Changes to resource handling of banned users

[TheRobLP]

Im coming straight to the point. There needs to be changes to how resources of banned users are treated. It is infuriating to log in one day, and realising that a (maybe important) resource has been deleted without warning. This is not only unfair but also downright dumb. I paid for a resource, and now I cant download it anymore. I would like to propose two changes which will drastically enhance the user experience on MC-Market.

1. Let files stay there for a while after author is banned
   
   When an author is banned resources should stay available for download for a certain period of time to let users get a safety-copy. Exceptions to this would be for example products that infringe copyright, or distribute illegal material. In this case the resources in question would be deleted immidiatly. This brings me to point 2.
   
   
2. Notify buyers about the ban
   
   Users should be notified via Mail when an author is banned, from whom they have purchased a product, and be told to download a Backup within a certain period of time (Unless it is due to things like Copyright infringement, in that case the user would be told that the product is not available anymore). They need to know what is going on. Currently the lack of communication ends up creating a lot of confusion or frustration for buyers.

I really hope this post can help to change things for the better. I would really love to see this change, and I am certain many other users would like this to happen too. To anyone reading this, thanks for your time reading through this suggestion, and stay healthy everyone

 

[Banned]

We only guarantee one resource download: Read more here: https://www.mc-market.org/wiki/resources/

But like Miso mentioned, why should we allow members which haven't followed our rules to still be able to make a profit? These members could be banned for scamming (taking money off of other members of the community) and still be able to get money from their resources.

 

[Rollph]

We only guarantee one resource download: Read more here: https://www.mc-market.org/wiki/resources/

But like Miso mentioned, why should we allow members which haven't followed our rules to still be able to make a profit? These members could be banned for scamming (taking money off of other members of the community) and still be able to get money from their resources.

I don't think he's saying they should still be up for sale. More so be able to be downloaded by the buyers at the latest version that was posted before that user was banned.

 

[ULTRA SETUPS]

I'm in total disagree because if the resource has been deleted or if the author of the resource has been banned there is a good reason. (And I have experienced the feeling of when one of your good resources is removed/deleted, but as I said there is a good reason.)

Let's take in case that a user was selling a resource with leaked files or with no resell rights, after the removal of the resource if MCM does provide to all users who purchased it another one-time download link, MCM will encourage this type of "violations".

You should download and save a copy of the download once you purchased it, if the author of the resource decides to remove it as well, you will not have another way to download it.

 

[Ally]

Perhaps only allowing purchasers to download it, and hiding it from listings.

Perhaps this could be the case but if, and only if, users have not had prior access to downloading the resource at least once as per the current policy.

Don't quite remember what the policy is about providing downloads to users, via a ticket, who haven't been able to download it once prior to an author's ban, but I don't believe it's been accommodated in the past. If you do encounter this exact issue, though, definitely open a ticket and a staff member will advise you on where to go. Usually case-by-case basis iirc.

 

[Ally]

I think an amendment to the policy would be best. Users sometimes lose their copies.

How would the policy be amended though? For example, MC-Market cannot physically guarantee unlimited copies. That's not possible. Or, some arbitrary number like 3, or 4, would be pointless and limiting.
Either way, MCM isn't accountable for people losing their copies...

 

[TheRobLP]

I've seen a bit confusion around my post. I would like to clarify a bit:

1. I am not saying the resource of a banned user should be up for sale anymore. Only buyers would be able to still download it for some time, exactly like Rollph said.
   
   
2. I have already said this in the original post, but would like to explain it a bit better: Resources who distribute illegal or leaked material should be removed immidiatly. But users aren't always banned for this. Some people get banned because they decide: "Hey, wouldn't it be funny to spam threads." Why should the user pay for the social incompetence of others? Or some people may only have sold one resource which was wrongfully sold, and the others where perfectly fine.
   
   

This is an issue if you ask me. But really, the bigger issue here is the lack of communication. The buyer has the right to know what is going on. I have bought multiple resources from authors who where banned. And everytime this happened, I didn't know what is going on. I sometimes thought I am going crazy, thinking: "But... I purchsed that resource... Or didn't I?"

I hope I could clarify a few things with this post.

As always, thanks for hearing me out, and also thanks for all the valuable input to my suggestion.

 

[Geek]

Don't quite remember what the policy is about providing downloads to users, via a ticket, who haven't been able to download it once prior to an author's ban, but I don't believe it's been accommodated in the past. If you do encounter this exact issue, though, definitely open a ticket and a staff member will advise you on where to go. Usually case-by-case basis iirc.

I think an amendment to the policy would be best. Users sometimes lose their copies.

I think its safe to say that the majority of users immediately download the resource after purchase. To my knowledge, I don't know anyone who purchases a resource, then after 5 months chooses to download the resource. As such, our original policy would be in place. I don't see why this needs to be amended as Ive never seen this be the case.

I have already said this in the original post, but would like to explain it a bit better: Resources who distribute illegal or leaked material should be removed immidiatly. But users aren't always banned for this. Some people get banned because they decide: "Hey, wouldn't it be funny to spam threads." Why should the user pay for the social incompetence of others? Or some people may only have sold one resource which was wrongfully sold, and the others where perfectly fine.

Why does it matter which offence they are banned for? The fact of the matter is they violated the rules enough to be banned after an agglomeration of ~1.5-month suspensions and 75 warning points. This shouldn't change anything, and I don't see the policy changing at all.

 

[TheRobLP]

Why does it matter which offence they are banned for? The fact of the matter is they violated the rules enough to be banned after an agglomeration of ~1.5-month suspensions and 75 warning points. This shouldn't change anything, and I don't see the policy changing at all.

Sorry, but I do not understand what this right here has to do with the topic. This post is not about the author, it is about the end-user.

 

[Geek]

Sorry, but I do not understand what this right here has to do with the topic. This post is not about the author, it is about the end-user.

Your entire post is about how resources are removed when the user is banned and therefore is not accessible by the purchasers. Im unsure as to where you're being confused by my post?

 

[Stelios]

I think the best way to handle this is the way Evanto does it is, they guarantee that files will be available to the buyers for download for up to 6 months after purchase, not after a possible removal, updates, or anything of that nature.
Evanto doesn't sent out "resource removed" notifications either. You do have the option to receive emails every time an update is available, which would make it kind of redundant to those interested in having the latest version on their PC.

 

[Scroll32]

While it shouldn't be allowed to be purchased, there is no reason the not be able to download piece shouldn't be implemented. Should MCM be liable, no. But its a decent thing to offer users if they do indeed lose a copy. But as normal, god forbid we implement something that is useful for users and doesn't make profit