Bob, a few comments on your post...
"The job shouldn't be about belittling members unless they're thoroughly deserving of it. Like spammers. I say spammers should be completely fair game. Want to play with someone like you're a cat and they're a wounded mouse? The spammers are the perfect target."
True spammers are immediately booted from iHub, usually within 3 posts, so your comments regarding them being fair game are moot. As to "belittling members unless they're thoroughly deserving of it" I don't see this as the role of management. Belittling and humiliation doesn't reflect professionalism, at least in my book. I see the role of the Admin. to boot or suspend members who violate the User Agreement. The Jailhouse is the place for the member to resolve their dispute. There are enough gadflies to take on the belittling and humiliation task. What's the point for the Admin. to play that game -- if it gets that far, the member should just get booted. IMO.
Everyone who breaks the rules and draws Admin attention should be treated not as a bit of amusement, but should be instead treated as someone who crossed the line, needs to be informed very clearly and immediately in what manner they crossed the line, and what they need to do to avoid crossing the line again.
This is something that presently, IMO, is handled poorly. When a member is suspended, i.e. arrives at the Jailhouse, I think he should concurrently receive a PM from the Admin. which states:
a) What part of the User Agreement was violated
b) How the Jailhouse may be used to resolve said violation
c) How much time the member has (in the Jailhouse) to resolve the violation, e.g. 3-7 days for administrative issues such as faulty registration, or a similar time to resolve multiple alias issues...
...for issues of vulgarity, obsenity and personal attacks, I suggest a longer period to resolve the issues, but one with a definite date by which the issues are resolved or the membership is terminated. Something like 3 - 4 weeks seems reasonable to me given the 3 post per day limitation. Surely if no progress is made within such a lengthy time, there is no point in maintaining the membership.
Each person who breaks a particular rule should get the same "punishment" as anyone else who does the same. For example, personal attack, first violation equals 1-day suspension, with maybe time off early for a convincing apology. The "hot stove" rule of supervision. This is taught in the first week of any class aimed at supervision or management: The hot stove burns everyone who touches it. It doesn't get amusement from doing so and doesn't burn one person more than the other. It just burns fingers that come into contact with it.
I don't see the Jailhouse as a place for punishment...I see it as a place to publicly resolve the issues that Admin. has with the member. Therefore, if time is to be a factor, I see it differently than you (Bob). If someone makes a personal attack, or as I have recently seen, makes an off-color inappropriate remark, then a (genuine) public apology should suffice for a first offense. I saw this happen without Admin. intervention...the poster realized the error, tried to edit but ran out of time, was called by other members, apologized and had the apology accepted, all within an hour or so. People make mistakes in posting...they should be allowed to rectify them, but iHub being a "private" community need not allow members to "buy" rights to abusive posts merely by giving up posting rights for a few days or weeks...that makes no sense to me.
Matt said: "Paying folks don't act like idiots. They have something to lose." and Bob responded: "It's inconsistent, and therefore to be avoided, to treat paying members differently from free members. A personal attack should be treated the same whether the user has paid for extra features or not."
You can't have it both ways...if you say the payment is for premium services and access to premium sites, but everyone can post for free, then you have to hold paid and unpaid members to the same standard regarding the User Agreement. And Matt, don't kid yourself about paying folks don't act like idiots -- you know that is not true, and I'd be happy to give you a few names by PM if you've forgotten.
Bob, I think I've covered all the major points in your post without going through a line-by-line rebuttal, but if I missed answering any particular point you made, please let me know.
JMO,
AK
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
