Text 3489, 59 rader
Skriven 2004-12-19 02:40:06 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
   Kommentar till text 3448 av Mark Lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Z1B <> EP1
==================
Mark Lewis -> Matt Bedynek wrote:

 MB>> 1.  Should we have a SOP (standard operating procedure) for
 MB>> echomail distribution that would prevent "do as you like"
 MB>> practice?

 ML> would that be something one would find in a SLA?

A SLA means nothing if nobody has agreed to it.

 MB>> 2.  Are there a such thing as "fidonet echoes"?  Lets define
 MB>> this term as those claiming to be exclusive to Fidonet.

 ML> i'm not aware of /ANY/ echos being "fidonet" echos... since fidonet
 ML> lacks a central governing body, there's no such thing as "fidonet echos"
 ML> and likely never will be... IFNA tried many moons ago but fell apart at
 ML> the seams before they even got really started...

That explains it then.  So my contention that echomail, at least in our zone,
is an anarchy.  There is no order to anything and people including the
so-called mail hubs can do whatever they want?  In fact, some of them have done
exactly that.  Now, having said that, think about this: A prespective Fidonet
moderator .. why would I invest any time into any Fidonet related activity,
especially maintaining and establishing an echo if ultimaltely my authority
means nothing and a group that carries my echo can take it over by simply
agreeing to do so.    P4 defines echomail as another form of echomail.  In
theory, policy could be used to protect a moderator, but convenientally some
have chose ignore it.

Of course none of this really matters to me.  The internet is really making
Fidonet obsolete.  You see, Fidonet brought mail to the user but the internet
brings the user to the mail.  Fidonet was liked by users because they could
(usually) read and write mail at their local BBS free of charge.  In other
words, without fidonet, users were grounded to local BBSs.  If they wanted to
talk to people elsewhere they could use the distributive power of fidonet or
burden the cost themselves.  The Internet can relay packets around the world. 
People can do live chat with only milliseconds of delay.  So, to get to the
point, a user who does not like Fidonet can now go to *any* internet accessable
bulletin board.  Yes, web based bulletin boards are what I am talking about;
the internet brings the user to the bulletin board.  His choices are virtually
unlimited.  Piss the user off, he has dozens of other similar places to express
himself without the headache.  Or, he can setup it own with $10 a month
webhosting and have the world at his backdoor.  He will get more users than
Fidonet could ever supply without the headache of some asshole(s) that are just
being power hungry zealots.  :-)

So, in summary, the internet has really given the user the power of choice.  So
with all the screwed up things in Fidonet, why would any sane user choose
Fidonet?  More to the point, why would any user choose to moderate a "fidonet"
echo?  To invest time in and start an echo means nothing.  To those who would
step over the moderator, there are no consequences.  Sure, Fidonet has become
less restrictive but it has given freedom for people to take a big shit on each
other.  Rules were not made to govern people who treat others with respect. 
Rules were made to govern those who do not.  And I know none of what I say will
have any affect but I certainly like to raise these points so we can consider
the subject ..

---
 * Origin: thunderdome server project - fido.thunderdome.us (1:106/1)