On 26 May 18 21:37:11, Carol Shenkenberger said the following to Fred Riccio:
CS> CS>> An example of mine would be to look at ZMH a little deeper. It
CS> CS>> could be we'd all be a bit healthier if there was more left up to
CS> CS>> the zone coordinator.
CS> FR> If you have a QUESTION for the candidates, please ask. The quote above
CS> FR> only invites others to debate ZMH practices with YOU.
CS> Ok, lets turn it around. Candidates, I gave a sample. What might you thin
CS> deserves at least a look at? Not saying you'd change it, but look at it?
A few sections I would suggest to be revised to reflect the current state
of the network or to clarify things further. Nothing earth-shattering.
As an example... the case studies, that are provided to clarify or demonstrate
the policies in action.
10.3.6 "The case of the Sysop Twit". Well... if someone is a twit, sure they
should stick to Twitter. But why stop a twit from applying? The example doesn't
give specifics on the behavior that lead up to the denial. If perhaps it was
elaborated on as to why he was denied, it would make it clearer.
10.3.5 "The Mark of the Devil" needs clarification since there is a difference
between having obscene material on a BBS versus transmitting that via Fidonet
and the way that example is worded, I believe is left to interpretation. Why
such a system is deemed "exceptionally annoying" is not made clear.
It may seem silly or common-sense obvious, but, in 1994 IIRC, Net 252 in Region
12 had an NC, John Beverage, who cited Policy4 like the bible. He outright
denied the application of a popular BBS that had satanic content, just because
it had satanic content and for no other reason. Very illogical.
Nick
--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
|
