-=> Quoting Rod Speed to John Tserkezis <=-

Hello Rod,

 JT> Ted mentioned once that he would not like to see
 JT> me getting a PC for supplying echomail to you.

 RS> Its VERY far from clear that its possible to PC
 RS> someone who say has Paul as a USER on their BBS.

 It is.  If someone (be it the moderator or otherwise) demands a user is
removed from an echo, then yes, this can be policed.  Demanding that user NEVER
to re-appear in fido again OTOH, maybe a stretching it a bit.  Exception is
when/if that user is known as a twit, in that case, no-one will take that
person on as a user.
 I've heard of a few cases of this happening, and the twit user resorted to
changing their name.  Didn't last long though.  One becomes remarkably good at
recognising people by writing style after a while.

 RS> He was DENODELISTED, which aint the same thing as excommunication.

 I dunno.  An excommunication implies the complete removal of the said person
from all netmail and echomail, IE, all of fido.  A denodelisting is one of many
ways to perform this task.
 DM had the option of denodelisting Paul, and as it turns out he used that
option.  Another option would have been to ASK paul to tone the abuse down,
and to ASK *you* to tone down (it was another netmail at the same time).

 Hey! Hang on, I hate it when you're right!

 Anyway, except he didn't, he demanded.  EXACTLY the same way he demanded I
do not post any more messages on behalf of paul.

 RS> There is NO provision in P4 to excommunicate someone completely,
 RS> so there is on way that anything stops him from being a USER.

 Dunno, read this:

 P4> It is considered annoying behavior to assist a system which was
 P4> excommunicated in circumventing that removal from the nodelist.  For
 P4> example, if you decide to provide an echomail feed to your friend who has
 P4> been excommunicated, it is likely that your listing will also be removed.

 Don't you think they would use this bit, even if the said echomail was fed
via other methods, (qwk, point, on-line bbs)?  I've said it before and I'll say
it again, Policy 4 has more holes in it than a pervert's mattress.

 Has this type of thing happened before?  If so, how was it handled?

 JT> So if you were to post in a newsgroup, and that group
 JT> is gated to fido via a big name BBS, then technically,
 JT> the sysop of the gating system would be responsible for
 JT> "rectifying the problem". This is a requirement of P4.

 RS> You havent actually established that Paul appearing as the poster
 RS> of a message is actually a 'problem' in the P4 policy sense tho.

 Neither has DM, hasn't stopped him from placing the threat though.

 RS> And then there is also the tiny matter of Australian law to consider
 RS> too, whatever P4 may or may not say, it has to be within the law.
 
 Well, that too, although I don't know what it has to say about the matter.

 JT> Bloody stupid if you ask me.  P4 NEEDS changing and the power hungry
 JT> war mongers are using the current Policy as an excuse not to change it.

 RS> Yeah, its a completely stupid document on that basic
 RS> stuff, absolutely guaranteed to attract the control
 RS> freaks and mindless fascists to *C positions.
 
 Must be those gaping holes in it that are attracive.

 JT> They say it needs the OK from the International
 JT> Co-ordinators. Oops, there is no such thing as an
 JT> International Co-ordinator.  Oh dear, how convenient.

 RS> True, and fido implodes up its own arsehole with this sort of mindless
 RS> insanity going on. Not at all uncommon with clubs/associations.
 
 I am starting to wonder why nobody complained about it in the first place.

 RS> And in that case you cant just be PCed anyway, if there is a problem,
 RS> say with the user posting commercial messages in an echo where they
 RS> are not allowed like Aust_Trading, as long as you do point out the
 RS> problem to the user when you become aware of the problem, thats fine.
 
 That's a moderator issue, and the moderators in other echos are handling it
just fine.  Pity DN is STILL sitting on his hands, and DM took it apon himself
to take over.

 JT> Policy is looking more and more stupider every time I look at it.

 RS> Yep, its a complete dud basically. That 'excessively annoying'
 RS> and 'too easily annoyed' has always been very graphic evidence
 RS> that its completely fucked. It isnt even clearly stated whether
 RS> that applys purely to technical issues or message content, and
 RS> neither is even defined anyway. Pathetically silly.

 Yep, we've agreed that it's completely fucked.  Hasn't stopped the likes of
DM though.  And not likely to either.

John Tserkezis, Sydney, Oz. Fidonet: 3:712/610  Internet: jt{at}suburbia.com.au

... A girlfriend a day keeps the wife away.
---