Text 44994, 265 rader
Skriven 2006-12-26 16:05:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 44770 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Kindergarten
====================
Hello Matt!

On Sunday December 24 2006 12:17, you wrote to me:

 MB>>> Some of those involved in the fray were hubs or linked to hubs
 MB>>> sympathetic or actively engaged with their cause.

 MvdV>> Yep. That was one of the reasons banning the user failed.

 MB> I see.  So, that is likely why an attempt by bjorn to moderate this
 MB> echo or fn_sysop will also likely fail.

BOC! You have watched it yourself not so long ago when a vocal participant here
had his Zone independent number revoked. And instead of going through the
proper channels to obtain a new node number started a game and kept posting
under the the no longer existing node number. The moderator asked everyone not
to feed to non existent numbers and also asked the participants here not to
respond to people using non-existent node numbers. He was mostly ignored. Among
the ignorers were two ZCs. One of them openly said she ignored the moderator's
request because she did not agree with it. She would honour moderator's
request, she said, but not this one as she did not agree with it...

Now what is the value of a statement like "I will honour moderator requests" if
you have it followed by "but not this time, as this time I do not agree with
it"?

If even ZCs openly defy a moderator - simply because they disagree with his
decision - how can you expect the system that you describe in your latest
snooze article to keep up? It functioned as you rightly point out because there
was sort of a balance between respect and fear and a general consensus that a
moderator request was to be honoured. well that obviously is a thing of the
past.

 MB> You see, I contend that there are many ways to execute change in an
 MB> undesirable system.  Some of them do not always bring about the
 MB> results immediately but those that do often have unforeseen
 MB> consequences.

Who says it was unforeseen?

 MB> For example, all people had to do was wait out Roy's tenure until the
 MB> next election and vote him out.

But they choose not to. Things go the way things go....

 MB> Instead, people chose get crazy and that was a catalyst for what we
 MB> have here.  In fact, if I was Roy, I would probaly be laughing my ass
 MB> off.  It is simply amazing how some of you all allow one person to
 MB> affect the course of action for an entire network, and later, still
 MB> completely fail to realize it.

Because the chain of cause and result goes back a lot further than when Roy was
booted out as moderator of FN_SYSOP. To you it may look as if it started then
and there, but it isn't. The chain goes back a long way. I can't exactly say
where the first link is, but it certainly was already set in motion before Roy
was elected moderator of FN_SYSOP. When I entered the scene (as an observer)
Joe Delahaye was moderator and he tried to evict Roy but failed. And the Z1
community tolerated it. What should have been done by the Z1 community is to
yank his node number. But they didn't. Already *then* it was clear to me that
the days of moderation as we knew it were over.

 MB>>> I see that the moderator chooses to moderate (specifically Z1)
 MB>>> because he knows it will do no good.

 MvdV>> I take it you meant "not to moderate"?

 MB> A case of the brain thinking one thing and the fingers pushing out
 MB> another.  :-)

 RC>>>> We'll just see about that. ;-)

 MvdV>> I can imagine that too.

 MB> Well, exactly that already happened, those few years ago.

Yes, it happened. But the incident you refer to, did not set the precednet.

 MB>>> So, having endorsed the first one what reason do you have to
 MB>>> complain now?

It was not the first. It was the first *I* was actively engaged in, I admit
that...

 MvdV>> Eh? What makes you think I am complaining? I am just making an
 MvdV>> observation.

 MB> Maybe I misunderstand the "color" of your words.

Maybe....

 MvdV>> It was as much an explosive situation as the situation here and
 MvdV>> moderating it was like walking on eggs... ;-)

 MB> The only redeeming quality fidonet had to offer over the internet is
 MB> the close nit community, moderated conferences and a higher quality of
 MB> content.  The users left for the internet because they could find that
 MB> same thing in their favorite forums.

That is too easy. yes, for *some* that may been an important reason. OTOH, I
have spoken many who said they wanted to get away from the "oppressive fidonet
moderation" and so they preferred the anarchy of UseNet....

 MB> I am a member of many such forums.

Forums can be strictly moderated. And ever so often they are. If th moderator
is not the owner of the server he at least has full control over the forum
software and so he rules as a dictator. he may be a benevolent dictator but a
dictator he is. He has to power to fully censor the forum. Some like that, and
some don't. So what you sometimes see is people voting with their feet and
creating alternate forums.

 MB> I hang on because I guess that there is some hope that might develop
 MB> some new technology that will bring life back to fido and make it more
 MB> in sync with internet style forums.

What makes you think that is what people want?

Your assessment that FidoNet differed from The internet, or more precisely
usenet is that it offered moderated content is correct. Where you may be wrong
is that you presume that is what people prefer.

As I see it, the success of FidoNet was due to the fact that it gave affordable
access to a global network. users submitted to moderation because they had
little choice. When the InterNet became affordable for the masses that changed.
They left en masse. To me that is a sign that many were not all that happy with
what we consider its greatest asset: moderated echomail.

I think most people who advocate strict moderation want it only for *others*.
Few people like *to be* moderated.

 MvdV>> It is not really. The incident with Paul Dickie was just that:
 MvdV>> an incident. But it *did* teach moderators a lesson regarding
 MvdV>> feed cuts.

 MB> I see.  So we traded localized incidents for interzonal battles.  :-(

The shrinkage of FidoNet made it unavoidable that conflicts would expand in
geographic area. How else are you going to get the required number of people
together to sustain a decent conflict? ;-)

 MvdV>> In all those years I have asked for a temporary feed cut only
 MvdV>> half a dozen times. Ranging from a week to six month.

 MB> And, you can bet in most cases that compliance might be met because
 MB> the user fears losing the priviledge of posting.

Of course. When it comes to having to ask for feed cut, prodding the user with
gentle nod to make him tone down is already a past station. The sword has been
taken out of the sheath, so that the user can see that it is real. But that is
history. If the moderator unsheats the sword now, the user can see that it is
not real, but just a harmless rubber stage prop.

 MvdV>> Nothing like that. All I am saying is that the moderators have
 MvdV>> to make do without the ultimate deterrent of the feed cut. Not
 MvdV>> complaining, just making an observation.

 MB> But we both know that is not true.

I think it is.

 MB> Some in Z2 pretend as if they operate on some higher principle but
 MB> ultimately that is what it boils down to.  If you do something that
 MB> violate the policies in Z2, will you lose your node number?

Depends on what policy you talk about. If you mean P4, yes a P4 violation may
lead to excommunication. But P4 does not apply to echomail. Not here. For that
we have EP1. AFAIK, no one has ever lost a node number over an EP1 violation.
In theory, someone giving a feed to someone who has been banned from a
conference by the moderator could have his nodenumber revoked, but that is only
theory, it has nver happened (AFAIK).

 MvdV>> We definitely had a problem with dictators among the
 MvdV>> *distributors*. As in "if you want echomail from me, you have
 MvdV>> to dance to my tune".

 MB> That has been dead since people started moving mail via ftp and
 MB> telnet.

That is what I said: Fido over IP has freed us from dictatorial male movers.
and some would say, it also freed us from dictatorial moderators...

 MB>   The only difference is that in the early days you had to put
 MB> up with poor transmission speeds since the novice mail mover could not
 MB> afford high speed connectivity.  But, at the same time, it does also
 MB> still exist because distribution can align itself to make coordinated
 MB> decisions about the fate of an echo...

Since *everyone* can distribute now, no one can control it...

 MB> you trade one form of dictatorship for another, imo.

Maybe. I don't think so.

 MvdV>> If I read it correctly, you (Z1) had exactly the same problem
 MvdV>> with your backbones.

 MB> And if put to the test, I suspect it still does.

Difference is that no one needs the Z1 backbone any more. It is still
convenient to make use of whatever is left of it, but nobody *needs* it.

 MvdV>> I have already made the observation that moderation by
 MvdV>> oppression is a thing of the past. We had better adapt to the
 MvdV>> new reality.

 MB> There is a big difference between moderation by oppression and
 MB> moderation by enforcement.

What is the difference?

 MB> If a child breaks the rules, in some households, they are spanked.

Yes. But he parents better realise that some day, not too long in the future
the kid will be too strong to have it spanked, or they will run into serious
problems..

 MB> And, it seems, that some adults must also be "spanked".    In your
 MB> world, the moderator is preceived to have no power at all.

That is not what I said. I said that he moderator has to do without the weapon
of the feed cut these days. I did not restrict that observation to any
particular zone.

 MB> The alternative, is that the moderator owns their conference and can
 MB> do what he pleases...

Claiming ownership over something one does not control is pointless.....

 MB> if the participants do not like it, they create a new echotag.

An option that is also open to those who do not like how things are going here
right now....

 MB> You can only hope that the moderator is a benevolent dictator much
 MB> like you hope your ZC is a benovolent dictator, right?

Wrong. Our ZC does not have any "power". Even if he wanted to play dictator, he
could not. He does not control the netmail and he does not control the
echomail. All he can do is fiddle with the nodelist. But if he were to
enthousiastic with that, alternative nodelists would spring to life. It has
happened several times in the past. The first time I witnessed it was in 1992
when Ward's predecessor Ron Dwight replaced the then RC28 Hanno van der Maas
against the wishes of the region. We simply ignored that part of the ZC's
nodelist and had it replaced with our own segment. Enough other regions went
along to make it work. The same happened in R24 a year later. And also in the
uK, I think, but I may be mistaken there. yes, it is a bit akward, but when
need be it can be done.

 MB>>> I say this because you are did the exact same thing in fn_sysop
 MB>>> a few years back as some of them are doing today.

 MvdV>> Your point?

 MB> If you cannot acknowledge the similarity then consider it EOT, because
 MB> I am wasting my time.

Oh, I can see the similarity. I can also see the differences. Were we disagree
apparently is that the decision to oust Roy as moderator was the prime cause of
the "problems" we have now. I only see that as a link in a chain that already
existed long before that incident.

Cheers, Michiel

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