Iâve read through the rule and offer the following thoughts:
-"⢠Creating threads or posts complaining about actions taken by a staff member
⢠Please do not make threads or posts to complain about or argue with a staff member and/or actions taken by them (this includes but is not limited to: infractions, warnings, bans, post/thread deletions, edits, locks, etc.) in an attempt to stir drama and/or attention. If you legitimately feel than an action taken by a staff member was unjustified or in violation of the forum rules, you should send a private message to an administrator with your concerns."
Certainly staff should not be harassed for doing their job, however it seems an open discussion about action taken is valid. Not only can it clarify a situation, but it provides a check and balance on the objectivity and consistency of moderatorsâ actions. Iâve seen it on other sites and it can be very useful. One site had a âMember to Moderatorâ section where not only could a mod be asked a question, but issues of actions taken could be discussed. Many moderators who were open found it helpful. Mods who were autocratic, played favorites and unaccountable did not like it. Overall, it improved the moderation of the site. No one, not even a moderator is machine-like and spits out decisions without imposing their personal feelings/experiences/biases on their actions (there is a site which uses bots and itâs horrible). Without public discussion, there is no accountability for moderators, especially in an organization with a short hierarchy. As for messaging the Administrator, does he really want that? My understanding is he does not desire to have a daily hands-on role in the operation of the site.
-Insulting Members (Rule #1)
Insulting and attacking other members of the forum will not be tolerated.*
Certainly posts like âyouâre a fucking assholeâ should not be allowed. But it should also not be allowed to make unsubstantiated claims of illegal activity for the sole purpose of insulting someone. For example, âpedophile,â ârapist,â âpredator,â etc. Citing someoneâs actions as being predatory should not be prohibited. Similarly, referring to someone as racist or homophobic, based on their post should be allowed. But using actual criminal labels simply as an insult is defamatory and libelous and always escalates the interaction.
-Age
This probably needs to take into account members who were under 20 when they joined the original TH. It then raises the question of if itâs wrong to prohibit others of that age to join.
-âInfraction,â âmoderation que,â â5 point infractionâ
What do these mean?
-â⢠Purposely reporting posts that you know do not violate any rulesâ
This is a really important rule. On another site, there was an attempt by a member to get her friends to overwhelm the moderators with empty complaints about another member. This was an immature high schoolish action which caused the moderators undue hardship and ultimately made the mods look bad.
-⢠Creating threads/posts threatening to leave the forum"
Why canât people openly discuss their thoughts about leaving the forum?
-âlooking to start fights with other membersâ
In general, I agree with this, however itâs important to keep in mind that what might begin as a comment on a thread, becomes a personal attack through the course of several exchanges. What one person considers âsnarky,â another considers simply an observation, albeit one with which others may disagree. âWho started the fightâ is the bane of every school teachersâ or police officersâ existence.
-âRule 8: Official languagesâ
This really doesnât make much difference to me, but what is the reason for it? I imagine itâs to prevent inappropriate messages being posted. With Google Translate we can translate almost anything.
-Why is advertising allowed in sigs?
-What are âVIP Members?â
-â⢠5-Point Infraction (2 months in length)â
Again, what is an infraction? How many point leads to what length of infraction and what happens during that 2 months?
-â⢠The staff of Teen Hut may ban an account/IP address with or without any reason provided.â
To be sure, a site like this cannot be run as a democracy, however respectable organizations do not operate under rules which allow arbitrary and capricious actions with no accountability. What is the justification for taking action without any reason provided? Providing a reason does not necessarily open the door to disputing the action, which is another matter all together. But this idea of not providing a reason, while permissible on a private site, does not seem to exude good faith. Again, this is especially an issue where there is no real appeal process.
-*â⢠Staff members reserve the right to modify these rules (this page) without prior notice.â
The âwithout prior noticeâ part is troubling. It would allow staff to change the rules after an action has been taken by a member, and apply the new rule to an earlier action. Certainly staff needs to be able to modify rules, but those changes should be prominently posted before being implemented.
I hope these observations are of some value. I look forward to othersâ thoughts on them.
