It isn't rocket science. Set up rules and a few levels of penalties. Enforce them fairly and in the cases of individual disagreements moderate.
What you don't do is apply double standards, or as you have described it, exceptions. If you have enforced a fair system and you have been clear regarding the penalties then they have chosen to accept the penalty. Most often these are applied to make exceptions for friends and to allow the mods to run riot. That's primary school and a level of failing that belies deep rooted incompetence.
As I said, P types have a fundamental failure; they do things under the guys that they 'might not' receive any penalty and then they cry and cry when it is incurred and people point at it. I don't have the time for such juvenile shit.
Nowhere in my post did I mention that exceptions should be made. The essence of my post revolves around the notion that it can be exceedingly difficult to set up rules and present them in such a fashion so as to account for every possible scenario and achieve all goals perfectly. In governance, an ideal is imagined and rules are constructed to achieve that ideal with the greatest degree of accuracy. Rules are
not enforceable for their own sake, but because they facilitate the achieving of that ideal. If a particular situation (one previously unimagined, or perhaps too narrow to be included in the written rules) occurs which apparently requires some application of the rules, it is the job of the moderators to apply the spirit of those rules to the situation and pass judgment fairly (not fairly with respect to the written rules, but fairly with respect to the spirit of them).
I'm not sure what you mean by P types doing things under the guise that they 'might not' receive any penalty. I think the ultimate failure of anyone who is burdened by the weight of being 'over moderated' on this forum is oversimplification. The fact is that the rules are not clearly written out, and the moderators here do not write a summary of their judgments; but for those of us with heightened
perception, it is clear that there is more to being accepted here that a rigid adherence to the FAQ section. One must be cognizant of his own standing within the community, and realize that how others perceive him (this is a direct reflection of the way he treats others) will influence greatly his freedom to sometimes deviate from the official restrictions -- this is a holistic approach. In general, I have yet to see anyone be given favorable treatment who in my opinion was unworthy of it. The one problem I can see with the forum FAQ section is that they neglect to mention that being a whiny, unlikable dickhead is frowned upon, and may result in continued harassment via the mod staff.
If I were a moderator would I do things differently? Yes. I commend you for your adherence to your values and for your efforts toward making this community what you would consider to be a better place, but I encourage you to evaluate how effectively your methods are achieving your goals.
Q: What do you think of my response to your response?