Text 2799, 65 rader
Skriven 2007-01-12 22:05:09 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
     Kommentar till en text av Alex Barinov
Ärende: Re: 2:5004/9
====================
Alex,
 
> It is common practice in R2:50 when excommunicated ...
 
There is nothing common practice about excommunications. It is a method of last
resort when anything else fails and pardon me the rude-awakening but you folks
excommunicate people a bit too fast and too easy.
 
In 12 years I've upheld only 3 excommunications for a whole zone of 18,000+
nodes and that was each time with a heavy heart and a feeling of defeat because
no other solution could be reached. Then the R50-complaint stream started.
 
> My question is how Ward's instruction conform with FPD? RC have right to
> excommunicate sysop due to 2.1.12, 9.1 FPD and 9.5 ...
 
You are conveniently bypassing the fact that your rights, as RC, end where
mine, as ZC, begin.
 
By doing what you did you not only effectly deny any appeal possibility above
the level of RC to 2:5004/9, you also deny me the possibility to look into the
appeal of said node. So, if you would really like me to I can also look-up some
wording in Policy for 2:5004/9 as well as yours truly to base a case on
centering around annoying behaviour, even excessively annoying behaviour, for
having our rights generously trampled upon. You know where that could lead us,
but I usually do not get involved in such childish stuff.
 
So, my friend, are you going to cooperate in allowing me to handle the appeal
or not?
 
> Also in the past Ward never demand to return
> excommunicated sysops in the nodelist for working under his/her appeals.
 
You really want to know how I felt when the ZC of zone-1 had to inform me that
2 excommunicated sysops from R50 had sought refuge and opened a point-address
there because that was the only way to reach me? Because 'you' had exactly
barred communication from them with me and the other way around?
 
I felt thoroughly disgusted that *C's would stoop to such a low level.
 
So, you're going to cooperate with me so that I can handle the appeal of
2:5004/9 or not?
 
> I prefer to got answer on this question from Malcolm.
 
If you want an answer from Malcolm only then you need to write netmail.
 
Question is ... was 2:5004/9 ex-commed by N5004C?
 
If "yes" then obviously N5004C did not dump him immediately therefor allowing
you the possibility to handle an RC-appeal.
 
If N5004C can extend that courtesy to you, I do not see why you wouldn't be
able to extend the same thing to me?
 
If "no", then ... ???
 
You've seen the question in this message ... I'm anxiously waiting your reply
to see if you will cooperate or not.
 
Take care,
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 2.64
 * Origin: Many Glacier -o=O=o- Preserve - Protect - Conserve (2:292/854)