6.6 Warning Points Change to Ban.

[ULTRA SETUPS]

Hello, I want to suggest changing the warning points "6.6 Resource Contains Unowned Content: 20 | 36 (or ban)" to a direct permanent ban without any warning points.

I saw many users who have sold unowned content in their resources, they got warned and suspended for 1 or 2 weeks and then they come back as nothing happened, and to clarify, the unowned resources that they were selling wasn't just a file but entire setups and in my opinion, this is comparable as resource leaking...

 

[Sullybash12]

Hello, I want to suggest changing the warning points "6.6 Resource Contains Unowned Content: 20 | 36 (or ban)" to a direct permanent ban without any warning points.

I saw many users who have sold unowned content in their resources, they got warned and suspended for 1 or 2 weeks and then they come back as nothing happened, and to clarify, the unowned resources that they were selling wasn't just a file but entire setups and in my opinion, this is comparable as resource leaking...

Not a ban because accidents happen, where they dont realize

 

[Harry]

I'd urge to you have a read over the very similar previous suggestion regarding rule 5.4: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/637092/

Rule 6.6 is, for all intents and purposes, identical to rule 5.4 apart from the fact that it's specifically issued for violations that occur with the resource system. That's why even though rule 6.6 wasn't explicitly mentioned in the linked suggestion, the implemented policy also extends to rule 6.6.

The reasoning for not solely issuing permanent bans was made clear there:

It is not uncommon for users to accidentally sell something they don’t have the rights to sell, or to redistribute it for free without realizing that they lack the right to do so. It’s also possible that they accidentally include unowned content within a larger product that they do own rights to.

In these scenarios, we need a punishment to issue, because accident or not, they have still violated the rights of another content owner. However, a permanent ban from our website on any user, regardless of whether or not they have an otherwise spotless record, would do more harm to this community than good. You’re not giving anyone the chance to learn from their mistakes and right their wrongs by instantly blacklisting them. Mistakes do happen.

 

[ULTRA SETUPS]

I'd urge to you have a read over the very similar previous suggestion regarding rule 5.4: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/637092/

Rule 6.6 is, for all intents and purposes, identical to rule 5.4 apart from the fact that it's specifically issued for violations that occur with the resource system. That's why even though rule 6.6 wasn't explicitly mentioned in the linked suggestion, the implemented policy also extends to rule 6.6.

The reasoning for not solely issuing permanent bans was made clear there:

I can understand that It can happen with a mistake, for example including a premium plugin or a free plugin that you can't such as citizens, but let's take in consideration users who used entire setups; (just downloaded the resource, changed the map, added 2/3 new plugins and then re-uploaded it): this is meant to take the work of someone else and resell it, without any mistake.
^ And they didn't get banned.

 

[Mick]

I can understand that It can happen with a mistake, for example including a premium plugin or a free plugin that you can't such as citizens, but let's take in consideration users who used entire setups; (just downloaded the resource, changed the map, added 2/3 new plugins and then re-uploaded it): this is meant to take the work of someone else and resell it, without any mistake.
^ And they didn't get banned.

As Harry has said anyone who we can prove has knowingly provided unowned content in their resource without right will be given a permanent ban. Otherwise if it cannot be proven that the content was maliciously included the user will receive warning points. If you have any concerns with how a case after the implementation of this new enforcement was done, please create a ticket and our team will take a second look.

The suggestion thread regarding the rule 5.4 policy has already been accepted, so I'll move this to denied. Thank you