Text 2467, 144 rader
Skriven 2004-11-30 18:10:20 av Paul Sanders (3:633/104)
   Kommentar till text 2437 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
Ärende: Moderating
==================
Hi Phil,

 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
 PL>>> have access to an echo they must act as overseer for the BBS if
 PL>>> nobody else on the BBS is currently getting the echo.

 PS>> Yes, I read it the same way.

PL>Okay... you see it too then.

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

PL>GOD bless America, and freedom of choice.
why limit it to America ?

 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 every
 PS>> system where the messages are not censored until a problem is
 PS>> reported.

PL>So much for the proposed idea of the way it should be (or actually claimed
PL>it *IS*) by a particular person.
The fact of the matter is, until there is a problem, mail comes & goes
with no intervention, but that does not diminish the fact the mail
originating on, for exdample, my system, is my responsability.

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 the echo
 PS>> moderator may deem necessary ?

PL>Absolutely not.  In lieu of rules postings and/or a method of finding
PL>particular rules for a particular echo, that is the rule of thumb.
Thats a good start :)

 PL> If a moderator is doing their job properly, then the rules of any
 PL> particualr ech should never be in question.

Who gets to decide if a moderator is doing thier job or not ?
Do local conditions come into play with regard to the way an echo is
moderated ?

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

 PS>> What of users who are moderators ?

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

Does the position of moderator (be they SysOp or user) rate a mention
in any official fidonet documnet ?
If not, why should the position of moderator be limited to fidonet
SysOps ?

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

PL>It is not the idea of delegating some SysOp power that is the problem, it is
PL>the idea, as presented by a particular "holier than thou" person here that
PL>in order to have the echo through his system he "mandates" them to be in
PL>control of that echo during the time thatthe user gets it, and others may
PL>access it.
Seems a resonably request, note that it is a request that I have never
made.

 PL> Willingly taking the responsibility is one thing, being forced
 PL> into it to to simply have access to an echo is an entirely
 PL> different scenario.
Perhaps it has been used as a deterent, there was a time, not all that
long ago, when it cost SysOps quite a few $$ each month just to bring
in mail to thier BBS....

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

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

PL>I dunno... what happened to it?  Seems to be something everybody discussing
PL>the topic has forgotten.
I got the impression that the above two rules where what you went by,
with little reguard for echo rules, perhaps that was my mistake.

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

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

PL>The idea of monitoring user messages, and policing every area flowing, was
PL>brought up by non-SysOp entities who have no business other than in a
PL>pointlist with their single user systems, IMO... this is:
There is the problem, mail not originating on thier system is not
thier responsability, never has been, and never should be (I am sure
there will be some exception to that rule, perhaps something to do
with refernce to Hitler.....)

PL>To Quote Pee4 aagain:

PL>"the FidoNet organization of electronic bulletin board systems"

PL>"Bulletin Board Systems" = BBS

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

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

For the most part, this is a single user system (though I do have
people telnet in from time to time) does your opinion above include
me?

 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)