The Question and Answer Board

[WTMHouston]

I first read your inquiry right after it was posted and since I wondered whether there really was a major problem, decided to give it some thought before replying. I have also now had the benefit of reading many of the replies.

Whatever you do or don't do will never please everyone. The fact that someone complains should not serve as the basis for substantial change. Many of the worst laws and policies in general society have been as the result of knee-jerk reactions to otherwise isolated incidents. Just because something does not work 100 percent of the time does not mean it is broken or that there is a problem to fix. I join the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" chorus line.

I originally thought the Jail was a bad idea and that it would end up causing you more problems than it was worth. Boy was my initial assessment wrong. It has been a tremendous success, in my opinion. Those who are likely to be beneficial community members have escaped substantially unscathed. Those who are here for little more than to disrupt either remain in jail or have gotten the boot. 95+ percent of the resolutions have been the way it should be. It ain't perfect, but making substantial change to try and rectify that remaining five percent is likely, IMO, to do more harm than good.

Might you sometimes be a bit more careful about what you say and how you say it? Sure. But this is no reason to change the basic design of an imaginative concept that works very well the vast majority of the time.

The points made about pet peeves being different from site rules are valid points. Although with the exception of the recent "reply" vs. "post new" controversy, I cannot recall anyone being jailed for stepping on a pet peeve that was not otherwise a TOU violation.

There is nothing wrong with playful and nothing wrong with serious. When each is appropriate is as varied as the number of possible situations. If this is the real concern, and I suspect it is, most of this can be addressed by always double thinking a reply and by sometimes not replying quite as quickly. I would bet that 90+ percent of your responses that someone has labeled as "too flippant" or "not serious enough" have been those made either quickly or as an emotional response. No rule will fix this. Thinking a bit more before hitting submit post will cure most of what some think is less than ideal. Reflection is a good thing.

From a personal perspective, I seldom have any problem with what you post. When there have been concerns, I have found you to be generally responsive and not so pigheaded as to reject advice out of hand just because it was contrary to your preexisting thoughts on the matter -- unlike most of those with whom you deal. That said, however, there have been times when you have been or done what you sought to avoid. There always will be. The best you can hope for is to try to do it right 90+ percent of the time and to keep an open mind for the times when you blow it. This after all is the basic theme of the jail: fess you blew it and most all sins will be quickly forgiven (no presidential puns intended).

I hope that this site does not go to fixed, timed suspensions. Such fixed punishments are themselves arbitrary. Bob may think it worked well at SI, but it did sometimes seem arbitrary, and, bottom line, this place is a whole lot different (in good ways) than SI. The public flexibility that currently exists is much better, IMO. The idea that say three days (or some other fixed period) is better just because it is fixed is only valid if one accepts that it is okay to be arbitrary so long as you are always arbitrary.

I also disagree that paying folks and free folks must be treated the same. Those who pay to be here have more than just their time invested. The consideration, however, should not be in what gets you in trouble, but in what gets you out of trouble -- the first time. If there were to be a vote in the jail on when to boot someone, I suspect that most of the voters would boot folks far more quickly than you do. This element of patience, however, seems to get lost in the shuffle.

Bob mentioned as the site continues to get larger, less folks will know me, so it's important that I'm consistent

While this is true, to an extent, it does not follow that fixed arbitrary results are the answer. What may be more important is that your first contact with folks not be caustic, abrasive, or presumptuous. If they later invite it, well, then they get what they deserve.

The only reason these issues even exist is because you have chosen (rightfully so in my opinion) to make much of the TOU enforcement public. If it were private, few would know much of anything about it and would have little to nothing to complain about, much less publicly.

The public complaints and the differences of opinion, sometimes vehemently, come with the territory. They are good. They are not reasons to make major changes.

After reading your questions, all of the answers, and writing this response, I have the same question I started out with: is there really a major problem?

Tinker and think -- don't arbitrarily overhaul to make it look like you are doing something.


Troy