Editorial

Bullies
Doug Myers

Sunday Morning I received an article from "Mike" (full name not given) on "The Bullies of Fidonet." It's an article I don't fully agree with - but since Fidonews should be open to all viewpoints, I publish it without regret. The free press nature of Fidonews, however, does not prevent me (nor anyone else) from presenting an opinion on the issue, however.

First of all, I sympathize with Mike in his plight. I would imagine that he really is receiving all the unkind messages he says he is. I'm not following the particular conferences he cites nor the discussion in progress, but the arguments between pro-life and pro-choice on abortion matters isn't exactly new nor confined to the conferences on Fidonet. My own experience has been that both extreme positions in this argument have accumulated their share of unreasonable proponents so that rational public discussion is impossible.

What's unclear from Mike's account is how much he contributed to situation which led to his bannings and heated responses. I wouldn't expect him to report that he went into the discussions with an attitude and drew response in kind from his counterparts on the other extreme of the issue, but it does seem more reasonable a scenario that that he joined the conference posting sweetness and light and received personal attacks from the forces of evil.

Here are two areas where Mike's case against Fidonet is clearly weak, though. (1) He holds Fidonet Sysops and Moderators responsible for controlling messages he finds offensive, and (2) he threatens legal action.

If the decline of Fidonet is predicated on Sysops and Moderators controlling messages to the extent of not offending anyone, then we may as well throw in the towel now. Folks can take offense at anything and frequently do. Controlling ones own reaction to offense has always been necessary for public interaction, and is hardly new to Fidonet. I doubt that this requirement has led to the decline of Fido.

Yes, moderators have taken steps over the years to restrict posting which goes out of its way to be offensive, but the effort is normally directed towards the smooth flow of conversation in the echo. Participants who take offense frequently to the statements of others and expect moderator action in each case have frequently found themselves removed from the conference on the basis that their complaints are just as disruptive as the offensive posting. Which is worse: one who goes out of his way to be offensive, or one who goes out of his way to be offended?

Threatening legal action is the lowest form of echo behavior, in my opinion. First of all, it is seldom seriously intended nor practical and, as such, is only intended as bluff and bravado. However, it's the biggest conversation killer around. What echo participant would want to cope with legal action over conversations which are supposed to be a pastime? Defending against even a trivial legal matter would impose more expense and time demands on an individual than he is willing to devote to the hobby. In my opinion, threatened legal action gives any moderator or sysop the right to drop the threatener.

Fidonet does need ways to cope with the fact that there are going to be less BBSes in the future. Unlike many of the optimists, I don't think that trend is going to reverse... though I think Fido can survive with a smaller nodelist. However, I don't think the discussion is enhanced by taking up every grudge which comes down the pike. Sorry, Mike, but I think you're going to have to come to terms with the moderators and sysops you're arguing with on your own. I don't think you'll muster "Fidonet" behind you.