Text 4461, 86 rader
Skriven 2004-12-30 07:03:05 av Thom LaCosta (1:261/1352.0)
   Kommentar till text 4457 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Pee-Four
================
Matt Bedynek wrote in a message to Thom LaCosta:

 MB> Hello Thom.

 MB> 28 Dec 04 11:52, you wrote to me:

 TL> But if it's as easy as you say...why do you say that non-listed sysops
 TL> be allowed to vote?  Either use your gratuitous bomb and say that they
 TL> should be listed, or not use it and campaign for non-sysops being
 TL> allowed to vote.

 MB> I guess we need every node we can to compete with the monsterous
 MB> Z2.  

Did someone other than you mention this concept?  I don't think I did.

 MB> Is why people here favor listing everyone and their
 MB> grandmother?  

Do they?  I don't recall seeing those posts....but maybe my grandmother radar
was turned off.

 MB> Why not list everyone in the family too?  We need all
 MB> the help we can get!  Serious, if getting a private node is a
 MB> backdoor it does no good.  Besides, how many points do you see in
 MB> the echo anyway?  Only a few have ever actually posted.  Would
 MB> allowing them seriously compromise the echo or security somewhere?

Sigh...if someone wants to post in a sysop only echo, they need to be a sysop.
If you feel non-sysops need to post, then change the rules of the echo.

Your 

 TL> Yep....and that has NOTHING to do with the current moderator's policy
 TL> of not having yearly elections....but it seems you'd rather poke at
 TL> the echolist than address the issue of moderatorship of FN_SYSOP.

 MB> That was not poking fun; that is a fact.

Did I say poking fun?  I don't think so.

 MB>   You once told me that a
 MB> moderator who slips in listing his echo is not being responsible. 
 MB> But who is he not being responsible to?  You?  

Not to me...but to anyone who expects to find accurate and timely information
on a moderator's echo that is based on the moderator's submission.

 MB> I have proved on
 MB> several occassions that the echolist means nothing.  

Perhaps in your own mind....and you have proven on numerous occassions that you
don't know how to submit updates to the Echolist Robot.

 MB> personally.  If moderators are expected to be accountable to the
 MB> echolist then the echolist should be expected to be accountable to
 MB> the moderators.  If one fails then the system is rendered useless,
 MB> which it has been, and is why I do not reference it as a final
 MB> authority when determing the moderator of an echomail conference. 

Sigh....Matt, you're obvously free to do whatever you choose..I'm really
impressed that of the hundreds of moderators who use the echolist, you are one
of the few that is so much smarter than the rest.  You are in a select group of
folks who really are experts. I'n frankly puzzled that with your deep insight,
command of the language and demonstrated leadership skills the rest of the
moderators, both in and out of Fidonet, have not flocked to your banner.


 TL>> Yes, I would say that releasing the password to an echolisting in
 TL>> a public forum is a problem that was created.

 MB>> See it how you wish.

 TL> Ah, if you can't address the problem, you toss it off....

 MB> You're so set in your ways that once you made up your mind you
 MB> rarely listen. 

I'm ready to be educated....please tell me the positive results of making the
password to FN_SYSOP public?

cya,
thom
http://www.tlchost.net/echolist/ 
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro
 * Origin: Home of The Other Robot (1:261/1352)