@il-volpe
I am firmly of the mind that in games where communication through text is the only form of medium one can use to transmit information, there are other things that have to come into play that wouldn't normally come into play at the regular gaming table, some of which I find to be highly lacking among staffers.
Being able to clearly articulate your decision is an important skill, for one. Please know the exact scope of the problem that you're attempting to address, and craft a rule based on that scope. Please, please do not just arbitrarily throw up a rule with vague wording and a broad scope and consider it done, because you may have created even more problems than what you just solved, especially if you're playing World of Darkness games. There are so many places when where you could break something by being overly broad, or overly vague. Be specific, and tailor the rule to the exact specifications to address the problem. Expand it later if necessary.
In the same vein, and in my opinion more importantly, include the reasoning that went into the creation of the rule in the first place. If you are using a wiki, this is the perfect use for the discussion tab of your house rules page. You can keep the rule there, as is, but put the thought process in the discussion page so that not only the players but also your future staffers know why the rule was created, what circumstances it was intended to solve, etc. I've seen dozens of examples of people saying 'oh, well, this rule might not make sense to you, but it made sense to us at the time' and nobody can explain what whimsical flight of imaginative fancy generated it in the first place. Staffers feel constrained to keep it in place because they don't know the history, players get upset if it's removed without some reference as to what's replacing the rule, because those who were around for its inception remember that there was a problem (but rarely can they remember what it was, or tell you how this fixed it beyond "It totally threw a wrench in the gears of the mechanic that did it!"). In short, decisions without adequate documentation that is available to those who are affected by it is poor form.
I've heard complaints by staffers to the effect of "Well, we don't feel like making everything public." This is also poor form. It's a public game, in most instances. You don't have to divulge every dirty secret that happens behind the ST screen (for instance, player names can be changed to protect the innocent or not-so-innocent), but the methodologies employed should absolutely be visible. Staffers also like to sometimes use the idea that players will reject the reasoning of the rule, and so not make those details public. I find this equally silly. Players are intelligent, and they are as invested and well-versed in the game as the staff is. Sometimes even moreso. . Those processes should be open to player review if for no other reason than it is perfectly likely that one of your players could craft a better alternative than the one that the staffers did. This is not something to be feared. This is something to be encouraged. This means that your players are active, participatory, and feel like they have the power to make real contributions to the gaming environment. That is an excellent way to encourage player participation.
All of these things will contribute to a better gaming environment by keeping both players and staff, present and future, in the loop as to what information is necessary in order to gauge the environment they're playing in, which in turn should lead to much less confusion about what is or is not above the board, both in reality and appearance.