Quote:
Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb
His example of the guy with 6 criminal offenses is somewhat of a cherry pick. It is definitely a nice example of success as well, but it is not proving his point unless he includes stories of the other side of the equation, which are good people who blew his game off because they were weirded out about the process.
It's not "somewhwat of a cherry pick." It's a cream-of-the-crop example of screening finding someone that he wouldn't want at HIS game.
I don't get your repeated " not proving his point" stance. I don't think either he, nor I, would do anything but agree with a statement such as "Your screening process is costing you some potentially good additions, most likely."
Of COURSE it is, by sheer percentages. I think we'd both disagree, however, if you were to claim that the screening process is costing us more good players than it's screening out bad ones. I of course can't prove it by exact numbers..... BUT NEITHER CAN YOU, no matter what you claim.
YOUR example, of your minimal interview screening process, doesn't prove YOUR presumed point that a home game doesn't need a more rigorous screening process, either. So, what's your point, other than you feel that your privacy is invaded by such a process? If so, so what? Some people are going to be turned off- nature of the process.
People I've started screening, who dropped out during the process, have told me that they weren't comfortable with giving out the information. I totally respected that and told them so, and they made the choice to pass on my group. No harm, no foul.
As I've said before, a number of people who HAVE gone through the process and stayed with the group have said that the process made them feel BETTER about the game.
Since I know what kind of person and host I am, should I say that the people such as yourself, who are made uncomfortable with the process and aren't willing to give that kind of information, is way overboard with their attitude? insulting me by assuming the worst? Their concerns are irrelevant or bizarre? That I guarantee that no one else would ever share their nitty and bizarre beliefs? That they are obviously weird and their attitude is among the strangest thing I've ever heard of?
Of course not- that would be incredibly stupid, amazing self-centered and arrogantly incorrect of me to claim.
Quote:
The question about law enforcement is certainly a legitimate one.
perhaps... but somewhat off-topic, no matter how it was introduced. At best, it's focusing on a few examples at the extreme end... much like the cherry-pick example you complained about as a outlier. So what?
Quote:
Large departments like the NYPD aren't supposed to have their members taking cups of coffee or bottled waters for free, let alone performing criminal checks while on the job
Politicians aren't supposed to be benefitting personally from information that they get from their jobs, that isn't shared with the public that 'hired' them.
CEOs aren't supposed to be looting their companies, performing illegal (or quasi-legal) schemes to get ahead.
Priests aren't supposed to be abusing their parisheners.
Again, so what? Are we focusing on presumed outliers, or are we talking about the meat of this thread?