Good Afternoon, Troy
I've expressed my opinion of the excellence of your post. I meant it then, and I reiterate it now. The post was not addressed to me, but it dealt with issues I am involved in, so I'm taking the liberty of responding.
A) "Even in the jail, one must now be very careful what one says."
That is not exactly accurate. Items 1 and 2 explain when it is true. Item 3 explains when it is not.
1) It is true for those who are incarcerated.
a) They are in jail because of their conduct, i.e., the things they write.
b) Others are encouraged to bait, taunt, and annoy inmates for the precise purpose of determining whether they are ready for release. In the military, it's called hazing.
b) We have only one criterion on which to evaluate their readiness for release ... the things they write.
c) Hence, they must, indeed, be very careful of what they say (write) if they expect to be released.
2) It is true of those who have been released.
a) They were released because they acknowledged their error and assert that they will not repeat it.
b) If they return to The Jailhouse to taunt an inmate, as was done yesterday, they put the sincerity of that assertion in doubt.
c) Since their release was obtained by their words, undermining the sincerity of those words is unwise. I would be much less inclined to accept an assertion of probity if a second jailing were to occur.
d) Hence, they should (not must) be careful what they write.
3) It is not true of anyone else. They may, indeed, write what they wish in The Jailhouse. I may or may not take exception to what they write (I usually don't), but there is certainly no restriction on their doing so. Would I let someone's nastiness affect my judgment of them if they were ever jailed? Maybe. I'm fairly level-headed, but I don't walk on water.
B) "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."
I do not believe that to be an accurate depiction of the circumstances in The Jailhouse. The inmate I released was offensive. More so, as I recall, than the inmate I did not release. Their bursts of offensiveness are not the point. The point is their willingness to acknowledge the bad behaviour which landed them in jail, and renounce it.
1) People who are put in jail have called attention to themselves by taunting others, using offensive language, and otherwise making themselves unwelcome.
2) When they arrive in jail, I usually do not know them and have no knowledge of their offense(s).
3) What is important is that, in the eyes of iHub, their behavior, prior to their incarceration, was unacceptable.
4) My job is to do my best to insure that, if they are released from jail, iHub has a reasonable assurance that they will not repeat the activities likely to land them in jail again.
In other words, they can cuss and stomp and fume all they want in jail. None of it means a thing (you may have noticed that I usually ignore such posts). The only thing that means anything in terms of getting a release is
a) acknowledgement of wrongdoing
b) assertion of the intention to avoid offensive actions in the future.
I think it's worth mentioning that I have no desire to humiliate anyone. Initially, a modest indication of those two things is adequate. When inmates are recalcitrant it becomes clear that they don't wish to cooperate and the need for preciseness in their renunciation grows.
C) "Scu's situation, or rather his solution, is a mystery that does little to give anyone else an indication of what is acceptable."
This point illustrates how different people's perceptions are. To me, scu's "solution" was anything but a mystery. It was, I thought, painfully obvious.
1) I did not know SCU from a hole in the ground. I had no knowledge of him before he was incarcerated, and I had no feelings about him, one way or the other.
2) My concern was with the conduct of the inmates while they were in jail. Why they are sent to jail is not my concern; I am not the arbiter of conduct outside The Jailhouse. I am interested in their conduct after they are put in jail. (This doesn't mean I have no interest beyond that, but, basically, I don't want to get into a Who Shot John? in an area outside my limited sphere.)
3) I was trying to convey the message that people should be civil and avoid conflict. When Churak tried to bait scu and scu had enough sense not to rise to the bait, that was an important thing for me. Then, somewhere in there, scu said something about having done wrong and planning to do better. There's not much more that I can look for from an inmate. Those were my criteria for release, and he met them.
4) The question of sincerity is, of course, significant. I need to "believe" that the inmate means what he says. It is here that time plays such an important role. If someone says, "Whoops. I goofed. Ain't agonna do that no more." it is quite a bit different than someone who refuses to acknowledge that their behavior was obnoxious ... and then says "Oh. Alright. If you insist, I won't do it anymore."
5) The decision to release scu was, unquestionably, subjective. But I had a huge advantage. If he had bamboozled me, he'd be right back in jail ... and convincing me a second time would be more of a chore.
6) I had two other (active) inmates at the time. Scu provided a clear and simple object lesson for them ... if they could look past their own pique and read the messages. If they wanted out, the formula was right there for them to see. In retrospect, it appears that it may have been too subtle.
D) You wrote a paragraph about Churak. I find that there's not a great deal I can say about it. Churak has said he has no intention of changing the way he acts (If I had more time, I'd dig out his statement). He also brags about being a freebie member and coming in here to disrupt things. Under the circumstances, releasing him does not seem like a beneficial thing to do for Investor's Hub.
E) "This is one occasion where silence is not golden."
I agree with you ... and you broke the silence with mellow tones that made responding a (relative) pleasure.
Fred
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
