I'm wondering how many ways there are to deal with trolls in
Fidonet ...
...I'm wondering how many ways there are to deal with trolls in
Fidonet ...
BTW, I respect that sysop, I think he is a pure, but the world is not
made for the purest. ;)
I'm wondering how many ways there are to deal with trolls in Fidonet ...
BTW, I respect that sysop, I think he is a pure, but the world is not madefor the purest. ;)
BTW, I respect that sysop, I think he is a pure, but the world isSo you are bringing "sysop" now in the equation ?
not made for the purest. ;)
Re: Trolls
By: Fabio Bizzi to Ward Dossche on Sun Sep 15 2019 14:35:07
BTW, I respect that sysop, I think he is a pure, but the world isif you are talking about LL, he is not an operator... he is a
not made for the purest. ;)
user...
BTW, I respect that sysop, I think he is a pure, but the world is
not made for the purest. ;)
if you are talking about LL, he is not an operator... he is a
user...
No, LL isn't a user, he/she (how can I refer to a generic third person in English?) is a Troll. :)
I was talking about the operator that allows LL to abuse about the
concept of freedom, BF. ;)
I'm wondering how many ways there are to deal with trolls in Fidonet ...
in answer to your question about referring to someone without
knowledge of their gender, here in the US, we generally use "he"
or "they"... other regions use "she" or "they"... some others just
use "she"...
FWIW: you might be interesting in the ENGLISH_TUTOR echo where you
can ask such questions and get a knowledgable reply from an
english teacher and possibly several "english as a first language" participants ;)
I'm wondering how many ways there are to deal with trolls in Fidonet ...
I'm wondering how many ways there are to deal with trolls in Fidonet...
Use the Next key Luke.
On 09-15-19 16:38, Fabio Bizzi wrote to mark lewis <=-
No, LL isn't a user, he/she (how can I refer to a generic third person
in English?) is a Troll. :)
On 09-15-19 11:00, mark lewis wrote to Fabio Bizzi <=-
in answer to your question about referring to someone without knowledge
of their gender, here in the US, we generally use "he" or "they"...
other regions use "she" or "they"... some others just use "she"...
FWIW: you might be interesting in the ENGLISH_TUTOR echo where you can
ask such questions and get a knowledgable reply from an english teacher and possibly several "english as a first language" participants ;)
But we first need an IC...
But we first need an IC...
After being away from Fidonet a long time, why don't we have a IC?
NOTE: top posting fixed in below quote... please post inline... it is much preferred to top posting...
1. an IC died.
2. the ZCC selected a new IC.
3. new IC tried playing numbers games.
4. the ZCC rejected new IC's numbers games.
5. the ZCC removed the new IC from the position.
6. the ZCC has not selected a new IC.
7. the ZCC has been able to handle the main job (nodelist generation) of th IC.
9. The previous ZC1 did not realise that an IC is necessary to enact or amend certain provisions of P4.
P4 is clear on how one is chosen, majority of the ZCs. Since there a only 5 ZC's, you would think 3 of them would agree on who would do the job.
It would be a GoodThing(tm) if we could get our collective shit together we enough to table a working policy that the RCs could work with and agree to, and pass into policy.
P4 is clear on how one is chosen, majority of the ZCs. Since there a only
5 ZC's, you would think 3 of them would agree on who would do the job.
1. an IC died.
2. the ZCC selected a new IC.
3. new IC tried playing numbers games.
4. the ZCC rejected new IC's numbers games.
5. the ZCC removed the new IC from the position.
6. the ZCC has not selected a new IC.
7. the ZCC has been able to handle the main job (nodelist generation)
of the IC.
On 09-16-19 08:28, Mark Lewis <=-
spoke to Terry Roati about Trolls <=-
After being away from Fidonet a long time, why don't we have a IC?
1. an IC died.
2. the ZCC selected a new IC.
3. new IC tried playing numbers games.
4. the ZCC rejected new IC's numbers games.
5. the ZCC removed the new IC from the position.
6. the ZCC has not selected a new IC.
7. the ZCC has been able to handle the main job (nodelist
generation) of the IC.
Acccording to my memory, you have got things out of order.
1&2 are correct.
3. The ZCC elected a new IC. (Who was also ZC3).
4. The old IC tried playing numbers games.
5. The ZCC rejected old IC's numbrs games.
6. The new IC quietly faded into the sunset after a period of time,
perhaps resigned (not sure).
7. The ZCC has not selected a new IC. (your 6).
8. (your 7).
9. For the most part, it no longer matters.
It would be a GoodThing(tm) if we could get our collective shit together we >> enough to table a working policy that the RCs could work with and agree to, >> and pass into policy.
Patience my rusty-mailbox friend...
Since re-joining Fidonet after 16 years, one observation is that there are too many sysops wearing too many hats.
Saying that it may have been necessary at the time and just left like that.
For example, there a number of sysops moderating a lot echos, IMHO sysops themselves should try to limit this by asking echo particpants if they would be interested in taking over the moderator position.
If positions in Fidonet are spread around the group will become more of a community working together, there will always be the odd idiot but they become easier to deal with if the group is strong.
NOTE: top posting fixed in below quote... please post inline... it is
much preferred to top posting...
Oh not THIS shit again from you.
Inline versus top-posting is a problem you have that makes my problems less trivial, thus brightening my gloomy day.
pitchfork1. an IC died.
2. the ZCC selected a new IC.
3. new IC tried playing numbers games.
4. the ZCC rejected new IC's numbers games.
5. the ZCC removed the new IC from the position.
6. the ZCC has not selected a new IC.
7. the ZCC has been able to handle the main job (nodelist generation)
of th IC.
I had asked a few times over the years, including after being elected ZC1, for anyone to clearly prove to me that the IC / ZC2 had acted inappropriately or really in fact has the little pointed ears and
tail.
Actual *evidence*. Not any stories of that he said this, he said that shit. I mean a solid archive of mail sent my way for me to study.
It would be a GoodThing(tm) if we could get our collective shit together well enough to table a working policy that the RCs could work with and agree to, and pass into policy.
1. an IC died.
2. the ZCC selected a new IC.
3. new IC tried playing numbers games.
4. the ZCC rejected new IC's numbers games.
5. the ZCC removed the new IC from the position.
6. the ZCC has not selected a new IC.
7. the ZCC has been able to handle the main job (nodelist generation)
of the IC.
Since re-joining Fidonet after 16 years, one observation is that there
are too many sysops wearing too many hats.
Saying that it may have been necessary at the time and just left like that.
For example, there a number of sysops moderating a lot echos, IMHO
sysops themselves should try to limit this by asking echo particpants
if they would be interested in taking over the moderator position.
If positions in Fidonet are spread around the group will become more
of a community working together, there will always be the odd idiot
but they become easier to deal with if the group is strong.
Just my 2 cents worth.
After being away from Fidonet a long time, why don't we have a IC?
1. an IC died.
2. the ZCC selected a new IC.
3. new IC tried playing numbers games.
4. the ZCC rejected new IC's numbers games.
5. the ZCC removed the new IC from the position.
6. the ZCC has not selected a new IC.
7. the ZCC has been able to handle the main job (nodelist
generation) of the IC.
Acccording to my memory, you have got things out of order.
9. For the most part, it no longer matters.
Acccording to my memory, you have got things out of order.
1&2 are correct.
3. The ZCC elected a new IC. (Who was also ZC3).
4. The old IC tried playing numbers games.
5. The ZCC rejected old IC's numbrs games.
6. The new IC quietly faded into the sunset after a period of time,
perhaps resigned (not sure).
7. The ZCC has not selected a new IC. (your 6).
8. (your 7).
9. For the most part, it no longer matters.
And so history is re-written ... more than once ... to satisfy the wildest desires of some ...
sorry, no... history is not rewritten... the details are available and
the archive of messages is posted in an article in fidonet newsletter Volume 21, Number 21, 24 May 2004 published by bj”rn felten...
i think you have me confused with someone else... i rarely comment about it and generally fix the shit silently...
I had asked a few times over the years, including after being elected for anyone to clearly prove to me that the IC / ZC2 had acted inappropriately or really in fact has the little pointed ears and
i do not recall and specific requests from you about that...
apparently you missed the original post in FIDONEWS (IIRC) about the availa archive of the ZCC echo... it was back in 2004, though...
sorry, no... history is not rewritten... the details are available
and the archive of messages is posted in an article in fidonet
newsletter Volume 21, Number 21, 24 May 2004 published by bj”rn
felten...
You and a few others have done an excellent job at tearing apart a certain message-flow,
That's best demonstrated by your story of the P4 update-attempt of which I was in charge. Whatever you were discribing has not been the effort whichI
tried to keep going despite the counterproductive attitude of some. So if what you described really happened, it was not a part of thatpolicy-update
attempt but soething different which was run parallel but totally unrelated.
As the thing with an IC really is, is that he/she cannot function if
the ZCC does not act as a team with support for that IC-function.
Back then when I was IC the ZCC effectively stopped functioning as a
team January 2001 when David Moufarrege left the stage. From that
point on, exactly that same week it became a struggle for power ... suddenly there were secret conversations which nobody could prove nor disprove with shadow ZCs who even didn't run a proper system, who when
you crashed them a message PSTN, had a voice answering during their
ZMH with what seemed to be Chinese cuss-words. Not more than 2 or 3 garbled messages were received making not much sense but were "interpreted" by another ZC so we would understand "what needed to be understood". But at voting time this Chinese person suddenly wrote
very eloquent English.
Mark, I know a scam when I see one ... please do not rewrite history.
Maybe do something productive for a change.
Ever since July 6th 2018 there is a new situation and a possibility
for the active ZCs to again become a group of people who can function together.
The same situation. Are there users who would step up?
Our numbers a small now, users and sysops alike.
The same situation. Are there users who would step up?
We will only know if they are asked.
If anyone here asked about that I would certainly help out with that.
Unfortunately the old days are gone, I used live and run my BBS in the Philipines, the BBS community there was amazing, Sysops / Users / local
PC Magazine support even some communications company support to get international mail and files. Have a look at the below link if
interested.
Would you like to hear all the stories and excuses about how Zone 1 segments, Region 12 segments were never right because of BBBS this, BBBS that, Linux this, Linux that? Or are you happy now that I fucking fixed everything?
Irrelevant bullshit aside; an IC is needed. An IC cannot function
without ZCC cooperation, and certain aspects of P4 cannot be amended/enacted without an IC. If you take off your tinfoil hat and
allow fresh air to be exposed to your head, you'll see that I'm right
and where I'm going with this.
We had sysop meetings every month ending with a dinner. We had an
annual, nearly more formal I dare to say, sysop-dinner. Very very
active community. I even nearly miss the warz ...
We had sysop meetings every month ending with a dinner. We had an annual, nearly more formal I dare to say, sysop-dinner. Very very active community. I even nearly miss the warz ...
Would you like to hear all the stories and excuses about how Zone 1 segments, Region 12 segments were never right because of BBBS this,
BBBS that, Linux this, Linux that? Or are you happy now that I fucking fixed everything?
It was blamed on MakeNL at the time, IIRC.
17 Sep 19 11:44, you wrote to Mark Lewis:
Would you like to hear all the stories and excuses about how Zone 1
segments, Region 12 segments were never right because of BBBS this,
BBBS that, Linux this, Linux that? Or are you happy now that I fucking
fixed everything?
I noticed that after you took over, the issues I was having with my Region 16 segment changes being made and reverted every other day immediately ceased. It was blamed on MakeNL at the time, IIRC.
It was also rumoured that you were told/ordered to look into it because said >ZC had a problem admiting that he/she was unable to properly generate a >nodelist ... therefor the blame needed to be shifted elsewhere ...
I don't remember "ordering" anything, but if I'm wrong one of the RCs
will remind me of that one :)
Right, IIRC my linux box at the time needed the 'current' segs be placed in makenl's inbox so they would be always finally available at production time
I could be mistaken, but I believe Nick came to the same conclusion and als that is how he creates the files now?
In Fido-talk that is called "Pulling a Witt".
I don't remember "ordering" anything, but if I'm wrong one of the RCs
will remind me of that one :)
I didn't mention your name ... there were at least 2 ZCs at that
moment running a Linux system.
Sysop: | Coz |
---|---|
Location: | Anoka, MN |
Users: | 2 |
Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
Uptime: | 32:42:12 |
Calls: | 141 |
Files: | 5,058 |
Messages: | 220,694 |