Letters to the Editor

Response to Kay Shapero
Questions without Answers
Douglas Myers

Kay was kind enough to send me a copy of her excellent response to my editorial last week, making a public "response to a response" possible in the same issue.

KS> ...the sheer volume of argumentative posts...

There has been a lot of that :) However, the idea was to see if moderators could reach some kind of accord on the "tough issues," and what better place than the MODERATOR conference. There were only about five of us discussing it originally, and we certainly could have found a quieter place away from the dissention... but then we would have defeated ourselves in that "accords" without including dissenters is kinds meaningless.

And, in all fairness, many of the argumentative posts originally spun off the these discussions...

---- from last week's editorial ----
1. A moderator is the final authority in his own echo.
2. A BBS sysop is the final authority on his own BBS.
The problem is that these principles can be conflicting...
------------------------------------

KS> I'd treat it as one of those "your freedom to swing your fist
KS> ends at my nose" circumstances. A moderator cannot force a BBS
KS> sysop to carry his/her echo and a BBS sysop cannot force a
KS> moderator to send the sysop that echo.

I'd agree that there are limits to freedom, but I don't think that JUST respecting these limits is sufficient here. Echomail is a cooperative exercise, generally agreed to be to everyone's benefit. Like any cooperative exercise, it's going to require people to do something they wouldn't normally want to do and which they normally couldn't be forced to do. Just ask any sysop who has stayed up late working out mailer problems... :)

In a sense, a BBS sysop CAN force a moderator to send him his echo. The moderator gives up his freedom to control echo distribution intimitly when he uses a distribution system. Back in the "old days," it was considered good form to introduce one's self to the moderator when picking up an echo, though it's not practiced much today. These days, a sysop sends an impersonal areafix message to his uplink's mailer to get connected. It's convenient, but it doesn't require any particular committment on the part of the sysop picking up the echo. Why should he listen to the moderator, who may appear to be just an irritant on the echo... especially if the moderator is asking him to do something unpleasant (like restrict one of his users)?

The missing ingredient here is that committment. We in Fido feel that moderated echos are superior to (or at least an alternative to) unmoderated newsgroups. We in Fido generally acknowledge that it is sometimes necessary to restrict a participant in an echo. But do we have the committment to back this up?

Most sysops will cut a user at a moderator's request - even if they disagree with the moderator's reasons. Most sysops will restrict the user and then work out the disagreement with the moderator outside the echo. And most sysops will maintain the restriction if they can't persuade the moderator, recognizing his central authority in this matter. But "most" is becomming less and less... a moderator these days has got to wonder whether he really can make a cut. Will he be working with a sysop who feels the echo becomes his once it hits his board? Will he be working with a sysop who's total committment to the echo was to areafix it for one of his users, and just doesn't want to be bothered by a demand thinly disguised as a polite request?

I had thought, when introducing these accords, that moderator's, as a group, should send this message to the sysops: we expect you to back us up, even if it comes to restricting one of your users.

---- from last week's editorial ----
Should the moderator seek feed cuts at increasingly higher
levels to maintain his authority, knowing that a feed cut beyond
the original BBS is likely to cut his echo to many of his other
participants?
------------------------------------

KS> I'd call that a judgement call on the part of the moderator. If
KS> it's really that serious, there are probably ways to route around
KS> the problem system. I would say that the moderator has the right
KS> to request a cut at any level, but would be wise to rethink things
KS> if the problem persisted up to the region level.

Agreed. And again, I think that MOST moderators show extremenly good judgement here. Most moderators will work with a feed to minimize disruption. Most moderators will back down if the issue is small and the consequences are great. And most moderators will show this good judgement at the front end, only requesting the original access restriction if there's no other way to work things out. But "most" can be overshadowed by that occasional moderator who MUST have his feed cut despite consequences to other nodes and despite the difficulties a feed might have in implementing such. Some moderators lose sight of the fact that only their original access restriction is reasonable, and that the sysops they are approaching have a vested interest in echomail too.

KS> However, any sysop who does not agree with the moderator's action
KS> has the right to discuss it with the moderator in netmail.

And moderators should treat that discussion with respect. The sysop should be as interested in the health of echomail as the moderator.

--
| Fidonet: Douglas Myers 1:270/720@fidonet.org
| Internet: doug@mdtnbbs.com
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
| From Mdtn_BBS @mdtnbbs.com [ In the Heart of Three Mile Island ]