<<We "Old Flame Warriors" must be cautious, lest our missive's get misinterpreted. Can't give these aggressive young admins any grist for their mills.>>
I have not said anything publicly about this, but the time has come.
The "no rules" aspect of the Jail (heck, even the Jail itself) is unique -- or at least it has been. It is a shame that what had been a unique outlet for frequently less than calm and reflective responses has now become a trap. Even in the jail, one must now be very careful what one says. If that is the rule, then folks should be told and not be left to believe that there are no rules in the jail.
Either the Jail has rules or it doesn't. It is disingenuous, at best, and hypocritical, at worst, in my opinion, to provide a place for folks to vent and calm down and then hold their venting against them. In my opinion, it cannot exist both ways, as a reasonable business proposition, because it will engender responses that are not consistent with wanting to grow and improve the business. It makes of mockery of the very reasonableness that seems to be sought.
Application of the rules, at least in most instances, should be objective and consistent. The application should provide others with a CLEAR road map for following them and for remedying difficulties. If the rules or their enforcement are to change, then folks should be told in advance, not after the fact.
I have no idea what Joe did off-site, but if it warrants permanent expulsion in the opinion of management, and it is their decision, then everyone should know what kind of conduct gets that result. A private solution to what had purposefully been made a public situation does little to give people a warn fuzzy feeling about the site.
Scu's situation, or rather his solution, is a mystery that does little to give anyone else an indication of what is acceptable. Even though I don't believe the implications of underhanded motives made by some, they are legitimate allegations under the circumstances. A clear, legitimate answer silences such allegations.
Churak's continued incarceration is even more mysterious. Now, we hear, that for the minimal (and questionable, from an objective standpoint) reasons he was put here, he gets little to no indication of any objective duration or consequence. It sure makes enforcement of the TOS seem arbitrary and capricious. There is no question that a fair amount of Churak's comments in jail would have easily justified being put in jail had the same comments been made anywhere else. But, unless the rules of jail have changed, they provide NO justification, IMO, for keeping him here. It just is not right to punish folks for what you have told them is acceptable.
I probably ought to take the advise I privately gave Joe and stick this message aside for a day or so. But, if I did so, I probably would not post most of it and I really think most of it needs to be said.
If the jail and TOS enforcement is to be a public endeavor, then it must be defended publicly. Speaking for myself, and I suspect most others, we will readily give the site the benefit of the doubt 99 times out of 100 so long as we think that there is some rough justice in the equation and are given some kind of facially reasonable basis for decisions that affect everyone else.
This is one occasion where silence is not golden.
Troy
Troy
Those who shoot from the hip usually end up just shooting themselves.
Plan the grub and grub the plan.
Where is the party tonight? Who is bringng the drinks?
