Date: Fri, 12.01.07 17:01
* Forwarded by Alex Barinov (2:5020/715.1)
* Area : regcon.eur (regcon.eur)
* From : Ward Dossche, 2:292/854 (12 Jan 07 00:52)
* To : All
* Subj : 2:5004/9
Today I restored "manu militari" the node 2:5004/9 in the R50-segment and am
freezing said segment until co-operation can be accomplished so that this
node's right to an appeal at ZC-level and maybe beyond is not thwarted anymore.
-+- D'Bridge 2.64
+ Origin: Many Glacier -o=O=o- Preserve - Protect - Conserve (2:292/854)
This story began when I reviewed decision of N2:5004C and excommunicated node
2:5004/9. He has been dropped from the nodelist, but Aleksandr decide to appeal
to Z2C. Ward said that 2:5004/9 should be returned to the nodelist until he
working under appeal. I didn't return 2:5004/9 to the nodelist because there is
no Z2C's decision on appeal on my table. It is common practice in R2:50 when
excommunicated sysop makes appeal from any point address and returns in the
nodelist only when term of his/her excommunication elapsed or if *C structure
satisfied his/her appeal. 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 never
said about returning of excommunicated sysop to the nodelist until working
under his/her appeal in progress. Also in the past Ward never demand to return
excommunicated sysops in the nodelist for working under his/her appeals.
I prefer to got answer on this question from Malcolm.
E-Mail: email@example.com ICQ: 24466689 Skype: huba-huba
--- GoldED+/LNX 184.108.40.206
* Origin: Alex at work (2:5020/715.1)
Date: Fri, 12.01.07 23:05
> 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
> 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.
--- D'Bridge 2.64
* Origin: Many Glacier -o=O=o- Preserve - Protect - Conserve (2:292/854)
Date: Sat, 13.01.07 01:49
> There are many things among the zones that are not handled the same, but this
> basic 'right' shouldnt be one of them.
A Fidonet node should have the ability to transfer netmail in order to appeal a
I'm glad that Ward sees this as an important factor as well.
--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
Date: Sat, 13.01.07 13:41
AB> I prefer to got answer on this question from Malcolm.
However you dont mind a little input from elsewhere too I hope? In this case,
once the member properly appealed to the Z2C, the Z2C needed to have them back
in the nodelist in order to followup. Ward's software probably requires that
to be able to reach this node properly.
Note Ward doesnt say anything about you guys having to give him full feeds or
anything, just let the number be present and presumably a way for the NC to
pass a netmail down to the node if Ward cant make direct contact due to
One of the strenghts of P4, is it *does* allow a member to appeal and have a
chance to state their side. The node therefore, once he properly appealed
(some others in your region have not so did not get handled the same), has a
right to be able to discuss this with his ZC.
There are many things among the zones that are not handled the same, but this
basic 'right' shouldnt be one of them.
--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS, Sasebo Japan 81-6160-527330 (6:757/1)