Text 44564, 202 rader
Skriven 2006-12-23 11:55:02 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 44543 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: The moderator here??
============================
Hello Dale!

On Friday December 22 2006 23:40, you wrote to me:

 MVDV>>> The contact information was there. (2:2/2)

 DS>>   2:2/2 is the contact information for Björn,

 MVDV>> Plus all the users on tha system. That is how it works in
 MVDV>> FidoNet. The users share the nodenumber with the sysop.

 DS>    The previous editors of fidonews were not users of Björn's system.

And you are sure they are not now? How can you be so sure?

 MVDV>> why is "phipps", which may or may not be a real name or an
 MVDV>> alias acceptable, while "Editors Emeriti", which may or may
 MVDV>> not be a real name or an alias is not accpetable.

 DS>    Who is to say that Phipps is not a real name?

I have yet to see a country that accepts a single word as an official name on a
birth certificate.

 DS>   It is obvious that Editors Emeriti is not a real name,

Is it? How can you be so sure?

 MVDV>>> RC17                    CELBLK17

 DS>>   CELLBLK17 is a regional echo,

Says who?

 DS>>  moderator position belongs to the person holding the office of RC17.

Says who?

 DS>>  Contact information is given.

As in 2:2/2

 MVDV>>> Goran Eriksson          NET_DEV

 DS>>   ? Not sure why you even put this one down.   Looks like a
 DS>> person, has contact info listed.

 MVDV>> Oh, just that he is a bit dead. Goran Ericksson died around
 MVDV>> the end of May this year. According to yur own words dead
 MVDV>> people do not qualify....

 DS>   I did not know that, perhaps that is why the listing is about to be
 DS>   removed?

A more reasonable explanation for the "about to be removed" is that there was
no MOD update in six month. In the meantime it has been there for over six
month. So the list keeper does not generally check on dead persons.

 MVDV>> So how does "All Zone 1 REC's" differ from "Editors Emeriti"?

 DS>   See ...

Not acceptable. Are you sure all Z1 REC's have agreed to act as moderator and
are reachable through the contact info given?

 MVDV>>> {empty}                 Z1_ROUTNG

 DS>>   No such echo in the Elist, but Z1_ROUTING is listed with a
 DS>> person in the moderator slot, and contact information is given.

 MVDV>> No, the moderator slot is blank.

 DS>    I know you do not like her, but
 DS>    Janis Kracht 1:261/38janis@filegate.net
 DS>    is not blank.

Then apparently yo have a different vesrion of the e-list than me.

http://www.tlchost.net/echolist/z.htm#Z1_ROUTING

Now which version is the authoritive one?

 MVDV>>> So tell me, why is "All Zone 1 REC's" acceptable and "Editors
 MVDV>>> Emeriti" is not?

 DS>>    That is a question you would need to direct to the Elist
 DS>> keeper,

 MVDV>> IOW, you have no asnswer.,

 DS>   I have answers, but cannot speak for the Elist keeper as to his
 DS>   reasons.

IOW you refuse to admit I have a valid point.

 DS>> but my suspicion is that because each and every Zone 1 REC who
 DS>> exists has clearly defined contact information in the nodelist --
 DS>> but the people who might have been considered as "Editors
 DS>> Emeriti" of Fidonews do not have contact information anyplace,

 MVDV>> Wrong. As you have been told, 2:2/2 is the contact info.

 DS>    I doubt that it is.   If I sent a message to Zorch at 2:2/2, how
 DS>    would it get to him?

Why do you worry about that? Have you ever tried it?

 DS>   Ditto for Henk and many other previous editors.

Did you try it?

 MVDV>> You do not seem to be aware what "Editors Emeriti" implies.
 MVDV>> It means former retired editors. That does not include the
 MVDV>> deceased.

 DS>   I am aware that Professor Emeritus is a title normally held by a
 DS>   retired Professor during his/her lifetime and/or being active in
 DS> that role.

Right.

 DS>    However, my recollection of the discussion that took
 DS> place during the "Editors Emeriti" incident is that Björn included
 DS> *all* former editors in that group collection.

And of course - since this fitted your agenda - you took his word as gospel.

Well, my recollection is that Björn stated that mail addressed to "Editors
emeriti" at 2/2/2 *would* be delivered. So why do you now doubt his word?

 DS>> AND they did not consider themselves to be moderators of the
 DS>> echo, they had all passed that task on to someone else.

 MVDV>> Irrelevant. There is no requirement for a comod to
 MVDV>> publically accept the position.

 DS>    The entry of a persons name in one of the Moderator slots implies
 DS>    that they are a moderator of that echo.

A comoderator does not have to be an active moderator. The job description is
entirely a matter between the moderator and his comod. There are plenty of
examples where a comod never did anything at all. Which is perfectly all right
if the agreement is that the comod would only step in, in case of the primary
moderator becoming incapacitated.

 DS>    I don't see how that can happen if the person is not consulted

Are you sure all the Z1 REC's were consulted?

 DS>  on the position and/or has previously relinquished the position.

There are numerous precedents of people reliqushing a position and then later
agreeing to act as a stand in in case of a contingency.

 MVDV>> Irrelevant. The point is that double standards were
 MVDV>> applied. A rule was invented ad hoc at the whim of the e-

 DS>   It was a rule that was formulated with the stated intent of an entry
 DS>   in the moderator field in mind.  Not arbitary nor capricious.

Bullshit. As I have shown there are numerous examples that refute your claim.
It is painfully obvious that this *was* a case of an arbitrary ruling to make
things difficult for Björn.

 MVDV>> list keeper. A rule tat is obviously only enforced in this
 MVDV>> case.

 DS>   Not true, as you should have read in this echo by now.

The you must have a different echo connected.

 DS>> That alternative is one that I use in the echo I help moderate,
 DS>> and he could have easily done the same.

 MVDV>> He could, but doing that would have been giving in to the
 MVDV>> whims of a dictator. Instead he choose to not go along and
 MVDV>> vote with the feet.

 DS>   He chose not to cooperate,

No. He choose to cooperate by honouring the wishes of the Z1 sysops by listing
anyway. His efforts to cooperate where thwarted by the list keeper. It was the
list keeper that choose not to cooperate.

 DS>  and to vote with his feet,

And when the list keeper would not cooperate, he choose to vote with the feet.

 DS> and thus the consequences that might arise from that action, if any,
 DS> are his responsibility.

The consequences for thwarting the editor's effort to cooperate are the
responsibility of the thwarter: i.e. the list keeper.


But of course you all know that. You simply refuse to admit that you are wrong.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.van.der.vlist.org (2:280/5555)