Hasn't this conversation just turned into a regular old crap fest? Obviously I was not involved in this decision - I'll be honest, I've only vaguely skimmed the ruleset here. What I do hate about how this was handled was that two different mods did two entirely different reactions to it. One with a warning, the other wiping out a bunch of posts, and then later chatting after the fact to figure out how to best sort the issue (I saw this discussion happen on skype and I stayed out of it as I don't feel it's right for me to step into these discussions just yet).
That sounds like there's still a bit of inconsistency in how moderators handle issues like this. We're all human, we all make mistakes, but while the rules should be open to a degree of interpretation, I also think that there should also be general standards in how moderators should handle situations like this. That would help avoid situations like this in the future.
This is the exact sort of thing I was talking about preventing with my original proposal to rework the rules and unify staff actions - eliminating possibilities of staff interpretation. Why? Because different staff interpret things in different ways and different actions are taken depend on on which staff saw the situation. To me, that constitutes unfair treatment. Ideally, staff should basically be robots in a certain sense - well aware we're all humans, but with clearly defined actions for any given situation, rather than different actions by different mods to the same issue.
While I agree with you, I don't think you should completely eliminate staff interpretation. What I think would be better is if there were standards on how stuff like this is handled within staff. Rules shouldn't be completely black or white. We live in a world with shades of gray, and no matter how much we write the rules, shades of gray are always going to exist. Although I agree that the actions of staff should be more consistent; if one case with x member was handled this one way, then generally, other cases with y members should be handled in that same way, unless the nuance of the situation dictates otherwise.
As for the actual incident - there is blame all around. Vanessa explained herself poorly in even mentioning there were multiple reports. Who cares - your actions should never be based on reports or on if people are offended. She worded it in a way that inferred the actions were due to reports and people being offended. The actions should be because it goes against the forum policy.
Lozjam is adamant it didn't break any rules. To the letter of the law - it only did through interpretation, but how one interprets it seems to vary even among the mods, let alone the members. Open interpretation is really what lead to this issue in the first place.
Well, okay, Vanessa made a mistake. I agree that it should have been about a violation of forum policy and not about how many reports x has filed against someone. Doing it by x reports opens up the report system for abuse, and considering just how much this situation has been blown out of proportion, that might need to be looked at as well.
PERSONALLY: If we want to call this a family friendly place, there are many changes that need to happen rule wise, because I'd hardly call this place family friendly. Miiverse is family friendly. This place is much, much edgier and definitely slanted towards an upper teenager mentality. As for whether or not a "12 year old (they are actually 13) is offended" - that really shouldn't matter either. It's either okay to say you'd bang a member, or it's not. Rules shouldn't change due to age. It needs to be set standard. Standards here are far too open to interpretation, as are punishments.
That's true. ZD has a different demographic it caters to compared to Miiverse. Otherwise, when it comes to jokes of that nature, I agree- it's either allowed to happen for everybody, or it shouldn't be allowed to happen at all. Even if both parties think a specific joke or comment is funny, not everyone shares the same sense of humor as you do. Even if the joke was completely harmless, if it isn't something allowed in the rules, then it probably shouldn't be told or kept to other channels not directly tied to the forums.
I'm not saying we need to dole out punishments left and right. I'm saying that we should talk to those users and say, "hey, that joke was funny, but that's probably going to get you in trouble of you tell it. Might want to take it elsewhere."
Just my take. It's likely not going to change, and it's one of the primary reasons I wanted to keep the two site's boards separated. There is a lot engrained here that while I think the staff is open to working on new rulesets, I am not sure any of them (or any of you) agree with my premise in the first place.
I know how you feel. I'm pretty bummed that certain issues I see happening on the forums aren't better addressed due to the vagueness present in the way some of the rules are worded. We have rules to protect the members of the forum. If we aren't willing to take a look at them to determine what's best for the community... then can we really say that we're helping this community at all?
We're going to be having a merger soon. We should all be on the same page on how the rules should be addressed going forward. It's a shame stuff like this keeps on happening to distract us from the bigger picture.
Honestly, I don't want to sound like a complete asshole, but with the rhetoric you're putting forward right now, I'd rather you just decided not to become a staff member here. Interpretation is extremely important. As
@Matt has alluded to, there is a big difference between a joke and not a joke. You can't turn your emotions off and make this decision. This isn't ZI, this is ZD. ZD is buying ZI, so by extension, ZI will become ZD. You can keep your ZI moderation to yourself. I have some complaints about the mods, but I'm happy enough to not change them as much as you'd like to.
That's a bit much, don't you think? All Nate is suggesting is that we hold everybody to the same standards. Should we see things in black or white? No. Should things be up to a degree of interpretation? Sure, I agree with you there. Not everybody reads the rules the same way, but the more you remove the vagueness present in the rules, the better the standards set for the community. We want everybody to be held to the same standards at the end of the day.