Text 2622, 57 rader
Skriven 2004-12-01 12:11:10 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
   Kommentar till text 2477 av Paul Sanders (3:633/104)
Ärende: Moderating
==================
Your quoting of that portion of policy is deficient.

David put it this way:

 DD>>> It is the sysop's responsibility to moderate any mail
 DD>>> entering Fidonet from their system.

I wanted to see the portion of policy that says I must "moderate" any echomail
entering through my system, remember? :

PL>>FUCKING BULLSHIT! Show me the portion of policy that states that, as you
PL>>put
PL>>it, or shut your stupid ass glory point mouth.

"as you put it" to David, in particular "to moderate" as he put it... neither
section of policy you quoted covers that at all.

Here's the way it is.  Policy does cover echomail, yet it is very vaugue,
pointing to a non-existant echomail policy, and defering any dealings of
echomail to the echomail coordinators.

Echomail Coordinators are now an obsolte position as with the wonderful world
of high speed internet transport for echomail, there is no longer a need to
maintain echomail hubs on a net level for the purpose of cost effectiveness ,
and anybody can get an echomail feed anywhere, throguh various backbone hubs
and independant mail distributors (I choose the later)...

The only part your quoted sections cover is what I agreed to... a SysOp is
responsible for users on their BBS... the disagreeable part is what single user
glory point systems
interpret this responsibility to be.

It *HAS* been established over the decades by the echomaiul movers that proper
proceedure is that when a user violates the rules of the echo, the -moderator-
first try to resolve the problem directly with the user, then, if that fails,
to
contact the SysOp of the BBS the user is posting from... the SysOp only gets
contacted after attempts direct moderator to user are attempted.  If it fails
to get solved at that level, then the moderator goes to the feed source of that
BBS and requsets a feed cut.  It *HAS* been established that this is the
proceedure.  It also goes in line with the basics of dispute resolution in Pee4
in that it starts at the lowest level of the problem, and levels aren't skipped
in the process.

Not for nothing, but echomail problems have been defered out of the *C
structure of FidoNet, and to my knowledge (somebody stop me when I'm wrong, I
think its so) any PC involving echomail has been dismissed out of hand, setting
the precedent that echomail is *NOT* an issue for formal Pee4 complaints.

So there we have it.  It has nothing to do with geographic areas or anything
either, because this precedent has been set by the *C structure itself over the
years, like it or not.

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: (1:267/169)