Letters to the Editor

>from Matt McCarthy, 1:396/1.4

Hi Zorch.

RE: FIDOECHOPOL, my thoughts.

Since my NAB_POLICY is still getting linked I threw out the following 'off-topic' post to possibly stir interest, but see that the topic is better suited to FIDOECHOPOL where I've not requested write access. If you consider this 'annoying', please let me know.

If I can be of any assistance to you for FIDONEWS, please let me know also.

(copied from NAB_POLICY)
008/010 24 Feb 98 10:32:42
From: Matt Mc_Carthy
To: Dale Shipp
Subj: Moderators Status

In a message of <23 Feb 98 13:13:08>, Dale Shipp (1:261/1466) writes:

So long as the rules have not been posted, this should be fair game:

Copied from FIDOECHOPOL:

020/021 23 Feb 98 01:58:14
From: Dale Shipp
To: Steven Horn
Subj: Re: Moderators and what

SH>Why would their being able to do their job more effectively
SH>be against their best interests? They already have to have
SH>access to their echo and be able to receive and send
SH>netmail so is much more being asked?

DS>Being on the nodelist would have almost no effect on a moderator
DS>being able to do their job. Moderators are concerned with the
DS>content of their echos. Sysops are concerned with moving mail
DS>(and providing a BBS for users in many cases). Each job is
DS>vital -- but one person does not have to do it all.

DS>The only effect of a rule requiring moderators to be on the
DS>nodelist would be to eliminate many good moderators. Nothing
DS> would be gained.

Well, we'd gain the right to vote, for whatever that's worth.

Next reply from John Glinski:

JG>which is that there maybe numerous moderators that will not wish
JG>to comply with a nodelisted membership requirement to retain
JG>their moderator status in Fido. They know that makes them
JG>directly answerable to P4, a freedom which right now they enjoy
JG>and probably will not wish to forfeit.

John G's reply makes no sense. He would have the moderators become nodes just to be nodelisted? To what end? The resultant 'node' would certainly be subject to P4, but NOT the moderator. The word "moderator" is not to be found in P4, period.

What John G. wants to propose is that 'all cars _must_ have trailers attached to them because we have rules for towing trailers, but nothing for cars'.

Just some ideas for your FIDOECHOPOL discussion. I've not requested 'write' permission, and would rather not at this time. Too much to do here if we can get enough interest.

As much as I hate to admit it, Bob M. is correct, but for the wrong reasons (if he's lurking, _that_ should wake him). :-)

We _don't_ own our echoes, and in fact, there is _no_ policy anywhere that even gives us the authority to make our own rules for 'our' echoes, nor to authorize us to insist that users follow the rules.

P4 makes 'enough' reference to "echomail" to cover that subject for the time being, but often refers to "echomail" as something that should be scraped from our shoes should we step in it. Heaven forbid if a node sends echomail during ZMH, and if a node gets too much "echomail" he can be restricted to 20 messages per day. P4 is in _SERIOUS_ need of a re-write! Times have changed! 1989, sheesh! Small wonder so many nodes are leaving.

What we _DO_ need is a FIDONET 'moderator' policy. Something like:

"Echomail"

Echomail is the term used within FidoNet to refer to electronic "Conference Mail" messages that, while possibly containing the name of a particular individual in the "To:" field, are copied and distributed to multiple (possibly several hundred) destination systems. Echomail messages are segregated into "Conferences" based upon the topic being discussed. Echomail message content is usually restricted to the topic(s) for which the particular conference was created. The originators of each of those "Conferences", as well as their designees and successors are called "Moderators", and during their stewardship of their res- pective "Conferences" are empowered to establish and enforce rules of conduct and topicality to which users are enjoined to adhere.

Moderators are responsible for insuring the topicality and decorum of their respective "Conferences" in consonance with their published rules. To accomplish this responsibility, a moderator may request that a user absent himself from the "Conference". When a user in that category fails to comply, the moderator may request the assistance of that user's SysOp, node, or hub, whichever is the lowest appropriate level, to effect the absence of that user from the "Conference".

Wording from "Echomail is..." down to "The originators..." was extracted verbatim from the FIDONET document GATEWAY.POL. Feel free to use this any way you wish!

Good luck... M.

There is nothing 'private' in this message Zorch, feel free to use its content any way you wish.

Thanks, M.

### 30 ###

>From Deb Milner, 1:112/285

It was with interest that I read Wulf Kreuger's article in a recent edition of FidoNews regarding the filtering/censorship that took place in Zone 2, after all, it's not the first time this type of thing has happened.

Since last year, when a private CRP hub in Net 112 did the exact same thing to other sysops, ie: filtering and removing all echomail messages to/from individuals that particular hub operator had a dislilke for, I have been warning that unless some type of action is taken to prevent hubs from filtering indiscriminately, that it would happen again.

It did. Both here in Net 112, by the same CRP, and now I read that it also happened in Zone 2, by Fidonet "officials", no less.

Folks, if we allow it to continue, anyone, anywhere is going to start filtering/censoring echomail based on their personal dislike of others. Think about what this will mean to the integrity of the echomail areas you are receiving and reading, or even the mail you are sending.

Echopol is a hotly debated subject, but an echopol could stop it. If not an echopol, we need to do something.

What say you?

> From Alan Rackmill, 1:107/101

+ Forwarded (from: Z1_ELECTION) by Alan Rackmill using timEd/2 1.01.
+ Originally from Alan Rackmill (1:107/101)
+ Originally to John Souvestre (1:396/1)
+ Original dated: Feb 28 '98, 13:45

Zorch, you can publish this in the Snooze if you want.

Alan

John Souvestre wrote in a message to Alan Rackmill:

JS> Hello Alan.

JS> Case in point: You released this week's issue at 18:00 PT?
JS> It didn't get here till 05:00, 11 hours later.

AR> And that means that fidonet is going to fall apart because of
AR> that time difference?

JS> No, it just worries people when they can get the latest game
JS> from the other side of the world in 6 hours but it takes 18
JS> to get FidoNews. :-)

So what?

The internet and fidonet are totally different things. They do things in a different way.

If you NEED to have the Snooze that fast, then you oughta get a better life.

This is a hobby John, although I know you make some money off it. Or maybe you don't.

There are many other things that are more important than whether it takes 6 hours or 18 hours to get out.

At this point in time, fidonet is the absolutely last thing in order of importance to me. Why should I worry about when Fidonews arrives when I had thyroid surgery to remove a malignant tumor, scheduled for 2/6/98 cancelled, because I had a stroke on 2/4/98.

And now that the effects of the stroke are almost gone, and I am back to normal there, my kidneys are failing so that I will probably be going on dialysis very shortly.

And that doesn't even get into my chronic Congestive Heart Failure, Coronary Artery Disease, High Blood Pressure, Arthritis and Gout. All of which are acting up.

So, do you really thing I should get upset because it takes a little longer for the Snooze, or anything else, for that matter, to get to my system?

No chance.

But that doesn't mean that I am just going to sit by while you try to screw everything up because you can't control it, you can think again.

It is about time you stepped back and stopped trying to take over everything, and trying to destroy what you can't control and get back to what this hobby is all about: Communicating with the other sysops and HELPING them when they need help.

Alan

Team OS/2,
Fidonet 1:107/101, ibmNET 40:4371/101, OS2NET 80:135/15
internet: alanrackmill@mindspring.com

___ timEd/2 1.01
- Origin: The Maven's Roost * MAX/2 * WARP * v.34 1-908-821-4533
(1:107/101)

### 30 ###

An open comment to first, Bob Satti and then, all. It's from someone who genuinely cares about FidoNet, has the ability to operate within its scheme of things and, I think, has helped draw out a proper viewpoint from some of those who do care, in a proper way.

Specifically, my congratulations to Bob Kohl.. He has demonstrated an interesting perspective in the dynamics of FidoNet opinion gathering...

as have I by losing in the way I did.

Now lets's examine that.... chuckle...........

This has nothing to do about my losing or Bob winning. Please do *NOT* make the mistake of thinking this is sour grapes. Winning or losing is frankly not that important to me; FidoNet is.

To those who voted for me, *THANK YOU VERY MUCH*. I had been wondering about what to do about spending time on Fido in the future. For anyone not known in Zone-wide circles to have done this well tells me there is a place for what we stand for. We should march forward. :)

First, a *HUGE* vote of confidence and thanks to EC Martin Belcke for doing one of the most important jobs in Fido's history and doing it very well. I respect work. I admire good work. Martin's work was good work. Thanks also to Lisa Gronke. Yes, folks, she did a fine job.

From here on, this is all about, "What if?" It is administrative analysis of what we must do to keep FidoNet as alive and well as can be expected, under the circumstances. I think I speak for all who supported me; I hope so. Skip the details of a vote not counted or a percentage point not rounded. This is about the big picture, including the small stuff.

In this ballot process format I counted a published 314 votes:

25% or 78 - voters - cooperated with full vote choice slates.

44% or 139 - voters - refused to use it, voting a single vote.

No, I'm not in favor of holding elections like P4 suggests, with a simple majority of those bothering to vote in a single round settling matters on big issues. As a "suggested" P4 format election, the "winner" would have had a 45 vote first round "win." That vote method would have said nothing that *MOST* of the few willing to help guide Fido are *NOT* happy with the way things are. This is not a minor issue; it is a biggee. It's critical to address this group for Fido to live. For FidoNet to survive, we must learn better how to upgrade the appointment game to walk a finer line between appointment and elections to best determine where that line is.

Yes, FidoNet is not a democracy. I'm comfortable about that as a FidoNet member, NC and proponent. Yet, this election was so important because it was the best sounding board we have had for determining how to define that line, properly used. This election was crucial in a far greater sense, because the *FORMAT* of the election, preferential balloting, gave us a chance to really learn something about Fido and what may be really wrong.

However, this *SPECIFIC* form of a preferential ballot may not be what is needed to save FidoNet. This preferential ballot format was, I think, an error. By counting partial ballot votes not carried to the full depth, we will never know what the MAJORITY really wanted. Refusing to fill it out completely, said, "I'm out of here", then silence. We can't afford that. More than half the voters didn't want it. They said so. Forced on them, although they cared and made an effort to get something done for the real majority wish in FidoNet, their real wants have, again, been stripped from them. This has nothing to do with who won or lost. We *ALL* lost:

1. Only 78 or 24% of the total 314 voters were damned well firm about what they wanted from the start. Only this one-fourth of the voters bothered to vote a whole rank of candidates. On first round stats, as a "P4 compliant" election, (Just guidelines!), that would have produced a firm 45 vote "margin" for the "winner." Done that way, the simple majority of votes cast, I hold, would do a really bad job of producing any true view of the electorate. This election proved that, I think.
2. In this "ending", the "winner" had a 30 vote "margin", but won nothing. Run this way, 139+109=248 or 79% of the voters 'fixed' their opinion at the end. However, that's not the real story! The full 139 voters who wouldn't use the ballot format never really "voted." The "results" of the election merely indicate almost *HALF* of the entire crew just gave up messing with it.
3. In my opinion, the total vote *DECLINED* from what it *COULD* have been, because of the ballot format! That's sad. These were people from which we badly needed to hear views.

The worst part about preferential voting was also very beautifully shown here! Two top candidates together produced total first round results of 72+117=189 votes, more than the required 159 to win on the first round. The second and third place 72+54=126 votes were not enough to win. A run-off would have been between the top two candidates. In a conventional election, a waning candidate often declares support for someone else, if they wish, at run-off time. I believe this markedly alters elections. Thus a preferential ballot, in general, stole that opportunity away from FidoNet at a time when we most decidedly need to know the real best answer from our members. I believe people often change their vote, at times, completely, after further discussion and round one, yielding a greater worth to an election, more accurately measuring desires of the people. This election didn't yield that, in my opinion; it prevented it.

Secondly, preferential balloting makes it more difficult to bring in the fold of lesser candidates for the common good, following an election. I have come to understand, of elections, long before this one, this is a necessary part of the political "healing" process required to forge future alliances for good, those that move polity out of the "graveyard" so the skeletons can be bleached in the sun and we can move forward.

In politics, as in much of life, psychologically, we are still "hedonistic calculators." We make decisions as human beings, very much on the basis of our personal integral calculus. This hurts so much we either want more or we don't; a little less or more and see how much less or more we hurt. That is the pinnacle of human existence, the thing that best separates us from other animals, and, in fact, from some of the most animalistic of the human race itself! Preferential voting deprives us of this human need.

Now, again, in the below here, do *NOT* interpret what follows as sour grapes. It is not. It is a very genuine attempt to use the results of the ballot to really show just how bad the issue of Bob's way of doing things is hurting FidoNet and what absolutely must be addressed to plan for Fido for the future, if, as I see it, we are to survive.

In the best analysis I can make, of the people whom DID vote for more than one candidate, somewhat per the format, the following is Bob Kohl's final position - the *LAST* person any voter wanted to see run things:

53 of those voters ranked Bob Kohl dead last.

9 of those voters ranked Mike Luther dead last.

Of course, irrespective of a #2 choice only, chuckle!

But wait! When the voters *DID* cooperate *FULLY* with the format, Messr. Kohl was in the unadmirable position of being disliked so damned badly that he was, in the case of the 78 voters that were good enough to rank all of the candidates... even WORSE off:

42 of 78 such candidates who really knew what they wanted,
or 53% told us *EXACTLY* what is wrong with FidoNet.

2 of 78 such candidates who really knew what they wanted,
or 3% put the #2 candidate in that unenviable place.

We see a perfect example why we shouldn't use this form of preferential balloting here, in my opinion. Because the fallacy of permitting a one vote-level ballot, or a repetitive same vote ballot was allowed in the count, it hid, "If my candidate is really that bad, whom do I wish to suffer under the least?" How? It hid the real ripoff of this election for FidoNet!

Most importantly, the real ripoff of this experiment is that 21% or 65 voters were deprived of voicing their *ALTERABLE* opinions in a run off! Those 65 votes could have swung this election wildly either way, folks. That is why it may never be clear to anyone, what might have happened, had folks been given a chance to vote the way they wanted to vote, the way they are comfortable in voting and the way in which they could have best given in service to FidoNet! In making appointments on what we did here, we may never best make them now, simply because of the ballot format!

I stated in the comment in the election process, that the most divisive issues always focus closer and closer to one vote wins, or losses. What this election cost the opportunity to determine, for FidoNet, because of the way the ballot was set up, was a real opportunity, for the amount of time invested on the part of all. We lost a real handle on just how close or far we are to what will be needed to carry us forward.

What we really lost, was the ability to best determine, whether what Bob Kohl or Mike Luther stands for will kill us, or carry us into the future. We really settled nothing about the divisions of leadership in Fido that are the single most important thing we *MUST* fix to best keep Fido alive and guarding the dog house for us all.

To really understand what is needed, we needed *ALL* six vote steps from *EVERYONE*, or at worst, have a reasonable majority of those in FidoNet whom did vote do that! I hope an awfully good chance to really look at what is needed for FidoNet is not thrown away.

If I were Bob Satti, I would invite anyone whom wanted to fill in the rest of the ballot to do so, netmail him the results. Then he should act accordingly. The fate of Fido is too important for any less, I opine. The deal you do not investigate is always the deal you lose and this has nothing to do with who "won" or "lost" this race. :)

Mike @ 117/3001

### 30 ###