This is a thread mainly for feedback about the clarity of rules and the way staff and users interact.

This is a long read, but it is important material!

Foremost, please read and reply calmly. This is not a thread for drama. Do not post without thinking about what is best for everyone on the site. This is a thread for civil discussion. Discussion leads to good decisions. I am making this thread in the hope that there will be a helpful outcome. I bring up these topics because I care about Subeta's continual success. This is not critique on any user or staff, and please do not do that either. We are here to talk about process, not about people. No hurting feelings! It would be best if you do not mention others by name. Be kind to peers! I want this thread to remain safe for any user or staff to converse in. My earnest hope is that this conversation will benefit Subeta's future.

I am concerned.

Let me tell you about the present situation and why I am currently concerned about how Subeta is operating. There are several patterns in play, and maybe you see even more patterns than I do.

The situation bringing my thoughts to this thread began like this: This morning in the Shoutbox a user said something to the effect of, "I have tokens to spend, but there is nothing in the token shop that I want. Would anyone like me to get something for them?" A second user replied something to the effect of, "There is an item I want, but I would rather pay you back for it! " The first user here was offering something for nothing, out of the spirit of generosity. I am not trying to emotionalize the situation, but that is how I see it. The first user was being kind by giving an item away. Now, the second user was also being kind, in my opinion, by saying that they would rather meet the first user halfway, turning the situation into a trade instead of a gift.

Now, please keep in mind that the rules of the shoutbox state:

Our ever watchful moderators saw the situation where the first user was offering to get an item for anyone who wanted one, and the second user was offering to pay for that item, and a moderator gave both users verbal warnings for advertising. The warning they both received was:

This led to a discussion in the shoutbox about the situation and the treatment of the users in question.

The second user's words can be applied to the above quote about advertising, because a trade was suggested. According to the rules, the second user should have made such a suggestion to trade privately instead of within the shoutbox. There does not seem to be much dispute about the second user having broken the shoutbox rules, although it seems to have been accidental. (The second user was not asking anyone to buy something from the token shop for them. They were just asking if they could pay for a gift instead of just accepting a gift, which could be interpreted as similar to offering a trade, and offering a trade is not allowed in the shoutbox.) The second user took the trade business to comments rather than actually in the shoutbox, but because they still offered to pay for the gift, the moderator seems to have decided it was still against the rules.

However, that is not the case with the first user. Several people pointed out that it was not fair for the first user to be admonished for advertising, because the first user was not advertising anything for sale or trade. The first user was merely offering to give away something for free. The first user was not asking anyone to buy something from the token shop for them. They were only asking if someone else would like something from the token shop for free. The first user should not have been warned. The first user did not break any specified shoutbox rule by offering to do a giveaway. Yet this first user was warned for advertising after trying to do a giveaway.

There is nothing presently in the rules that say that giveaways may not be held in the shoutbox. It is confusing to me whether that is intentional or not. Should giveaways be allowed in the shoutbox? My vote is yes, but perhaps the site should take a sitewide vote on that. Or staff could decide on their own, if that is how they want to handle the situation. If staff decide that giveaways should not be allowed in the shoutbox, then they will need to edit the shoutbox rules to clarify that. Clarity is of the utmost importance when it comes to rules. Perhaps the "etc" in the rules referred to giveaways? What does the "etc" refer to? It is unsettling to see ambiguity in the rules, because that can lead to people breaking the rules without even knowing they are doing anything wrong!

There is a part of the shoutbox rules that is tiled No Begging that even mentions giveaways:

It is unclear to me whether this rule is supposed to be about giveaways that were held elsewhere on the site, such as on the forums, or whether it is about giveaways actually held within the shoutbox. If it is about giveaways in the shoutbox, then shouldn't giveaways in the shoutbox be allowed then?

In the past there have been giveaways done in the shoutbox. I am new to the site, so I do not know if the people in the past were warned. However, I saw some users mention that another user, we can call them the third user, had recently done a giveaway in the shoutbox, which moderators saw, and that third user had not been warned. Why was one user warned for doing a giveaway, and another user not warned for doing a giveaway? If giveaways are against the rules in the shoutbox (which the shoutbox rules do not say, but perhaps the staff thinks it is part of the "etc", as mentioned), then why is not everyone being treated equally? Why is one person's giveaway allowed and another person's giveaway not allowed? Is it because one giveaway was offering to buy whatever that person wanted (a customized purchase), while the other giveaway was for a specific item that the person already owned? What kind of giveaway is against the shoutbox rules, and what kind of giveaway is allowed? If any giveaway is allowed in the shoutbox, then why was the first user in our scenario warned?

I am an extreme advocate of making sure that all members of a community are treated with fairness and consideration. If there is ambiguity in the rules, that can lead to some people being punished for one thing, and others not being punished for that same thing. It is important to make sure a community fully understands the rules, which is why it takes any staff body such a long and hard time to come up with rules that work for a site, and why rules are often updated when situations arise that point out the need for editing. I believe this is one such situation. Perhaps it is time to clarify the shoutbox rules concerning giveaways and how to respond to them. If giveaways are actually allowed in the shoutbox, perhaps a section of the rules should add that giveaways should not lead to trades, so that this specific situation does not happen again. (So the rules would say that if one person is giving something away, and another person wants to pay them instead, they need to suggest that privately and not in the shoutbox.)

Maybe you can even suggest other ways to word possible additions to the rules?

Let's go back to the situation that occurred today. What happened next? After the giveaway, after the trade offer, after the warning, after the public disapproval of the warning? A moderator and administrator (neither to be named unless they wish to discuss it) said that they would like the topic dropped from the shoutbox. I initially expressed shock that Subeta staff would censor a discussion about rules. Now I understand that it was likely not them wanting to censor discussion about rules, and probably them not wanting the specifics of those users who were warned to be discussed (since it is rude and negative to bring up names or draw attention to people who are being punished, because doing so often leads to unnecessary drama). Or, at least, I hope that was their reasoning for not wanting to discuss the rules in the shoutbox. I don't imagine Subeta to operate in the dictatorship way that other sites we know do! Subeta seems to operate in a friendly, open manner. I like how open staff is with users. In this situation I wanted to see staff remain open to discuss the rules. Rules are very, very important. Everyone should read them, and everyone should know them, and if they need to be talked about (such as in this situation with ambiguity regarding giveaways in the shoutbox), then staff should not try to prevent that discussion. As I said in the beginning, discussion is beneficial. When multiple people discuss an issue it helps bring out new ideas and new ways of thinking. Brainstorming is best done in groups. Subeta is a large community, so surely there are many people with good ideas on how to best reform or rewrite ambiguous rules to help clarify them and make sure they are reasonable and fair.

When staff asked that we no longer talk about rules in the shoutbox, I suggested that we create a thread about the situation in the forum to continue our discussion, and the administrator and moderator approved of this suggestion. That is why I am writing to you now, here in this thread.

Only staff can bring resolution to what happened with these two users today, but, by working together as a community, we can, I hope, bring resolution to the rules to prevent something like this from happening again.

It is not just the shoutbox rules, either. I have noticed people misunderstand other rules. Are there rules that you can think of that you have misunderstood? Or perhaps rules that you think could be better worded? Staff have worked hard to write rules the way they are. Some may believe that simplicity in the rules are better, so that everyone reads them. I believe that, while it is good to be concise, it is also important to add as many sentences as are necessary to be perfectly clear about what is and what is not allowed in various regions of the site.

Part of me is sad that everything progressed this way, but another part of me realizes that this is an opportunity for us all to learn and come together as a community to discuss both rules and staff to user interaction.

This is the second thing I want to talk about today. Interaction between those using the site and those running the site.

Users must treat staff with respect. Respect means not being hostile. Respect means being considerate of how another person thinks. Respect means being courteous and having regard for another persons feelings, wishes, and traditions. Think before you rashly say something that will upset the person on the other screen. Staff are devoting their time to make users happy and keep the site running smoothly. Staff have their own rules that they must follow. Staff are honor bound to treat users with respect, even if a user makes them feel sad or angry. So users should remember to be respectful to staff in turn.

That said, that does not mean that a staff member is a god, or anything silly like that. Likewise, staff members should never expect to be treated in such a silly way, and staff should be careful with their egos. Staff members do not sign up to be staff as part of a power trip, or anything cliche like that, although sometimes they forget to behave in a way that they are treating users as equals. Users need to remember to treat staff as equals. It would be rude to treat a staff member as more or less than human. Be kind to staff members and users alike. A staff member is just another thinking, feeling person. Sometimes staff members make mistakes, and a user must be patient as the staff member corrects those mistakes with the help of other staff teammates. Remember not to name names, but there have been complaints on Subeta where it has been perceived that staff members have been biased and rude. That is an ugly accusation, and thus something that needs to be corrected so that there are not instances of users perceiving staff as acting with bias or ego. As long as both users and staff treat one another with respect, this should be prevented from happening.

The interaction between users and staff is another important part of how a site operates that I am bringing attention to, because I feel as if there was a disconnect in play here today. Today I thought I saw (and I may have imagined it) an attitude from staff that was like, "Because I said so." I'm going to explain my thought on this in an immature way, but bear with me. If a child does something that a parent does not like, and the parent tells them not to do it, and child asks why, then the parent should explain to their child why not, so that the parent helps the child learn. A parent who denies the thoughts of the child is showing bad parenting. Sometimes a parent will just reply, "Because I said so," in a situation where the parent is frustrated, or the child is just being ornery and is asking stupid questions (meant to annoy) and throwing a fit. I understand being frustrated with someone who is being ornery. However, my point here is that I would like to see staff able to explain warnings. I don't think the users here were being ornery. Upset, maybe, and likely rightfully so. If a staff member thinks a rule was broken, and a user does not think the rule was broken, then the staff member should explain why they believe a rule was broken so that the user can learn and not break the rule again.

I want staff to be able to cooperate with users to bring out the best in every situation. I actually want to see everyone able to cooperate that way, but staff in particular. Staff members have a responsibility when they sign on to be staff. They chose to bear a lot of weight on their shoulders, you could say. I think that people who choose to be staff must have a lot of compassion, because they give up so much time and energy to help others enjoy themselves. Yet sometimes I see staff behave in ways that make me frown. Not everyone can operate at their best every day. People have bad days. Staff have bad days. Maybe it is easier to just ignore problems and continue doing whatever is easiest, but I don't want Subeta to go that route.

I want to see people (all people, staff and users alike) always learning how to work better and better with others. My social skills suck, so this is something I think about a lot. Should there be workshops that staff attend that help them learn different coping strategies with moderation and behavior when interacting with the community? (Honestly, that seems like a nice and helpful activity regardless of whether you are staff or not.) What can be done to help staff work with users when things go wrong? What tools can we help give our staff to aid them in their endeavors? How do we want to be treated, and what can we suggest for improving staff to user interactions?

I think that is all I have to say on these topics. I have tried my best to be thoro

The two users this involves should be contacting staff privately.

Kudos to anyone that has the time to read all that. I'm sure if the generous user had made a ticket about it and had staff review the issue the warning would be resolved.

Just to remind you and others: This is not about the users in question. That has to be handled between those users and staff privately in a ticket, as said.

This is about the situation. This is about process. Not about specific users.

Best of luck to anyone with the patience to read all this and come converse in a way that helps us learn and find solutions!

And this is why I don't use the shoutbox.

I like clarity, ambiguity in the rules just leads to people unsure about what they can and can't say, which is never good when it comes to rules.

Staff is usually very respectful on the forums, that's all I can speak for since I don't use the sb. there are times where they clearly are showing signs of frustration, but we all have moments like that. from the few sentences I've skimmed from that giant block of text, it sounds like maybe dropping the topic wasn't completely fair, and maybe a better explanation was deserved. Maybe their idea of moving it onto forums was just to avoid some drama though, maybe it was a better idea. I don't know. I can't really judge this as I wasn't there, and I don't know how exactly things went down.

I think communication is one of the biggest problems staff has. It's always nice to hear from them about what is going on, changes that have been made, and for them to clear rules up that we may be confused about. I actually really like the staff, but their replies get buried in forums for most users. siteupdate only gets used so often, and it doesn't ping everyone (even everyone who is in the group)

Oh my god this is so wordy. I do not have the patience to read all that, but I do have to say that I haven't seen any problems with the way staff has interacted with users (well, ever, that I can think of). But if this is Shoutbox-centric anyway then I really have no input.

I think there should be a way to tell staff apart from other users rather than a tiny little icon. I think it would help as well, so you don't have to squint your eyes to see if they are one.

Likewise, I have been continually impressed with how open staff is about changes, and how playful they are during events. It was a little jarring for me to see the situation handled the way it was today. I'm sure the staff in question did not mean anything by it, but they came off as brusque today, which led to me questioning what kind of codes of conduct staff are trained by on Subeta. But I'm not attempting to come off like I am here to bash staff! This thread is here to support staff and users alike. Sometimes social training is something companies look into for their employees, and I wonder if that might be helpful for Subeta.

I'm not sure of their policies and what kind of training gets done, I doubt any formal training will happen though. At least nothing that would cost them money, there's probably not much room in the budget for stuff like that, especially when this isn't an issue that I've seen happen over and over again. It sorta sounds like a misunderstanding went on and staff didn't like having their decisions questioned. again, I can't really judge this because I wasn't there.

Hmm... Moderators tend to be hired based on their social skills and ability to work with the public. Their skills are usually thus adequate to handle issues. It's just that they're also humans and can still become overwhelmed sometimes. Subeta seems to be a large site. As it grows even larger it might be wise to come to some sort of standardization regarding what staff should do in various uncomfortable situations. You're right, though, that it might cost money. Unless they have someone able volunteer to do training sessions. :p Even a Q/A type page for mods or a page that reminds them of whatever subeta's staff goals are could be helpful for them? Like, "If this situation happens, here are possible ways of how to answer" type format. Complicated, but useful! I dunno!

tickets seem to be very standardized in how they respond to things. it would not surprise me if they already do something like that.

Is this related to this? - Shoutbox Bans

There are Shoutbox logs that date back 3 months if I'm not mistaken. It seems like the user who wasn't breaking rules can file a ticket, but maybe the matter isn't as simple a misunderstanding as it comes off as since I didn't see it for myself. Verbal warnings and official warnings can be expunged over time for minor offenses so I think ones handed out mistakenly could be taken back. Again, I'm not sure what really went on at the time.

The Shoutbox is difficult to moderate so I think whoever it was was just trying to do his or her job, not go after anyone. There is a very active Giveaways subforum and a "move it to the forums" from staff is a pretty clear directive that doesn't hurt anybody. If there was actual staff misconduct the logs can be checked out by higher-ups who can decide what steps to take. Also, has that crazy background and everyone else has special borders right? That's kind of hard to miss.

It's really hard to discuss the scenario since only a handful of users were actually privy to the dialogue that took place. [edit] (Your thread might get locked per the Targeting rule since it's so easy to see who the users involved were. You might want to edit your OP to be more general?)

This is a very well written post. Yes I read the whole thing XD

I did see the situation today, and in my honest opinion, the way it was handled by the staff was not that professional. The topic should not have just been shut out, and I feel like it should have been allowed to be discussed in the SB. Maybe it's cause I'm an open person. To me, discussing and critiquing the rules is not worse than when abuse, messy facts of childbirth, etc. is being discussed in the SB. The topic might have just died down on its own. Also, I feel like the one user should not have been banned from the shoutbox.

As a side note, before anyone says that the staff don't have to act super professional because it's a pet site, in a situation such as this, yes they should.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

In the Shoutbox, staff appears with a red outline, I think it helps a bit! :)

(sorry I couldn't find a better example)

Honesty - I don't believe staff need any sort of additional training or workshops then what they get currently.

The beauty of how Subeta's staff work is that comminication is completely open. Whether that's user to staff or staff to staff. There are going to be times where users and staff don't see eye to eye on things. At that point, the users have the freedom to take their concerns to the private ticket system to have anything they need clarified. I've always known the customer support people to be extremely helpful.

Also, if enough people feel that certain rules need to be clarified, subeta has been known to take that into account; it just requires staff to know that it needs to be looked into (submitting a ticket, or in a thread similar to this one, etc.). Staff won't know there is an issue unless it's brought to their attention because by signing up for the site and using the various resources you are agreeing that you understand the rules.

For instance, in the past, if I as a minimod misunterstood a rule and communicated it wrong to the user base, my boss (customer service admin) spoke to me about it and she/he helped me understand. That was that.

Disclaimer: I don't use the shoutbox, so I'm not familiar with any of the "patterns" OP is referencing, and I don't have a huge stake in the matter.

This could be human error, or it could be that today's incident involved two players working out a mutual trade agreement, which you've already said is against the rules. That's something that can be moved to sMail or profile comments because it's a personal matter, and that seems to be the way the mod saw it, too.

That's exactly it. I know it's against the rules to discuss frozen players, and it's logical to extend that to discussion about warnings. It's up to the two players to contact admins privately to appeal their warnings, and it sounds like that's exactly what they did. That should be the end of it.

And this was a verbal warning, not a freezing, so I don't see it as a great injustice. Again, if it wasn't entirely warranted then the players in question should be able to appeal it fairly easily, and whether they do or not is entirely a personal matter.

Basically it sounds like you've answered your own questions, and I don't know what there is to discuss?

The main questions at hand are:

1. Whether you know of any rules that you or someone you know misinterpreted or misunderstood, and how they can be clarified?

2. What improvements can be made to how users and staff interact with one another?

I've never seen or heard of us not being allowed to offer up our TS restocks to get something for others. If we aren't allowed to give away an item stocking the TS that is news to me. In fact I've seen it happen multiple times in the shoutbox with no repercussions.

That being said, I am in the shoutbox a lot and I generally don't see any ill will meant towards the users from staff. I believe they do handle themselves professionally. My guess is that they are a little stricter than normal because of it being a plot; they have to moderate more often to ensure that we aren't posting plot spoilers. I think staff communicate themselves well and are generally extremely helpful; they also take the time to chat with us and enjoy themselves. I feel as though this situation you're describing was either miscommunicated (which the users in question can take up through a ticket) or there is more to the story.

I'm going to address several points in this discussion.

a) Giveaways are allowed unless the rules have since changed since I was a UA. I quit being a User Administrator at the end of 2011 and am currently a mini-mod. Giveaways were allowed back then however, conducting business and buying token shop items and then asking people if they want them for a price or asking if someone would be willing to buy them a token shop item falls under the advertising rule. It was that way when I was staff and it's been that way for as long as I can remember in the shout box.

b) As for the warning, that was between staff and the user and any appeals or problems with the verbal should of been addressed between the staff and the users involved. I don't believe it should of been in the shout box in the first place as that was a personal matter between the users and the staff involved.

c) Training. Honestly, I have never known the staff to not be courteous and professional in their interactions. That said, do I think they need additional training or workshops, honestly no. The interactions I've seen that staff has with users have been fairly professional as far as I know. That said, if one has an issue with rules or warnings then it needs to be addressed via ticket. Staff don't know unless they're notified.

Why are people posting if they didn't read the op?

Most everyone who clicks the box when they read the rules has misunderstood one of the rules or maybe even missed one while reading, and it will probably always happen. I don't see the point in dismissing the topic out of hand just because you're 'supposed' to understand. Of course you are, but we know how 'supposed' happens in the real world. Even the minimod who posted in this topic said that they have misunderstood.

To said topic, you're not alone in feeling this way. Many users have been complaining about the abruptness and sometimes confusion of warnings. Getting the same warning twice, even though you are trying to fix the problem, can be very frustrating and I do know that it happens. A verbal warning should start a conversation, not be an abrupt halt to whatever is happening. Isn't the verbal warning intended to help the user follow the rules? If the warning is for something so easily solved as the situation that brought this post about could be, why even issue one? Just mail the user a quick blurb that says what the problem is and to take it private please/go get help for your coding issue/etc.

Less warnings, more conversation.

I filed a ticket asking about Token Shop dealings in the Shoutbox back in February 2014. The UA who answered it confirmed that it's point-blank not allowed. If it's going on frequently during TS restocks it's really not fair to everyone else. I support the rules being amended and clarified, and for their enforcement to be more consistent even though policing the Shoutbox is a rough gig.

The shoutbox is closed! Check back later. This topic speaks to some of the issues following and enforcing rules in there. No one is going to be 100% happy, but I do think there should be edits/reminders regarding the rules. It's been a really long time since they were looked at no? Clarification about necroing and auto-refreshing should be included imo. Forum image sizing is a big one too.

I understand that getting warned sucks, and wrongly warned even more so, but I definitely think people should be cooperating with a simple "drop the convo in here and move it to the forums/comments/sMail/whatever." The Shoutbox shouldn't be monopolized by people dwelling on warnings/bans/freezings(not allowed anyway)/etc., to prevent more people dragging out the problem and getting in trouble themselves by taking sides. (Don't the SB regulars have an IRC chat anyway?)

Topics about rule-breaking in the Shoutbox occur pretty frequently so I think changes would be beneficial to both the staff and the users.