Maybe users don't have to intentionally post in ways that are directly counter to the terms they agreed to when they signed up.
It's not always as simple as that. Conversations get complex and when things heat up, people loose sight of the rules, often very quickly, then sometimes wires get crossed and people get pissy with each other. It's part of being human. The rules exist not as a hammer to be swung with force, but as a guidance to measure reactions too, and most of the time, with careful consideration for being on the merciful side. In all fairness, TPU staff have been a lot better at being merciful, objective and impartial in recent years.
we generally tend to take previous behavior into account when acting on a post. If a user has habitually pushed limits, they're much more likely to get points even if they've not been specifically warned regarding that specific behavior, or in that specific thread.
Here-in lays a problem. Sometimes it's unfair or even unacceptable to hold past infractions against a user.
Example; I recently had to outright ban someone for blatant antagonizing. The user being harassed was the one being reported, and holy shit did they explode in that thread. And I mean they went off the rails. While they were clearly out of line, they were also defending themselves from attack. It was an ongoing issue. The mods wanted to give the reported person some time-out, but having been watching the situation for over a year I knew the real deal. As an admin it was my call to make and so I banned the one doing the harassing and warned the others of similar penalties if they continued the harassment. They had been warned many times over the space of 14 months to knock it off. I issued no penalties to the one who had been reported and locked the other mods out of access to that account for 30 days with a warning to leave that user alone. I then asked the reported user for input. They explained, which was exactly what I had seen, and then let them know what actions had been taken. Asked them to take it easy for a little while and they agreed.
Might have to fire one of my staff for direct insubordination. It's not often that I have to get into it with them, but lines had clearly been crossed. They seem to be holding a grudge against the user in question, which is completely unacceptable and unprofessional for staff.
My point is, sometimes the bigger picture and context of a situation has to be considered and when a situation is presented a review of the larger conversation is required. Staff are never perfect, and reviewing entire conversations looking for who started the mischief can be a PITA.
But that's the job. If you can't do it, don't sign up for it. For users, it's not always easy to just let something ride and report it because comments that are damaging need responses. It's not as easy as "hit that report button". Sure, sometimes that works. Sometimes not.
Moderating is a difficult juggling act at the best of times. The rules have to be weighed carefully against the situations at hand and it's frequently not an easy line to draw in the sand.
Here's the ideal set I generally subscribe to:
1. Who started it?
2. Was the situation a misunderstanding?
3. Can the situation be resolved with some cleanup and messages asking users to take it easy?
4. If malicious, who needs to get the warnings/time-out/penalties?
5. If the problems persists, are the parties involved of value to the community?
6. If the trouble makers do not contribute to the community, can they be tolerated with guidance?
7. In the case of staff joining in the frackus, were the actions taken by the staff member warranted?
Dropping a ban is not something that happens very often, but in this case it was needed. As for my staff, they're paid. It's an actual job and moderating isn't their only responsibilities. So when they cross the line, they loose their actual job. TPU is a bit different. It's also a lot larger site. For that reason things are different for TPU moderation staff, sometimes more difficult, sometimes easier.
