Alex,
 
> It is common practice in R2:50 when excommunicated ...
 
There is nothing common practice about excommunications. It is a method of
last resort when anything else fails and pardon me the rude-awakening but
you folks excommunicate people a bit too fast and too easy.
 
In 12 years I've upheld only 3 excommunications for a whole zone of 18,000+
nodes and that was each time with a heavy heart and a feeling of defeat
because no other solution could be reached. Then the R50-complaint stream
started.
 
> My question is how Ward's instruction conform with FPD? RC have right to
> excommunicate sysop due to 2.1.12, 9.1 FPD and 9.5 ...
 
You are conveniently bypassing the fact that your rights, as RC, end where
mine, as ZC, begin.
 
By doing what you did you not only effectly deny any appeal possibility
above the level of RC to 2:5004/9, you also deny me the possibility to look
into the appeal of said node. So, if you would really like me to I can also
look-up some wording in Policy for 2:5004/9 as well as yours truly to base
a case on centering around annoying behaviour, even excessively annoying
behaviour, for having our rights generously trampled upon. You know where
that could lead us, but I usually do not get involved in such childish
stuff.
 
So, my friend, are you going to cooperate in allowing me to handle the appeal or not?
 
> Also in the past Ward never demand to return
> excommunicated sysops in the nodelist for working under his/her appeals.
 
You really want to know how I felt when the ZC of zone-1 had to inform me
that 2 excommunicated sysops from R50 had sought refuge and opened a
point-address there because that was the only way to reach me? Because
'you' had exactly barred communication from them with me and the other way
around?
 
I felt thoroughly disgusted that *C's would stoop to such a low level.
 
So, you're going to cooperate with me so that I can handle the appeal of
2:5004/9 or not?
 
> I prefer to got answer on this question from Malcolm.
 
If you want an answer from Malcolm only then you need to write netmail.
 
Question is ... was 2:5004/9 ex-commed by N5004C?
 
If "yes" then obviously N5004C did not dump him immediately
therefor allowing you the possibility to handle an RC-appeal.
 
If N5004C can extend that courtesy to you, I do not see why you wouldn't be
able to extend the same thing to me?
 
If "no", then ... ???
 
You've seen the question in this message ... I'm anxiously waiting your
reply to see if you will cooperate or not.
 
Take care,
 
 \%/{at}rd

--- D'Bridge 2.64