Allow for the "victim" to discard punishment

[Rack5]

If someone jokingly said something to a friend in chat in what is typically considered in a disrespectful manner, it's ridiculous to mute them for it, they are clearly friends, regardless of what the rules say. The "victim" should have the right to chose what happens, like when people have the option to press charges or not to, unless the situation is beyond their control. The rules are made to benefit the people, not for the people to worship the rules.

 

[Brandon]

If someone jokingly said something to a friend in chat in what is typically considered in a disrespectful manner, it's ridiculous to mute them for it, they are clearly friends, regardless of what the rules say. The "victim" should have the right to chose what happens, like when people have the option to press charges or not to, unless the situation is beyond their control. The rules are made to benefit the people, not for the people to worship the rules.

The whole reason is to stop someone else looking at that behaviour, thinking its okay, and then saying it to someone else they may not be as close to.
Yeah it's dumb, but I understand why they do it.

 

[Rack5]

The whole reason is to stop someone else looking at that behaviour, thinking its okay, and then saying it to someone else they may not be as close to.
Yeah it's dumb, but I understand why they do it.

But are we too pretentious to assume people can't differentiate between who's friends and who's not? It is a skill almost everyone has.

 

[Justis]

We allow the victim to pardon the violator when it comes to redistribution of something that the victim owns, specifically because it is only the victim which is harmed by the violator’s actions, and that violation could have been prevented had the victim given them permission to perform those actions beforehand.

This is not the case with disrespectful behavior in chatbox. The victim cannot make a disrespectful statement into a respectful one simply by giving permission beforehand. Moreover, it is not just the victim that is impacted by the disrespectful behavior. The behavior taking place in our public shoutbox reflects on MCM as a platform, as well as on the rest of the community. If we were to permit everyone and their friends to make the worst sort of comments towards each other in chat, we would open ourselves up to harsh criticism, especially as an environment populated primarily by children.

So it’s clear that disrespectful behavior cannot be allowed. When it comes to enforcement of our rules in chat, we already provide verbal warnings for most first violations, including disrespectful behavior. It’s when someone continues to violate this rule despite having been verbally warned about it already that they will receive a kick and later, warning points.

With this in mind, what would you have us change?

 

[Rack5]

This is not the case with disrespectful behavior in chatbox. The victim cannot make a disrespectful statement into a respectful one simply by giving permission beforehand.

Whether or not you wish to classify the statement as disrespectful to the other, it doesn't matter. They are friends and it is normal for friends to act in such manner. Unless it escalates into a real argument or incites discrimination, it isn't your moral or staffing duty to get involved.

Moreover, it is not just the victim that is impacted by the disrespectful behavior. The behavior taking place in our public shoutbox reflects on MCM as a platform, as well as on the rest of the community.

Everything taking place on this site naturally reflects the site itself, that alone does not mean anything. By that logic, the current rules and warnings/points taking place reflect that MCM staff have no idea how real social interactions take place, trying to idolize some entity that isn't what you are trying to make it. Needed exceptions being added would in no way reflect MCM condoning the actions that do not fit the criterion to be exempt.

If we were to permit everyone and their friends to make the worst sort of comments towards each other in chat, we would open ourselves up to harsh criticism, especially as an environment populated primarily by children.

Obviously I am not asking for extremely discriminatory comments to be exempt as well. I am asking for things such as 120275 to not get warned for telling his friend, mank, "You have a small brain". You think 13+ year old kids don't jokingly insult their friends? Of course they do, in school and out too. What goes on in video game chats, which is also primarily populated by children, is a perfect example of this. 13+ year old kids aren't godsent angels nor are they socially incapable of differentiating what is real and hurtful, and what is a joke.

When it comes to enforcement of our rules in chat, we already provide verbal warnings for most first violations, including disrespectful behavior. It’s when someone continues to violate this rule despite having been verbally warned about it already that they will receive a kick and later, warning points.

That's great, I agree that people should be verbally warned prior for breaking a rule. The issue is the rules in this current state are partially flawed. The whole thread is about changing the rules themselves, not what happens after a rule is broken.

With this in mind, what would you have us change?

With the lack of better articulation, I don't want my friend to be muted/warned/suspended for jokingly telling his friend, while we are all in a discord chat, "You have a tiny brain". This of course should be generalized, we have to accept that certain levels of trolling/joking is normal as well as socially acceptable.

To also add, such strict enforcement of the rules is what leads to more and darker trolling/joking. By not allowing people to express themselves on a small and unharmful level of trolling/joking, you are only letting them bottle it up and later, possibly continuously, express larger and truly disgusting forms of what would otherwise not be of themselves.

 

[Rack5]

No, no, no lmao. What kind of argument is that? Bottle it up? You're only joking with your friend on a platform. You can joke and say certain things, however, not everything will go. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

By bottle it up, I obviously mean not being able to say what you obviously should be and then being punished for it. It doesn't matter if it's to a friend or not.

Context matters and in this context, Cam and a few others were completely trashing Geek and Cam not only told that to Mank but Geek himself.

It's more than just this case, this happens frequently. I wasn't allowed to mention "Crip" because it refers to a gang and "incites violence", I later just started trolling the staff that warned me because of the absurdity of the warning. We weren't trashing Geek, Geek warned Cam for Cam's statement towards Mink, not him. We only started trolling Geek because he said we had to stop a conversation we were having, which made no sense, as around 5 people were having a normal conversation and one additional person got questionably mad at best. It was absurd. The reasoning behind Geek's actions was "because I said so", comical.

If someone is going to break the rules, they should at least be aware of what they're doing not acting like they don't know what they're doing.

Rules are made to not be broken, obviously. That's circular reasoning when discussing the validity of certain rules. If multiple people are breaking the rules and are aware of it, perhaps a question should be asked about the rules, as they are being intentionally broken because they were unintentionally broken initially. Rules should be designed so that they are not unintentionally broken for the most people, they should reflect the moral values a community holds, not give the community its own moral values.

They should be aware that if they're shitting on someone, especially with a group of people, you don't go around trying to throw out any type of insult.

That goes along with the list of exceptions. That obviously isn't what I am suggesting. You're intentionally misrepresenting valid exceptions to rules with invalid ones to back your argument.

There's a time to joke around and in that time-frame, that was not the time to joke. There is also a place to joke.

Don't be so pretentious to tell people that cannot tell their friends a joke after we were forced to end a conversation without a valid reason, in the "place" chat box, although holding business opportunities, primarily made for people to chat. In what sense was that the wrong time or the wrong place? There was no serious social environment nor was it at NASA headquarters. Geek's response to "why?" was "because I said so".

I also want to point out I am almost positive you made this thread after you were kicked. If I am remembering this correctly, you did not make this thread after Cam was warned. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Although this includes me, this is also very clearly bigger than myself. Not only do I know people that had to deal with this, but other members of this community are agreeing with the thread. Don't be so spiteful and pitiful to not only misrepresent the argument, but also misrepresent me for something I have not said, in an attempt to personally attack me, thinking it invalidates the demand other people have for such a change to come forth.

 

[Rack5]

Someone got warned for mentioning a site that has been gone for three years, because it "was once a competitor"

Geek refused to answer how what they said was a violation of said rule when three people asked in chat box. First response was that he is not allowed to talk about user punishments, although the question was regarding rules and punishments, not a specific punishment. He then proceeded to require asking him in PMs, not wanting to answer to everyone, most likely in an attempt to discard complaints one by one.

 

[Rack5]

I agree with everything except the argument that is bolded, that is a dumb argument lmao. In fact, this may make them less lenient with you if you openly admit to violating the rules with the intent to do so.

No no, I meant that people are more likely to violate rules if they are warned/punished for something they thought was right or okay. I expressed this in a purely (pseudo)statistic manner. Naturally, the staff will be less lenient with you though. In the post above you, you can see an example of someone getting warned in such context.

 

[Justis]

Someone got warned for mentioning a site that has been gone for three years, because it "was once a competitor"

Geek refused to answer how what they said was a violation of said rule when three people asked in chat box. First response was that he is not allowed to talk about user punishments, although the question was regarding rules and punishments, not a specific punishment. He then proceeded to require asking him in PMs, not wanting to answer to everyone, most likely in an attempt to discard complaints one by one.

Anyone who feels like their situation deserves to be looked at by a higher staff member a second opinion, or anyone who feels like a particular staff member has made a mistake should feel free to create a ticket so that the problem(s) can be resolved by our lead mod or myself.
This response has nothing to do with the suggestion which is being made, and posting in here won’t get the situation looked over a second time, so please do keep the thread on subject and use the ticket system to resolve the issue you’re posting about.

 

[Rack5]

Anyone who feels like their situation deserves to be looked at by a higher staff member a second opinion, or anyone who feels like a particular staff member has made a mistake should feel free to create a ticket so that the problem(s) can be resolved by our lead mod or myself.
This response has nothing to do with the suggestion which is being made, and posting in here won’t get the situation looked over a second time, so please do keep the thread on subject and use the ticket system to resolve the issue you’re posting about.

This thread has everything to do with the lack of ability of the staff to differentiate what should be punished for and what shouldn't. This is simply a different category, but nonetheless inclusive, of the wider topic that is being suggested.

 

[Rack5]

You should change your title and thread itself to include rules/rule violations/rule enforcement/etc instead of a specific situation

I can do if needed. I'm hoping the staff can understand the gist of what I'm saying though. I don't want this to turn into the staff pedantically prolonging everything by digging into every small detail and/or possibility.

 

[Justis]

I can do if needed. I'm hoping the staff can understand the gist of what I'm saying though. I don't want this to turn into the staff pedantically prolonging everything by digging into every small detail and/or possibility.

Please go ahead and do that then, or make a new thread, because there’s no point in us discussing a specific subject if that’s not even the actual issue you want to see changed. State what you want changed and how you suggest it be changed.

 

[Rack5]

Please go ahead and do that then, or make a new thread, because there’s no point in us discussing a specific subject if that’s not even the actual issue you want to see changed. State what you want changed and how you suggest it be changed.

I already mentioned what I want in the first response to you. I don't want to be punished for jokingly telling my friend he has a small brain. I also don't want to be punished for mentioning a forum that's been dead for over three years. You're a developer, a smart guy, you're not so dense to not understand that it's regarding how the staff follow rules. Make a specific rule construction out of that if you will, it's pretty clear to get the gist. This is what I meant by the staff trying to prolong the suggestion and dig/nitpick, you know what you're doing and you definitely get the basic gist.

 

[Gruss]

I disagree because the "victim" in most cases is MC-Market. The "victim" is breaking the Rules and Guidelines / Terms of Service of the site.

 

[Rack5]

I disagree because the "victim" in most cases is MC-Market. The "victim" is breaking the Rules and Guidelines / Terms of Service of the site.

"Victim" refers to the person that is or is supposed to be offended from what a person had to say. I've shown that the rule are either flawed or extremely poorly enforced. The whole point of this thread is to change what is counted as breaking the rules.