Text 820, 235 rader
Skriven 2004-10-13 15:22:36 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
    Kommentar till text 759 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: FidoNews 21:38 [09/09]: Fidonews Information
====================================================
 >>  >> The echo was not abandoned by the moderator...

 >>  MvdV> Yes it was. The rules posting had stopped,
 >>
 >> how did you determine that they had stopped?

 MvdV> By monitoring the echo.

for how long?

what determined how long before deciding it was abandoned?

did you ever think that the rules might be being posted but not making it to
your system for some reason?

 >>  MvdV> the moderator was nowhere to be seen

 >> so? not all moderators are visible in their echos... many
 >> do all their moderating via netmail with no postings in the
 >> echo... they used to, anyway...

 MvdV> The address he had provided before was no longer in the
 MvdV> nodelist. So no netmail.

ok... but he also posts other means of contacting him, too... not all fido
comms is done via fido tech...

 >>  MvdV> and had dissappeared from the nodelist.

 >> one doesn't need to be in the nodelist to be a moderator...

 MvdV> I know that. In this case however the moderator was a sysop
 MvdV> and presented with node number in every communication.

seems that maybe the situation changed for a short while...

 >>  MvdV> He did not emerge as a user on another system either.
 >>  MvdV> He was gone.

 >> evidently not as he is (still) here, today ;)

 MvdV> He was not "here" at the time.

ummhumm...

 MvdV>    >> you tried to make the case that it was, and not only did
 MvdV> the
 >> >> moderator, Roy Witt, disagree with your premise,

 >>  MvdV> The ex-moderator did not agree or disagree, he was absent!
 >>  MvdV> That his absence later turned out to be of temporary nature and
 >>  MvdV> that he give his opinion after the fact is irrelevant.

 >> no, it is /part of/ the fact...

 MvdV> It is not part of the fact that he was absent.

the point was about whether he agreed or disagreed... keep your eye on the
ball, please... absent or not, he disagreed with your premise... that's a
fact...

 >>  >> but many of the echo participants didn't agree with you.

 >>  MvdV> Irrelevant.

 >> obviously not... one wonders why the police question
 >> witnesses if their POV is not relevent??

 MvdV> Witnesses are questioned to get to the facts, not opinions.

seems to me that you were being given the facts by those witnesses... they were
telling you that RW was the moderator... yes, they may have also included their
opinions but the facts still remain and they were stating them ;)

 >> >> But the echo that you attempted to wrest away from Mr. Witt
 >> >> had for years operated under the rules that are recognized
 >> >> by the ditribtion systems and the echolist.

 >>  MvdV> So? Where does it say that therefore it has to be
 >>  MvdV> that way forever?

 >> look at it this way... say you did get the echo... what
 >> then? would you have kept up the elisting?

 MvdV> No.

why? why cut off all those members of the echo? what do/did you have against
them?

 >> if not, the echo would have been dropped from distribution by most
 >> distribution systems...

 MvdV> Correction: by most distribution systems in Z1. The
 MvdV> distribution systems in the rest of the world would not have
 MvdV> been affected.

i don't think so... i know that most of the big 'bones do follow the addition
and removal of echos by other systems and they add or remove them from their
distribution, too...

 >> what then?

 MvdV> I would have provided other means for the nodes in Z1 that
 MvdV> wanted the echo.

doubt that would have flown... people don't like to have to link all over the
place for the stuff they are after... it is much better if they can connect to
one place that carries everything they are after... for one thing, is save[s|d]
on the cost... for another, it save[s|d] on the complexity of their setup...

 >>  MvdV> By your own words, it is the moderator's choice. So a new
 >>  MvdV> moderator came along and he choose to do thing different.

 >> you weren't the new moderator... for one thing, you didn't
 >> wait long enough...

 MvdV> I waited until the required minimum period for posting of
 MvdV> rules had expered and i waited until the previous moderator
 MvdV> dropped from the nodelist and became uncontactable.

that's not long enough... numerous factors outside the control of the moderator
could have taken place to make it appear that he had left... i've seen where
moderators have been alive and well but no one has seen them or their rules in
the echo and the moderator wasn't getting any traffic... in one case, this was
due to a misconfiguration in the mail tosser of the moderator... in another
case it was due to a misconfiguration in the tosser of the moderator's
uplink...

did you consider that there may have been a problem with the netseg and another
problem with echo linkage?

 >>  MvdV> I see that you are putting words into my mouth. I did NOT
 >>  MvdV> agree to the "wrest control" part. Merely that the attempt to
 >>  MvdV> assume the moderator position failed.

 >> is that not the same thing?

 MvdV> No, it is not. "wrest control" implies foul play, something
 MvdV> that goes against the rules. What I did whas 100% in
 MvdV> accordance with the rules applicable to me.

the rules of the echo are/were applicable to you... surely those rules don't
allow only the minimal time between postings for someone to assume (yeah,
assume) that the moderator was gone and that the echo was up for grabs... i
know, also, that echopol doesn't allow for such, either...

 >> >> failed because the distribtion systems have a requirement
 >> >> that the moderator of an echo they carry is listed as the
 >> >> moderator in the echolist.

 >>  MvdV> So then why didn't they drop it from the backnone?

 >> because it was still listed...

 MvdV> Then what was the problem?

there was no problem... the listing had not expired from the echolist so the
'bones still carried the echo... until the listing expired or the moderator
requested its removal, the echo would/will be carried by the 'bones...

it is quite a simple system... FWIW: it was put in place to prevent abuses
similar to the situation we are discussing... seems that you folk have too much
"big brother" over there and this don't have folk taking what they want by any
means they can use... there have been many great battles over here for the
control of certain "prime property" echos... many learned from those lessons...

 >>  >> You couldn't become listed as moderator in the Echolist
 >> >> database because the listing was current

 >>  MvdV> If it is merely a database for information purposes, it was
 >>  MvdV> obviously not "current" as it did not reflect the fact that mr
 >>  MvdV> Witt had disappeared.

 >> obviously not ;)

 MvdV> A databasa that list a noden umber that is no longer in the
 MvdV> nodelist is obviously inaccurate.

accuracy is not a total requirement of the database in question... remember,
records in said database have lifetimes upwards of six months or more before
they expire... they are considered accurate until they qualify for deletion...

 >>  >> and you did not have the password.

 >>  MvdV> I do not need the password if I do not wish to use the system.

 >> you do if you wish to correct the record...

 MvdV> I had no such wish.

then why were you trying to take over the control of the echo?

 >>  MvdV> I was not interested in listing the echo.

 >> then what were you going to do with it?

 MvdV> With the listing? Nothing.

then why try to gain control of the echo?

 >> let it fall out of distribution and loose the traffic and thus
 >> disrupting it?

 MvdV> I wish you people would get your act together regarding this
 MvdV> "moderator choice" thing. When I say echolist <name of
 MvdV> criminal organisation of Sicilian origin> people tell me I am
 MvdV> wrong, that there is no pressure and that moderators are free
 MvdV> to use the services of the echolist system or not.

this is true... if you use the echolist, your echo can enjoy wider distribution
than if it doesn't...

 MvdV> But now that I express the wish not to use the services of the
 MvdV> echolist, you tell met that will disrupt the echo. So where is
 MvdV> the free choice then?

you are missing the fact that the disruption is not caused /by/ the echolist
but by the 'bones as they drop the echo for not being listed in the echolist...
there are two (at least) different services at work... one relies on the
services of the other... face it, if the majority of the traffic in that echo
comes from systems connected to "the big three" and they all work together,
then you could easily loose all your traffic if you don't follow their rules of
carriage... if one of those rules is that the echo is listed in the elist, then
that is what you must do... you are free to list or not... if you do not, those
'bones won't carry your echo... its extremely simple...

 MvdV> It would appear to me that moderators are as free to decline
 MvdV> using the echolist system as the citizens of Iraq were free to
 MvdV> decline voting for Saddam under his reign.

poor analogy...

)\/(ark

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)