Text 3060, 176 rader
Skriven 2004-12-08 20:59:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 3054 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
Ärende: Science 1/2
===================
Hello Phil,

 >  MvdV> OTOH, when there is such a obnoxious hopping user the
 >  MvdV> word usually quickly spreads around and a smart sysop
 >  MvdV> would refuse that hopping user access anyway, as he knows
 >  MvdV> that when he allows him to post in echomail, he /will/
 >  MvdV> get a message from the moderator.

 > A SysOp can only be a party to the word spreading around if
 > they participate in a particular echo where the problem is.

That is (among other things) where sysop areas are (were) for.

 > A SysOp can not be reasonably expected to know of
 > occurances in areas they never go into.

Of course. But most sysops subscribe to the local sysop area. Over here the
ability to discuss obnoxious users always was an argument to not open up sysop
areas for read by all.

 > Lets say there was a user in an echo tagged "FIGNEWTONS"
 > and a node in my network recieves an echomail feed from an
 > entirely different source than say 3 other nodes in the
 > net, and I only have a secure session set with him for the
 > purpose of netmail, which we exchange maybe 4 times a year.

 > He doesn't participate in local net echoes but is happy
 > interacting with his BBS users and doing his thing in the
 > fidonet echoes.

In that case he would not know about the problem until the moderator contacts
him.

 > He gets a request for a feed cut from the moderator of
 > FIGNEWTONS and honors it.  His obligation is complete.

Yes.

 > How is any other node in the network to know this occured
 > if the node doesn't feel it important enough to share it,
 > and none of the other nodes like Fig Newtons so they don;t
 > go into FIGNEWTONS?

In that case they would not if no other sysop takes the trouble of informing
his felleow sysops in the area either.

 > If something happened in one of thse echoes, and a user was
 > cut from the echo, how would I ever know?  The guy could
 > call my BBS, seem nice as could be, and I wouldn;t know
 > anything occured unless I got a moderator request if he
 > repeated the activity on my system.

As I said, that is what sysop areas are for...

 > Than can be no reasonable expectation that word will get
 > out about any user to an extent that SysOps know to not let
 > a user access a certain echo... none at all.

See above...

 >  MvdV> So we are heading for an interesting situation. In the
 >  MvdV> meantime it is Dec 8th, Jack can be back any minute.
 >
 >  MvdV> I am fairly sure that no one outside Z1 will honour a
 >  MvdV> feed cut request by Jack, so if he really wants to> go
 >  MvdV> through with this, he may end up with cutting (part of)
 >  MvdV> Z1 off from the rest of the world.

 > I doubt, but may be wrong, that my feed will honor the
 > cut... or if he does, that reasoning will restore it.

You may be right. I expect many Z1 sysops will not honour a feed cut request
from Jack either just like that. And, yes I would not be al that surprised if
Matt is one of them.

 >  MvdV> OTOH, if he does nothing, he will lose the respect of
 >  MvdV> those that demanded moderator action.

 > But he's NOT the moderator other than in listing a tag when
 > the rightful Z2 moderator was still active in the echo, and
 > not only didn't state he was leaving the echo, but has
 > claimed that he still IS the moderator.

We can not but conclude that opinions differ. The Z1 elist gang says Jack is
the moderator because he is the one that is listed as such....

 > What I want really is for the inter-zonal disputes over
 > some things to stop... its pointless.  Some of it just has
 > to do with differences in what people are used to, and
 > practices in places they're not from, but alot, ALOT, of it
 > is just some people naysaying ANYTHING that comes out of
 > their zone, for no other legitimate reason than it -is- out
 > of their zone.

It isn't going to stop as long as one side is trying to force their way of
doing unto others. And the Z1 e-list gang IS still trying to do that....

 > This is supposed to be FidoNet "INTERNATIONAL" after all.

That is what OUR side has been saying al along and what was ignored by Z1 when
they still had the reigns. Ye reap what ye sow...

 >  MvdV> There is just one little problem with this "solution".
 >  MvdV> The rightful moderator has chosen not to make use of the
 >  MvdV> elist for this echo. Having it listed anyway does not
 >  MvdV> respect his wish.

 > But it is a solution that would work for the purpose...
 > Bjorn is declared the moderator, and the echo is listed for
 > the purposes of the remaining "stubborn" Z1 mail movers.

Let's wait until Jack surfaces and hear what he has to say..

 > There is also another solution... distros like the NAB
 > don't include it in their backbone.na file, so its not
 > "officialy" carried by their distro and subject to an SLA,
 > but have it in a seperate file of "non-backboned" echoes...

That would be another solution. Yes...

 >  MvdV> "Should"?  Well, maybe they will, but I do not see why
 >  MvdV> they "should". This is a Z2 echo and if you stand by your
 >  MvdV> principle that an echo should be run according to the
 >  MvdV> rules and traditions of its zone of origin, then I do not
 >  MvdV> see why Björn has any obligation to agree to such an
 >  MvdV> arrangement.

 > Obligation is one thing, and compromise is another.

I am all for compromise. Stealing somethimg an d then giving back half is not
compromise in my book. That's still theft.

 > People ussually -should- do the right thing, especially when it is
 > for the benefit of all.

But who says what is "the right thing"?

 >  MvdV> The honourable thing would be for the Z1 community to
 >  MvdV> acknowledge that this is a Z2 echo with a Z2 moderator
 >  MvdV> and that they should refrain from telling what> "should"
 >  MvdV> and what "should" not.

 > Actually... the honorable thing to do would be for all
 > parties to admit the true fact that this is an
 > "INTERNATIONAL" echo that is under the moderatorship of a
 > Z2 node.

Define "international echo".

 > Either Jack did what he did for the purposes of the flow of
 > the echo, or he did it with foul intent at stuffing it to
 > Z2 ways... only -his- actions can dictate that.

If he was just concerned with the flow he should have listed it with "FidoNews
Editor" as first moderator. He didnt and that says it all.

 > Either Bjorn would accept the idea of a "tag holder" for
 > distribution purposes, so long as his Z2 moderator ways
 > were honored, and he wasn't obligated to take part in the
 > Z1 listing process himself (against the norm for Z2), or he
 > would reject it to piss on Z1 practices.

He tried to please the Z1 community by attempting to get it listed. And then he
ran into an eleist keeper playing games remember?

How deep does he have to bow?

 > Each zone wants -their- ways respected, but neither wants
 > to respect the others ways.  Respect is a two way street.

That is not true. See above.

Cheers, Michiel

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