Text 759, 151 rader
Skriven 2004-10-12 09:43:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
    Kommentar till text 752 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
Ärende: FidoNews 21:38 [09/09]: Fidonews Information
====================================================
 > >>  MvdV> That was not a hijack. I took charge of an echo that was
 > >>  MvdV> abandoned by its moderator.

 >  >> The echo was not abandoned by the moderator...

 >  MvdV> Yes it was. The rules posting had stopped,
 >
 > how did you determine that they had stopped?

By monitoring the echo.

 >  MvdV> the moderator was nowhere to be seen

 > so? not all moderators are visible in their echos... many
 > do all their moderating via netmail with no postings in the
 > echo... they used to, anyway...

The address he had provided before was no longer in the nodelist. So no
netmail.

 >  MvdV> and had dissappeared from the nodelist.

 > one doesn't need to be in the nodelist to be a moderator...

I know that. In this case however the moderator was a sysop and presented with
node number in every communication.

 >  MvdV> He did not emerge as a user on another system either.
 >  MvdV> He was gone.

 > evidently not as he is (still) here, today ;)

He was not "here" at the time.

   >> you tried to make the case that it was, and not only did the
 > >> moderator, Roy Witt, disagree with your premise,

 >  MvdV> The ex-moderator did not agree or disagree, he was absent!
 >  MvdV> That his absence later turned out to be of temporary nature and
 >  MvdV> that he give his opinion after the fact is irrelevant.

 > no, it is /part of/ the fact...

It is not part of the fact that he was absent.

 >  >> but many of the echo participants didn't agree with you.

 >  MvdV> Irrelevant.

 > obviously not... one wonders why the police question
 > witnesses if their POV is not relevent??

Witnesses are questioned to get to the facts, not opinions.

 > >> But the echo that you attempted to wrest away from Mr. Witt
 > >> had for years operated under the rules that are recognized
 > >> by the ditribtion systems and the echolist.

 >  MvdV> So? Where does it say that therefore it has to be
 >  MvdV> that way forever?

 > look at it this way... say you did get the echo... what
 > then? would you have kept up the elisting?

No.

 > if not, the echo would have been dropped from distribution by most
 > distribution systems...

Correction: by most distribution systems in Z1. The distribution systems in the
rest of the world would not have been affected.

 > what then?

I would have provided other means for the nodes in Z1 that wanted the echo.

 >  MvdV> By your own words, it is the moderator's choice. So a new
 >  MvdV> moderator came along and he choose to do thing different.

 > you weren't the new moderator... for one thing, you didn't
 > wait long enough...

I waited until the required minimum period for posting of rules had expered and
i waited until the previous moderator dropped from the nodelist and became
uncontactable.

 >  MvdV> I see that you are putting words into my mouth. I did NOT
 >  MvdV> agree to the "wrest control" part. Merely that the attempt to
 >  MvdV> assume the moderator position failed.

 > is that not the same thing?

No, it is not. "wrest control" implies foul play, something that goes against
the rules. What I did whas 100% in accordance with the rules applicable to me.

 > >> failed because the distribtion systems have a requirement
 > >> that the moderator of an echo they carry is listed as the
 > >> moderator in the echolist.

 >  MvdV> So then why didn't they drop it from the backnone?

 > because it was still listed...

Then what was the problem?

 >  >> You couldn't become listed as moderator in the Echolist
 > >> database because the listing was current

 >  MvdV> If it is merely a database for information purposes, it was
 >  MvdV> obviously not "current" as it did not reflect the fact that mr
 >  MvdV> Witt had disappeared.

 > obviously not ;)

A databasa that list a noden umber that is no longer in the nodelist is
obviously inaccurate.

 >  >> and you did not have the password.

 >  MvdV> I do not need the password if I do not wish to use the system.

 > you do if you wish to correct the record...

I had no such wish.

 >  MvdV> I was not interested in listing the echo.

 > then what were you going to do with it?

With the listing? Nothing.

 > let it fall out of distribution and loose the traffic and thus
 > disrupting it?

I wish you people would get your act together regarding this "moderator choice"
thing. When I say echolist <name of criminal organisation of Sicilian origin>
people tell me I am wrong, that there is no pressure and that moderators are
free to use the services of the echolist system or not.

But now that I express the wish not to use the services of the echolist, you
tell met that will disrupt the echo. So where is the free choice then?

It would appear to me that moderators are as free to decline using the echolist
system as the citizens of Iraq were free to decline voting for Saddam under his
reign.


Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 229kx
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)