Text 29433, 138 rader
Skriven 2015-12-23 21:22:18 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Joe Delahaye (56152.fidonews)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
Hello Joe,

On Wednesday December 23 2015 10:35, you wrote to me:

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

 JD> No, it is common practice.  As I told David, it has been done that way
 JD> since before any echo policy anywhere.

Not in this part of the world. It certainly was not "common practise" here when
I became involved in 1992. It was the cost sharing organisations that
ditributed the echomail. It was the cost sharing organisations that decided
which echos were distributed. It was not possible to just "found an echo" and
become the moderator. Moderators were the executive force of the CSOs. They
derived their mandate - and their teeth - by proxy from the right of might of
the CSOs.

That system collapsed with the coming of Fdio over IP when their no longer was
any cost to share and so the CSOs lost their right of might. But then there was
Echopol 1...

 JD> You know, the common practice the FTSC writes documents about,
 JD> except this is not technical.

The FTSC documents CURRENT practise. Something different.


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

 JD>>> Since you know I was against that,

 MV>> That didn't stop it from happening.

 JD> No, it didn't

So what is your point?

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

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

 JD> If everyone used the echolist, then it could not have happened.

No? Those creating the second echo uswed the echolist. It happened anyway.

 JD> If everyone used the echolist, then it could not have happened.

If everyone had used Echopol1 it could no have happend...

 JD> If everyone used the echolist, then it could not have happened.

Tough luck, we do not recognise the echolist.

 JD> Just like the echo I am hearing about that Lee is started with the
 JD> same name as an established one and thus getting people to crosslink

That woukld not have happened if everyone had recognised echopol'.

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

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

 JD> Go back a few more years.  When Roy was 'deposed'  Nobody was handed
 JD> the reigns by the predecessor there.

And yet you claimed that it has always been "common practise" that the mandate
is handed down from successor to succesor.

 JD>   That is how Bjorn got to be moderator,

Which shows that the world changes. Yes, there was a revolt and Roy was kicked
out for abusing his power. That ended the "xommon practise" that you claim
always existed.

 JD> and none of the elections that have been asked for by several have
 JD> ever been called since the failed election we all know about.

Failed election? I don';t see it that way. Anyway, what is done is done. The
majority of the participants decided they wanted no more elections.  Live with
it. If you want periodic moderator elections, there is FIDO_SYSOP. The next one
is in March, I gather.

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

 JD> Neither one.

Right. So according to your logic neither one has a mandate. Figures. In the
POTS only age, the mandate was based on right of might. Without a policy to
replace right of might, there is nothing to base the mandate on...

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

 JD> There is no need of a policy.  Common Law (or practice in this case)
 JD> prevails

Common law only works if their is consencus among those concerned. With Z1 not
recognisinf EP1 and Z2 not recognisiong the echolist, their is no consensus
ewnd hence no mandate based on it.

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

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

 JD> Since echos are also not defined in any policy, they do not have any
 JD> mandate, thus they do not exist according to your thoughts. (or
 JD> David's)

Yet the echos exist and they have flow. A mandate for the modarator is not
needed, as there isno moderator.

 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.

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

And so the echos exist.

Cheers, Michiel

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