On , Peter Garner (1:100/4@fidonet) wrote: 
 > I just posted the following message privately to Bob Stout via inet email.
 >  After a bit of thought, I felt I should post it for all to see. I
 > sincerely beg the pardon of ANYONE whom I might have offended by making
 > this (originally private) message public.
Peter...
  The only one with a right to be offended is me and, as I've already replied 
in email, it didn't bother me a bit. However, since the issue was raised in 
public, I feel it's appropriate to post the reply as well...
From rbs@snippets.org Tue Feb 10 06:25:45 1998
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 22:09:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Bob Stout 
To: Peter Garner 
Subject: Re: C++ Moderator
On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Peter Garner wrote:
> Hi Bob!
Hi!
>   I would like to vote for Jonathan de Boyne Pollard as moderator.
Your vote has been noted - thanks!
>  I would also like to encourage you to relax your rule regarding the
> need for an internet email address.  I think that you have done an
> excellent job as temporary moderator.  However, if you will forgive my
> saying it, I think that adding new rules as to who may become moderator
> is rather bad form.  I think your point was valid and that you have
> every right to express the opinion that, given the unreliability of Fido
> mail in comparision with inet mail, the moderator should have an inet
> mail address.  However, to make such a hard rule, subject to change by
> the next moderator, is not a good precedent.  Allowing the exiting
> moderator to set rules regarding who may replace him seems rather
> unethical.  (Please pardon me.)  Allowing such gives the exiting
> moderator far too much power in determining his replacement.  By
> following the Fidonet rules, we are all protected by a level playing
> field.  For example the Constitutions of most Countries specify the
> requirements for being nominated as President or Prime Minister. 
> However, the incumbent would not usually be allowed to unilaterally add
> new rules as to who may be nominated to replace or run against him/her,
> since this could be used to thwart the very choices and changes that
> elections are meant to guarentee. Again, I think that your point is
> QUITE valid, and very well meant, but I believe that is an issue for the
> voter as a body to decide, not you or I on a unilateral basis. 
The reason for the rule goes a lot deeper than you might think. As
Jonathan himself pointed out, when a moderator is doing his job well, it
happens mostly out of sight of the rest of the echo. The only times you
should see moderation in action are when other means of communications
have failed and/or there's a multi-party offense (e.g. an off-topic thread
with multiple participants).
When I first moderated an echo (the C_Echo back in 1990), FidoNet was just
hitting its peak. Although the traffic (some 250+ messages/day) was
brutal, everything worked well. When I next moderated an echo (again the
C_Echo, but 7 years later), FidoNet was in decline. I had a lot of
problems using NetMail to conduct necessary moderator business. I sent
messages to offenders which seemed to drop into a black hole. I tried
again and once more, nothing. Finally, I'd drop a note in the echo. At
that point, I found that the responses were divided roughly 40/40/20
between, "But I did answer you!?!", "What message?!?", and "Get stuffed!"
The third answer was easy to deal with, but the others weren't.
Partly as a side effect of this phenomenon, it became harder and harder to
find people willing to be moderator when my term was up (I already knew
about this since this is the 3rd time I've taken over as acting moderator
of C_PlusPlus in order to conduct an election to replace a MIA moderator!)
My solution was to divide up the moderation duties, appointing assistant
moderators to cover particular FidoNet zones. Usually covering Zone 2 and
Zone 3 sufficed, since between the 3 of us, we were able to contact almost
everyone that we needed to. However, NetMail problems and delays continued
to plague communcation between the moderators.
I have no idea whether the new moderator will want assistant Zone
moderators or not (it's proven to be a remarkably good idea, if I do say
so myslelf). I have no idea about the quality of the new moderator's
NetMail acccess. What I do know, from painful experience is that it's well
nigh impossible to effectively moderate an *international* echo without
having some form of 1-to-1 communication that's faster and more reliable
than NetMail and without someone at the other end to help.
I fully concur that the rule's a PITA. I wish NetMail were sufficiently
reliable to make it unnecessary. But it's not, and the general trend in
FidoNet suggests that it will never get any better, unless routed NetMail
is fully transported over the Internet as EchoMail is now. FidoNet, as an
independent entity, is dying, whether we like it or not (obviously, I
don't!) Even the Internet itself is in danger of imminent collapse. I
don't know what FidoNet will become in the future, nor do I know what will
become of the Internet in the future. But today, I strongly believe the
rule is the most prudent solution to the set of problems facing an
international EchoMail moderator.
I agree that your ethical and philosophical concerns are well taken. To be
quite honest, it surprises me that someone well qualified to be moderator
doesn't have email access in this day and age (I still don't know that
Jonathan doesn't, only that he protested the rule). This particular rule
isn't at all arbitrary, though. It directly addresses the ability of an
international moderator to do his/her duty. I'd readily agree with you in
the case of an intra-zone EchoMail conference. But once things hit the
ZoneGates, I've found most bets of reliable delivery are off.
As an extreme example, within the past year, both Zone 2 and Zone 3 have
had blackouts where they couldn't connect with other zones. In the C_Echo,
life went on normally and smoothly as the Zone Moderators did their jobs,
passing information back and forth and requesting rulings from the
principle moderator. Without the Zone Moderators acting as a body via
email, the primary job of a moderator - protecting the backbone from legal
liability - would not have been served. I know of other moderators that
have had to CrashMail directly to make contact when a ZoneGate was acting
up. Having an associate moderator only a quick email message away can make
a lot of difference - unless, of course, the moderator is sufficiently
wealthy to be able to afford several international long distance calls
each month. Finally, even when the ZoneGates are working, what's the
longest you've waited for an international NetMail message to make a round
trip? In my experience, it can be over a week. Email gets there in
seconds. 
Jonathan's was the first objection I've heard to the rule. Although I'll
take his objection and yours to heart, I won't change the rule, simply
because I don't believe doing so is in the best interest of C_PlusPlus. 
-------------------------------------------------------------
MicroFirm: Down to the C in chips...
FidoNet 1:106/2000.6
Internet rbs@snippets.org
Home of SNIPPETS - Current release:
      ftp://snippets.org/pub/snippets/snip9707.zip & snip9707.tar.gz
      http://www.snippets.org/ 
      juge.com:/c/snip9707.lzh
      PDN nodes (SNIP9707.RAR) and SimTel mirror sites
--- QM v1.00
---------------