Text 29372, 80 rader
Skriven 2015-12-23 11:24:38 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Joe Delahaye (56138.fidonews)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
Hello Joe,

On Tuesday December 22 2015 22:20, you wrote to me:

 MV>> Founding an echo does not create a mandate. At best it files a
 MV>> claim based on "squaters right". Such a claim is no moere than
 MV>> just a claim. More is needed to promote it to a mandate. Among
 MV>> other things the honouring of the claim by either a recognised
 MV>> authority or the fiat of all parties involved.

 JD> It does indeed give the founder a mandate.  If said echo is
 JD> promulgated throughout Fidnet, that is all that is needed.

So you say. Saying it is so, does not make it so hwoever. If you can't back it
up with a quote from some recognised document it is just your personal opinion,
nothing more.

 MV>> "Squaters right" has not been a recognised legal mechanism in
 MV>> this part of the world for ages. The time that one could plant a
 MV>> flag and say "this land is mine" has been hsitory for at least
 MV>> half a millenium in this part of the world.

 JD> No squatter.  You cannot compare a law about land rights, with the
 JD> written word sent over the ethernet.

Of course I can. I just did.

 JD>>> Their echo, their rules.  Take it or leave
 JD>>> it <G>.  Any successors, retain the same rights.

 MV>> Really? How about the 2011 fidonews coup? The revolutionairs did
 MV>> no seem to honour those rights....

 JD> Since you know I was against that,

That didn't stop it from happening.

 JD> I will simply say that in that case, there were two echos with the
 JD> same name.

Two echos with the same name? That is a situation that the echolist was
supposed to prevent. So either we have been lied to regarding the echolist, or
they were not two echos with the same name.

 JD>  The FN Sysop Coup can also be referred to if you wish.  That was more
 JD> of a coup then then the Fidonews one.

That's your opinion. What I see is an echo where two sysops claim to be the
moderator and post rules. Neither of them is the founder of the echo, but one
of them had the echo turn over to him by his predecessor, the other just claims
it.

So -according to your logic - which one of the two has the mandate?

 MV>>>> Without a policy defining the rights and duties of moderators,
 MV>>>> they have no mandate...

 JD> There will als be no echos in that case, since policy also does not
 JD> define those.

I carry several echos on my system that do not have a moderator. You say they
do not exist?

 JD>>> Of course they have.  No policy needed.  All it needs is for
 JD>>> that moderator to be recognized by the users of the echo, and
 JD>>> you have a mandate.

 MV>> Ah.. And what if the users of the echo choose to not recognise
 MV>> it?

 JD> Then there is no echo, since there will be no users.

See above. I carry several echos on my system without a recognised moderator.
There is flow...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111
 * Origin: Rheb genfu cnpvsvfg cvt fuvg chffl (2:280/5555)