Replies to post #19741 on The Question and Answer Board (IHUB)

[Mattu]

Fred brings up a great point and something I wasn't very good at explaining.

We are all humans. That presents an entirely set of different dynamics that I don't think can be covered in a set of rules or applying exactly the same punishment systematically for rule breakers. In the world of programming, sure. In the real world, no.

If that were the case, why would we need courts and judges to decide time frames of punishment, community service, etc? It'd all be on a table where you pick the crime and to the time laid out. It's not like that.

Do you think cops always go to the letter of the law? Heck no. I've gotten several times with cops because I was legitimate, explained my case and didn't kick up a fuss. Didn't get written up, but was a lot more cautious in the future and learned how to drive within the rules. According to a rule book, he should have written me up and I paid. Doesn't work like that. You want to encourage legitimate people that made a mistake and change/jail people that are speeding just to speed (read: breaking rules just to piss people off).

What in the world did I just say? Not sure. LOL

I guess what I'm saying is that I could potentially not get as whacky as I did with packers and the whole 'kiss my ring' post...maybe be a bit more professional. But that isn't the way I was raised. I have always treated people with as much respect as they offered me. I only push as hard as you push me. On the whackyness, I probably agree. On the systemized, timed suspension thing, I'm just not for it.

I think the answer to my "problem" (if I have one) is to be slightly more professional in beating up offenders and have an Admin notes option so I don't forget things.

Seems most of the people replying to this agree/have no problems with things the way they are. Others are offering good, but minor change suggestions.


MB


Edit: Another example (which I just deal with less than 30 seconds ago) is how do you systemize/standardize dealing with people that break rules within club boards? Different rules apply there. Which further explains my point that the way THIS community is built (Dare I mention that SI and RB are dying with their management styles), you have to have a human right in the middle....no real systematic suspension or standard rules apply. For better or worse, iHub has always been a reflection of my personality. And I'm not sure that will change.

Edit2: One mo' thing. As we all know, anybody that makes a decision always has someone that disagrees. That will always be true and I welcome that. As far as needing a mentor, I don't think so. I've gotten this far learning by myself, why not the rest of the way. Again, hate to repeat this, but SI and RB are dogs. Why do anything the same way they do or did? Bob, there are as many people who hated you as there are those who liked you. Same will be true here of me. I'm dealing with a different user group though. A larger, more diverse group (eventually) with the free and premium concept.

Edit3: After reading this message, I still don't have a clue what I just said. Looks like babble to me. maybe it means something to somebody.

[Koikaze]

Thanks for your comments, Churak. Since you raised the topic of your time in The Jailhouse, I'll comment on that ... in a moment. But first I want you to know I agree that most problems should be handled "in house" (on the Board, by the COB and the Directors). There are times when management's intervention is appropriate, but those times should be the exception rather than the rule.

When you were in jail, Chu, the guideline for release was for the internee to acknowledge inappropriate actions and promise not to continue them, if released. I have no idea whether that was "written" anywhere, or not ... and I don't really care ... that was my guideline.

After you had been in jail for a while, I formed the judgment that you'd rot in hell before you'd acknowledge inappropriate actions OR promise to be a good citizen.

That was not, however, the only judgment I formed.

I also, through careful thought about the messages you wrote, formed the judgment that you were bright and quick-witted and that you wanted to be ... and would be ... an excellent member of the iHub community.

It was apparent (i.e., I formed the judgment) that we were at an impasse.

I broke that impasse by acting in accordance with my judgment ... and contrary to my guideline ... and asking Matt to release you.

You went on to become a star at iHub ... and, I don't mind telling you that I'm extremely proud of the judgment I made in your case.

You think there should be rules ... well, I'll tell you the effect of a couple of rules:

1) One is the rule that my grandson's school cited yesterday to prevent his mother from picking him up.

2) Another is the rule that the Immigration and Naturalization Service cited to prevent me from entering the Federal Building in Newark, New Jersey last June. (I had the good fortune to get an escort past the INS guards by a Federal Police Officer who became aware of the situation.)

Those who think rules improve behavior are blind to the debasement of my beloved country. They can't see that rules do nothing to correct the sicknesses of greed, corruption and the lust for power. All the rules do is lull the public into believing that they'll work. You can't outlaw the kind of nastiness that permeates the internet ... but you don't have to provide a home for it.

There is no substitute for judgment, Churak, and we are fortunate to have, in Matt, someone who is willing and able to apply his judgment in pursuit of an outstanding community. It would be a tragedy to shackle him with "rules".

Fred