>>11431>However, as this case and a small handfull of others have demonstrated, there are times when their interpretation and implementation seem opaque to those whom they govern
Now let me stop you right here
And I read the rest, but this is where your train of thought kind of stopped me.
This site's policy is to never, ever, ban without warning, unless it's some obvious form of child porn or ban evasion, or some very
specific cases where the people obviously knew they were breaking a rule (Like someone posting pictures of penises in a thread about flowers, more or less)
That is so that anyone breaking the rules unknowingly can simply stop without any further harm being done. This has been - and still is - our golden rule, it was my express desire when we were deciding of the very foundations of how the site would work.
And well, the issue with rules is that people will always find loopholes in them. The more precise we are, the more people can act unacceptably while not crossing the limit and claim mod abuse when they get banned.
Take spam. What if I define spam as being the exact same message repeated multiple times in a thread by the same poster? Then how many times? If I put a number on it, people can just post a few times, stay under said number and claim they weren't spamming.
What matters is the intent. If a member damn well knows they're breaking a rule and keep doing so, then they are being toxic.
The 'always warn before banning' policy allows us to have very, very few unwarranted bans (I can only think of one, and it was us thinking a member was someone else ban evading, and that was a year ago)
Sticking to old judgements very exactly would only allow rule-breakers to find a month-old case with completely different circumstances to support their claim of mod abuse.
No rule abiding member has ever been banned on this site, thanks to both that system and our _very_ tight internal regulations of others' actions.