logical?

What's in it for him?


he does not need the "protection" the echolist claims to offer. EP1 already
does that for him.

For a Z2 moderator listing the echo and maintaining it is just a hassle. And if
he does not have e-mail he has to make significant cost for the transatlantic
call. Only a fool would route a message containing a password! And if the
moderator is a mere use instead of a sysop, it becomes even more problematic.

I suspect that many Z2 moderators, if they really felt they were free to
choose, would not bother with the e-list.

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

 > Yes.  This is a problem.

It wouldn't be a rpoblem if the Z1 community would not make a problem out of
it.

 >> 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?

Because that is how I perceive it.

 > 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.

Keep in mind that many this side of the pond see the echolist just as a hoop to
jump through. A dog that is enticed in jumping through a hoop doesn't see it as
a positive step if he has to go to more effort to get past another unnecessary
barrier.

 >> 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
 > MvV> I was told) that it is Thom's list and so he makes the rules.

 > So?

all these unnecessary rules create unecessary friction. Why all these silly
rules if indeed all that is needed that the scho is listed?

 > All that is need to ensure distribution on Z1 backbones for
 > the entry to exist.

But why? The Z2 way of doing things shows that it is very well possible to have
a functioning backbone without a centrally maintained echolist. So why make the
moderators jump though hoops?

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

 > Nothing.

So why do the Z1 sysops, who supposedly are so allergic to dictatorships,
accept it?

 > But, as everyone pointed out with DNS, it is not a part of FidoNet.

I fail to see the connection.

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

 > MvV> I don't get it.

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

It does make sense when viewed in a wider perspective. It is my observation
that Americans tend to fight among themselves. The minute however one of them
gets under fire from an outside threat they immidiately close ranks and turn
against the outsider.

 >> That was unfortunate.

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

 > This is also a fairly new concept.

Hardly. I have been hearing it for years.

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

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

It is also a fact that it could not have happened had there been no list in the
first place.

Or had the list not been generally recognised as authoritative in Z1, there
would have been no point in hijacking the listing as it would have had little
or no consequence.


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

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

No.....

 > 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?

It appears Jack is not impressed and Frankly I didn't expect that he would.

However, do not underestimate the power of peer pressure. If it is only you
that speaks up, it has little effect, But if many speak up, it becomes
different.

Wasn't Roy once forced to step down as moderator because of peer pressure?

 >> 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?
 > MvV> Considering that the moderator resides in Z2 and EP1 is
 > MvV> 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.

I thought you had already read it. You did reject it in rather stern words. One
would have expect one wuld read it before rejecting it.

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

Of course. ;-)

But I see that you are already covering your tracks.

When I complain about "dancing to the tune of the echolist keeper", you tell me
I am putting things into a negative light.

But you reserve to do the same when it comes to following EP1. You are already
preparing to not follow the parts that you don't like.

[ non listed echo not backboned ]


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

 > I know.

Also keep in mind that to us the threat of being kicked off the backbone does
not impress us as much as it used to be. In the days of POTS, we could not go
around the backbone that easily. But now with IP links all over the place,
anyone can play "backbone". What in the old days was only theory - "you can get
your echomail anywhere you like" is now reality.

If the FidoNews echo were thrown off the backbone - and frankly I doubt that is
going to happen - those that want it can easily link somewhere else. If need be
directly from the moderator's system. And those who do not want it... well for
them it does not matter.

So I can understand why moderator's are not all that impressed by a threat of
being thrown off the backbone as they once were.

The reality is that we do not really need a backbone any more. We can privately
distribute our echos just as well.

 > MvV> Z1 has been imposing their way of doing things on the
 > MvV> rest of FidoNet for well over a decade. They have been
 > MvV> getting away for it for a variety of reasons, one of them
 > MvV> being sheer numbers. They were the biggest had the resources
 > MvV> 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
 > MvV> they are still trying to run the show. This of course does not
 > MvV> fall well with many in Z2.

 > The problem is, several Z2 members have taken this to mean
 > that they can try and do the same thing back.

They are holding a mirror to the Z1 community....

 > To me that is being just plain petty.  I would think that they
 > would have learned from it happening to them.

That is not how things work and you know it. When people have something wrong
done to them (or perceive it as such) they want the /others/ to be taught a
lesson. And they won't call it quits before they do.

 > MvV> This won't end without some serious concessions and
 > MvV> toning down from the side of Z1. They are considered
 > MvV> the oppressor, so they will have to make the first step.
 >
 > Well, think on it this way.  If those in Z2 wouldn't try to
 > make the same mistakes Z1 made.

That Z1 /still/ is making...

 > 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.

Maybe not. But that us human nature. We see it all around us.

 >> 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.

The domain hosting is just an option. It can be done without it.

 > MvV> That majority has long been convinced that FidoNet is
 > MvV> better of without an authoritative echolist. The idea
 > MvV> seems good at first sight, but as always when too much
 > MvV> power is concentrated in one spot, that power is abused
 > MvV> and the cure becomes worse than the disease. That is why
 > MvV> there is no longer a centrally maintained echolist in Z2
 > MvV> and whatever there is on local lists certainly isn't
 > MvV> authoritative.

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

 > Without the database, how does one prove moderatorship?

We have been through that a thousand times already. Not much use in threading
the same path again.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.50
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)