Newsgroups: news.admin Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: verification of Brad's vote Message-ID: <1989Mar27.194047.19416@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <1989Mar20.181533.22112@utzoo.uucp> <7994@chinet.chi.il.us> <1989Mar25.220248.8669@utzoo.uucp> <8036@chinet.chi.il.us> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 89 19:40:47 GMT In article <8036@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >...easy enough for someone to say don't send mail to Brad if you don't like >the way he handles what he receives. But I assume the users do not write Brad >*voluntarily*, but only because it is the only authorized way to get a joke >in the group... Uh, somebody is holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to get jokes into r.h.f.? If so, sounds like something the police should investigate. If not, then it sounds voluntary to me. The only sense I can make of your statement is that you think getting jokes into r.h.f. should be a god-given right, so that any requirement for Brad's approval is an imposition that the contributors disapprove of. However, the whole point of r.h.f. (and moderated groups in general) is that getting stuff into it is *not* a right, but a privilege subject to moderator approval. When you buy food, do you take money out of your wallet and give it to the cashier voluntarily, or because it is the only authorized way to buy food? Answer: the money is the price you pay for the food. Similarly, having to get moderator approval is the price you pay for getting stuff into a moderated group. There is nothing wrong with either. >Moderators should not 'make money' from their Usenet related activities. >Neither should sysadmins, backbones or others involved... What about the staff at UUNET? Or the people at other companies whose job is, in part, looking after Usenet? They are very definitely getting paid for Usenet-related activities. What's more, this is a good thing. Volunteer labor tends to burn out far too quickly; to have a network that is stable and dependable, people must get paid for the work done on it. In fact, many seemingly-volunteer workers *do* get paid for it, since they spend paid time on it, sometimes without their bosses' knowledge. >All of the above >should probably be compensated for *direct, out of pocket expenses >attributible to Usenet*, but not for 'time and effort'. Obviously you've never done any consulting or freelance work. Time and effort are very definitely direct expenses -- the supply of either is finite, and for most people, inadequate. And there is a specific cash value associated with them, since they can almost always be spent on something that earns money instead. >And any compensation >for out of pocket expenses should come from the affected users and not the >net as a whole... How do you distinguish the two? I would certainly say that the readers of r.h.f. are "affected users" for Brad's purposes. >'Time and effort' are what Usenet is all about. No compensation available. Anarchy is what Usenet is about. Your statement is a wish, not a fact, and a wish that is not universally shared, at that. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu