Text 2329, 55 rader
Skriven 2004-11-29 07:32:32 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
   Kommentar till text 2303 av Paul Sanders (3:633/104)
Ärende: Moderating
==================
 PS> And if the SysOp has put a user in charge of the echo
 PS> area on a local
 PS> basis, then the SysOp will refer any complaints to the
 PS> use, that seems
 PS> to be the common practice in Z2.

I have only heard from one person, that in order for a user to have access to
an echo they must act as overseer for the BBS if nobody else on the BBS is
currently getting the echo.

I don;t really believe it.  How is a user to control the messages?  Does the
SysOp put all traffic from his BBS for that echo on hold, and give the user
SysOp editing abilities to that echo, for the user to review the messages and
release them only when he/she has determined they are fit for the echo???

If that user is the only one who participates in that echo on the BBS, and that
user violates rules, isn't it exactly the same as if that user just had free
access to it?

It doesn't make sense... in fact, it sounds retarded.  Who the hell would want
to be a part of, or participate in, a network like that. The echoes are
supposed to be recreational, not a burden.  Who wants to be slammed with all
kinds of rules and regulations in a recreational echo... knowing every word you
type is scrutinized before being posted, and that at any moment an echo cop can
piss on your otherwise enjoyable experience.  It's retarded.

The rules... very simple...

Do not be excessively annoying...
Do not be easily annoyed.

The rest is proceedural policy for the nodes to worry about, not the end BBS
user, and make no mistake, this was formed as a BBS network, and every bit of
policy was derived under that concept, and it is not a requirement of a BBS
user to be bound by Pee4, only the echo rules themselves, and the rules of the
BBS, ans a SysOp is free to run their system as they see fit.  Yes... the SysOp
is responsible for traffic, and the way it has been handled over the unpteen
years echoes have been around, (the moderator contacting the SysOp about a
problem articipant), is the most common sense and practical way to handle it...
not being echo nazi's.  I'll tell you, for al lthe ranting some do about "power
mongers" and such, some folks sure seem to like a way to make their users feel
like they're behind the former iron curtain.

My rules for echoes with my BBS users?  Follow the rules of the echo you are
in... if it is determined that you violated the rules of a particular echo,
your access to that echo may be cut.  If you make a habit of being annoying in
multiple echoes, your access to FidoNet echoes can be cut entirely... very
simple... no "you have to monitor every user in the echo from this BBS and
report back to me", and all that shit. Plain dumb, and not a good way to have
users, or GET users, to participate in echoes.

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: (1:267/169)