Just throwing this out there:

4 months. yes/no

Rob, I'm sorry for using you as an example. It wasn't my intention to make you feel you needed to explain yourself. I'll stick with using me from now on.

Msbelle, 4 months for what, exactly? until an event can't be brought up anymore?

I am very much of the "apology optional, drop the matter and never speak of it again, go on pleasantly as though nothing's happened" point of view. The insistence on apologies in various situations--I'm thinking court cases now--has practically devalued apologies completely to my mind. "Oh, but he didn't say he was sorry!" only makes me think, "But he's not sorry he did it, he's sorry he got caught and he's only going to apologize because his lawyer knows the jury expects it." Harsh sentencing on the grounds that a defendent has not shown remorse seems a tad naive.

I actually think Rob is an excellent example of how not apologizing doesn't always mean bad things. There was no harm done, Rob chilled and, as he said above, he won't be doing it again because he understands the community reaction and he respects that. It's all good.

I really don't want to see whether or not someone apologizes becoming the be all end all. But maybe that's just me.

ETA: What connie said.

Msbelle, 4 months for what, exactly? until an event can't be brought up anymore?

4 months to be on warning.

The reason we want/like/prefer apologies is because they are the social grease that makes the community run with less friction. Sometimes just dropping the argument will be enough. I don't think the apology should be required, just that it's good form to do so. That is, to apologize because it makes everything work more smoothly. But that's a cultural thing not a rule.

If I implied "I'm sorry I offended you" was the only way to signal the end to a disagreement, that wasn't my intent.

Apologies can also end up all about the power - having to apologize to someone else can make it seem that another poster has more power over them. I think acknowledging the behavior and that it had negative consequences and that it's going to stop would be enough.

If I implied "I'm sorry I offended you" was the only way to signal the end to a disagreement, that wasn't my intent.

I don't think that's what people are saying. Sometimes people need to hash out the implications of what's said beyond the intent of the person who originally said it.

Anyway, I'm just stating the principle that "whatever moves things forward with the least amount of requirement is best."

I actually think Rob is an excellent example of how not apologizing doesn't always mean bad things. There was no harm done, Rob chilled and, as he said above, he won't be doing it again because he understands the community reaction and he respects that. It's all good.

Me too, and Rob, thanks for refreshing us on what happened. I hope we didn't make you uncomfortable. I felt okay using your example, because I thought your decision to chill rather than offer a false apology was a good one (and satisfactory to me - i.e., I wouldn't have seconded a demand to warn you).

I really don't want to see whether or not someone apologizes becoming the be all end all. But maybe that's just me.

No. It's not just you at all. It's why I broached the subject. I completely agree.

And to reiterate, I don't need this legislated or put in the ballot, I just wanted a gut check on how people view things, in case this ever happens. I do think the long ago and far away decision to not create lengthy rules which can become fodder for rules-lawyers was a very wise one.

Cindy, my fault for bringing it up as an example in the first place.

Deena, no -- there's no fault. It's good, because it's been weighing on my mind since yesterday's bureaucracy conversation, but I wasn't sure how to ask it.