💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › bbs › chatwar.txt captured on 2023-11-14 at 09:02:39.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-14)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Well, I don't know if it's just me, but innumerable hell has
been flying about the the tri-chat area as I see it. The three
boards involved are namely, Cheers, CyberChat, and Imperial
Fortress, alphabetically to avoid favoritism. Does the debate
range further than these three boards? Undoubtedly. I hear
references about the chaos on the Iron Cross BBS, and I'm sure
there's others. But to alleviate any brain strain on my part,
these are the only three that I shall deal with, and in the end,
the only three that will feel the full out repercussions of the
conflict.
Indeed, I am a reporter (you can read me bi-monthly in the
Forked River Gazette... hey, ya gotta start somewhere), and as I
view more and more, I must admit a conservative reporter, and I
often I find myself drawn into highly inflammatory, opinionated,
conflicts and find it necessary to contribute my two cents.
Anyone who knows me from my Commodore days, (few will), will
acknowledge my methods especially with mention of the Final
Frontier BBS. It was on this board I began to 'come outspoken,
openly defying the sysop, Joe Irving, though pointing out to him
that I had NOT violated any of his rules, and if he wished to
suspend me would have to either wait until I did break one of his
rules, or change those rules.
Invariably, coupled with many a personal issue that came
between us, Joe began to dislike me a great deal, BUT, he never
deleted me. Often I'd push the envelope, bending to rules so far
as to nearly break, and Joe would just watch them fall right
back. I knew, and he knew, that he was waiting for that one slip,
that tiny, accidental slip, which we knew I would make, for no
one, not even I, is perfect, and he would suspend me.
Well, that day came. Used to the chat network method of also
calling people by their real names, as well as their handles, I
blurbed someone's name accidentally on the Final Frontier, which,
there, is against the rules, and -=<poof>=- I was gone. I finally
broke the rules, and Joe deleted me. It may sound rash, but you
must realize the extents that I had pushed him, and yet how we
both maintained as separate individuals on the board, never
bringing into contact our interpersonal problems. He had every
right to do what he did, and in light of recent events, I
actually respect him for having waited so long. Despite what I
might think of him personally, (which, in reality, I don't know
what I think :) ), he has show some of the greatest sysoping I
have ever seen.
But, return we now to the topic at hand. It all starts, I
suppose, at Cheers, though I knew nothing of the system before
CyberChat went up just over a year ago. It would seem, to the
uninvolved eye, which is how all eyes SHOULD be on a BBS or chat
system, that there was a distinct conflict in the upper
management of the system. I've always been an advocate of no more
than 1 sysop and at most 2 co-sysops on any system. Not that, if
the sysop desires should only he and two others have complete
"sysop level" access to the system, certainly the programmer, and
any other staff should be able to receive the access they need to
carry out their duties, BUT there should only be a maximum of 3
people who have the final word on the goings on of the system.
And even more, the sysop is the one who should have the FINAL
word. Things such as deletions, suspensions, ect, should only be
able to be carried out by the sysop and with ample notice to the
user. Also, the sysop should be available for conference with the
user should he or she question why his access was altered. Well,
this is where the problems began.
It seems that the sysop of Cheers, Malone, actually had a life,
or at least something that took up his time, and was unable to do
the duties a sysop should, especially a chat system sysop. A
regular system operator of your standard message base and email
bulletin board system would do fine to only check in on his
system three or four times a week, but with a chat system,
everything is sped up to the point where if the sysop does not
spend at least a few hours a day responding to his email, he is
very soon left out of his own system. This, unfortunately befell
Malone. And instead of allowing himself to be recognized as
merely the owner of the system, and promote someone else to the
sysop position, Malone simply added a CO-sysop... or five. I can
see, Malone's wishes to be recognized as the provider of the
service, but he just didn't have the ability. He should have
known that people DO place some respect in the owners of a
system, even if they never meet them, for does not everyone thank
General Electric at least a little bit, for owning NBC and in
turn providing David Letterman with the ability to entertain us
every night? ( Or at least, having provided? ) Well, it seems
Malone may have learned his lesson, now his name no longer
appears on the Cheers log-on screen and Bhawk is now seemingly
system operator. We shall see what becomes of this.
But again, it is not the present, but the recent past this is
here to discuss, more aptly, the new spawn into the chat realm,
The Imperial Fortress (TIF). Where did they come from? How did
they get there? And most importantly, why? For this, we will have
to step back to what I spoke of about the "problems with
upper-management" at Cheers.
It would seem that at least four, if not all (co)sysops of TIF
were at one time cosysops of Cheers. The exact reasons why the
split has occurred I am not totally sure of, as I know many
aren't, but I'll get to THAT in a second.
The greatest complaints, and thereby justifications for their
succession, were that Malone was never around for them or the
system, and he never expressed enough thanks for their work on
the system. There is also a claim that Malone would often spy in
on "private" chats and other such things that he should not be
doing. Well, foremost, I must reply to the accusation that Malone
spied in on private conversations. I have been BBSing for
innumerable years at this point, and as I recall, EVERY system I
have ever logged on to has had a message proclaiming "there is
no such thing as private [conferencing] on this system. The sysop
reserves the right to look at [anything private]". So, on this
point, if he did do this, the immoral, and I myself would find it
offensive, he has every right. Every user agreed to let him do so
once they signed onto the system.
The other points of argument I find just silly, if not
justified. As I said, with Malone never being around for the
system, that was his folly, and perhaps he should have been more
caring about what went on with it, but he wasn't. (Though Malone
was always available to me when I needed to talk to him, and many
times (no offense) wanted to talk to me even when I didn't. :) )
In turn, Malone left the operation of the system up to his, what
should truly be acknowledged by any BBSer, CO-the-real-sysop-is-
busy-so-tell-me-your-problems-SYSOPS, so him not being there for
the system was not necessarily a problem.
And the complaint of not enough thanks. First. complaints of
him never being there, and then of him not giving enough thanks.
How could he give thanks if he was never there? And what indeed
did they want? President Clinton does not turn around after the
head of congress settles a debate and thank him for doing his
job, but he still does it. Lee Iacocca does not turn around and
kiss the hand of the thirty second to the left rivet welder in
the assembly line every time he welds another rivet, but he still
does his job. I know these are extreme, but it's the way it is
people, get a grip. Some people just don't say thank you so
easily. And it wasn't really Malone you were doing a favor, it
was US, the users, and I haven't said thank you either. You going
to boycott me too?
And finally, I've seen innumerable people on Cheers, sysops,
users, people who never met him, tear apart Malone for reasons I
know not. I've never had a problem with him, everyone I've ever
talked to who did not put him down have never had a problem with
him, but it is these people who did put him down who claim, "Oh,
you'll never understand," and then they never even offer to tell
us, to give us the chance to TRY and understand. I still maintain
personal problems should be kept off the BBS, for example, of the
many reasons I was disliked so by Joe Irving was due to the fact
I dated his sister, once "stole" his girlfriend, and then later
dated a second of his girlfriends (this one an ex), and yet all
of this we succeeded in keeping off of the Frontier. To the folks
at Cheers, I assume this is a foreign concept. As I am fond of
saying, be it the only phrase I can recall from my 2 semesters of
college French, it applies, C'est comma ca. (That is how it is.)
Now, one other topic must be addressed here, and that is of the
forwarding lines. You may or may not know that I used to be the
home of the Toms River area forwarding line to Cheers. Come the
day of the birth of TIF, I called my local Lakewood number to
contact Cheers, and low and behold, I contacted TIF. Well, after
a bit of thought I decided to disconnect the forwarding line that
I had. (The Toms River forwarding line forwarded to the Lakewood
line, which in turn, forwarded to Cheers.) Malone paid me to
forward the calls to Cheers, not to TIF, and so I was under
contract, albeit a verbal one, to either forward the 269-4549
number to Cheers, or, as I chose, to not forward it at all.
Though the situation involving my line is not at issue, but all
the lines. A user on Cheers and TIF symbolized the split as the
early colonists breaking away from England and her tyrannical
rule, but, as I pointed out, the colonists had given notice to
Mother England in the form of the Declaration Of Independence,
that which TIF did not bestow upon Cheers. No, in my eyes, a more
equal symbol would be the south breaking from the north and the
Civil War, neither side was necessarily correct, but they did it
without style, and without warning. Many users of Cheers called
their local numbers to find TIF spontaneously in its stead. What
were the users to do about the money they paid to Cheers? I quote
an anonymous source (simply, I can't remember who said it) on TIF
(not, mind you, a sysop) who said, "They are shit out of luck."
The TIF's staff's position was more kind, though not necessarily
giving either as they simply said, "Cheers is still up, but you
can't get there from here." As par the Germans response to the
loss of 3/4 of Berlin after World War II, "It's yours, but I'd
like to see you get there."
My personal opinion of TIF's usage of the Cheers forwarding
lines for their own system, without posting warnings in advance,
without simply changing the numbers used to dial, without
informing people seeking Cheers in way of a system wide message
that they have NOT reached Cheers, is simply an acknowledgment of
one of the oldest cons in the book, "bait and switch." In the
same parallel I've drawn for others, it is like filling a Pepsi
bottle with Coke and not telling the consumer of the switch until
after they have used and enjoyed the product. And then offering
them Coke, in a Coke bottle.
To this day, I am sure there are new users out there dialing
(908) 905-2524 or some other such number in search of what was
raved in the advertisement as "Cheers, a really great board," or
some such, and getting TIF. Will they ever get what they were
looking for? One may never know.
Before wrapping up, where does CyberChat fit into all this? It
don't. Surprisingly CyberChat has been able to keep it's nose
clean of all of the chaos, despite it's happening in "their own
back yard," and to this I offer them applause. This is the kind
of attitude displayed but that other board I hold high, Final
Frontier. With that, my only question is, does Hegz have a
sister?
Well, you choose the system you wish to call based on your own
opinions, not mine, which is all these were. Call, one, call two,
or if you're a severe cyberspace junkie, call all three. Just
remember, BBSes are there for the users, and we call to talk to
other users, not SYSOPS. Though the sysops are users, and when
looked at in that light...
- IronHorse
-=<Cheers>=- Sysop: Bhawk
(908) 972-2387, (908) 727-2752, (908) 969-9360, (908) 360-1209
(908) 303-0135, (609) 443-9008 Voice Support (908) 536-6985
-=<CyberChat>=- Sysop: Hegz
(908) 506-0610, (908) 506-7637, (908) 901-0762, (908) 363-8511
(908) 308-3371 Voice Support (908) 506-6651
-=<The Imperial Fortress>=- Sysops: Pigpen, ChooChoo,
Carl, Adagio
(908) 972-1001, (908) 254-3175, (908) 525-9472, (908) 969-1866
(908) 351-6149, (908) 308-4585, (908) 905-2524 No Voice Listed
These are the numbers as listed on the log-on screens of the
respective systems, I am not responsible for their validity.