Text 5639, 142 rader
Skriven 2010-03-04 19:54:00 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
   Kommentar till text 5365 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
Ärende: Using An Alias 3
========================
Hello Peter,

>LL>As such, I presume there are no USERS in fido.

PK>Correct.

Participants is a far better term.  Although I must admit
the possibility exists there may be many lurkers as well.  :)

>LL>However, there are many PARTICIPANTS.

PK>No, Fidonet is about the transfer of information between
PK>systems, it is NOT about BBS's or participants.

Without participants, there would be no fido.  It's that simple.
You can argue all you want about the structure of fido being what
it is, but that does not change the basic fact that fido is about
dialogue.  Dialogue between participants.

Who the hell do you think created fido?  Certainly not some machine.
Certainly not some piece of paper.  People created fido.  Real people.
With real names.  Why do you think those people (yes, real people)
created fido?  Did they create fido in order to write a pamphlet or a
book? Did they create fido in order to create a set of rules? No.  They
created fido in order to establish a means of communication between
people.  That communication is called dialogue.

Machines, such as computers, are one means that enable such dialogue
to take place.  In my opinion, the creators of fido did a good thing.
Not just for themselves, but also for others.

>PK>The USER is nothing to Fidonet, the Sysop IS Fidonet, therefore what
>PK>he says and does... goes... To Fidonet, a User does not exist,
>PK>therefore has ZERO rights.

>LL>I am glad to hear that fido has joined the War On Drugs.

PK>You make an incorrect assumption there...

Participants mean EVERYTHING in fido.  Not the other way around.  No
successful organization makes war on those who enable that organization
to exist.  The term "users" holds some negative connotations, such as
using drugs.  And most participants in fido do not use drugs.  At least
not the illegal kind.  That is why participants is a far better term.

>LL>I am glad to hear that sysops are fido's foot-soldiers in
>LL>that War On Drugs.

PK>And another incorrect assumption.

What do you think would happen if there were no participants in fido?
Fido would exist in name only.  A name on a tombstone.  And that is no
assumption, but reality.

>LL>Is fido winning?

PK>Winning what? Fidonet is not in a battle that it needs to win...

If fido loses participants, fido loses not only the battle, but
also the war.

How best to win the battle, and the war?  By respecting all
participants' right/privilege to use an alias/handle in every echo.

Fido is about dialogue.  With no dialogue there can be no fido.
How many times do I have say that?  It should be obvious to all,
without ever being said.

The battle fidonet is fighting, and will always fight, is a battle
to win the hearts and minds of participants.  After all, it is those
participants who make up the dialogue of fido.  With no participants
there can be no dialogue.  With no dialogue there can be no fido.

The job of a moderator is to help facilitate discussion, not hinder
it.  Forcing participants to use their real names hinders discussion.
Allowing all participants to use an alias/handle helps facilitate
discussion.  The more participants, the more discussion.  In my
view, more is better.

>PK>In fact, on the BBS, the sysop may allow aliases to be
>PK>used, however any BBS Message that is exported to fidonet
>PK>MUST follow Fidonet rules, and if the Fidonet Echo rules
>PK>REQUIRE real names to be used, then that is what that Sysop
>PK>must export from his system, or he is in breach of Fidonet
>PK>rules.

>LL>Fidonet rules allow sysops and moderators to use an alias,

PK>Please quote the exact Fidonet document that states this?

There is no rule barring sysops or moderators from using an
alias/handle, meaning such use is allowed.  In all echoes.
Likewise, there is no rule barring anybody else from using an
alias/handle.  In all echoes.  Therefore, by what authority
(moral or otherwise) do sysops and moderators have to insist
that non-sysops and/or non-moderators use their real names?

A moderator saying "because I can" is not a valid reason.
A sysop saying "because I can" is not a valid reason.
A zone coordinator saying "because I can" is not a valid reason.
Dictators use that excuse all the time.
Is fido a dictatorship?
If so, do as the monkey says.

However, fido is not, and was never meant to be, a dictatorship
of any kind.  Rather, fido is an idea to help facilitate free and
open discussion by participants around the world.  And no dictator
can quell that idea, no matter how hard that dictator might try.

PK>All the Fidonet Policy documents that I am aware of state
PK>absolutely nothing on this subject.

That is correct.  Which means the use of an alias/handle is allowed by
all participants (including sysops and moderators). But not everybody in
fido holds that same view.  Especially the Red Queen (made famous by
Lewis Carroll).

>PK>This one simple fact is the part that many people fail to
>PK>understand about Fidonet, that Fidonet IS ALL and EVERY
>PK>Fidonet sysop.

>LL>Fidonet is all about dialogue.

PK>Rubbish. In what Fidonet Policy document is tha tstated?

Real people wrote those documents.  Not some computer.  That means
fido consists of real people.  And real people conduct themselves by
having dialogue with other real people.

PK>You appear to be making some rather large ASSUMPTIONS there...

ass/u/me - to make an ass out of both u and me.

And that is no assumption.  :)

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * "Your raincheck is in the mail." - KFC

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.mooo.com (3:800/432)