I really do appreciate the conversation, guys. It's both informative and helpful, and I'll keep it in mind in the future. I hope I've done a good job of at least explaining my initial actions, and if you guys read in to it, I hope you can come to understand it. Rules have been put in place as a result of it, and I'll more than likely revert to the warning as a result of it. I did already have a response to Dracomajora and Batman typed up, but if anyone else has specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them tomorrow.
Dracomajora said:
I believe Kitsu only has the Administrator userbar, and I personally wasn't aware that he'd been infracted for that, and many others may also not have been; Pancake was also likely unaware of Mellow's intentions.
Whereas Mellow was much more egregious in his abuse, I'm sure that Pancake, at least, rightly thought that it was simply a harmless joke that wouldn't get him into any real trouble. He only added it for a second to take a screenshot, and then promptly removed it; I certainly wouldn't have expected that to be grounds for an infraction or any actual punishment if I were the one to have done it, and, evidently, neither do most of the people in this thread. I don't think that could justifiably be called abuse or warrant an infraction, and I also don't think there was enough of a precedent to the point where he should have expected to get into trouble for that.
It becomes to difficult to determine what people do and do not personally know, and as for yourself, I certainly couldn't determine that myself. But the two factors do still remain, the fact that Kitsu was penalized heavily for having the admin user bar along with utilizing the exploit for other means. Even in one infraction statement, one of the prime reasons was the Kitsu has posed as a mod and sent out fake infractions. Pancake more likely than not knows this, as he was present during the entire original ordeal, and, if I remember correctly, actually informed me of the fake infractions that were sent out via members like JuicieJ. This is all independent of Mellow's intentions, however, which he admitted were indeed committed in some form of malice. Perhaps Pancake couldn't determine that for himself, but the fact still remains that I think it's more probable that he was aware that we do not, under any circumstance, condone the usage of official forum rank bars being exploited. I've already stated many times that his originally receiving the infraction was based heavily on my desire to not give him special treatment in the wake of Mellow's infraction, as I was cautious to the fact that it could be used as "mods are biased" leverage, and wanted to avoid my natural inclination to let him off the hook.
I can also point you to the enlightening conversation I had with Batman above concerning how I approach the warning vs infraction dynamic and how this combined with everything I outlined above, led to my initial action of pairing the Mellow/Pancake infractions together. I've even stated multiple times that I'm more than willing to downgrade it to a warning, but not Mellow's, now that we've had such a good conversation that I fear we would have normally never had.
Dracomajora said:
Like Batman said, if it's in your power to infract people for it and you're willing to do so, then you should also be able to at least tell people not to do something, even if it isn't as an official rule. If you were that hesitant, you could have also checked with the other moderators before infracting them.
I would like to think I've already adequately explained my thought process at the time concerning why I originally didn't default to the warning option. If you're asking me to post a thread or an announcement, I've also attempted to convey the fact that it's not exactly within my power at this time to assign rules based on what I personally think would be good amendments or additions to them. It should also be noted that Mellow has also mentioned that he's unsatisfied with the amount of time that it took for me to act on his infraction, which leads me to believe that others get upset without prompt responses to actions. I brought the issue up in the form of communication I have with the rest of the staff, and have unfortunately not been able to get a response from a majority of other participants.
Batman said:
If warnings are only meant to be given to members who are breaking a rule unknowingly, then I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with the parameters for giving a warning vs. an infraction. Everyone should be given a chance to rectify their behavior if their offense is relatively minor. The point is to deter rule breaking behavior; not punish. Punishment comes if the warning was not heeded. But that's just me.
It should be duly noted then, I suppose. Although that does little for me in the way of attempting to explain why exactly I did what I did, as I attempt to explain that it wasn’t my “corrupt” nature that prompted me to do so. If you feel that our dynamic, or how I’ve interpreted it to be up to this point, is philosophically flawed, I’ll definitely keep that in mind when I decide in the future which option to default to when making decisions. But when we have to use words such as “relatively minor”, it calls into question the types of rules that we’re even willing to enforce (or even create) in the first place, and whether or not special exceptions should be made when we deem a certain offense “minor” in its nature. This leaves so much open to interpretation, which inevitably creates a conflict of interest when we have so many different people moderating around the forum. If you feel my thought process when originally determining this warning vs infraction nature was unjust, I truly do apologize for it, and I’ll keep your words at heart the next time I have to make a decision like this. But other factors were involved in this decision, factors which I’ve already outlined when it pertains to how I handled Mellow’s infraction, and how I thought Pancake’s should interact with it. Regardless, all things considered, I’ll most definitely keep this concern in mind henceforth.
Batman said:
As LegendOfZelda, I received quite a few warnings over the years and they were all given to me after I was an established member. The mods knew that I knew what I was doing, and gave me warnings telling me to change my tone or whatever. Weird that the situation is different now.
This is strange, as I’ve heard so many horror stories pertaining to mod action in the past, especially when it came to LegendOfZelda and how your actions were handled. Matt has told me during several occasions that he believes your reason for being banned was unjust, so I can only assume from what I’ve heard that the eventual infraction you received was unjust as well, although I know no details. Of course, I can’t speak for these mods, as I quite literally don’t know any of them which have already retired. I’ve heard many others say, both in the staff circle and out, that mod action these days is far scaled back from what it used to be. I would hope that many among us think that this is a positive thing, and that we’re at least handling this just a little bit better now in a way.
Batman said:
The ends don't justify the means. It's great that this ordeal has started an important dialog. Nevertheless, it's my contention, and the contention of most others, that Pancake's infraction was "wrong" for a number of good reasons and we've said our peace. His infraction should be revoked. The point is promote a standard of behavior; not punish for punish's sake. Pancake won't do it anymore whether you punish him or not.
Regardless, you should make an announcement that you plan to warn/infract/whatever people who exploit the CSS in the manner Mellow and Pancake did. It's the courteous thing to do. Don't just assume that hundreds of members know what happened with Kitsu. Make a nice little statement about how to properly use the exploit. That's it.
If you won't I will. It'll mean more coming from you though.
I certainly feel that the dialogue led to something full of substance, and I even stated, as early as my first response, that I was more than willing to entertain the nothing that coupling Mellow’s and Pancake’s respective infractions was not something that worked out the way I intended it to. Although I do still hope that you among other people can understand my line of thought, or dare I say, respect it, in my attempt to not ignore the situation, but to be completely transparent with you when it comes to my reasoning and thoughts for doing this. It’s my greatest fear that, if this had been swept under the rug, and this “wrong” action have never taken place, that it would have failed to set in motions that would lead to far worse grievances in the future. I understand why many would not think this is worth it, but with everything else considered that I had attempted to analysis and put into place with the original pair of actions, I still believe this was most certainly a healthy conversation to have, and an experience that I’m happy to have gone through. It’s my attempt to be the best moderator I can be, and if there are bumps in the way, I’ll just have to accept that.
But concerning the official statement, I’m glad that it’s already happened. As I’ve said before, you’ll have to forgive my reluctance to make it when my tenure is still so short compared to others. We’ve not had this kind of problem with this exploit since I was first utilized, with those hundreds of members you’ve mentioned not making anything even close to the effort we saw tonight. This is also which contributed to my lack of desire to set rules in stone by myself, combined with past experiences that have taught me to never, ever act unilaterally on my own, as it’s gotten me into rough situations in the past.