Editorial

WDBonner@fidonews.org

Well my little disclaimer last week about not permitting Fidonews to become an arena for scrappy postings, got me notified very quickly about freedom of speech, censorship, and even the banner of Fidonews proclamation: "Newspapers should have no friends" by Joseph Pulitzer.

Also other Zones apparently want to see us at our task of electing a new Z1C. Some resented my omitting the comments of combatants and the heated discussions on the procedures and implementation. For any that do not like intenseness of some discussions, bear in mind that the election will be over very soon and hopefully we'll all be drawn back together under a happier hobby by Christmas. <chortle>

By: Warren Bonner
To: Dave Hamilton
Re: ZC Election Procedures

> MG> P4 says nothing one way or the other about a "right to vote"
> MG> in the sense of a sysop-level vote.
>
DH> Yes it does. It says that the RCC will elect the ZC. If the
DH> sysops had any right to vote whatsoever, they RCC would be bound
DH> to that vote.
>
DH> This is the very argument Dallas used to keep a sysop-level vote
DH> from happening. You should pay more attention to him, he's no
DH> dummy.

I've tried to stay clear of comments on this "ZC Election Procedures" because I have warm friends on both sides of the issue; but the above rebuttal is so clearly and simply worded, explaining Policy4 and the only "right to vote" being with the RCC, I have to agree with both of your statements about it. I don't understand the animosity toward Dallas' stand on the policy like he is wrong. As I have said many times, change P4!

Until P4 is modified, no sysop vote is enforceable on the *C, no matter what the sysop vote may be. A simple change P4 deleting the word RCC and replacing with SYSOP, may change the battle ground. We can have all of the "Sysop elections" we want, but they are meaningless unless the RCC happens to agree with the outcome. You rather "we" need to put a zonal policy in place regarding elections, because you will never get P4 itself changed in my opinion.

Anyhow Dave, work on the problem of an addendum or modification of p4, not on the individuals each trying to keep the ol' fido-buss on the road in their own way. Stewart H had an idea he thought would solve some of this.

He perhaps did not have time to refine it enough to keep some of us on board. The idea had merit, but didn't have the clear cut verbiage defining his intent for the list. Thus, later several withdrew their names, not because they did not prefer a sysop vote, (most do), but because it did not define how it could be done under present policy, or how policy could be circumvented for list use in a sysop election. Catch 22.

By: Michael Grant
To: Clay Tannacore
Re: ZC Election Procedures
St:

MG> Difference? You accentuate the negatives, and blame the document
MG> itself. I find some good in the document, and blame the
MG> individual for abusing his position.

MG> Which side of the argument seems more sensible? Do words in an
MG> abstract document make a Bob Kohl? Or did Bob Kohl's own
MG> shortcomings make the problem? I strongly suspect the latter.

CT> Michael, in the case of Bob Kohl, the policy document gave him
CT> the opportunity and means to abuse his region. And, with Satti
CT> permanently in a coma, Kohl had free run of the region. I think
CT> some folks are trying to tell you the policy (Policy4) document
CT> can and has been used for individual follies.

Do you blame the tools for the ineptitude of the mechanic? Do you blame the pistol for the cop who shot an unarmed man? The policy is just /words/. What we make of it is entirely up to /human beings/,and to rail uselessly against a collection of words is sheer foolishness.

Region 12 thought they had found a better way, but as it's been clearly shown, someone found a way in their system to go against the wishes of the sysops of that region as well.

Opportunity is where you find it; as a lawyer you ought to be very aware of that. No document, rule or law is without loopholes that can be exploited for the wrong purposes. Change the rule, change the law, change the document, but don't throw it out just because some self-serving idiot abused it.