Knowles Droppings...

                  Ruling on PC filed by Richard Knowles



Richard Knowles,



It is extremely disturbing that I have to send this message at all. With your

being a Network Coordinator I am sure you understood the action you were taking

when you filed a Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust. Per Policy 4.07 a Policy

Complaint is not an action to be taken lightly.



Your Policy Complaint aginst Ms. Argust is rejected in total.



Per Ms. Argust, she has never receievd any personal messages to her from

yourself regarding the actions in which you claim she has violated Policy 4.07.

Policy 4.07, Section 9.1 is quite clear in stating that prior to filing a

formal complaint an effort must be undertaken to resolve any problem. You have

failed to present any evidence whatsoever that an attempt to resolve any

problem was undertaken by yourself. You also show a distinct lack of courtesy

in your failure to have sent a copy of the PC you filed with me to Ms. Argust

directly. Additionally, the Policy Complaint you filed with me was nothing but

a copy of a complaint filed earlier by Zorch Frezberg with no additional input

of any kind or original thought. Therefore, you should be held at least as

liable as Zorch Frezberg should Ms. Argust counterfile a complaint for

excessively annoying behavior in this matter.



You have failed to present any evidence that Zorch Fresburg was acting in your

behalf with his netmail to Ms. Argust tittled "FORMAL INQUIRY". If Zorch

Fresburg was indeed acting in your behalf when he contacted Ms. Argust, the

time limit for you filing the Policy Complaint was past when you filed it.



In fact, you have failed to present ANY evidence whatsoever. Policy 4.07 is

very clear on the fact that a policy complaint MUST be accompanied by

supporting evidence. That you, as a Network Coordinator would file a policy

complaint in this manner is very disturbing.



Almost equally disturbing is the fact the when I poll 1:10/1 which is listed as

a system operated by the Region 10 Echomail Coordinator, this is what my log

shows (and full logging is turned on):



+ 21:14:54  Calling Region 10 Echomail Coordinato, 1:10/1, 1-510-841-9481

= 21:15:18  CONNECT 14400/ARQ

+ 21:15:22  Sci-Fido II, World's Oldest SF BBS, Berkeley, CA, 1:161/84

~ 21:15:22  SysOp: Richard Knowles  Ja

~ 21:15:22  Using: Opus 1.73

  21:15:22  sType: FTS-6/ZedZap

* 21:15:24  Sent I:\FD212\PACKETS\000A0001.REQ; 7b, 3 CPS

+ 21:15:31  Mail transfer completed

$ 21:15:31  To 1:10/1,  0:13, 0.



As can be seen in the above log, when 1:10/1 is polled, it is answered by

1:161/84 with no other AKA's shown. Yet, in one of the charges you present

against Ms. Argust, you claim that she was violating policy by having her name

appear in the sysop field during emsi handshaking. 1:10/1 is shown in the

latest nodelist as being operated by Jan Murphy, the system which answers the

phone number in the nodelist does not present Jan Murphy as system operator, as

shown above it presents "Richard Knowles  Ja".



In an aside message you presented to me which you did not include in the Policy

Complaint itself, you also mention that you feel that the policy complaint is

also justified by the fact that you have heard Ms. Argust is a harsh moderator.

You did ask me to consider what you said there in making a ruling on the Policy

Complaint. Let me clue you into another fact, Ms. Argust's DOORGAMES echo is

almost always around .7% of the backbone traffic and normally in the top 15 or

so echoes as far as volume. There are at least 4 echoes dealing with the same

topic, however, the traffic in those echoes is lucky to total half the traffic

in Ms. Argust's DOORGAMES echo. If Ms. Argust is such a harsh moderator, I

would expect the other echoes to at least equal if not surpass the echo she

moderates in volume. The style in which Ms. Argust moderates her echo is not in

itself subject to policy action. For some time the "rule" on echos is if you do

not like the style of the moderator, go to another echo or start your own. The

old free market theory in action. With the changes in the backboning procedure

implimented by Bruce Bodger, it is very easy to start a new echo as being a NEC

you should be aware. Therefore, the "harsh moderator" comment of yours does

nothing except further demonstrate your lack of knowledge regarding Policy

4.07. Should you attempt to appeal this ruling, I would not blame Ms. Argust in

counter filing against you for excessively annoying behavior with regards to

trivial policy complaints. In that case, I would expect that at minimum you

would be removed from the Network Coordinator position you now hold, with the

possibility of excommunication, although I doubt Ms. Argust would ask for that

punishment.



In conclusion, I am extremely dissappointed that a Network Coordinator

obviously has such a lack of knowledge of the governing policy of FidoNet.

Given your position in Fido, I, myself would find against you for excessively

annoying behavior in regards to filing a trivial complaint such as the one you

presented to me.



Bob Duckworth, 1:2004/0

Network 2004 Coordinator