Jenifer,

Having read your post, I think there is a lot more of a problem than even what has already been created.

How could you - or anyone in charge of this "community" - have been unaware of 'unsanctioned' contests running in the galleries? This is an art community; its galleries are a prime motivator for people to join it. As such, any administrator should be on a constant vigil to ensure that standards are adhered to, including the Terms of Service. During such expected vigilance, it would be nearly impossible to have been unaware of the contests being staged amongst the membership; it is completely implausible that this ignorance could occur. Even a random sampling of images would reveal multiple contests that have been underway for months. I can't help thinking that something else is at play here, and it is a poor sign of respect for the membership to have acted in this fashion and then to so poorly back it up by citing such terribly ambiguous wording in the TOS.

There is no reason why any reasonable person would interpret these gallery contests as "affecting the normal operations of the community." They did not illegally use bandwidth, and even if the entrants themselves infringed upon copyrights with their entries, that is a differently-defined infraction within the TOS; it is NOT what they are being cited for.

The simple fact is that the TOS does not specifically rule out gallery contests, nor do any of the regulations on the galleries themselves. This is an arbitrary interpretation on the part of the administrator(s), without any precedent and with even less rationale. In addition to this, it was handled badly in the extreme. People who had no idea they were breaking non-existent rules - or arbitrary interpretations of existing rules - have been told they are receiving permanent warnings. Members of the community have been given no opportunity either to defend their actions or to voluntarily respond or take corrective actions; they have simply had their artwork removed without any communication whatsoever. I realize that not everyone can be contacted in an urgent case, but this is not that case; unless there is an unstated reason behind this action that necessitated the haste with which it has been committed, I see no reason why an announcement couldn't have been made to the community, and the participants given an opportunity to comply with new rules that would have been put in place with their full knowledge.

At the very least, any warnings given as a result of this should be rescinded; they are far more inflammatory than any of the behavior of the participants, and they prejudice any future possible warnings; why should someone receive a suspension for what should be their first infraction, simply because they were given a previous warning for an action which they could not reasonably have expected would be considered a violation?

The easiest way to avoid damage control is to avoid creating the damage in the first place. In this case, there are numerous better ways things could have been handled.