F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.50 (12-Dec-1993)
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| A newsletter of the | |
| FidoNet BBS community | Published by: |
| _ | |
| / \ | "FidoNews" BBS |
| /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 1:1/23 |
| (_| /_) | |
| _`@/_ \ _ | Editors: |
| | | \ \\ | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 |
| | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 |
| |__U__| / \// | Tim Pozar 1:125/555 |
| _//|| _\ / | |
| (_/(_|(____/ | |
| (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| | -- JOSEPH PULITZER |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Submission address: editors 1:1/23 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet addresses: |
| |
| Sylvia --
[email protected] |
| Donald --
[email protected] |
| Tim --
[email protected] |
| Both Don & Sylvia (submission address) |
|
[email protected] |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For information, copyrights, article submissions, |
| obtaining copies and other boring but important details, |
| please refer to the end of this file. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================
1. Editorial..................................................... 1
2. Articles...................................................... 2
Reply to "Conflicts With Moderators"........................ 3
Dear Editor:................................................ 4
Region 25 - Who is pulling RC25's strings?.................. 5
Spanish Translation......................................... 8
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 9
========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 2 12 Dec 1993
We have a slim issue this week. I am wondering what we will
do the inevitable week that we look in the inbound and THERE IS
NOTHING THERE! Send you the editorial by itself, I suppose.
Anyway, there was some netmail stuff to round out the one
article in the inbound.
hmmm. We have to have an editorial within the next two hours.
Demands for censorship continue. Aside from the rather
snide insinuation that we will censor his article because he
disagrees with us, Mr Hagin's article in this week's issue makes
some good points. In fact, we both share a number of his
concerns. But.
This whole cencorship issue bugs me. Why, exactly, is it
supposed to be wrong to say some things, and wrong to not say
other things? What's the diff between tasteful and tasty?
Legal and morbid? One language and another?
It's difficult enough for people to try to say what they mean at
all, without worrying about varieties of standards for
communicating. I can see why we need something like an Ascii
standard or a modem protocol or a pen, but how many other rules
do we truly require? No-one is going to get duplicate or
grunged messages because someone has posted or uploaded or
spawned words not welcomed by everyone.
i had an interesting experience at a party last night.
Normally, when i go to parties, i cleave to someone i know and
wait for them to do the talking while i follow around or nudge
into corners. But last night i was all over the place. I went
from room to room and person to person, having experiences.
I was sort of worried that i was making a fool of myself, saying
whatever came to my head to anyone stationed on my orbit from
room to room. I heard all kinds of stuff i wasn't expecting,
too. i had fun. I had more fun than i've ever had at a party.
If i'd had to worry about what i should say, rather than what i
wanted to say, i would not have had so much fun.
moral: taste words before spitting them out. Taste a little bit
of everything. Some you will swallow and some you won't.
========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 3 12 Dec 1993
Reply to "Conflicts With Moderators"
An open reply to "Conflicts with echo moderators", FNEWSA49.
By Jeff Cochran, 1:371/26, Moderator 4SALE18
The original article by Jamie Adams brought up some concerns that
have been voiced to me several times by users, and as a moderator
(and a user) I have what Jamie would probably call an "egotistical"
attitude toward those concerns.
> I may be just missing a vital piece of policy that I should
> have read here but I was just wondering how to file a greivance
> (sp) or complaint against a heavy handed, dictator type of echo
> moderator.
The proper way, in *my* echo (yes, it is *my* echo) is to make
your grievance to me. I am the final arbiter, and whether you
get yourself cut from the echo or not, I'm still available by
netmail (though I do elect to ignore the annoying netmail). But
remember, if I cut you, I expect you to stay cut until I allow
you back. Though I honestly believe I won't cut anyone needlessly,
I'm only human and if you tick me off I might react with some
hostility.
> The current policies regarding
> moderators states that the moderator has final say in all
> matters concerning his/her echo. This is fine as long as the
> moderator is right and just. But what happens when the moderator
> isn't?
The moderator is always right, never wrong. That sounds harsh, but
Fidonet is not a democracy, nor even a just world. And in the case
of echo moderation, I don't believe it should be. (I do hold
elections for moderator in my echo each year, but that's more so
I can get out of the job some day.)
> There should be some recourse for egotistical moderators to be delt
> with. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is a fact. Read
> just about any echo on just about any network and you will find
> some moderator admonishing some user. Most times their right in
> doing so, but sometimes their not. Moderators aren't gods, their
> moderators.
Actually, within the world of their echo, they are God (or should
I say "god-like beings" to appease Joe who lost his Sunday school
job?) The echo reader does have the ultimate power though, they can
stop reading the echo. Think of it, if every user of an echo just
stopped reading it and posting, the fiendishly corrupt, evil and
egotistical moderator would have nothing to moderate. A god with
no worshippers has no power.
> There are also times when basic rights gauranteed by the
> constitution are denied. Freedom of expression for example.
You have no freedom of expression within Fidonet echos outside that
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 4 12 Dec 1993
granted by the moderator. The Constitution doesn't apply, after all,
you are free to start your own echo and moderate it the way you wish.
> What I was getting at is I wish you could publish an article
> on user rights, redress proceedures, etc. If any exist. If not
> we need some.
Why? For what reason should the user be granted any rights? They
have the right to not read or post in an echo, and the right to start
their own. That's enough.
> I realize that my claims are somewhat suspect because I don't
> produce proof to back them up but I decided to write this after
> reading many messages over a long time on many networks and
> didn't think to save them as I went along.
Not suspect at all, I've seen some of the moderation you describe.
In fact, I've seen a lot of it. I've even gone so far as to leave
a number of echos because of the moderators (SYSOP, HST, PC_CONSULT
and anything connected to Steve Winter come to mind). But I haven't
ever whined or complained or filed a policy complaint. And despite
my leaving, none of those echos has died. There were always enough
fools that followed the moderator-gods to keep the echos flowing.
And that's the beauty of Fidonet. One size fits all, no matter what
the user's economic, political, sexual or religious standards might
be. They're free to access any of 600+ discussion areas, and if they
don't like the content, they're just as free to shut them off. If
the choice is too restrictive, they can start their own echo. And if
enough users believe the same way, a new Echo-God will arise and
settle in as the benevolent dictator they always hated.
Works for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor:
From: Daniel Hagan (1:381/61)
Note: If you care to place this in Fidonews you may...although I
doubt you will.
Dear Editor:
I can understand your reasoning in trying to allow "freedom of the
press", but there comes a point where common sense must be exercised.
As editor, it is your responsibility to overview the article
submissions and *NOT* just to be looking for ARTSPEC.DOC infractions.
I'm sure someone could write a program to handle that task if that's
all there is to your position.
Case in point: Your local newspaper has a "Letter to the Editor"
section which is as close as it comes to a Fidonews type delivery.
In that area, even though you are free to express whatever thoughts
you have on a subject, articles like those published in recent and
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 5 12 Dec 1993
past Fidonews would never make print. Why? Because it is assumed you
should be able to make your point without resorting to the types of
terms used in the .A46 release. Freedom of speech, YES...freedom to
print whatever arrives merely for "shock" value, NO!
As editor(s) of Fidonews, you should consider resigning the position
due to malfeasance. Fidonet is supposed to be a community network.
Its official publication should also follow suit with its overall
appearance and content matter being much like that of a community
newspaper or publication. In short, acceptable to all age groups.
I would appreciate a response as to whether or not these types of
articles can be expected in the future. As NC for my net, I am
required to "make Fidonews available" and that it may even "encourage
new sysops to join Fidonet." Currently, Fidonews is available to my
net via TICK and is also available to users as an article as well as
a download. If these types of articles are going to continue, I will
still "make Fidonews available" as required by Policy 4, however it
will be by File Request only and no copies will be available to users
off of my system. I will also discontinue collecting back issues as
I currently do.
Daniel Hagan
Net_381 NC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 25 - Who is pulling RC25's strings?
Oliver Clarke (2:252/150)
I hesitate to increase the bandwidth on the subject of Region 25, but
I've just read Keith Wassell's apologia for GeoNets, and feel I
cannot let some of his comments pass:
KW > REORGANISATION - WHO IS FOOLING WHO
Indeed!
KW> However, This has caused a 'Snowball' effect in the UK, with less and
KW> less emphasis on Policy adherence. For instance, it is now impossible
KW> to make a policy complaint in the UK, as there is no way to uphold it.
It is rare for a Policy complaint, but that has more to do with the
bankrupt RC & ZC's (and even some NC's), who act out of self-interest
rather than acting for the benefit of all. Nets that are not
completely geographically organised do not prevent Policy complaints
from being upheld.
GeoNets permit the power-mongers to play their games at everyone
else's expense, because an unscrupulous NC now has the power to deny
someone membership of FidoNet for the wrong reasons. The fact is that
under GeoNets a prospective sysop has only one net he can join, and
if the NC refuses him a nodenumber for any reason, he is denied
communication. Yes, avenues of appeal exist, but how many
*prospective* sysops know the ropes enough to take advantage of them,
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 6 12 Dec 1993
let alone win his case if he's been treated unfairly. (What is more,
a prospective sysop is nobody according to Policy, and he has no
rights under policy whatsoever). In every issue, the pages of
FidoNews are littered with cases of sysops with a lot of experience
who have been unable to gain redress via a policy complaint when they
knew Policy back-to-front and were right, simply because the *C
structure tend to close ranks when threatened. RC's tend to support
NC's whatever the rights of the case, and, let's face it, an NC is
easily going to be able to dress up his spurious objection to a
prospective sysop in plausible language.
If geographical nets are not enforced, however, and a sysop is
refused a nodenumber on spurious grounds, he can simply apply to
another net. If accepted there, he is now in a far better position
from which to pursue a policy complaint against the original
offending NC, and is likely to have the support and advice of members
of his net.
KW> Indeed, it has lead to situations where certain NC's will try to
KW> avoid taking a node because of their 'Persuasions' or 'Personality'.
KW> So much for the level playing field where anyone can join regardless
KW> of race, creed, sexual persuasion etc.....
I think very few people would agree with any NC refusing a node
admittance on any those grounds, but that is really a completely
different question to the *node* having freedom of choice. What about
a solution whereby an NC was obliged to accept an compliant
application from someone within his notional area, but would have the
option of accepting a compliant application from someone outside his
area. The NC has little freedom of choice where someone in his area
is concerned, but the rights of a prospective sysop are better
protected. I'll go further, as many in R25 have suggested: What about
a compromise whereby existing nodes could move back to their local
net if they wished or stay where they were, but new nodes would be
directed to their local net. Given the exponential growth of FidoNet
(until the Zone 2 power games, that is), this would probably mean
that R25 was 95% "GeoNet" within a very short space of time.
Once again, the duty imposed on an NC is a completely different
question to the ability of a node to choose.
KW> IMHO, selective entry into networks is not desirable. The only way to
KW> get a good and balanced mix is for people to be spread evenly across
KW> the networks, and Geonets provides this. Its not good for the future
KW> of Fidonet for people to become polarised within networks. What
KW> happens when all the Fascists go into one net; All the Catholics into
KW> another.
That doesn't exist, and not imposing Geonets does not make it
remotely likely that it will. Is it really good for FidoNet (whatever
Policy thinks of the democratic principle) for a few NC's, the RC and
the ZC to force something on the sysops of a region, which only a few
people actually want, many oppose violently, and which results in a
large section of that Region disappearing from the worldwide
nodelist? I hardly think that is what Policy wants.
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 7 12 Dec 1993
KW> The Reorganisation will smash down these barriers of 'Selectivity'
KW> that have built up. There will be howls of protest at this you can be
KW> assured but its TRUE !.
Documented examples of prospective nodes refused admittance to their
local net on non-technical grounds please... I don't know of a single
one. Even if Keith can come up with a couple of them in the past few
years, to read the paragraph above you'd think it was happening 3
times a week. Come to that, why has Keith not helped those wronged
prospective nodes from pursuing policy complaints from these
"selective" NC's? The fact is that [1] it is very rare for anything
like that to happen (and I agree it should never happen), [2] Geonets
will not prevent it from happening (Policy states *now* that the
grounds for refusing a nodenumber should be technical ones and if the
*C structure won't protect wronged nodes *now*, I really cannot see
what difference enforced Geonets for existing nodes is going to
make), and [3] Geonets reduces the options and rights of someone
wronged in this fashion in that they are not free to seek a
node-number elsewhere.
KW> There will be elections for NC's and RC again within region 25. Its just
KW> there are a few wrongs to be sorted, and Geonets is a means to that end.
On the contrary, it's a clear attempt to restrict the ability of the
"grunt" sysop to stand up to a bunch of unscrupulous *C's who want to
concentrate very considerable power in their hands, power which
Policy does not intend them to have.
KW> Within the light of the abuses highlighted above,
What abuses? Keith hasn't given a shred of evidence that there has
been a single genuine case of abuse.
KW> (and here is the REAL admission 8-))
Comes as no surprise to *anyone* in R25...
KW> Some people were delighted, others were non committal, others said No
KW> way, and some were just downright rude !.
I can count the people who are publicly delighted with Geonets on the
fingers of 2 hands. A lot of people were non-committal, because the
changes wouldn't directly affect them. The size of the people who
were against can be judged by the numbers in the Classic 25 nodelist!
Some of the main people who have resorted to bad language over the
past 6 months have been the arch-proponents of Geonets such as Peter
Burnett and Keith Wassell! A region-wide vote was organised on
whether or not to submit a proposed local Policy for R25 to the IC,
and whilst the turnout was not spectacular it was larger than any
recent RC election, and the vote was massively (over 85% I seem to
remember) in favour of submitting a local policy for adoption which
would have made the enforcement of Geonets unnecessary because of
telco condition in the UK.
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 8 12 Dec 1993
KW> culminating in the unpleasant spectacle of RC25 reduced to the level
KW> of telling certain people to 'Fuck off' in public echomail.
Peter Burnett has been doing that a lot longer than the past few
months! :-)
KW> This, it must be pointed out, occurred after there was an election in
KW> NET 258, where it had been pointed out that if a candidate outside
KW> the NET258 Geo-catchment area won the election he would not be
KW> appointed NC. In the event that is what happened.
..and *STILL* the RC won't take the hint as to how deeply unpopular his
actions are...
KW> Finally, we came to a point where the Anti-Geo people said that they
KW> would compromise along the lines of Natural wastage, i.e New nodes
KW> strictly Geo, but existing nodes don't have to move.
That proposal has been "on the table" for a very long time. A couple
of years ago when I was briefly NC250, that was being seriously
suggested by a number of NC's *then*, and a number of NC's were
actually *doing* that at the time. It has *always* been an option,
and remains one now, one which will effectively achieve what the
Geo-Netters want, although over a longer time- span, one which will
hurt nobody, get very few people's backs up, and which will not
result is a large section of Region 25 disappearing from the
worldwide nodelist.
Why won't RC25 listen to more than his own little clique? Why cannot
he accept a compromise solution? Could there be an ulterior motive
here? I will leave you to judge...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish Translation
From: Richard Browne (1:273/323)
In the latest FidoNews (21 Nov 93), there is a poem and article in
Spanish. The poem, which was referring for the struggle for freedom in
Argentina, and elsewhere, went:
Hay hombres que luchan un dia y son buenos.
Hay hombres que luchan un ano y son mejores.
Hay quienes luchan mucho anos y son muy buenos,
Pero hay quienes luchan toda la vida,
esos son los imprescindibles.
(Bertolt Brecht)
Translation:
There are men who fight one day and are good.
There are men who fight one year and are better.
There are some who fight many years and they are better still.
But there are some that fight their whole lives,
these are the ones that are indespensable.
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 9 12 Dec 1993
(Bertolt Brecht)
The translator thought the last word meant invincible, instead of
indespensable, which made a big difference in the spirit of the poem.
The article, itself, was very well translated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Fidonews Information
========================================================================
------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------
Editors: Sylvia Maxwell, Donald Tees, Tim Pozar
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello,
Tom Jennings
IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address of the FidoNews BBS has been
changed!!! Please make a note of this.
"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/23
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/V.32bis/HST(DS)
Internet addresses:
Don & Sylvia (submission address)
[email protected]
Sylvia --
[email protected]
Donald --
[email protected]
Tim --
[email protected]
(Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience)
FidoNews
128 Church St.
Kitchener, Ontario
Canada
N2H 2S4
Published weekly by and for the members of the FidoNet international
amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual
articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The
contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the
rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews.
Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is
copyright 1993 Sylvia Maxwell. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or
distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in
other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or FidoNews
(we're easy).
OBTAINING COPIES: The-most-recent-issue-ONLY of FidoNews in electronic
form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or
FidoNews 10-50 Page: 10 12 Dec 1993
Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Fido Software for $10.00US each
PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere,
mailed Air Mail. (US funds drawn upon a US bank only.)
INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.fidonet.org, in
directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding
FidoNet, please direct them to
[email protected], not the
FidoNews BBS. (Be kind and patient; David Deitch is generously
volunteering to handle FidoNet/Internet questions.)
SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it.
"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings, and are used with permission.
Asked what he thought of Western civilization,
M.K. Gandhi said, "I think it would be an excellent idea".
-- END
----------------------------------------------------------------------
