(OLD) Contest Unfair Infractions Here

[Mellow Ezlo]

My infraction is justified, but Pancake's is not.

With no official rules in place about the exploit, not a single member who uses it, even the way I did, should be infracted for it, especially when one of the mods suggests looking into it as a vbshop feature. A warning suffices. Infractions are given out based on broken rules, and no rules were actually broken with what Pancake, nor I, did. My infraction was justified because it made mention of my profile design, which does in fact directly go against the official rules. Pancake's infraction is not justified because he did not actually break any "rules".

That's all I wanted to say.

 

[Ganondork]

There is no argument that the current forum moderation is a lot more lenient and, in many ways, superior to that of the past few years, but that doesn't mean there aren't kinks that still need to be ironed out. This thread increases the transparency between mods and members by allowing members to directly state their grievances to moderators and receive opinions from everyone on the forum as well. There is no "anti-mod attitude." People often support what they believe is right without stooping to insults or mockery.

There is certainly an anti-mod attitude. As I stated earlier, people will proclaim, "Member X doesn't get in trouble ever!" but the moment they do, those same people support them in trying to remove the infraction. I've heard cries of bias in other threads, when members from each circle get in trouble when they truly deserve it. People think that they're being persecuted because a certain rule begins to be enforced, etc. At the end of the day, people always point fingers at the mods for when things go wrong, instead of thinking to themselves, "Hmm, I've been arguing with mods a lot recently. Maybe I'm doing something wrong?"

It's not even a certain group that is holding this mindset, we are now seeing it across different groups. As Vergo has made plainly clear multiple times now, Mellow Ezlo allegedly did this simply to see if he would get in trouble for that. This kind of mindset is an attempt to sniff out bias in the mods. I don't really see any other way of analyzing the situation at hand involving that.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

As Vergo has made plainly clear multiple times now, Mellow Ezlo allegedly did this simply to see if he would get in trouble for that. This kind of mindset is an attempt to sniff out bias in the mods. I don't really see any other way of analyzing the situation at hand involving that.

That was in fact my main reason for doing it. It's also the reason my profile design, and my blog design, are what they are. The fact that they were acted on, albeit a long time later than they should have been, do show that the moderation team at this site is making an effort to prove to people that they're not as biased as people say they are, which I have to give a thumbs up to.

However, I will still stress that my "inappropriate Profile Design" has been the way it is for almost a month now, and is only just being acted on, while somebody like Kitsu would have been in trouble for it almost instantly. I am happy that I got infracted for it because it shows that the mods are doing their jobs right, and a lot of what people say about them is not entirely correct.

 

[Batman]

Precedence is the only way smaller rules like this are established. The higher ups gave us the benefit of the doubt that it would not be abused, and multiple people have crossed the line, gone against any sort of common sense, and pretty clearly abused an exploit. The exploit is not a right, it's a privilege. I don't understand where this sense of entitlement has come from. Many places would ban any and all use of the exploit, but it's been allowed.

No, precedence is not the only way smaller rules like this are established and I have no idea why you think otherwise. Make an announcement or a rule saying “don’t do this” and it works the same for small issues as it does large issues. The issue caliber doesn’t change as long as the consequences are real. And if the mods gave anyone the benefit of the doubt that a CSS exploit would not be…exploited, then that’s their problem.

I think you and I can agree that abuse isn't always done out of malicious intent. Abuse is abuse, though.

Malicious abuse is far worse than innocent abuse. Regardless, both are “abuses” of the exploit and Pancake needed to be told not to abuse it. But ignorance of rules - that don’t even exist - should have merited a warning. Regardless, a warning would have worked. Pancake is lots of things, not all of them good, but he’s not a forum troublemaker who endeavors to piss off the mods and harm the site.

We both know that common sense says, "Hmm, Kitsu got in a lot of trouble for abusing the exploit earlier, I probably shouldn't do something like that." They aren't innocent little victims by any margin.

I’m not even sure how many people realize what Kitsu did (and Kitsu should have been warned too at first). But regardless if they knew that Kitsu did it and got in trouble and they did it anyway, they broke a rule and were abusing the system and should have been warned for doing so. Any further failures to comply should result in infractions. Infractions should come after a warning; especially when it comes to relatively minor issues such as banner images in a side bar. That’s what common sense says.

I've heard a lot of people say things like, "Pancake gets away with so much!" for quite some time. Now he has gotten in trouble, and these same people are at his side, defending him?

Yes, because every situation is the same.

Abuse of the system is indeed abuse, and how else am I to get this across?

By telling people not to abuse the system. By being specific about what members shouldn’t do and warning those who were doing it to stop lest they get infracted.

And as I said pertaining to "updating" the rules, I honestly have no idea if it's within my jurisdiction to officially update the rules thread, or even make an announcement after the fact creating an official rule without first consulting the other members of the staff along with the Admin.

If you feel it’s your jurisdiction to infract people for breaking rules, you should feel comfortable making statements about those rules. If Pancake’s actions were detrimental to the forum and you are allowed to punish him, you should be allowed to make a statement to others about not doing the same actions (in the form of a warning to perpetrators and in the form of a statement to deter future perpetrators). You don’t have to make new rules yourself to tell members to refrain from doing x. Obviously x is infract worthy, so telling people to refrain from doing x seems totally reasonable and within your abilities as a moderator. You could have done so for Pancake. You can do so now.

Also, our “admin” is barely self-aware.

We've lacked true leadership

Isn’t that the truth. And it’s a real shame. The webmaster and admin view these forums as an unimportant diversion. Well, the thousands of us who use this forum to share, and meet, and talk, and debate, and laugh, and cry, and learn see it quite differently. The forums are important to us and as an extension, they should be important to those with clout on this website.

 

[Jamie]

I personally believe that even if there was some rule posted in a blog or a sticky, Pancake should not have been infracted. It was only up for a second for a little joke. As a user who has never been infracted before, I would be extremely bothered by an infraction. A warning was certainly justified in any situation, though. But I find it hard to believe that anyone deserves an infraction for breaking a rule that doesn't break any of the official rules that we are all required to read. Similar to a point I was making in my blog, some people are separated from the benefit of the doubt. I think the concept that we need to treat seasoned veterans in a different way than we treat newbies is very broken. Whether or not Pancake did anything wrong is irrelevant if it is feasible that he was unaware that he did anything wrong. The only exception is if it is in the main rules as again, we are all required to read them.

Likewise, Ezlo deserved an infraction in all situations. Ezlo kept the ranks for an extended period of time which lowered a lot of people's experience. It bogged up any page that he posted in and certainly has a possibility to cause great confusion. So the reason why I would think Ezlo deserved an infraction is independent of any sort of "abuse" of a rule that doesn't even exist.

 

[A Link In Time]

There is certainly an anti-mod attitude. As I stated earlier, people will proclaim, "Member X doesn't get in trouble ever!" but the moment they do, those same people support them in trying to remove the infraction. I've heard cries of bias in other threads, when members from each circle get in trouble when they truly deserve it. People think that they're being persecuted because a certain rule begins to be enforced, etc. At the end of the day, people always point fingers at the mods for when things go wrong, instead of thinking to themselves, "Hmm, I've been arguing with mods a lot recently. Maybe I'm doing something wrong?"

It's not even a certain group that is holding this mindset, we are now seeing it across different groups. As Vergo has made plainly clear multiple times now, Mellow Ezlo allegedly did this simply to see if he would get in trouble for that. This kind of mindset is an attempt to sniff out bias in the mods. I don't really see any other way of analyzing the situation at hand involving that.

You're supporting what I said earlier. Most people on this site support what they believe to be right instead of blindly siding for or against certain members.

Returning to Pancake specifically, there was frustration a few weeks ago since he insulted Seth and several others in the Mature Discussion. Despite his poor decision then, he showed heart and responsibility by apologizing through private message. Now that an official policy is in place for custom user ranks and he was infracted before the decision, it is unfair for him to be infracted ex post facto. Even before Garo posted the thread, similar notions defending Pancake against being set up as a "precedent" were voiced. These are completely different circumstances.

As for Mezlo, he's admitted his wrongs and accepts the consequences.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

By telling people not to abuse the system. By being specific about what members shouldn’t do and warning those who were doing it to stop lest they get infracted.

As I said in my initial response, I had believed that a precedent had already been set for this. The main justification behind Kitsu recieving his initial infraction, at least in the way it was conveyed to me, was that he made great use of official forum ranks, going even so far as to send out PMs acting as such. This makes it difficult to believe, especially in the wake of what Mellow had already done and the example he had attempted to convey, that Pancake was completely unaware under and circumstance that using official forum ranks was something that we looked down upon. As I've already said, one of the prime motivations behind me using the actual infraction as opposed to the warning originally was that I wanted to avoid seeming partial to Pancake's side while still infracting Mellow's actions. It's well-known that I'm aquainted with Pancake; it would have been easy, among his many, many critics, to accuse me of being biased. We've already had confirmation that this entire exercise tonight was an attempt to prove some of the forum staff of being just that, and with this suspicion in mind, I acted to what I believed in the moment to be my best course of action.

If you feel it’s your jurisdiction to infract people for breaking rules, you should feel comfortable making statements about those rules. If Pancake’s actions were detrimental to the forum and you are allowed to punish him, you should be allowed to make a statement to others about not doing the same actions (in the form of a warning to perpetrators and in the form of a statement to deter future perpetrators). You don’t have to make new rules yourself to tell members to refrain from doing x. Obviously x is infract worthy, so telling people to refrain from doing x seems totally reasonable and without your abilities as a moderator. You could have done so for Pancake. You can do so now.

Also, our “admin” is barely self-aware.

This is where this gets incredibly touchy and extremely ambiguous - as a member of the staff who is still relatively new when compared to the majority of my peers, I honestly have no idea if it's within my power to assign rules based on my own personal judgement, and act as if these rules are the permanent go-to solution from this moment forth. I've been told on other occasions to inform others before I make official statements, and of course to refrain from making up rules on the spot just because I personally believe they would be a good addition just on my personal opinion. You can understand my hesitancy, then, to go out on my own without any sort of consultation and make an official statement. I'm very confident that these steps are the right ones to take, and I'm glad they're being acted upon. But you will have to forgive me for utilizing what I believe to be my only method of rule enforcement at this time, which is of course the power to warn/infract. Official confirmation on amendments or additions to the official rules would be good, I agree with that.

 

[Batman]

As I said in my initial response, I had believed that a precedent had already been set for this. The main justification behind Kitsu recieving his initial infraction, at least in the way it was conveyed to me, was that he made great use of official forum ranks, going even so far as to send out PMs acting as such. This makes it difficult to believe, especially in the wake of what Mellow had already done and the example he had attempted to convey, that Pancake was completely unaware under and circumstance that using official forum ranks was something that we looked down upon. As I've already said, one of the prime motivations behind me using the actual infraction as opposed to the warning originally was that I wanted to avoid seeming partial to Pancake's side while still infracting Mellow's actions. It's well-known that I'm aquainted with Pancake; it would have been easy, among his many, many critics, to accuse me of being biased. We've already had confirmation that this entire exercise tonight was an attempt to prove some of the forum staff of being just that, and with this suspicion in mind, I acted to what I believed in the moment to be my best course of action.

I'm saying this is irrelevant though. Even if Pancake was 100% aware of what he was doing and his only goal was to mess with the moderators, the punishment warranted is a warning considering what's at stake is an annoying image in a side bar. A warning saying "Stop doing this or you will be infracted" would have been most appropriate instead of an outright infraction. That's my whole point. Give everyone a chance to behave and rectify their behavior. Obviously you can't do this with people who post porn on the site or a bot or something; you have to infract/ban them outright.. But you can, and should, do it when the offense is relatively minor such as a code exploit to create banners.

This is where this gets incredibly touchy and extremely ambiguous - as a member of the staff who is still relatively new when compared to the majority of my peers, I honestly have no idea if it's within my power to assign rules based on my own personal judgement, and act as if these rules are the permanent go-to solution from this moment forth. I've been told on other occasions to inform others before I make official statements, and of course to refrain from making up rules on the spot just because I personally believe they would be a good addition just on my personal opinion. You can understand my hesitancy, then, to go out on my own without any sort of consultation and make an official statement. I'm very confident that these steps are the right ones to take, and I'm glad they're being acted upon. But you will have to forgive me for utilizing what I believe to be my only method of rule enforcement at this time, which is of course the power to warn/infract. Official confirmation on amendments or additions to the official rules would be good, I agree with that.

I'm not asking you to make rules. I'm just asking you to make a statement saying "Hey guys, if you do this you're going to get in trouble." That's all.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

I'm saying this is irrelevant though. Even if Pancake was 100% aware of what he was doing and his only goal was to mess with the moderators, the punishment warranted is a warning considering what's at stake is an annoying image in a side bar. A warning saying "Stop doing this or you will be infracted" would have been most appropriate instead of an outright infraction. That's my whole point. Give everyone a chance to behave and rectify their behavior. Obviously you can't do this with people who post porn on the site or a bot or something; you have to infract/ban them outright.. But you can, and should, do it when the offense is relatively minor such as a code exploit to create banners.

Warnings are always framed in a way that lets the offender know that they have, unknowingly, committed an action that we believe to be unacceptable. This can be seen with newer members who aren't familiar with forum-going in the first place, or even very young members who aren't familiar with unspoken "internet-etiquette". From day one, warnings have always been conveyed to me in this way, where members certainly don't know any better. If Pancake did indeed have knowledge that we look down upon the mimicking of official forums ranks, which, as I've said, seems to be more probable than not due to what happened with Kitsu a while back in conjunction with Mellow's actions, that makes it very difficult for me, in that moment, to conclude that it should be merely a warning, as this doesn't fit under the interpretation that I had of the action in the first place. This is combined with my desire, as I've said, to attempt to be impartial to someone who I consider to be my friend on this forum while I infract another for a nearly similar offense. But as I've said many times already, due to how we've had no official statement on this thus far, it's probably best to revert the infraction into a warning. All I ask, however, is that others simply understand how we approach the warning/infraction dynamic, and why I made my original decision the way I did.

Do we need more clarification on warnings vs infractions? Probably, and it's probably a good thing to do, one that I've already somewhat advocated with much more defined interpretations of Poor Posting Quality, for example. I hope we're able to do this soon.

I'm not asking you to make rules. I'm just asking you to make a statement saying "Hey guys, if you do this you're going to get in trouble." That's all.

In a way, that's, again, why I'm glad this entire conversation has happened. As I said, I think passing this by with just a warning on Pancake's part would have led to this issue not being brought up, and thus new rules being put in place after consideration, leading to even worse situations down the road.

 

[Emma]

Regardless of what's decided on the banner issue, it's completely wrong to have done this infraction because it wasn't an official rule yet. So the infractions should be removed. If a rule is not explicitly defined, you have no right to infract for it. An infraction is a punishment for not following a rule. People can't follow a rule you never told them about. So what was done here was completely unfair and it is certainly not helping the mods' already horrible reputation for being too harsh and too reactionary to things that upset them.

 

[Kirino]

I've heard a lot of people say things like, "Pancake gets away with so much!" for quite some time. Now he has gotten in trouble, and these same people are at his side, defending him? It bothers me, and I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

I don't see this is as an expression of some sort of anti-mod attitude so much as different cases necessitating different opinions. It's unfair to assert that they're just trying to oppose the mods wherever possible, when in reality, they aren't biased against Pancake to the point where they'd refuse to defend him without an ulterior motive, and therefore him being the one infracted is irrelevant.

As I said in my initial response, I had believed that a precedent had already been set for this. The main justification behind Kitsu recieving his initial infraction, at least in the way it was conveyed to me, was that he made great use of official forum ranks, going even so far as to send out PMs acting as such. This makes it difficult to believe, especially in the wake of what Mellow had already done and the example he had attempted to convey, that Pancake was completely unaware under and circumstance that using official forum ranks was something that we looked down upon. As I've already said, one of the prime motivations behind me using the actual infraction as opposed to the warning originally was that I wanted to avoid seeming partial to Pancake's side while still infracting Mellow's actions. It's well-known that I'm aquainted with Pancake; it would have been easy, among his many, many critics, to accuse me of being biased. We've already had confirmation that this entire exercise tonight was an attempt to prove some of the forum staff of being just that, and with this suspicion in mind, I acted to what I believed in the moment to be my best course of action.

I believe Kitsu only had 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.

This is where this gets incredibly touchy and extremely ambiguous - as a member of the staff who is still relatively new when compared to the majority of my peers, I honestly have no idea if it's within my power to assign rules based on my own personal judgement, and act as if these rules are the permanent go-to solution from this moment forth. I've been told on other occasions to inform others before I make official statements, and of course to refrain from making up rules on the spot just because I personally believe they would be a good addition just on my personal opinion. You can understand my hesitancy, then, to go out on my own without any sort of consultation and make an official statement. I'm very confident that these steps are the right ones to take, and I'm glad they're being acted upon. But you will have to forgive me for utilizing what I believe to be my only method of rule enforcement at this time, which is of course the power to warn/infract. Official confirmation on amendments or additions to the official rules would be good, I agree with that.

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 posting the thread instead of infracting them.

 

[Batman]

Warnings are always framed in a way that lets the offender know that they have, unknowingly, committed an action that we believe to be unacceptable. This can be seen with newer members who aren't familiar with forum-going in the first place, or even very young members who aren't familiar with unspoken "internet-etiquette". From day one, warnings have always been conveyed to me in this way, where members certainly don't know any better. If Pancake did indeed have knowledge that we look down upon the mimicking of official forums ranks, which, as I've said, seems to be more probable than not due to what happened with Kitsu a while back in conjunction with Mellow's actions, that makes it very difficult for me, in that moment, to conclude that it should be merely a warning, as this doesn't fit under the interpretation that I had of the action in the first place. This is combined with my desire, as I've said, to attempt to be impartial to someone who I consider to be my friend on this forum while I infract another for a nearly similar offense. But as I've said many times already, due to how we've had no official statement on this thus far, it's probably best to revert the infraction into a warning. All I ask, however, is that others simply understand how we approach the warning/infraction dynamic, and why I made my original decision the way I did.

Do we need more clarification on warnings vs infractions? Probably, and it's probably a good thing to do, one that I've already somewhat advocated with much more defined interpretations of Poor Posting Quality, for example. I hope we're able to do this soon.

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.

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.

In a way, that's, again, why I'm glad this entire conversation has happened. As I said, I think passing this by with just a warning on Pancake's part would have led to this issue not being brought up, and thus new rules being put in place after consideration, leading to even worse situations down the road.

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.

 

[Jamie]

Infractions in my eyes are actually a big deal. I would be extremely bothered if I received an infraction, as I am aware that things like infractions are taken into consideration when discussing things like possible promotions into the ranks of staff members and just a general view of how the staff members look at you. I am proud of never having received an infraction and I think how infractions are viewed should be taken into consideration when dishing them out.

 

[Emma]

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.

This really has to be stressed. Infractions are last resort. They're done when the user absolutely won't listen and keeps doing what they were instructed not to. Jumping to it as the first course of action is a very hostile action. It shows that you're more concerned about controlling people and lashing out at them when they are not perfectly obedient. Moderation is supposed to be.... moderation. To keep things orderly. To diffuse problems before they get out of hand. Not to lord over people. Vergo, you're new to staff. You've probably learned that it's a good first resort. But it's not. There's quite a history of resorting to infractions first without warning.

Don't just assume that hundreds of members know what happened with Kitsu.

Really this should just stop being brought up at all. A huge problem with the mods, among other issues, is constantly demonizing people who got infracted or banned in the past. They DESERVED it, they wronged. They crossed your authority. Every time it's retold it's even more black and white. The complexities that make it more ambiguous and morally gray are sanitized out of the story. The reality of what happened with Kitsu was that he did a poorly thought out joke that he did in frustrated anger because the moderators were censoring content in MD and in blogs that they considered to be offensive. And they completely refused to deal with people who were actually being abusive. I'm sure you know who I am referring to and I don't have to name names. This was very frustrating for him, and the rest of us. The fact that these things happened is constantly denied by the moderators, rather feebly and blatantly ignoring very obvious examples which are much worse than the things they complain about with the "offensive" people. I've been used as an example by moderators to scare people before too. He lied and said things happened with me that never happened anywhere but his imagination. It's unfair when this happens.

And now, the fictionalized version of what happened with Kitsu is being used to scare people into obeying. Maybe his reaction was not the smartest. But considering what was happening, what the moderators were doing, and what they refused to do, and that how the fictionalized version of what happened with him hyper-focuses on how mod authority was being mimicked (which seems more like an ego problem than a serious problem), it's difficult to see it as such a bad thing. The mods were refusing to do their job, and... face it, were abusing their authority by unfairly cracking down on people who were not even doing anything wrong. It's natural to be upset at that. I'm probably going to get a scolding for hurting the mod's reputation by saying all this. Well... guess what? The mods' actions are doing much worse to the mods' reputation than any amount of criticism can do. What's more, attempting to silence criticism is only going to ensure people believe it. Maybe the mods believed they were doing the right thing before by censoring people and ignoring the actual bullies. But... they were only causing harm.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.