Text 34300, 89 rader
Skriven 2016-07-04 17:00:19 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 34233 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Keeping Things Honest
=============================
Hello David,

 >>> [...] You haven't explained why we sysops need a chat
 >>> area that only we can access.

 JK>> It is obvious to me sinmly because sysops have problems and concerns
 JK>> that users do not often have..

 DD> Worldwide problems and concerns?

Yeah.  She's moving on from Master of the Fidoverse
to Master of her Universe.

 DD> When was the last time a sysop problem/concern was discussed in either of
 DD> the international F*_SYSOP echoes? What would happen if the users found
out
 DD> that sysops have problems that they do not?

Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show would be my guess.
But I like popcorn, and may be prejudiced.

 DD> Perhaps those sorts of things be discussed in a "local" admin echo if the
 DD> masses at large shouldn't hear about them. After all problem BBS users in
 DD> Nowhere, USA or FreezeYaNutsOff, Canada are not of much interest to some
MO
 DD> Fidonet nodes on the other side of the world.

I don't think you'll find many FreezeYaNutsOff Canadians in the
swamp.  But I could be wrong.  There could be a small handful
trying to hide from the Mounties, who tend to be easily spotted
by alligators.

 JK>> Sharing experiences with other sysops in areas that preclude users who
 JK>> may be troublesome protects everyone... Those problems sysops may have
 JK>> that users don't might include:

 JK>> Sysops are responsible for all traffic coming from their
 JK>> system, users are generally not.

 DD> And if "non-sysops" heard about that?

If sysops will not hold other sysops responsible and accountable
for their own actions, who will?

 JK>> Users may want to have secure systems if they are smart, but no one will
 JK>> hold them responsible for things like that if they are users.  *Remember
 DD> why
 JK>> sysops test all software uploaded to their systems, for goodness sake :)

 DD> Nope - I cannot relate to that. Those are BBS issues - nothing to do with
 DD> international Fidonet chat echoes.

Some sysops run a BBS.  Others do not.  As far as I know,
running a BBS is not a criteria to join FidoNet.  And even
if it was, what reason would there be to exclude non-sysops?
Many non-sysops use BBSes, which is the main reason why most
sysops who do run a BBS run a BBS.

 JK>> Sure, a lot of users do use anti-virus tools to keep their systems safe,
 DD> but
 JK>> if they don't do this, a sysop rarely will let that software go anywhere.
 JK>> That is why they are system operators...

 DD> And that relates to the two international chat echoes ... how?

It makes her feel self-important.  If asked, most sysops are
happy to give advice as to what software they find best to use,
for whatever purpose that might be.  Allowing all to play in
international chat echoes would mean more for everybody,
without sacrificing a thing.

 JK>> Sysops must maintain secure and up-to-date systems not only for their own
 JK>> security's sake but also for the sake of their users. A sysop generally
 DD> lets
 JK>> anyone who wants to have access to their system, and servers..
 DD> ne'er-do-well
 JK>> users may, but most likely don't do this.

 DD> And that relates to the two international chat echoes ... how?

All non-sysops are evil.  That was the meaning of her
"ne'er-do-well users" comment.  She is better than everybody
else because she is a sysop.  What she tends to forget is
that once upon a time she was a non-sysop herself.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)