Text 18773, 71 rader
Skriven 2014-10-02 00:23:12 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
  Kommentar till text 18771 av Michiel Van Der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Re: Echomail / P4
=========================
 -=> On 10-01-14  14:33,  Michiel Van Der Vlist <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Echomail / P4 <=-

 DS> Perhaps you ought to read the following quote from Ward on the
 DS> subject.
 
 DS> From: Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
 DS> To  : Alex Barinov (2:5020/715)
 DS> Subj: Complaint resolution
 DS> Date: 02 Mar 07  07:59:11

 MVDV> A seven year old case? Hmmm...

The case itself is only part of the message.  I guess you had selective
reading on the rest of it.

 MVDV> I see nothing there that translates into "P4 does not cover echomail".

 MVDV> All I see is a ruling to the effect that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE
 MVDV> (whatever  that was, I did not see the original complaint) 
 MVDV> excommunication was not the proper way to deal with the 
 MVDV> situation.

Then you need to learn how to read the whole document.  He made specific
reference to the case at hand, and then went on to amplify with general
comments about his interpretation of policy -- which directly
contradicts the position that you and others are taking.   You may not
want to accept his words, but there they are.

WD> While there may be grounds for irritation, these are founded in
WD> echomail and as a consequence should have been handled by moderators
WD> of the conferences in which the alleged offenses took place.

How about above where he says that the complaints should have been
handled by the moderators?  I.e. whatever was done was an echomail
matter and should not have involved the *C structure of P4.

WD> I often hear the reference to the single line in Policy where it
WD> states that Echomail is another flavor of netmail but that does not
WD> mean that a *C is entitled to dispense justice in matters which
WD> occured in echomail. That single line in policy is too often used,
WD> and I should even say abused, to invent a whole line of imaginary
WD> rules which are not part of the set which govern Fidonet.

And how does his paragraph above not totally rule out the arguments you
and others are making about echomail being actionable under P4.

WD> If a person is offensive in echomail then just don't reply to him
WD> and thereby do not "create the opportunity" or "vote with your
WD> feet", meaning go somewhere else, make a new echomailconference if
WD> the need arises and the creator can even choose to put in the
WD> echorules that a certain person cannot participate ... all that are
WD> the prerogatives of a moderator. My suggestion is to work in order
WD> to make an echomailconference function instead of coming down on the
WD> *C-structure with petty-complaints about echomail-offenses whom, by
WD> definition, will be overruled I'm certain if they are escalated to
WD> ZCC/IC-level.

And above he reinforces his stated opinion that echomail disputes are
*NOT* covered by P4, but belong in the domain of the echo moderator.

                               Dale Shipp
                  fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:19:10, 02 Oct 2014
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
 * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)