Text 2437, 126 rader
Skriven 2004-11-29 23:10:04 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
   Kommentar till text 2395 av Paul Sanders (3:633/104)
Ärende: Moderating
==================

 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.

 PS> Yes, I read it the same way.

Okay... you see it too then.

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

GOD bless America, and freedom of 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???

 PS> That is one possability, or maybe it is just like nearly
 PS> every system
 PS> where the messages are not censored until a problem is
 PS> reported.

So much for the proposed idea of the way it should be (or actually claimed it
*IS*) by a particular person.

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

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

 PS> Ok, and we can then disregard any additional rules that
 PS> the echo
 PS> moderator may deem necessary ?

Absolutely not.  In lieu of rules postings and/or a method of finding
particular rules for a particular echo, that is the rule of thumb. If a
moderator is doing their job properly, then the rules of any particualr echo
should never be in question.

PL>>The rest is proceedural policy for the nodes to worry about, not the end
PL>>BBS
PL>>user,

 PS> What of users who are moderators ?

A very stupid oversight... IMO, one should not be allowed to run an echo in
FidoNet if not actually a part of FidoNet... such a moderator, IMNSHO, is not
warranted the protections of any policy until such time as they *ARE* a member
of FidoNet. Any FidoNet policies, proeedures, and guidelines are only
applicable to nodelisted members.


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

It is not the idea of delegating some SysOp power that is the problem, it is
the idea, as presented by a particular "holier than thou" person here that in
order to have the echo through his system he "mandates" them to be in control
of that echo during the time thatthe user gets it, and others may access it. 
Willingly taking the responsibility is one thing, being forced into it to to
simply have access
to an echo is an entirely different scenario.

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

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

I dunno... what happened to it?  Seems to be something everybody discussing the
topic has forgotten.

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
PL>>to
PL>>have users, or GET users, to participate in echoes.

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

You're absolutely right! And before I came into FidoNet, or you, or the ones
who (even claimng to be in favor of Anarchy) ever came around these virtual
meeting places, the definition and extent of a SysOps liability for the
responsibility was set, by practice, and common proceedure.

The idea of monitoring user messages, and policing every area flowing, was
brought up by non-SysOp entities who have no business other than in a pointlist
with their single user systems, IMO... this is:

To Quote Pee4 aagain:

"the FidoNet organization of electronic bulletin board systems"

"Bulletin Board Systems" = BBS

Glory points might as well suck through a glory hole IMO when telling *ME* how
to interpret what I already know... they can stuff their ideas up their
singular asses.

Single user systems might be bettter off sucking newsgroups through Outlook
Distress rather than telling BBS SysOps in FidoNet how they should run their
systems... after all, with their view on things, they aren't much better than
that,and the kind of people Fido shouldn't have, want, or need in the first
place.

Regards,

Phil

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