Rules: Remove the "Staff Exemption" Disclaimer for Fairness and Transparency

[Bobbyperson]

The line "Staff and Other VIPs may be exempt (to some extent) from any of these rules due to their reputation in the community. If you feel like they should be warned for a violation, you should report to staff" should be reconsidered and ultimately removed from the server rules.

Reasons for Removal:

1. Perception of Favoritism:
   This line immediately creates a sense of inequity within the community. By stating that staff and VIPs may not have to follow the same rules, it promotes the perception of favoritism. This undermines the fairness that should be at the heart of any healthy community.

   • If regular members and staff aren't held to the same standard, this will only lead to frustration and distrust.
   • Any rule-breaking, regardless of the individual’s position or reputation, should have the same consequences.

2. Accountability Concerns:
   The current setup implies that if a staff member breaks the rules, members must report it to other staff members. This could lead to:

   • Reluctance to report rule-breaking due to fear of retaliation or bias.
   • A lack of faith in the reporting process itself, as it doesn't involve an independent or neutral third party.

3. Potential for Abuse:
   Giving staff or VIPs a special exemption "to some extent" opens the door for abuses of power. If members see staff breaking the rules without consequence, it can foster a toxic environment. This would not only damage the community’s reputation but also erode trust in the moderation team.

4. Transparency Issues:
   The phrase "to some extent" is ambiguous. It’s unclear which rules staff or VIPs are exempt from, leaving members uncertain about the boundaries of what’s acceptable. Clear, transparent rules apply to everyone equally and help avoid confusion or accusations of bias.

---

Recommendation:
The removal of this disclaimer would reinforce that all members of the Northstar Community—whether regular people, VIPs, or staff—are held to the same standard of behavior. It shows a commitment to fairness, accountability, and transparency, which strengthens integrity.

[GeckoEidechse]

I'm a bit undecided on this change, LMK explain why:

First of, in general, I'd say no one should be excempt from the rules. If you do bad things, you should feel the consequences for it.

With that said, the question is what to do, when someone that performs contributions that are essential to the survival of the project breaks a rule?

For example, when someone freshly joins the server and posts a bad joke e.g. trivialises racism, we tend to just straight up immediately ban them as most likely will not be a good fit for the community.
(They can still always request unban if they think our actions were too harsh or if they have a change of heart).

Now what do we do if a core contributor does the same thing? Do we also ban them as those are the rules and contained behaviour like this will likely drive away other contributors. Or do we give them a pass and resort to weaker forms of punishment (mutes, warns) in order to not lose an essential contributor?
What if removing that person would imply the end of the project as the feature of fix they are working on is essential to Northstar's survival?

A suggestion I saw was to remove the rule but still give exemption to some people, essentially sweeping things under the rug but to me that feels even more like giving favourable treatment to an undefined set of people.

I'd love to hear the community's comments on this <3

[GeckoEidechse]

Looking at the removed line again, I think it might make sense to alter it, instead of outright removing it.

Maybe something like

**Staff and Other VIPs may receive reduced punishment** (to some extent) from any of these rules due to their reputation in the community. If you feel like they should be warned for a violation you should report to staff

This way it's clear that it's not an outright exemption (which would be stupid IMO) but it means we can still make a more thought through decisions when it comes to having to exercise the rules on people that make essential contributions to the project.

&nsbp;

Of course, this would never be a discussion if everyone would just be nice to each other, and thankfully this exemption was rarely exercised and has also become a non-issue in recent months.

[NachosChipeados]

I feel like if we go into altering the rule, it would be a good idea to include the "What if removing that person would imply the end of the project as the feature of fix they are working on is essential to Northstar's survival?" explanation somewhere. Still not really a fan of it, but i understand where you're coming from

[JMM889901]

also not a huge fan of the rule, and the phrase reduced punishments also seems a little sketchy, if "not banned but forbidden from public channels" is a punishment exclusive to people necessary for the project probably worth specifying that its an alternative and not as much a "reduced" punishment (even though it kinda is one)
though if we include everything it would be an awfully long rule

[GeckoEidechse]

"not banned but forbidden from public channels"

That is one case the rule has been applied I guess. Unfortunately there have been more with other forms of reduced punishment (though the list is still in single digits).

[S2ymi]

May I suggest renaming it to:

"Should an individual whose contributions are vital to the continuation of the project break the stated rules, they may have their access suspended or removed from certain parts and/or features of the Discord Server instead of being fully banned outright."

Wording the rule that way would:

1. Adress the VIP status of certain contributors
2. Avoid the "lighter punishment" phrase
3. Still force the rule breaking party to be responsible for their actions (especially important to the public)
4. Give moderation the option to either apply or not apply the "lighter" punishment

If further needed, a paragraph about reporting rule breakers regardless of their role can be added

Removing this rule all together can paint NS in a bad light as Gecko previously stated, sweeping things under the rug doesn't really fit the theme of an open source project

[GeckoEidechse]

I really like the suggestion by @S2ymi exactly for the reasoning mentioned in their comment. @Bobbyperson thoughts?

[Bobbyperson]

I agree fully, I'll update my PR and co-author S2

[GeckoEidechse]

I agree fully, I'll update my PR and co-author S2

Yup, if you are fine with the suggested change that's the way to go ^^
I'll poll moderators about this and then depending on the outcome merge or close.

[GeckoEidechse]

So far vote is 5-0-1 (yes-no-abstain). I wanna give the remaining moderators still some time to vote though I expect this change to be accepted and merged without issues ^^

[GeckoEidechse]

Current vote

With 26h out of 72h left and so far the majority voting in favour of merging, I'd say it's fine to merge even before the vote countdown expires ^^