I don't think Nick (or anyone for that matter) should be disciplined or anything, but the interpretation and enforcement of the rules on this blog continues to be inconsistent at best.
What rule was enforced inconsistently, or was interpreted differently than its plain language?
I'm not here to hijack the thread, nor is this the place for these concerns (as you know), but yes, interpretations inconsistent with the letter of the rule create inconsistent enforcement of the rule.
The rule states, plainly, "Only one account per person is permitted." Yet, under IP's interpretation of the rule, you can switch back and forth between multiple aliases provided you contact the staff. Okay, fine, what was "Only one account per person" now becomes "only one
active account per person."
But, the rule also states, "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names. If you would like to post under a different name, please contact the staff in order to close your old account, at which point you will be permitted to open a new account under a different screen name."
To me, that means if you really really want a new name, you can get one but you have to quit using your old name and you can't go back, since "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names." What it doesn't mean is that you can switch back and forth on a whim, provided you don't have more than one active account at any one time.
But what does one minor, trivial point about rule interpretation have to do with anything? A lot. Basically, by interpreting things differently than they're written, the C-Blog staff creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, where they have the option of following the lax interpretation of the rule (as they do in most cases), or following the letter of the law (which they do in a very small percentages of the cases), depending on how they
feel. What should be black and white rule enforcement now becomes grey and subjective fiat, something that feeds the
perception of favoritism.
Personally, I'd rather the staff take a lax interpretation of the rules and I'm sure if we took a poll, most everybody would agree as well, since it makes for a more natural, less formal atmosphere, which most of us can appreciate. The one problem with lax interpreation is when the staff reserves the right to
interpret by the letter of the law too,
when they see fit. That's where the inconsistency comes in, and that's where the perception of favoritism comes from--you can have one interpretion or the other, but you can't have both. It's inherently unfair.
I respectfully disagree. While a rule may have been broken here, it was addressed by the staff in the same way we address the vast majority of broken rules. We address it with the poster, explain the situation, give them a warning if necessary, and if they are cooperative, and understand what they did wrong/agree that it won't happen again, we move on happily.
We are not here to punish people. We are here to keep the site running smoothly, and trying to make it a place where everyone feels welcome. That means being reasonable, and not overreacting when a poster owns up to their actions.
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.
Just so we're clear: this isn't about getting anyone suspended or banned. I'd rather nobody get banned or disciplined if possible, not only in this case but in every case. This is simply an observation about how the
perception of favoritism can be rooted out, once and for all. And it's also a note to those who don't care about the perception of favoritism--it's precisely situations like these that ruin your credibility.