Text 29256, 119 rader
Skriven 2012-05-29 08:40:43 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 29224 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: P4 violation noted                  was: Janis defintions...
====================================================================
29 May 12 10:21, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW>> You've admitted to not agreeing to abide by P4, in public...

 MvdV> I have stated that the procedure as outlined for applying for a
 MvdV> node number was not followed in my case.

Which places you and your node number in jeopardy. You have denied an
agreement to abide by policy.

 MvdV> The only occasion when policy requires one to agree to abide by it
 MvdV> is when applying for a node number. That was fifteen years ago.

That occasion didn't occur. Meanwhile you accepted a nodenumber in lieu of
a policy that requires you to do so, which makes your nodelisting in
violation of P4.

So far, you've only convinced yourself that you need not comply with P4.
Everyone else has been telling you otherwise. Many of whom were here long
before you and I came along.

 RW>> "or technical evidence. Complaints may not be filed more than 120
 RW>> days
 RW>>  after the incident unless they involve explicitly illegal
 RW>> behavior."
 RW>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 MvdV> The "incident" was my application for a node number. That incident
 MvdV> was closed the Friday my number apeared in the nodelist.

It is an 'on going' incident for as long as you continue to deny it. If
you want to call it something else, that's your business. But we all know
that your opinion is flawed.

 RW>> All I know is that you're squirming about, looking for an out after
 RW>> you've admitted to violating P4 in public. By your own admission to
 RW>> that violation, you have no out here.

 MvdV> I am not looking for an "out". I am not "in". I am not bound by P4
 MvdV> as I never egreed to abide by it.

Then you should either agree to abide by it, or get out of the network. As
a non-compliant sysop, you're not welcome to stay in a network that is
held together by everyone agreeing to abide by that policy.

 RW>> Your only saving grace is my stand on the use of policy to beat
 RW>> someone into submission.

 MvdV> It llook like that is what you are trying very hard: to beat me
 MvdV> into submission.

If I wanted to beat you into submission, I'd file a complaint and get it
rolling.

 RW>> Unlike yourself, I won't use a  policy complaint against anyone,
 RW>> even when they're so blatantly stupid as to admit violating P4 in
 RW>> public.

 MvdV> That is not what is stopping you.

That is exactly what is stopping me. Everyone knows that I'm the last guy
to pull policy out of my pocket to make someone do what they were supposed
to do a long time ago.

 MvdV>  You are smart enough to know it will go nowhere is what stops you.

I am confident that a policy complaint will go to the ZCC for a final
decision. That you as an RC and your ZC had a chance to settle this before
it became an issue of contention will show a prejudice against policy
among the ZCs comprising the ZCC. All to your disadvantage.

BTW, your ZC as a party to the PC, will have to recuse himself from the
final vote leaving three ZCs to make the decision. I see at least a 2:1
advantage against you by proceeding to the ZCC with a PC.

If you wish, we can dispense with the PC procedure (wastes a lot of time)
and just ask the ZCC to intervene here and now.

 MvdV>>>  So forget it, it won't fly.

 RW>> I'm not going to forget it as long as you insist that you didn't or
 RW>> do not intend to retract your statement that you didn't agree to
 RW>> abide by P4 when you got your nodelisting.

 MvdV> Not going to happen.

Suit yourself.

 RW>> IMO, by accepting a nodenumber, you agreed to abide by policy.

 MvdV> Your opinion is noted.

That's not just my opinion...there are several others who agree with it.

 MvdV>>> Be my guest.

 RW>> In my opinion, and I can't help to think what others may think about
 RW>> it, this one statement counts as a refusal to work out the issue and
 RW>> the PC may follow within the P4 alloted time-slot to file it.

 MvdV> What "issue"? I have stated that am not bound by P4 as I never
 MvdV> agreed to be be bound by it. There is no "issue to work out". It is
 MvdV> not my problem that you don't like it.

Your arguement falls on deaf ears. You're bound by P4 for as long as you
continue to hold a node number. Give up the nodelisting or die on the
vine.


                R\%/itt



... besides, IMNSHO, Ward Dossche should resign as ZC2 and surrender his
... net node-number to the ZCC !            - Cato the Elder -


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: Roiz Flying \A/ Service * South Texas * USA * (1:387/22)