Regarding the
latest blog post, I think the first half of the policy makes sense, as smites don't fix problems by themselves and may actually egg on some people; the second half, however, doesn't--at least to me. Here's why:
1. Reviewing all smites seems like a big added responsibility for our staff. Not only will they have to take the time to read and review all smites, but they'll probably have to do some digging to figure out why some of them were given. I can imagine that some members smite after a long period of irritation with another individual. The given reason for the smite may not be the root cause, so the smite might seem unfair or petty, when there may actually be a deeper and more valid problem under the surface.
2. Reviewing all smites seems to negate the first half of the policy--the half that I think would be good for RAF. If the staff is reviewing smites and the reason they are issued, then that discourages RAFians from directly approaching the leadership with their concerns. It discourages honest discussion and can breed increased resentment from smited individuals who wonder why the one who had the problem with them didn't just talk to them about it. I think smites can be used as an effective form of communication, if given properly and with adequate commentary.
3. Karma doesn't really mean anything. It may be indicative of a sense of humor, talent, or a knack for saying the right thing at the right time, but it doesn't really say anything concrete about how active, productive, community-oriented, kind, [insert various other positive adjectives here] a member is,
especially because donors earn karma through their financial gifts to RAF. I'm not denying there's probably a reason that a lot of members with karma down in the negative numbers also happen to be banned members, but smites don't necessarily make a RAFian a bad guy. There's just no way to derive any concrete knowledge about someone from their karma. I thought the system was just for fun.
4. If the staff believes karma really does have more meaning than I can see, I'd argue that folks probably abuse giving positive karma just as much as, if not more than, negative karma. It isn't uncommon for folks to inflate each others' karma for no reason other than they are friends. If karma really is important, should we be regulating applause abuse as well as smite abuse?
If Richard chooses to keep these updates to the system, is there a way to broadcast these new regulations more widely? I know a lot of RAFians don't read the blog regularly, so they might not be aware of the changes.
