So I was recently banned for 'spamming' the Shoutbox.
The site's definition on spamming:
By the website's definition of spamming - my posts were continuous but related to games and therefore on topic: this raises the question, was the banishment fair?You are not allowed to post continuous non-topic related content. If you are going to post, keep it related to the thread. Those caught spamming for post count or just the heck of it will be taken care of.
This question is raised due to the lack of objectivity in rules - the rules are open to interpretation and ambiguity where the moderators effectively form their own idea of precedents in rules that can be deceptive and provide inconsistency in the rules system.
I therefore propose that a formalized set of rules are released; ones that show objectivity and statute like form rather than leaving the entirety of rule making be given to the moderators or administrators. Using a quota of rules that stay by topic, without deviation from intent to provide a clear environment, will prevent ambiguity and problematic sanctions.
It should also be made clear as to the role of administrators and moderators; again no clear definition is given. By most forum status quo standard, a moderator is one who removes content rather than imposes any level of ban. Banishments from a website, game or content are usually left to an administrator level - however this is again proven to be ambiguous.
TL;DR - Rewrite the rules to be clear.