Text 29275, 87 rader
Skriven 2012-05-30 14:26:05 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: P4 violation noted                  was: Janis defintions...
====================================================================
Hello Roy,

On Tuesday May 29 2012 08:40, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> I am not looking for an "out". I am not "in". I am not bound by
 MvdV>> P4 as I never egreed to abide by it.

 RW> Then you should either agree to abide by it, or get out of the
 RW> network.

It is not for you to tell me what I should do.

 RW> As a non-compliant sysop, you're not welcome to stay in a network that
 RW> is held together by everyone agreeing to abide by that policy.

"Everyone"? As in "not a single exception"? Hardly I think.

 RW> That is exactly what is stopping me. Everyone knows that I'm the last
 RW> guy to pull policy out of my pocket to make someone do what they were
 RW> supposed to do a long time ago.

Yet, pulling policy out of your pocket to make me do what you want is precisely
what you are doing now.

 MvdV>>  You are smart enough to know it will go nowhere is what stops
 MvdV>> you.

 RW> I am confident that a policy complaint will go to the ZCC for a final
 RW> decision.

The ZCC does not have the authority to overrule a ZC decision. It can only
overrule an IC decision. There is no IC, so no IC ruling, so nothing for the
ZCC to overrule.

It will go nowhere. Zone crossing complaints are a dead end. Thank your ZC for
that.

 RW> That you as an RC and your ZC had a chance to settle this before it
 RW> became an issue of contention will

There is no issue.

 RW> BTW, your ZC as a party to the PC, will have to recuse himself from
 RW> the final vote

In the hypothetical case of a ZCC ruling, a similar argument would apply to
your ZC. She is the representative of the filer of the complaint and hence has
a vested interest in the outcome.

Also she has already shown to be biased on the subject.

 RW>  leaving three ZCs to make the decision. I see at least
 RW> a 2:1 advantage against you by proceeding to the ZCC with a PC.

The ZCC is a paper tiger.

 RW> If you wish, we can dispense with the PC procedure

It is not me who wishes to file a complaint. So nothing for me to dispense
with.

 RW>  (wastes a lot of time) and just ask the ZCC to intervene here and
 RW> now.

The ZCC has no authority to intervene.

 MvdV>> What "issue"? I have stated that am not bound by P4 as I never
 MvdV>> agreed to be be bound by it. There is no "issue to work out".
 MvdV>> It is not my problem that you don't like it.

 RW> Your arguement falls on deaf ears. You're bound by P4 for as long as
 RW> you continue to hold a node number. Give up the nodelisting or die on
 RW> the vine.

What part of "no" is it that you do not understand?

Forget it Roy, this is going nowhere. Don't bother to reply, you will just be
repeating yourself. I have stated my position, I have nothing more to say on
the subject, I will not respond to you anymore on the subject.

EOT.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)