While I agree with Chris that this is the ideal, it hinges on subjective determinations every step of the way, subjective determinations that are undoubtedly colored by the degree of good/bad relationship between mods and offending member. Either you have a 'zero tolerance' policy (which ironically we do have, btw) that follows the letter of the law, or you have a lax interpretation policy which looks at banning and disciplinary measures as measures of last resort. This middle ground just creates problems.
I think Roy addressed this pretty well, but I just wanted to make one point. If we had a zero tolerance policy, there would be significantly fewer members on this site. Not many people on here can honestly say they have never broken a rule. We just do our best to work with every poster that does break a rule (including members of the staff) to correct their actions.
Yeah, but you
do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.
•Participation in the Current Events Forum is on a discretionary basis. Posting privileges in the forum can be revoked at any time, for any reason. There will be zero tolerance policy for rule-breaking in this forum.
Simply put, we detected Nick's alter-ego relatively quickly and discussed it in detail. Without proof and as long as his "nicknagenta" account remained inactive we decided to let it play out. We have from time to time let other posters "start over" and if nick wanted to do the same that was fine with us.
Only once he posted again as Nick did it become a problem with the rules, which we addressed immediately.
Would you rather we banned Nick for what he did? Zero tolerance policies create more problems than they solve.
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter.
And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule. Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the
perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
That's not what I had in mind. I was thinking of the phenomenom where testy exchanges on the message board (not necessarily rule-breaking exchanges) tend to create a feeling of hostility which then tends to result in less-than-friendly 'interpretations' of the rules when and *if* rule-breaking behavior occurs down the line.
All discipline is discussed with the mod staff as a whole. This prevents a "rogue mod" from carrying out a personal vendetta.
I guess I'll have to trust you on that one...but in my personal experience the axe dropped rather quickly and it seemed to be motivated by a less-than-kind, rather strict interpretation of the rules, the animus of which I can only guess at...
Appointing or supporting the election of an independent ombudsman who continually monitors and provides another voice for community interests (especially as they concern member/mod interaction) might be another good step in the right direction.
I don't see why this ombudsman's interpretation would hold more validity than the staff's as a whole.
Do you know what an ombudsman does? They mediate resolutions and provide the appearance of impartiality, provided they can remain seperated from the two parties involved. An ombudsman could help this blog's favoritism perception, if that's something you're concerned about.
***
Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do. You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site. That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site. I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.
If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the
perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception. All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.