FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
network mail 24 hours a day.
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
are used with permission.
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
article submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is
properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish
every responsible submission received.
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
We need a fresh look at Excommunication .................. 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 3
Does the I in IFNA mean Anything? ........................ 3
A New Echomail Backbone System ........................... 6
How Did This Happen? ..................................... 11
Hasn't This Gone Far Enough? ............................. 12
Democracy? Who needs it? ................................ 15
Vervan's Gaming Net ...................................... 19
Words from Zone 1 Coordinator ............................ 22
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 25
And more!
FidoNews 6-33 Page 1 14 Aug 1989
Excommunication. It's the only punitive measure we have to deal
with problems in FidoNet. Is that a Good Thing? I don't think
so.
Now, before you think this is going to turn into some kind of
attack on the *C's, let me make it very plain that I am entirely
supportive of their attempts to keep things going with what
they've got. I don't agree with a lot of what they have done
(and probably will differ with many things that they will do in
the future) but they're trying. Very hard.
I think the problem lies in the lack of good tools. And perhaps
just a bit too much authoritarianism.
Why is there such a thing as excommunication? Its primary
purpose was originally to deal with technical problems, such as
nodes that didn't answer the phone any more, or had answering
machines on their lines, or whatever. That makes sense. If a
node isn't functioning as one, then it should be removed from the
nodelist.
But even THEN, there was "The Dog House". A nonfunctioning node
wasn't removed right away. It was listed in The Dog House for a
few weeks, and then taken out of the nodelist if it didn't
resurface as a working node.
What ever happened to The Dog House? And doesn't that make sense
for at least SOME of the non-technical situations for which nodes
have been removed from the Nodelist?
I know that there are social and other reasons why someone in a
"position of authority" must get involved in the way FidoNet is
interfaced to and/or used by someone on occasion, but for most
situations, " a misused node number" sounds a lot like "a non
functioning node". Maybe the same logic should apply.
What ever happened to the "don't be easily annoyed" part of
Policy? Isn't that ever taken into account? Harry Lee suggested
once that a "You Bet Your Node Number" clause should be added to
Policy to reduce the number of frivolous complaints. Interesting
thought. But the goal should be to keep BOTH nodes, if at all
possible.
Why are the *C's so heavily involved in personal squabbles
between nodes? Is there some reason why "This isn't a technical
or legal (Yes, Virginia, there are litigious people in FidoNet)
issue and it isn't affecting the flow of mail. You two work it
out on your own" shouldn't be a valid response to a Policy
complaint?
FidoNews 6-33 Page 2 14 Aug 1989
So what should we do? How about cleaning up Policy4? Get rid of
most if not all of the parts that have no technical basis. Let's
put The Dog House back. Let's allow reinstatement of
excommunicated nodes (with suitable confirmation that the reason
for removal has been addressed).
Most importantly, this idea that an excommunicated SysOp should
not be allowed to post into an echomail area carried anywhere in
FidoNet is unenforceable and should be set aside. Echomail has
its own enforcement tools and those can be employed in the event
that the excommunicated SysOp creates a nuisance.
I'd sure like to see a worldwide synchronized nodelist. Isn't
that what the *C's are supposed to be in the business of
producing? Can we get some attention to that issue, guys?
Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 3 14 Aug 1989
As the 1989 Fidocon draws near, so does another IFNA Board of
Directors meeting. Having served on the IFNA BoD for 12 months,
as Director for Division 12, I have come to appreciate the
frustrations that have caused many good people in the Fidonet
give up and to walk away from IFNA.
My specific goals in seeking election to IFNA were to make the
organisation live up to the "International" part of its name. To
date I have been almost totally frustrated in making any progress
at all towards those goals.
Firstly, all the BoD meetings are held in North America. It is
not financially possible for me to attend these meetings as it
would cost me approximately 5 days (due to time zone differences
and jet lag) and somewhere in the region of $2500 dollars.
Secondly, there is no provision in the structure of IFNA for me
to appoint a proxy to attend and vote at BoD meetings. Under the
IFNA bylaws I am able to appoint an Alternate Director for my
District, however an Alternate has much more responsibility and
potential power than a proxy does and I am not prepared to
consider appointing an Alternate who do not come from Division
12.... and of course anyone from Division 12 will generally also
have the same financial and time restrictions on attending BoD
meetings as I do. Catch 22.
Thirdly, no minutes have been published for the past two BoD
meeting, so I have no way of knowing what really transpired
there. Fortunately Matt Whelan, the At-Large Director who
resides close by to me, is usually able to time business trips to
coincide with Fidocon so at least I have some idea at what
happened on the last Fidocon BoD meeting.
The lack of minutes has been a significant problem for the BoD in
that we cannot agree in electronic discussions on what was
actually agreed on at the last face to face meeting because there
are no minutes to refer to!
Fourthly, when the last set of by-laws amendments were put out
for voting on by the IFNA membership, all the international
members had their voting papers SURFACED MAILED to them.... so
they did not arrive until after the closing date for the vote.
Those amendments created a new Division 3 for Australia and New
Zealand, but the IFNA members in this part of the world were not
given any opportunity to vote on whether it was what they wanted
or not. Division 12 now covers the remainder of Fidonet Zone 3
and I am in the somewhat difficult position of not living in the
FidoNews 6-33 Page 4 14 Aug 1989
Division that I now represent.
So, here I am, a member of the IFNA BoD who is completely unable
to actually do anything as far as influencing IFNA for the
members I represent. From my experience on the BoD to date I
cannot realistically see the I in IFNA as anything but a
farcical.
Another major concern for me is the attempt by some BoD members
to spread the role of IFNA to cover networks other than the
network called Fidonet. I joined IFNA because it was an
organisation for the network called Fidonet and I have zero
interest in IFNA trying to represent other networks. Apparently
there was some discussion about this at the Fidocon 1988 BoD
meeting but as there are no minutes the recollections of what was
agreed or not amongst the BoD at that time seem to depend on who
is doing the recollecting.
I have asked the secretary of IFNA to place the following items
on the Agenda for the Fidocon 1989 BoD meeting in one last
attempt to try and make IFNA pay anything more than lip service
to both the I and FN in it's name. Time will tell whether this
will be any more successful than my other attempts.
[The following 3 line quote is extracted from a message to BoD
members by Kris Veitch, the IFNA secretary]
> BTW - I am also accepting ideas and items for the Agenda that
> I would like to publish by the 10th of August if possible.
> Thanks in advance.
Item 1.
This organisation resolves to disband itself within one calendar
month if minutes of this Board Meeting are not publically
published within 10 working days of the end of the meeting.
Item 2
This organisation resolves to disband itself within two calendar
months if minutes of the previous two Board meetings (Fidocon
1988 and February 1989) are not publically published within 20
working days of the end of this Board Meeting.
Item 3.
IFNA resolves to give up the pretence of be an international
organisation and rename itself to the North American Fidonet
Association.
FidoNews 6-33 Page 5 14 Aug 1989
Item 4.
Should Item 3 be adopted, that all NAFNA districts outside of
North America be dissolved immediately.
Item 5.
Should Item 3 not be adopted that IFNA immediately implements a
method that allows IFNA directors not located in North America to
participate meaningfully in voting at BoD meetings. (Assigning
an Alternate who does not come from the area represented in order
to get a vote a BoD meetings is a complete farce.)
Item 6.
Should item 3 not be adopted, that provision for the payment of
IFNA dues by internationally available credit cards, as discussed
and agreed in principle at the BoD Meeting at Fidocon 1988 (if I
had the minutes I could quote the resolution), be implemented
immediately.
Item 7.
That IFNA (or NAFNA) affirms that it solely exists to serve the
technical advancement of the network called Fidonet and has no
interest in serving other networks which may be based on Fidonet
technology.
Item 8.
The IFNA (or NAFNA) affirms that it abhors politicisation of the
technical administration of Fidonet by ANYONE.
Item 9
I wish to advise that should Items 1, 2 and 5 not be adopted my
resignation as a member of the BoD is tendered immediately as I
cannot meaningfully participate in any aspect of BoD activities.
If items 1, 2 and 5 are not adopted the organisation will have
proved itself morally bankrupt unless it does adopt item 3.
Bill Bolton
Vice President - Technical Co-ordinator
Division 12 Director
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 6 14 Aug 1989
Jack Decker 154/8 (via 154/0)
LCRnet 77:1011/8
A NEW ECHOMAIL BACKBONE SYSTEM
I can just bet that some of you, having read the title, are
already thinking that this is going to be a) an attack on the
present echomail backbone, and b) an attempt to replace the
current backbone system with something resembling total anarchy.
Well, please hold on for a moment before you pass judgement, and
hear me out.
Despite the differences I've had with certain folks over the
attempts to impose geographic restrictions over echomail (and
over Fidonet in general, I might add), I have a lot of respect
for the guys that operate the Fidonet echomail backbone and the
Star system. In many cases these guys have volunteered their
equipment and their time to the mostly thankless task of making
sure that echomail flows smoothly. Even though we may disagree
on various points of what should or should not be in Policy, we
have to give these guys a lot of credit for the job they've been
doing in moving the echoes around.
What concerns me, however, is the attempts to make the Fidonet
echomail backbone an "enforcement arm" for the Fidonet *C
structure.
For those of you that may not have heard, certain Fidonet *C's
(notably David Dodell and Justin Marquez, the former IC and
former Region 19 RC respectively) have decreed that if a node is
excommunicated from Fidonet, they may not participate in any echo
that is carried on the Fidonet backbone. Not even if the echo
originates in another network. Not even if the excommunicated
sysop calls in as a user on another board. And, any board that
allows an excommunicated sysop access to an echo area that might
be carried on any Fidonet node is itself subject to
excommunication.
The logic behind this is that if a sysop is expelled from Fidonet
for being a troublemaker, it sort of defeats the purpose of
excommunication if he can get right back into the Fidonet echoes
by joining another network. While that is a valid point, it
leaves so many loose ends as to be a nightmare to enforce. Just
some of the questions left hanging by this decree include:
* Does the reason for the excommunication make any difference?
For example, should a sysop excommunicated for technical reasons
(running a mailer that won't properly observe ZMH, for example)
be barred from participating in Fidonet echo conferences as a
user of another system? (The decree left no room for such
distinctions, all excommunications are treated as though the
sysop in question is a twit that does not deserve access to
Fidonet).
FidoNews 6-33 Page 7 14 Aug 1989
* Is there any time limit, after which the sysop in question
would be eligible to participate in Fidonet echoes again? (Under
the decree as stated, a sysop excommunicated at age 13 for being
a twit would still be denied access to Fidonet echoes at age 65,
should anyone care to keep track of excommunicated sysops that
long. In other words, an excommunication is considered a "life
sentence" under current Policy).
* What if a "John Smith" manages to get himself excommunicated
from Fidonet? Must Fidonet Sysops all over the world deny access
to every John Smith in the world, in order to keep the name "John
Smith" from appearing in the "From" line of a message that
originates from their board (on the chance that it might be the
excommunicated John Smith, accessing an echo area from their
board which would make the sysop of that board subject to
immediate excommunication?) Will we, as one sysop asked, now be
required to receive an "excommunicated sysops list" each week
that contains a list of user names that must not be permitted to
have access to echomail areas? (The irony of this is that the
REAL excommunicated "John Smith" could just log onto other boards
(or set up another BBS of his own) using an assumed name, so that
other "John Smiths" would get hassled while the real,
excommunicated John Smith could keep on posting under a different
name!). By the way, if you don't appreciate the possible impact
of this, substitute YOUR name for "John Smith" in this paragraph
(and pretend you're NOT the one that got excommunicated!).
My personal feeling is that Fidonet is beginning to take on some
of the traits of a religious cult (this latest dictum sounds just
like a practice known as "shunning" which is practiced by several
cults. It's an attempt to keep those who have been inside the
organization and then left from communicating with the
"faithful", and possibly exposing them to thoughts and ideas that
those in charge would rather suppress).
In any event, I have to wonder how the *EC structure feels about
being pressed into service as an "enforcement arm" for the *Cs.
This is truly a situation where the backbone and Star system
operators have an opportunity to be part of the problem, or part
of the solution. The Echomail coordinators hold the true power
in Fidonet, whether they realize it or not (consider how long
Fidonet might last if, for example, the Echomail backbone decided
to align themselves with another network. Without echomail,
there would not be much left to attract sysops to Fidonet).
If the majority of the backbone sysops (or possibly even just ONE
Star system) were to announce itself as independent (no longer
aligned exclusively with Fidonet), the *C structure would lose
most of its power in one fell swoop. Therefore, it seems to me
that the *C structure ought to be treating the *EC's with a
little more respect, instead of just handing down dictates
(unenforceable ones at that) all the time!
FidoNews 6-33 Page 8 14 Aug 1989
In the case of an excommunicated Sysop, I would at the very least
suggest to the *EC's that you ought to insist that there be some
sort of time limit on any excommunication, after which the
excommunicated node is eligible to apply for reinstatement to
Fidonet, or if he chooses not to do that, to receive echoes again
through another network. The way the current dictate reads, a
guy could lose access to echomail for life if he is
excommunicated and chooses not to try to rejoin Fidonet at some
later date, and YOU could be excommunicated if he happens to get
echomail from your system. Do you really want to be keeping a
list of everyone that's ever been excommunicated since the
beginning of Fidonet, and having to check that list every time a
new sysop wants to get echoes from you?
Perhaps it's time for a new echomail backbone system that's not
exclusively aligned with Fidonet. I know some *EC's and Star
nodes might be opposed to this, but I imagine that others may be
chafing under the layers and layers of Policy that are being
imposed by the *C structure (after all, the *EC's are sysops,
too). I imagine right about now that a lot of sysops would
really appreciate access to a non-aligned backbone system.
I have an idea for how such a structure might operate, and it's
SIMPLE. So simple, in fact, that it can be explained in a couple
of paragraphs:
You have a few Star nodes (as at present) that carry virtually
all available echo conferences. These in turn distribute them to
the "backbone" nodes (which in turn feed individual nets) or to
individual Net echo hosts. In fact, the whole system is similar
to the present one, with a couple of major differences. First,
Net echo hosts can go to the least cost echo feed, they are not
required to go to only one particular feed, but they may NOT get
echoes from two different feeds at the same time. In other
words, each Net echo host sticks with one feed (no matter where
it is), changing feeds only if there is a cost savings to the net
to do so, or in the case of an irreconcilable personality
conflict with the present feed (the latter would not be
encouraged, but would be permitted. Why force individuals who
despise each other to have to communicate with each other on a
daily basis? That's just guaranteed to increase the level of
flames and conflicts within the net). The restriction on getting
your echoes from only one feed maintains a proper topology that
avoids the infamous "dupe loops." Please note that geography is
*not* a factor here, and there is no reason it should be.
The second difference is that each Star system would maintain a
list of Nets that it feeds (either directly or indirectly) and
these lists could be used to facilitate netmail handling. If you
wanted to send netmail to another system, you (or your net
echomail host) could send it to the Star system serving your net,
who would in turn forward it either to a) the destination net (if
served by the same Star), b) the Star serving the destination
net, or c) the Zonegate (actually to the Star serving the
Zonegate system, for mail destined to nodes in another
continent). This would give us a FULLY connected network, which
FidoNews 6-33 Page 9 14 Aug 1989
is something we don't have now (despite claims to the contrary).
A further note on that last paragraph. For some reason, certain
backbone system operators have a marked aversion to handling
netmail. In my opinion, if the echomail hubs would handle
netmail along with echomail, it would ultimately decrease costs
for everyone. Consider the following situation: A BBS user
(remember users?) sees a message in an echo area and wants to
reply to it. His reply is really something that could be private
and that does not need to be in the echo conference, BUT, a
netmail reply costs money (if he can access netmail at all, which
in my experience is the exception more often than the rule). So
he leaves the reply in the echo. That message goes out to EVERY
system receiving the echo, perhaps accumulating nine or ten lines
of SEEN-BY's as it goes, and costing EVERY sysop, backbone node,
and Star system carrying that echo money. Then, if the message
contains anything that is the least bit controversial (or is
perhaps considered "off topic" for that echo conference), someone
else jumps on it and the REPLIES to that message start flying,
each accumulating nine or ten lines of SEEN-BY's and each costing
money for EVERY sysop handling that echo.
If netmail could be "piggybacked" along with echomail and travel
via the Stars and backbone nodes, a private or questionable reply
to an echomail message would only travel through the few nodes
necessary to get the message passed (e.g. Net echo host to Star
to destination Star to destination Net echo host), saving money
for all the other nodes not in that path. The message would not
accumulate any SEEN-BY's as it travels, nor would it generate a
string of replies. Would this save money for the echomail
backbone? You betcha. Would it help cut a lot of extraneous
crap out of many echo conferences? Sure would! Are the present
backbone nodes in favor of such a plan? Not on your life,
judging from the reaction I've seen whenever someone dares to
suggest such a scheme in an echo conference (they seem to be so
worried that someone might pass some "free" netmail at their
expense that they fail to consider the obvious savings that would
accrue from such a scheme. It's a case of not seeing the forest
for the trees...).
Many SYSOPS tend to send netmail Crash anyway (they want to get
it there quickly, and would find the possible 2-3 day delay
through the echomail system unacceptable) so I really don't
anticipate a large amount of netmail being dumped on the Stars by
sysops. On the other hand, USERS will send the message one way
or another, and if they can't send netmail they'll put it in the
echo so that it goes out to everyone, so the Stars wind up
handling the message either way.
But getting back to the present controversy... In the "ideal"
backbone structure, conference MODERATORS would be the ones to
decide who is allowed in any given echo. That's the way it was
intended to be in Fidonet (in fact, the last draft of Echopol
specifically gave this authority to conference moderators) but
somewhere on the way to Policy4, someone decided that the
echomail system should act as an enforcement arm against
FidoNews 6-33 Page 10 14 Aug 1989
excommunicated sysops. While this arguably might be appropriate
for LIMITED amounts of time under certain well-defined
circumstances (that would related to bona fide misbehaviour on
the part of a sysop), the blanket prohibition against a sysop who
has been excommunicated from Fidonet for ANY reason EVER AGAIN
participating in an echo conference certainly goes beyond the
boundaries of reason.
Anyway, that's the whole proposal. Not a major change from what
we have now, just a couple of common sense modifications to the
present scheme that would save money, increase the efficiency of
the net, and eliminate about 95% of the echomail-related flames.
I wish somebody would try it before they flame it. If the
Fidonet backbone won't, perhaps an independent "all-networks"
echomail backbone should be set up that would try it. It may
come to that anyway, if the *C's start using Echomail feeds as an
enforcement tool.
Remember, any time a system is excommunicated, or is prohibited
from accessing an echo area, it could potentially hurt YOU more
than the excommunicated sysop. That sysop (or one of the users
of his or her BBS) might be the person who has the solution to
whatever problem you last posted a message about in an echo area.
Maybe they even wrote you a detailed reply that would fix your
problem and save you money to boot, only you never saw it because
the sysop was excommunicated and the echomail links were cut.
Most of us are in Fidonet because we want to COMMUNICATE with
others, and when others are EXcommunicated, that hurts US as
well.
Just some ideas for your consideration and discussion...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 11 14 Aug 1989
How Did This Happen?
Tom Jennings 1:125/111
Let's keep this simple: at no time have the sysops of our
FidoNet network given /0's the privilege of determining how our
network is run. They are not representatives of anyone but
themselves; they are merely administrative nodes to generate
nodelist fragments, help new sysops get online and act as
repositories of the necessary network files. They are ordinary
nodes with more work to do.
A dangerous thing has been attempted, and is undermining the
trust that we rely on. "POLICY4" is simply not in effect, it was
not voted upon by the members at large. I, and many many others,
are simply ignoring the supposed policy "change". How did this
happen?
POLICY4 is terrible policy. It takes the right to choose your
own net host way! It entrenches /0's as positions of authority.
This is insane and does not facilitate our communications. A
"smoothly running network" is not our goal; we are here to
communicate, that is all. We do that well now. Even voting on
POLICY4 is insane, it certainly will not benefit the 6000 or so
sysops in the network!
I've had FidoNet users tell me that their host doesn't
automatically route them their host-routed mail. This was the
most basic purpose of a net host to begin with! The whole
concept of host-routing was to make FidoNet more effecient by
concentrating calls!
Anyways, If a few-dozen or -hundred /0's can vote, then a
few-thousand can represent themselves just as simply. So what if
it takes a long time, expediency is not a goal. If we don't have
the tool(s), write them or do it by hand. Freeze a nodelist as
the "list of registered voters". Have everyone send in a
message. Check them off the list. Hold redundant votes, compare
results. Give it a month. The net runs fine, there is no need
to implement bad policy just to satisfy some bureaucratic urge!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 12 14 Aug 1989
Hasn't This Gone Far Enough?
by Daniel Tobias
1:380/7
A couple of months ago, I jumped into the arena of FidoNet policy
debate with a series of articles. I'm not sure what effect, if
any, they had, but I ended the series when I had said all I
needed to say. Since then, things have gotten even more
acrimonious than before, and I shudder at participating in this
debate, but recent articles impel me to jump in once again with
an opinion, which could get me hated by all factions.
We're now in the midst of a spectacle in which an excommunicated
node claims unfair treatment on the part of the *C's, and in turn
the *C's claim malicious activities on the part of the sysop in
question. I don't know if this situation will ever be untangled,
but it's clear that one or both of the parties to this dispute is
either lying, mistaken, misunderstands the situation, or a
combination of all of these. Determining the actual truth is
nearly impossible, since the scads of net- and echomail messages
(public and private) put forth as evidence by the different
parties could be real, fake, altered, used out of context, or
misinterpreted. E-mail is a perilous medium; in the absence of
encryption schemes which are not presently in wide use, there is
no way of verifying that a message was really written by the
person it purports to be from, and since messages do not transmit
"body language" they may easily be misunderstood even if no fraud
or offense is intended.
At this point, I don't know if I really give a damn who is right
and who is wrong in this particular controversy. I'd rather see
the net work together in a spirit of friendship rather than slit
one another's throats in an effort to ensure that "right" and
"justice" (as defined by whomever is speaking at the time)
prevails.
In this and other disputes, both sides need to back off a little,
and stop assuming the other side is evil. There may be some true
evildoers lurking, but they can't do much damage if the rest of
us don't let them. However, most disputants in such cases are
more likely to be well- intentioned people, even "nice guys", who
through some misunderstanding or personality conflict end up at
loggerheads with one another. The solution is to cool down a
little: "chill out", as the expression goes.
Maybe that sysop's excommunication was unjust; however, it was
upheld by the chain of command, so it must be allowed to stand
without further damaging agitation. Maybe someday when things
cool down a bit he can try for readmission, if he even wants it
after the way FidoNet treated him. But now that the IC has had
his say, there's no further appeal under any present or past
policy document, so the sysop in question is just out of luck.
FidoNews 6-33 Page 13 14 Aug 1989
On the other hand, the attempt by the *C's to forbid this sysop
from participating in any message area on any FidoNet BBS,
whether as a user or as a member of an alternative network
participating in a gateway to FidoNet, is simple vindictiveness,
and shouldn't be tolerated. If he is causing trouble through
such messages, by doing things that are "excessively annoying",
then THAT would be a valid subject for a policy complaint against
whatever FidoNet sysop allows his messages to be gatewayed. Such
a complaint would have to be separately adjudicated as with all
policy complaints.
But, to simply make him an "unperson" (in Orwellian terms) and
forbid his name from ever intruding on FidoNet, is an offensive
swipe at the rights of all sysops and echomail conference
coordinators. If I wish to allow this guy on my system as a
user, what right does any *C have to deny it, so long as his
participation is peaceful and friendly? His past behavior is not
relevant here; his punishment has already been meted in the form
of excommunication. Any further sanctions against him or his
friends must be based on actual, proven, new offenses.
As for echo conference coordinators, they too have the right to
determine the content, tone, and rules of their conference, and
who to allow or disallow. If the backbone systems, which spend
lots of money to distribute the conferences (as noted in last
week's FidoNews), decide that the tone of a conference makes it
unworthy of their distribution, it is their right to drop it,
with or without just cause. One would hope, though, that they
make such a decision for more rational reasons than a grudge
against a particular individual. At any rate, the backbone is
NOT equivalent to the *C structure, and the IC is not empowered
to speak on their behalf.
The *C's action with regard to excommunicated sysops is very
scary. It threatens to impose a reign of terror on all sysops,
particularly those who are involved in setting up gateways to
other networks. Such gateways are likely to be increasingly
numerous in the future, connecting FidoNet not only with other
Fido-compatible networks, but also with other networks like UUCP,
InterNet, BitNet, MCI Mail, etc. Will all such gateways be
forced to place electronic censors screening out all traffic
from, to, or mentioning any excommunicated person? Will ALL
sysops be ordered to screen incoming new users against a list of
the excommunicated? Maybe there will be a "bulletin list" like
that of stolen credit card numbers, and sysops will be forbidden
to allow anyone on the list full access to their system lest they
enter an echomail message?
I'm starting to feel like FidoNet is degenerating into an
authoritarian cult. Some religious groups forbid their members
from even speaking to an excommunicated former member; I would
never join such a group, since I believe in freedom of inquiry
and like to hear all sides to any dispute before making up my
mind. I hope this is not the direction FidoNet is heading. For
the first time ever, I'm starting to seriously wonder if
resignation from FidoNet might not be the best course.
FidoNews 6-33 Page 14 14 Aug 1989
Hopefully, FidoCon will help "rejuvenate" my interest; I'm
attending for the second time, and found last year's to be a
refreshing show of friendliness and cooperation in contrast to
the tone of echomail conferences and FidoNews articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 15 14 Aug 1989
Democracy? Who needs it?
By Daniel O'Callaghan (3:634/383.451)
Bob stared glumly at his cornflakes. Suddenly, their
crispiness annoyed him. He took a sip of coffee, hot and black,
the way he liked it, and decided that it was too hot, too black,
and very annoying. Bob pushed away his breakfast and, burying
his face in his hands, heaved a sigh of despair. Jane, his wife,
came up to him and put her hand on his shoulder.
"Bob, come on. Don't get so upset. I really think
you're over-reacting."
"Over-reacting? I'm a Californian! I was born in L.A.
I've lived most of my life here in San Diego. The wines we sell
are Californian and we're proud of it. We use the fact that they
are produced in California to sell them. People trust wines from
California.
And now? Now I'm not from California; I don't live in
California; our wines are not produced in California."
"Yes, dear," sighed Jane, "I know that state pride is
very important to you, but you have to think of everyone else.
The decision to form the United North America was made in a
properly democratic manner, and a majority of States and Canadian
Provinces voted in favour. You have to respect democracy, Bob.
That's what's made America so great."
Bob could hardly believe that his own wife was sincere in
what she had just said. Sure, Democracy was the best system of
government anywhere. Even the Canadians knew that, despite their
Legislative Council. But something went wrong. Something went
terribly wrong, only he could not put his finger on just what it
was. Was he the only person to miss being a Californian? Surely
New Yorkers wanted to remain New Yorkers; people from Florida
wanted to be able to say, "I'm from Florida," with pride.
Definitely the Quebecois would not be happy with the unification
of all states and provinces into one, undivided country. And yet
it had been a democratic decision.
At work there was a vague, uneasy quietness. People
chatted and talked, but less than usual, and all talk was work
based or very superficial.
Bob's telephone rang. It was Anne, an old friend from
New York.
"Anne! Hi, where are you?"
FidoNews 6-33 Page 16 14 Aug 1989
"At work, here in sunny Manhattan. I just had the worst
workday of my life. Nobody spoke. I had an argument with George
this morning and I had to talk to someone. This UNA thing. Do
you really think it will work? Bring us all closer together like
they said?"
"UNA is going to destroy the way we think. It is going
to take away our individuality. We will be a people without
identity. Oh, sure, when we go overseas we can say we are from
United North America, but how can we individualise ourselves at
home?"
"That's how I feel," agreed Anne. "Even the Europeans
weren't stupid enough to stop people from saying, "I'm French,"
"I'm German," when they unified Europe back in '92. This is just
ridiculous."
"But it was a democratic decision, Anne, and that's what
I don't understand."
"Democratic? Hah! Who needs democracy if this is what
it does? Anyway, It's good to know I'm not the only one who
dislikes UNA."
"OK Anne, I'll call you later and we can discuss it at
more length then. Bye."
As Bob carefully replaced the handset in its cradle he
noticed that everyone was staring at him, but they quickly turned
away. He thought he heard a muffled, puzzled voice say, "Doesn't
like it?"
But Anne had lifted Bob's spirits. "I'm not crazy after
all," he thought.
*
Over the next month massive changes in the structure of
the country were announced. With no states to collect them, all
State income and sales taxes were abolished and replaced with new
or increased national taxes. "Now everybody pays the same tax,
wherever they live," said the newspapers.
All building construction approvals had to be approved by
a committee in Miami, so everyone could live as one big family,
and nobody would feel that his home was not as good as his
neighbour's.
All universities, colleges and institutes of technology
were to be united into a single United North America Tertiary
Institute Education (UNATIE). All UNATIE campuses would teach
all courses and follow standard syllabuses so that no graduate
would be disadvantaged in not being able to pursue the career of
his or her choice. The elitism of Yale, Harvard, MIT, UCLA was
to be a thing of the past. "Everyone is the same, has the same
ability, and will be educated as such."
FidoNews 6-33 Page 17 14 Aug 1989
Local shopping store chains were forced to merged into
nationwide chains to improve efficiency by bulk purchasing of
stock. The stock control of all stores was managed in Fairbanks.
A programme was announced which would standardize the
language spoken in UNA. It was a mixture of Spanish, French and
English. All schoolchildren would be given elocution lessons so
that they would not feel ashamed of their accents when they
visited another part of the country.
Bob reflected on these changes ruefully. Already wine
sales had dropped. Overseas buyers were turning to Australia and
New Zealand where the wines varied from state to state, region to
region, and the region name was clearly marked on the label. He
read in the paper that people in the northern UNA town of Ottawa
were being given nice new houses with large windows to let the
light in, as decided by the Residential Building Committee in
Miami, who also declared that double glazing was wasteful of
resources, unnecessary and would no longer be installed.
Bob could not take his kids to the beach anymore because
they had fair skin and burned easily. Sunscreen was unobtainable
because people in Fairbanks could not see any point in putting it
on the shelves. The department stores carried mittens and fur
coats, instead of beach towels and swimwear. Bob had heard a
rumour that people in Seattle and Vancouver were wearing these
fur coats instead of raincoats, because there were no raincoats
to be bought.
On a business trip to Reno, Bob saw that the only differ-
ence between Reno and San Diego was the weather. The casinos had
gone because people throughout UNA did not want casinos in their
neighbourhoods. To replace the casinos a Zoo was built, because
people liked zoos. The Reno Zoo was filled with animals from San
Diego, and the extra space in San Diego, which the animals had
taken up looked lonely and bare.
Bob reached for the phone and rang Anne in New York.
"Hi Anne, How are you? I had to ring. All this stuff in
the papers. It's crazy." He knew she had the paper. There was
now only the UNA National Times. Local publications had been
disbanded because they did not show or share the events of the
world. "Yes," said Anne glumly, "But I've been thinking. UNA
was not formed democratically."
"What!" Bob was shocked that Anne would utter such
blasphemy.
"Listen. A majority of States and Provinces voted in
favour of UNA, but only the Governor or Premier actually voted in
the final ballot. They decided on how to vote by how the members
of their respective congresses voted, but because of party
solidarity, they only needed a majority of government members to
decide the vote."
FidoNews 6-33 Page 18 14 Aug 1989
"Sorry, I don't follow that," interrupted Bob.
"Look, if most of the party who controls the congress
voted 'Yes' then all congressmen in that party would vote 'Yes'
because of party solidarity. That means that the congress votes
'Yes' even if a minority wanted it. So really, the Governor's
vote was not necessarily the wish of the people who elected him,
or his congress.
"Also, if you look at who voted how, you'll see that New
York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ontario and Quebec all
voted 'No' but while they contain more than one third of the
people, they only had 6 votes out of 58. That's hardly
democratic, is it?"
Bob leaned forward, excited. "You're right, Anne. And
the 'Yea' or 'Nay' system made it worse. People had to choose
the whole, even if there were parts they did not like. It
stinks. It really does."
"Well, Bob, can we do anything about it?"
Bob sighed. "We have to, Anne. It will take a long time
to undo the damage, but we have to make a start for everyone's
sakes. Come on, Anne, let's start on the slow road back to
individualism. Vive la difference."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 19 14 Aug 1989
Ed Branley
Fido 1:396/10.1
Vervan's Gaming Net
Using a computer to play games is certainly nothing new, but one
aspect of computer gaming that tends to be overlooked is the use
of the computer as a tool to enhance multi-player games, both war
and role playing. There are two roles where the computer does a
splendid job.
First is the concept of computer-moderated games. I'll never
forget the first time I wrote a check out for over hundred
dollars to pay for my addiction to Compuserve's on-line game
Megawars, an advanced version of Decwars. Playing computer games
wasn't a new experience for me (even back then on my old grey
Color Computer), but using the computer to play against another
human opponent was an unbelievable thrill! Of course, electronic
bulletin boards now do their best to provide this thrill through
on-line games such as Trade Wars. While it's not real time like
CIS, it's certainly much less expensive.
The second role of the computer in multi-player games is the use
of electronic mail in the playing of traditional board wargames
and various role-playing games. At first glance this might seem
to be an impractical idea, but consider that play-by-mail
wargaming is now a well established hobby. Using the computer
for mail is merely a replacement for written letters sent via the
Postal Service. Role-playing games normally require a group of
people in the same place for an extended period of time (usually
a minimum of three or four hours). Gamers with irregular
schedules normally find it difficult to join in a D&D group that
gets together on a regular basis. Using a BBS as the 'meeting
place' of the gaming group eliminates the need for gathering
everyone together. Sure, some changes have to be made in the
play of the game, and certainly the game takes longer, but such
is the way of all play-by-mail games. Using a BBS to conduct a
game only requires that all players have regular access to a
computer and modem, and call the BBS regularly.
Using fidonet to expand this concept is the next logical step.
The AD&D echo on the national backbone is a good example of this.
With the game set up as an echo, players don't even have to be
calling the same BBS.
Playing RPG's via echomail has expanded into more than one or two
backbone echos. Carl Evans of Vervan's War Board (1:207/105 and
8:911/201) in Cucamonga, CA has been running multi-player games
on his PCBoard BBS since January 1987. In March 1989, Carl
expanded this concept by establishing Vervan's Gaming Network
(V-NET), a private echomail network consisting of fidonet and
RBBSnet boards whose users and sysops enjoy playing multi-player
games. Essentially what Carl did was to allow other boards to
participate in the games that originated on his system. This has
FidoNews 6-33 Page 20 14 Aug 1989
expanded now, with game moderators coming from boards other than
Vervan's.
Here's a sample of some of the games currently in progress on
Vervan's Gaming Net:
* Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (three campaigns: two are
first edition and the third a second edition)
* Avalon Hill's Diplomacy
* Imperial Space Command, a 'play by file' wargame
* Mega-Traveller, a RPG set in the far future
* Star Fleet Battles, Played by E-Mail/Files
* Star Trek, the Role Playing Game
* Villians & Vigilantes RPG
In addition, another Diplomacy game and a game of Twilight:2000
are in the formative stages.
Along with the gaming echos, Vervan's net also includes
discussion echos for gamers, sysops, discussion of gaming
strategy and tactics, and discussion of the network. Also,
Vervan's War Board is a beta test site for most on-line door
programs (games, non-games and door managers), so there is a good
bit of discussion on this topic as well.
Topology: Vervan's is loosely structured at this point. There
are three nodes that carry all of the net echos, in addition to
Vervan's War Board. These boards serve as 'hubs' for echo
distribution. At this time, membership in Vervan's Net is open
to any BBS that can establish a link with one of these nodes.
(List of net/node #'s to follow). In addition to fidonet
distribution, the net is available to RBBSnet (Zone 8) and
HYPERLINK (a PCBoard only echo network).
If you are interested in multi-player gaming via computer, we
invite you to join us in Vervan's Gaming Net. To access the net,
sent netmail to any of the 'hub' nodes, and we'll see about
getting you hooked up:
BOARD NAME NETWORK ADDRESSES CITY/STATE
------------------ ---------------------- ---------------
VERVAN'S WAR BOARD 1:207/105 8:911/201 Cucamonga, CA
Minas Tirith 1:396/10 New Orleans, LA
StarBase 23 1:202/603 8:913/1 San Diego, CA
Dragon's Cave 1:296/102 7:520/802 Towaco, NJ
FidoNews 6-33 Page 21 14 Aug 1989
To wrap this article up, I'd like to encourage even the skeptics
in the group to investigate Vervan's. You'll be surprised at how
much fun AD&D or Traveller can be via echomail. Not to mention
the fact that you might be able to get your favorite game going
(if it already isn't!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 22 14 Aug 1989
Steve Bonine
115/777 (1:1/0)
Words from the Zone 1 Coordinator
It has taken longer than I anticipated to find time to submit an
article to FidoNews. I was planning a more leisurely transition
into the job of Zone Coordinator for zone 1, but a lightning
strike in Phoenix and a motherboard failure on my own system
changed that. I believe that the technical details are pretty
well set, and I have a couple of nodelist generations under my
belt, so I wanted to share some information and thoughts.
First things first. FidoNet owes a giant debt of gratitude to
David Dodell. Most of you cannot begin to imagine how much time
and effort David has poured into FidoNet during the time that he
was ZC1/IC. Even if you do not agree with every decision which
he made, please understand that each action was taken after due
consideration (and often painful consideration), and was taken in
what David believed was the best interest of FidoNet. His
sacrifices were made for all of us, and we seldom had the decency
to express our gratitude. I don't think that a personal "thank
you" to 114/15 would be inappropriate.
FidoNews
--------
Nothing I say in this section should be interpreted as criticism
of Vince Perriello, who is doing a super-human job of carrying
out the duties of the editor of FidoNews, as defined by IFNA
policy.
In Policy4, FidoNews is described as "the glue that holds us
together"; lately it has been more like the wedge that drives us
apart. Frankly, I'm appalled at what I've been seeing for the
past several editions of FidoNews. To say that the articles fail
to present an objective viewpoint is a gross understatement.
With all the accusations that have been flying back and forth in
recent editions, why should a reader believe anything? That
makes FidoNews useless for everyone.
I do have a suggestion. No, it has nothing to do with changing
the IFNA editorial policy. But it does have to do with making
FidoNews look more like the newsletter of a respectable BBS
network, and less like the National Enquirer. In a group the
size of FidoNet, it should be possible to find a few persons who
are willing to serve as REPORTERS for FidoNews. These individu-
als would do their best to get all the facts and prepare objec-
tive articles. On any given issue, it should be possible to find
someone with no vested interest who could contact all the inter-
ested parties and prepare an objective report.
FidoNews 6-33 Page 23 14 Aug 1989
BIX
---
Those of you who read the SYSOP conference are aware that plans
are under way to offer FidoNet echomail conferences under the
auspices of BIX (Byte Magazine's dialup service). I don't want
to steal any thunder, or to cause undue concern. More details of
this project will be forthcoming. At this point, all I want to
do is try to assure the members of FidoNet that the coordinator
structure is aware of the development, and is working towards the
best interest of FidoNet. If you have no confidence in that
coordinator structure, nothing I say will reduce any anxiety you
may feel; if you DO have that confidence then I've said all I
need to at this point.
Policy4 Vote
------- ----
Several weeks ago, Doug Thompson made serious accusations in
FidoNews that irregularities had occurred in the vote for
Policy4. In actual fact, what happened was that Doug sent a long
message to his RC (Tom Kashuba) explaining that he did not feel
that the coordinator structure had any right to vote on policy,
and stating his objections to Policy4. His vote was recorded as
"NO". This is not a case of a "NO" vote being recorded as "YES".
It is a case of a vote being recorded when it was the desire to
have no vote recorded. (Not a vote of "NO", but no vote. There
is a distinct difference.)
After investigating the facts, my conclusion is that both Doug
Thompson and Tom Kashuba have very strong opinions on this issue.
Both of them believe that they are doing the right thing for
FidoNet. Tom insisted that the NC's vote, and that they vote
either "YES" or "NO". Doug felt that any vote was inappropriate.
Both of them did what they felt was the best thing for FidoNet.
I have received no specific complaints that Tom Kashuba is not
fulfilling his Policy4 responsibilities as RC. Tom takes his
responsibilities very seriously. If there are specific
complaints on Tom's performance, or the performance of any zone-1
Regional Coordinator, I encourage any sysop to make me aware of
them.
The End
--- ---
This article has gone too long already. There are a number of
other important issues facing FidoNet, and I will be covering
them in subsequent articles. These include the size of the
nodelist, private/redundant nodes, democracy, a review process
for excommunications, and choice of the next IC.
FidoNews 6-33 Page 24 14 Aug 1989
Let me emphasize that my netmail door is always open. One of the
most difficult tasks of any coordinator is judging the "mood of
FidoNet" on any issue. I consider netmail my best indicator of
how people feel. Use it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 25 14 Aug 1989
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 27 14 Aug 1989
24 Aug 1989
FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89
for info.
5 Oct 1989
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
11 Oct 1989
First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.
11 Nov 1989
A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
formerly served with that code will become area code 708.
23 Nov 1989
26th Anniversary of "Dr. Who" - and still going strong
30 Dec 1989
Telephone area codes (5, 3 and 0) are abolished in Hong Kong
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1
Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210
Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4
Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628
International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1
Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/47
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/47
Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27
Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant)
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30
19 David Drexler 1:147/47 (vacant)
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 29 14 Aug 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _
at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\
August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send
no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be
made out to: "FidoCon '89"
This form should be completed and mailed to:
Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
PO Box 390770
Mountain View, CA 94039
You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for
processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone
number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail
confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your
registration.
If you are paying by credit card, please include the following
information. For your own security, do not route any message
with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89.
FidoNews 6-33 Page 31 14 Aug 1989
Master Card _______ Visa ________
Credit Card Number _____________________________________________
Expiration Date ________________________________________________
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
signature.
Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms
are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are
available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must
register before July 15.
The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can
receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40%
reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American
Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When
making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.
The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a
Car. Rates are as described below. All rates include automatic
transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage.
Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week.
Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.
To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and
request the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89, the location
and dates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-33 Page 32 14 Aug 1989
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
increase worldwide communications.
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
Address _________________________________________________________
City ____________________________________________________________
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
Country _________________________________________________________
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
US Funds to:
International FidoNet Association
PO Box 41143
St Louis, Missouri 63141
USA
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
insure the future of FidoNet.
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
input to this Conference.
