[Denied] Write Your Unwritten Rules

Sythe seems to have a set of unwritten rules, that seem to be scattered all over the forum.

Ex: Imposter - Resolved

This initial "ruling" was contradictive to previous rulings and mods had to then go back to Squire after the ruling was given, and offer him the 500m back, but in return he would get a TWC. This isn't a 1-off type of case, and has happened many times over the years. However there is no rule set anywhere regarding it, and mods would have to go and search previous rulings to come up with how they want to handle the report.

I am suggesting that records for things like this, be stored somewhere to easily refer back too, so that mods are not having to go back and change their ruling on a report. In the particular case that I linked, Squire chose to just take the loss instead of a TWC, but I'm sure it would have been nice to have the option before being forced to pay the 500m. This could have easily been prevented if there was a depository of other reports likes this, that staff could refer back too.

Stickies could be made in General rules so that they could be easily found.

Ex: "Title, Subject, Hyperlink"
Some Examples Below -

"Wrong Discord Tag, Imposter Scammed, Imposter - Resolved "
"07 Services vs MyPvM, Sniping Vanity URL, 07Services - Stealing Discord Vanity URL "

I think this would be a tremendous help so that rulings aren't becoming inconsistent as well as the things mentioned below.
-We don't have to have the same discussions every two years (time/energy is spared)
-More consistent rulings with less contradictions.
-Less partiality, we can't rule in favor of one party if there is proof of a similar situation that was ruled differently in the past so it kills corruption as well.

 

[President]

What an excellent proposition. It's as if you stole the words from my mouth. With "we" in your third-last line, I think you refer to staff. In any case:

Support

 

What an excellent proposition. It's as if you stole the words from my mouth. With "we" in your third-last line, I think you refer to staff. In any case:

Support

We involves me and my nosey ass as well, with as much time as I spend researching things on this site
Plz allow me to project my mod status one day sir

 

[Red Fox]

Support.

It avoids weird scenarios where staff give different rulings and it becomes a hot-topic and a suggestion gets posted. Less energy, fairer ruling, same ruling on same scenario = more time spared and I would also deem it more fair.

 

[Juws]

I mean, they are called "unwritten rules" for a reason. No support. I like the surprise rulings.

 

No support, they’ll just make new unwritten rules. Just ask for a revamp of the rules if you’d like new ones.

 

[Robiiiiin]

Vanity is already said to be coming.

No support, i think Sythe and his team is doing an excellent job but have to strive with a bunch of whiners and second guessers.

 

This is not just about the vanity. It’s actually not about the vanity at all, I just used that as an example.

This is about sythe having consistent and fair rulings.

imgur.com
Another example^
A rule that is not written, and some people were banned/ DNT’d or whatever it might be, but others were not.

It would help reduce bias, as well as make it so staff wouldn’t have to go back and change their outcome for said reports because the ruling was contradictive to rulings in the past.

Idc if they want to update/ rewrite the rules of whatever else it might be. But something needs to happen so that punishment is equal among all users.

 

There are unwritten rules made up on the spot constantly like @MAGZ said they will just keep making them. Here's an old example of an unwritten rule made up on the spot to drop my bag 2k$ ish

Resolved
with the subsequent post (lol): Middlemen are NO LONGER liable for rwt bans

I was also banned here without ANY warning Assassin before there was even a rule stating you couldn't do this anywhere. Only after badgering Andy did he add the rule months later. A private report too (which isn't allowed right?) Yet Another rule being made up recently is that you can sell rsns (which can also be recovered) for banned users on Sythe but not accounts even if the OO is extremely trusted and has no debts owned (wut). Yet i see reports constantly flip flopping on whether you can advertise stuff for banned users, probably favorability is what determines action being taken against them? If so what determines it, in the report below it seems wrong even tho pingy has no debts

OSRS Machines Advertising for a DNT'd User

So advertising names for banned users with no debt is allowed, but not for accounts nor gp? Help it make sense.

 

Support


However unfortunately I do not see this being implemented, and even if it does going forward I still truly believe staff will remain using biased ruling favorable to their emotions. Later on to call it a case by case ruling.

 

Unwritten rules shouldn’t even exist at all. Obviously they need to be written down but I doubt that’ll even happen and/or be possible.

 

This ruling was unfair to say the least. The same thing happened and pikachu ruled on it the opposite way. Mods are extremely inconsistent. Needs to be written rules or they can't be enforced.

 

No support, I like the surprises

 

Here's your unwritten rule

"The following is not an extensive list of the rules and guidelines that must be followed on Sythe. The moderation team reserve the right to exercise judgement on Sythe members that do not contribute positively to the overall health of the website or its resources without notice and at their ultimate discretion."

edit: Just to clarify, I disagree with OP because there are things that need to be evaluated on a case by case and rules change over time. The intent of this thread is to create a static list of rules that must be referenced for all rulings, but it's never that straightforward or easy, regardless of the last few weeks of inconsistent rulings (or prior to that, even).

 

[President]

Here's your unwritten rule

"The following is not an extensive list of the rules and guidelines that must be followed on Sythe. The moderation team reserve the right to exercise judgement on Sythe members that do not contribute positively to the overall health of the website or its resources without notice and at their ultimate discretion."

edit: Just to clarify, I disagree with OP because there are things that need to be evaluated on a case by case and rules change over time. The intent of this thread is to create a static list of rules that must be referenced for all rulings, but it's never that straightforward or easy, regardless of the last few weeks of inconsistent rulings (or prior to that, even).

By this logic, why don't we remove 50% of the already established rules and apply even more staff discretion / case-by-case ruling?

Chelsea isn't proposing to post a complete and exhaustive list of rules covering every scenario possible. Just to make it more extensive. She notes that there are too many unwritten rules at the moment. In the end of the day, there will always be a grey area

 

By this logic, why don't we remove 50% of the already established rules and apply even more staff discretion / case-by-case ruling?

Chelsea isn't proposing to post a complete and exhaustive list of rules covering every scenario possible. Just to make it more extensive. She notes that there are too many unwritten rules at the moment. In the end of the day, there will always be a grey area

I'm hoping you can at least acknowledge that there's never going to be a scenario that exists that will always satisfy the condition of "all possible scenarios of actions that may warrant a ban or punishment will always be covered in the member rules thread".

That's not a reason to scrap the rules either, though; they serve as a guideline, not a constitution.

The rules will simply be accurate until they aren't. Rules will naturally change and be amended over time and the reality of the matter is the judgement of the moderators is the whole point of having moderators.

Sythe himself answers to nobody and can make up and enforce anything he wants. He isn't bound to answer to any entity in particular for the decisions he makes to ban someone from the site (or not ban them). This is simply a matter of how things work right now, not to be confused as shilling or anything of that sort.

The community is free to actively reflect on decisions being made and be unhappy about them, but if the ownership of the website doesn't care then there will be no changes. Anyone is free to voice their opinion, but there's no guarantee any action will result because of it. The other option is to fork off to different communities.

 

[President]

I'm hoping you can at least acknowledge that there's never going to be a scenario that exists that will always satisfy the condition of "all possible scenarios of actions that may warrant a ban or punishment will always be covered in the member rules thread".

That's not a reason to scrap the rules either, though; they serve as a guideline, not a constitution.

The rules will simply be accurate until they aren't. Rules will naturally change and be amended over time and the reality of the matter is the judgement of the moderators is the whole point of having moderators.

Sythe himself answers to nobody and can make up and enforce anything he wants. He isn't bound to answer to any entity in particular for the decisions he makes to ban someone from the site (or not ban them). This is simply a matter of how things work right now, not to be confused as shilling or anything of that sort.

The community is free to actively reflect on decisions being made and be unhappy about them, but if the ownership of the website doesn't care then there will be no changes. Anyone is free to voice their opinion, but there's no guarantee any action will result because of it. The other option is to fork off to different communities.

They're not a guideline, they're rules. Breaking them has consequences

 

They're not a guideline, they're rules. Breaking them has consequences

You can punish people for violating guidelines, too.

edit:
There will sometimes be cases in which the details of the report will outline either party riding a fine line of rule breaking, and will come down to a moderator using their judgement and the information available to decide a punishment (or to not decide a punishment). Based on their interpretation of the rules at the time, some people might be happy or unhappy with the decision made. This is exactly what is happening right now.

Redefining rules or adding more rules or re-wording more rules will not change something like this from happening; as soon as another situation arises that isn't black/white and requires a mod to use their judgement, we'll restart the cycle of people saying "bUt iT waSnT woRdEd eXaCtLy LiKe tHAt iN thE rUlEs"

 

This is not just about the vanity. It’s actually not about the vanity at all, I just used that as an example.

This is about sythe having consistent and fair rulings.

imgur.com
Another example^
A rule that is not written, and some people were banned/ DNT’d or whatever it might be, but others were not.

It would help reduce bias, as well as make it so staff wouldn’t have to go back and change their outcome for said reports because the ruling was contradictive to rulings in the past.

Idc if they want to update/ rewrite the rules of whatever else it might be. But something needs to happen so that punishment is equal among all users.

its interesting you share that image. Because Ex-Mod Ember shut down a scam report for being just 2 years old before she quit. Resolved but in ur image Sythe says statue of limitations is 10 years? I convinced this person to make the scam report because I had evidence MANY other people were in similar situations where PA was "processing" their money for over 2 years. Basically they just never refunded the people because the system got "stuck". But it got shoved under the rug.

 

its interesting you share that image. Because Ex-Mod Ember shut down a scam report for being just 2 years old before she quit. Resolved but in ur image Sythe says statue of limitations is 10 years? I convinced this person to make the scam report because I had evidence MANY other people were in similar situations where PA was "processing" their money for over 2 years. Basically they just never refunded the people because the system got "stuck". But it got shoved under the rug.

Not sure where Ember got the 2 years from, or where Sythe got the 10 years from, but if those rules exist they should be written down, otherwise the report should just have been handled. As for the report you handled though it did happen on a different platform for which the PA resolution thread was made.