Text 4814, 159 rader
Skriven 2007-07-22 18:12:37 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
   Kommentar till text 4794 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: R&R exchanging insults
==============================
Jeff Smith -> David Drummond wrote:
 DD>>>> Are you suggesting that he was first, and, like little children,
 DD>>>> the rest followed his lead? Yeah, sure.

 JS>>>      No actually. I think that in the beginning of Felten's
 JS>>> tenure as editor and moderator. He did care about Fidonews and
 JS>>> Fidonet and was considerably more active as moderator.

 DD>> He has never done more than make polite requests of posters to tone
 DD>> down their content. How do you feel he was "more active"?

 JS>      Maybe that was the problem then. Sometimes you have to go beyond
 JS> being polite. Especially with those that do not normally want to listen.

What else could he do, swear at them?
[...]

 DD>>  and there is nothing anyone can do to alter the content of the
 DD>> messages (other than the posters themselves).

 JS>      The posters are responsible for the content of their posts. It looks
 JS> like you are sharing in Feltens defeatest attitude. " I can't do it so it
 JS> can't be done. I give up."

Only the posters can moderate their messages. There is nothing the "moderator"
can do but request that of them.

[...]

 JS>>>      Why are you choosing to avoid the real point here David? The
 JS>>> rules are not the problem. Rules don't mean anything to anyone
 JS>>> regardless of how good they might be if noone is enforcing those
 JS>>> rules.

 DD>> Why must they be enforced? Must you always be forced to do things just
 DD>> for the sake of being forced?

 JS>      Simple David. Rules that people know will not be enforced are
 JS> meaningless.

So why have them?

 JS> What if the police made it clear that even though there
 JS> was a law against stealing the police would not enforce that law? The
 JS> result would be that those so inclined would steal to their hearts
content.
 JS> Same priciple here David. If Felten chooses to not enforce his own rules
 JS> and even breaks them himself. He shows everyone just how meaningless those
 JS> rules are.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

[...]

 JS>     This echo is not a free-for-all echo where we have mob rule. It has
 JS> a rather narrow purpose and function. That being to support the Fidonews.
 JS> The fact that Felten has chosen to give up and turn over his
responsibility
 JS> as moderator to the users should not mean that we are now the law here.

This may be your interpretation of the rules. It is obviously not for all of
those who appear to be in contravention with your interpretation.

[...]
 DD>> The why must they be taken seriously? If no-one wants to take them
 DD>> seriously they should be discarded.

 JS>      This echo has a specific purpose David. A purpose that you think
 JS> should be ignored just because you don't agree with it or don't want to
 JS> be limited by it.

What purpose? According to my interpretation of the rules, this echo is
primarily for discussing articles appearing in Fidonews. It hasn't been used
for that in years - there is nothing in FidoNews to discuss.

IF you think this is its ONLY purpose, why are you discussing this topic now?


 If you don't like the limitations of the purpose of
 JS> this echo then I challenge you to go elsewhere.

Sorry, the majority out number you. Perhaps YOU should move somewhere else...

 JS> The people should not
 JS> expect the echo to change to accommodate them.

Obviously they do, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 JS> The people should change
 JS> to accommodate the rules of the echo and not expect those rules to be
 JS> change to their liking.

I understand that you don't get to taste democracy much in your area, but  if
the majority of people want the purpose of this echo changed, it will be
changed. You cannot stop the people.


 JS> If the rules are changed it should be done for
 JS> the benefit of the Fidonews and Fidonet. Not for a particular person
 JS> or a group of people who want no more than one more echo where they can
 JS> swear, insult, and call people names.

If the majority want that, that's what they get.

 JS> We have plenty of echos already
 JS> that can be used for that purpose. This echo is and was not intended to
 JS> be one of those.

It has evolved into that.

[...]
 DD>> The hierarchical structure of the technical network never has been -
 DD>> however some echoes (including this one) are.

 JS>      That is merely your opinion David. This echo is a Fidonet based echo
 JS> for the support of the Fidonews which is a Fidonet newsletter. This echo
 JS> also has a specific purpose.

That purpose has become redundant - the echo has evolved beyond that.
[...]
 >      Your avoiding the question David. When was the last time that
 JS> Felten moderated someone IN this echo?

We both know that that is not the method he uses for moderation.

Is that what you want, you want to see people getting told off?

 DD>> [...]

 DD>>>> Why do we have laws? If most people think a law is wrong, it
 DD>>>> _is_ wrong.

 DD>>>> Just as what is "right" is what the majority consider to be
 DD>>>> "right"

 JS>>>      If the majority where you live decide it is right to steal
 JS>>> and kill. It is then right in your mind for them to do so?

 DD>> If the majority decide that is right then it is right. That's how
 DD>> democracy works.

 JS>      Even though you choose not to accept it. Fidonet and this echo are
 JS> not governed by mob rule. They are not a democracy. They both have
policies
 JS> or rules. If we choose to accept them then fine otherwise we are free to
go
 JS> elsewhere.

Current use of the echo proves you wrong. Majority decision _does_ decide the
use of the echo. Rules mean nothing in these Fidonet echoes any more.

-- 

regards

David

---
 * Origin: Repeal the bad rules! (3:640/305)