Text 2395, 82 rader
Skriven 2004-11-30 06:07:16 av Paul Sanders (3:633/104)
   Kommentar till text 2329 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
Ärende: Moderating
==================
Hi Phillip,

 PS>> And if the SysOp has put a user in charge of the echo area on a
 PS>> local basis, then the SysOp will refer any complaints to the
 PS>> use, that seems to be the common practice in Z2.

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

PL>I don;t really believe it.
Your choice.

 PL> How is a user to control the messages?  Does the SysOp put all
 PL> traffic from his BBS for that echo on hold, and give the user
 PL> SysOp editing abilities to that echo, for the user to review the
 PL> messages and release them only when he/she has determined they
 PL> are fit for the echo???
That is one possability, or maybe it is just like nearly every system
where the messages are not censored until a problem is reported.

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

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

PL>The rules... very simple...

PL>Do not be excessively annoying...
PL>Do not be easily annoyed.
Ok, and we can then disregard any additional rules that the echo
moderator may deem necessary ?

PL>The rest is proceedural policy for the nodes to worry about, not the end BBS
PL>user,
What of users who are moderators ?

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

How does delegating some SysOp 'power' to a user repress that user ?

PL>My rules for echoes with my BBS users?  Follow the rules of the echo you are
PL>in...
what happened to:

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

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

no mention of monitoring of users messages was made, just that it is
the SysOps responsability for all messages originating from thier
system.

 cya later,

 Paul

... Microsoft gives you Windows... OS/2 gives you the whole house.
--- Ezycom V2.01b005 00F90257
 * Origin: Afraid of the competition? We ARE the Competition! (3:633/104)