Text 861, 312 rader
Skriven 2004-10-14 13:28:12 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
     Kommentar till en text 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?

 MvdV> Long enough.

evidently not...

 >> what determined how long before deciding it was abandoned?

 MvdV> Among other things: the disapearance of the moderator
 MvdV> from the nodelist.

shortsighted...

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

 MvdV> Yes, I considered that. I concluded that that was not the
 MvdV> problem.

by what means was that conclusion arrived at?

 >>  >>  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> The official means of communication in FidoNet is netmail. If
 MvdV> that is no longer available one is officially incommunicado.

we're not talking about "anything official"... i suppose you're going to tell
us that those users on systems that do not allow access to netmail are
incommunicado?

 >>  >>  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
 >>  MvdV> a sysop and presented with node number in every communication.

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

 MvdV> It later turned out that the absence was of a temporary
 MvdV> nature. Irrelevant. Absence is absence.

while that may be true, simple absence doesn't mean that the echo was given up
or abandoned... that's a fact...

 >> >>  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> Nothing "ummmhumm" about it. He was gone. Period.

ummhumm...

 >> >>  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...

 MvdV> The /moderator/ did not agree or disagree.

evidently he did disagree... whether you saw or heard that is another matter
altogether...

 MvdV> At the time I took over, he was no longer the moderator.
 MvdV> Only when Roy Witt surfaced again after some time, did
 MvdV> Roy Witt express disagreement.

that you saw, yeah... however, i'm sure that roy was in contact with others via
some means and was aware of the situation...

 >>  >> 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...

 MvdV> They were giving their opinion. Opinions aren't fact.

seems that they were expressing both... fact and opinion... the fact that roy
was the moderator of that echo and the opinion that you were out of line...
pretty obvious to me and others watching that and this scenerio...

 MvdV> That is why the police check statements of witnesses,
 MvdV> they don't just take their word for it.

well, of course... and when many of the witnesses say the same thing, it is
looked at as being the more accurate... its not tossed out as being less
accurate or invalid as you seem to have done and appear to be doing now...

 >> >> 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?

 MvdV> How does not maintaining the listing cut off anyone?

because the 'bones would have stopped carrying the echo when the listing
lapsed... that would have cut folk off...

 MvdV> or could it perhaps be that the claim that the moderator is
 MvdV> free to make use of the services of the echolist is not such a
 MvdV> free choice as the term "free choice" would suggest?

i sure wish you'd get that other eye back and start using both of them...
moderators have a choice of using the elist or not... if they do not, then it
is possible that their unlisted echo will not be carried by (some of) the
distribution systems... it is the moderator's choice to elist and enjoy the
free transportation and wide distribution or to not elist and not enjoy those
capabilities... it is that simple... why can't you understand it? which word is
too big for your (simple?) mind to understand?

 >> >> 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
 >>  MvdV> not have 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...

 MvdV> Think what you want. It is not how they main distributors
 MvdV> here operate.

we're not talking about over there... we're talking about all distributors and
the plain and simple fact that some (most?) users of that particular echo would
have been cut off...

 >>  >> what then?

 >>  MvdV> I would have provided other means for the nodes in
 >>  MvdV> Z1 that 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> What you are saying amounts to: In practise the moderator has
 MvdV> no choice but to dance to the whims of the echolist mafia.

no, that is not what it amounts to... in fact, if it is anyone that is causing
the dancing, it is the backbones since it is /their/ requirement that the echo
be elisted...

 MvdV> QED.

Box Of Rocks...

 >> >> 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...

 MvdV> Your /opinion/ is noted.

not just mine and not just opinion... many others see it and it is also fact as
proven by the evidence... that evidence being that roy did disagree with your
assessment, that roy is listed in the nodelist, that roy is still the moderator
of the echo in question and other points of fact that are also readilly
available...

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

 MvdV> Yes, I considered that.

that, alone, should have caused you to wait longer...

 >> 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...

 MvdV> When the moderator disappeared, so did his rules.

the moderator didn't disappear... it just looked like he did... you didn't
follow up as thoroughly as you should have...

 >> it is quite a simple system... FWIW: it was put in
 >> place to prevent abuses similar to the situation we
 >> are discussing...

 MvdV> And by that created another way of hijacking. As
 MvdV> happened with the ZCC_PUBLIC echo.

wrong... bobM didn't hijack the ZCC_PUBLIC echo... he tried and failed... the
most that happened was that there were two echos of the same name... which one
survives today?

 >> 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...

 MvdV> And then forced their way of doing unto others.

no... they've only stated that if you want to play their game that you play by
their rules... it is their distribution system, is it 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...

 MvdV> Considered by whom?

the elist, of course... especially since that is the system that determines
when the records are to be deleted and purged...

 >>  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> And the shopkeepers in Chicago were free to pay Al Capone and
 MvdV> enjoy the pleasure of not having their business demolished.

just as they were free to fight back and remove that tumor or assist the police
in doing so... some games have higher stakes than others... if you want to play
for those stakes then you have to play by the rules of that game...

 >>  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...

 MvdV> That is why I call the bones the "echolist mafia".

but you haven't been doing that... the backbones and the elist are seperate
entities... always have been... the elist is only in control of its database...
nothing else... the backbones can choose to use the elist or not... there is no
requirement that they do so... never has been...

 >> 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> Simple does not make it right. Al Capone's "protection racket"
 MvdV> was also very simple: You pay and we won't smash your shop.

and preventing that was also simple... the only reason that capone was able to
do that was because people allowed him to do it...

 >>  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...

 MvdV> I think it is an excellent analogy. Just an opinion of
 MvdV> course...

ButOfCourse<tm>

)\/(ark

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)