Text 41169, 184 rader
Skriven 2006-10-12 11:38:28 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
  Kommentar till text 41136 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
Hello Matt.

12 Oct 06 00:33, you wrote to me:

 MB> Hello Jeff.

 MB> 08 Oct 06 17:16, you wrote to SHANNON TALLEY:

 JS>> In Michiel's case he thinks his way is right and refuses to
 JS>> listen to anyone that tries to tell him different.

 MB> Without delving into the area of semantics; lets consider this for a
 MB> moment.  Two people having a disagreement on terms of what they
 MB> consider 'right' on a highly poloarized topic. Both cannot be right
 MB> but both can be wrong, but lets ignore that and assume one must be
 MB> 'right'. Should the person who is in the 'right' be forced to
 MB> compromise or conceed their position?  This goes without having said
 MB> which person is right.  However, will serve to explain why such
 MB> discussions tend to flow in circular patterns.  So, having said all
 MB> that, you should not get frustrated when he refuses to see things your
 MB> way; likewise, he should not get frustrated when you do not agree with
 MB> him.   But, I do believe there is a more fundamental question here,
 MB> call them loaded questions, but logically they lead to what would be
 MB> the best course of action.



     I do not get overly frustrated if Michiel chooses not to see things
my way. That will always be his right and choice to do. What frustrates
me Matt is when a person refuses to even consider or listen to ideas or
suggestions. I learn alot by doing but I have often found better ways of
doing things by listening to others. No matter how well I may think that
MY way of doing something is. There is ALWAYS a better way out there. I
would be foolish not to listen to other possible ways of doing something.
It isn't even so much a matter of who is right here. It is what way works
better. It could even be a combination of ways that ends up being the best.
The person that insists that their way is always right is a fool.


 MB> Regarding the moderator:

 MB> 1) Will you honor the request of a moderator even if you find him
 MB> undesirable?


      Yes I would.  Regardless of whether I like a moderator. As long as
they are impartial and fair in their moderating. I would respect that.
My alternative is to drop the echo and go elsewhere. That would not affect
my carrying the echo as a passthrough to other systems though.


 MB> 2) Do you not find it disgusting how some people are treating the
 MB> moderator?  e.g. claiming there is no moderator, posting fake rules,
 MB> ect.


     Actually, yes i do. While I think the moderator is ineffective and
chooses not to ack as a moderator I think that people should not post
fake rules or claim to be the moderator. If an echo doesn't have a moderator
or the existing moderator is inactive. The result is basically the same.
The one possible exception is that some participants may resent the moderator
for being there in name only.


 MB> 3) If so, do you actually believe such people can really be moderated?
 MB> They may 'allow' themselves to be moderated a few times but the moment
 MB> they feel 'stepped on' the cycle will repeat.  If it successful here
 MB> (will be the second time), then no echo any where in fidonet is safe.


     Yes I do. There are bound to be instances where people are going to be
more of a problem. And there is always a chance that someone refuses to be
moderated. Is there a way to moderate that is going to be 100% effective?
Of course not. But in most cases effective communication and mutual respect
will get the job done even though the people may not like or agree with each
other.


 MB> Regarding fidonews and the copyright:

 MB> Why do those who chose to ignore michiel's copyright and distribute
 MB> the issue containing his article anyway bitch about it?  I believe
 MB> Janis removed the file from her system completely?  But to distribute
 MB> the file while simotaneously complaining is pointless.


     To a point I would agree with you. The exception being that I may
disagree with the use of the copyright and would remove the file(s) in
question. But would not want to disrupt distribution any more than nessesary.
Some I am sure would then cry censorship. To that I would say that I am
not altering, filtering, or censoring the content of the file(s).


 JS>>    I asked Michiel to clearly state his intent regrading his use
 JS>> of the copyright. I did so because I wanted to use HIS reasons
 JS>> and not my opinion of his reasons. He refused to answer any of my
 JS>> questions. Some say that Michiel is a very nice and helpfull guy.

 MB> Actually, michiel's position makes a lot of sense to me.


     That was the point I was making. Michiel only makes people's possible
misconception of his position and intent worse by being unwilling to tell
people what his intent was or what his motivation was. If people are left
not knowing they will form an opinion on what little info that they have.
I knew that I didn't fully understand and simply asked Michiel to explain.

     He refused.


 MB>  To me, it
 MB> seems he decided to play this game because bjorn was chastised for
 MB> having photographs copyrighted in the US on his website.


     And that makes sense to you? To me, the matter of Bjorn and his
website is a seperate issue. Why play a game with Fidonews that will only
result in further division in Fidonet? Why play a game that you know will
just create more bad feelings amoung people? If anything I think that
Michiel's copyright game hurt Bjorn and people's perception of him as a
moderator.


 MB>   I do not
 MB> know if you were in this echo but many here gave bjorn a verbal
 MB> beating over this using it to lend creedence to claims he is a poor
 MB> editor and moderator.


     Like I have said the website issue is seperate. Bjorn could very
well be a great moderator and still conduct his website in ways that I
may or may not approve of or think is illegal. My opinion of Bjorn and
my statements are based solely on him as a moderator and/or editor.


 MB> But, these same people are distributing and
 MB> making available his article which also contains a copyright.  Like my
 MB> point above, it seems people are talking out both sides of their mouth
 MB> at the same time.

 MB> If it is wrong for bjorn to have copyright material on his website,
 MB> then it is wrong for those who complain about his article containing a
 MB> copyright, but distribute it anyway, to do so.


     But that doesn't make Michiel's use of the copyright any more right
or wise. If a person or a distribution network finds a file unacceptable
or against their policy then they should not distribute those files.


 MB> Now, having said all that, I think it is a total shame it has come to
 MB> this.


     Agreed. Especially when it could have easily been avoided.


 MB>  But when words fail to convey the message, sometimes actions
 MB> must do the speaking.


     Sometimes. But one would hope that those actions are thought through
enough to prevent the collateral dammage like we have seen here.


 MB>  Even still, it seems we have some really dense
 MB> and stubborn people about this echo that they've yet to get the point.
 MB> Either that, or they are showing us two sets of standards....one,
 MB> which they hold themselves, and another, which they hold other people
 MB> to.... and that, is wrong no matter what side of the issue you reside.


 MB> Matt

 MB> em: matt [at] thunderdome.us | icq: 16568532 | yahoo: mbedynek

 MB> ---
 MB>  * Origin: ..::[ high speed feeds - http://fido.thunderdome.us/ ]::..
 MB> (1:106/1)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - MN USA (1:14/0)