Don't moderate stuff that has nothing to do with MCM (i.e discord servers)

[Sky.]

Wild suggestion, I know but here's the idea:
I know this will get denied, but take my one cents and eat it.

Don't moderate stuff that has nothing to do with MCM (i.e discord servers)

I'm going to take an example here, let's just talk about Mantis's ban. He was basically banned for: I'm going to joke about hitting a scammers router so hard that it'd be set on fire.
At the time, many people had just gotten scammed by the guy so of course people will say shit like that - but they will never act upon it.

That's not the point I'm trying to get at though, MCM shouldn't be able to moderate Discord Servers and ban people for what they say unless their words have been acted upon.

So you can say what Mantis said, without being banned. So you can actually make jokes without being punished.

Making a joke, and making a threat is very different and in more recent days, MCM's staff have struggled to see this.

By no means, am I trying to appeal Mantis's ban I just want this not to happen to more people.

Here's the rule I'm proposing:

`MCM is not allowed to moderate and or ban people via what they said on different platforms. They are only allowed to ban someone if it has been acted upon. I.e doxxing someone.`

An exception to this is threatening to scam, as that can be repeated again and again. So please bear that in mind.

I understand if something is said in the Chatbox, or on MCM PM's, but MCM is in no authority to ban someone over what they said on another platform.

I bet all my money that MCM won't listen - but if Mick wants to claim in on that bet be my guest.

Thank you

p.s i don't want to be attacked in the comments for this, please just leave your opinions without names, keeps everything a bit more civil

 

[Landon]

Still disagree, what will suspending do to them... they'll get unsuspended and right back to it. This whole thread you've brought on was to defend one specific user not caring about the safety or regards of the others users, you've made it very apparent so far and I suggest getting this closed.[DOUBLEPOST=1608078227][/DOUBLEPOST]
If somebody has malicious intents all over, would you not agree removing them from a community they'll cause more harm on would be a safe option?

This entire thread I’ve seen you arguing “if they have malicious intent, they’ll do it regardless!”

Congratulations, you found the difference between an action and a statement. People have to act upon their actions. I can say all day that I will do x, but if I don’t do it, where is the harm?

Jokes exist for this reason, and it’s a bit upsetting to see that even jokes are being taken to the extreme and resulting in punishment even if they were offsite and have no correlation to MC-Market affairs.

Back to your whole malicious intent thing. If someone truly has malicious intent (whether that be doxing, DDoSing, etc) do you truly believe a ban will prevent them from carrying out the attack?

We need to act upon actions. That’s literally as simple as it gets. If someone does something, you punish them.

And no, I don’t know who Mantis is or his ban story, so this is unbiased (since everyone else who disagreed with you was “bias” in someway)

 

[NameAidan]

-1 If someone is threatening to Doxx someone, then when they do Doxx that person is threatening to that person who just had all their personal information released. You can't assume it is a joke than have a felony occur and they say "Damn we should've banned them before this happened." If that does happen and the person who got Doxxed reported it to MC-Market and they implemented this rule where they can't ban based off of Discord Messages, etc. then MC-Market can be held accountable in the eyes of the law and they too can face charges as they were notified of it and did nothing about it.

 

[Sky.]

-1 If someone is threatening to Doxx someone, then when they do Doxx that person is threatening to that person who just had all their personal information released. You can't assume it is a joke than have a felony occur and they say "Damn we should've banned them before this happened." If that does happen and the person who got Doxxed reported it to MC-Market and they implemented this rule where they can't ban based off of Discord Messages, etc. then MC-Market can be held accountable in the eyes of the law and they too can face charges as they were notified of it and did nothing about it.

Congrats, you've forgotten discord trust and saftey team exsist. There's no need for MCM to moderate stuff which don't fall into it's platform .

 

[Landon]

-1 If someone is threatening to Doxx someone, then when they do Doxx that person is threatening to that person who just had all their personal information released. You can't assume it is a joke than have a felony occur and they say "Damn we should've banned them before this happened." If that does happen and the person who got Doxxed reported it to MC-Market and they implemented this rule where they can't ban based off of Discord Messages, etc. then MC-Market can be held accountable in the eyes of the law and they too can face charges as they were notified of it and did nothing about it.

Don’t talk legal when you don’t know legal. MC-Market would not be held accountable unless they went out of their way to provide personably identifiable information to the person carrying out the attack.[DOUBLEPOST=1608565862][/DOUBLEPOST]Let me summarize what an instant ban does:

User jokes about it (innocent) - Banned
User threatens with intent (malicious) - Banned

That’s the current state of MC-Market. Both ways, a user is banned.

Now, if someone truly wanted to carry out a malicious attack, a ban will literally do nothing. I can create an alternate account, scrape the information I’m looking for, and carry out my attack.

In reality, by punishing users preemptively, you’re only harming the innocent users who just wanted to make an edgy joke. The people who truly wanted to carry out their actions are not affected by the ban whatsoever.

It isn’t hard to punish based upon action. It isn’t that deep, and I don’t know why the responses to this thread are so philosophical (can’t wait for Justis’ response to this suggestion, those always give me good philosophy).

 

[NameAidan]

Don’t talk legal when you don’t know legal. MC-Market would not be held accountable unless they went out of their way to provide personably identifiable information to the person carrying out the attack.[DOUBLEPOST=1608565862][/DOUBLEPOST]Let me summarize what an instant ban does:

User jokes about it (innocent) - Banned
User threatens with intent (malicious) - Banned

That’s the current state of MC-Market. Both ways, a user is banned.

Now, if someone truly wanted to carry out a malicious attack, a ban will literally do nothing. I can create an alternate account, scrape the information I’m looking for, and carry out my attack.

In reality, by punishing users preemptively, you’re only harming the innocent users who just wanted to make an edgy joke. The people who truly wanted to carry out their actions are not affected by the ban whatsoever.

It isn’t hard to punish based upon action. It isn’t that deep, and I don’t know why the responses to this thread are so philosophical (can’t wait for Justis’ response to this suggestion, those always give me good philosophy).

If MC-Market knows that there was a threat and they don't take action against it then they would be held accountable. You become in non-legal terms an "accomplice" as you were notified about the threat made whether it turned out to be a joke or not.

 

[Landon]

If MC-Market knows that there was a threat and they don't take action against it then they would be held accountable. You become in non-legal terms an "accomplice" as you were notified about the threat made whether it turned out to be a joke or not.

That’s not how it works at all. If that were the case, the amount of court cases Twitter, Doxbin, and Pastebin would have for being “accomplices” and assisting users in gaining access to personably identifiable information would be astonishing. But, that isn’t the case because it would never hold up in court and the attorney fees would be more than any lawsuit winnings you would get.

 

[ThaMango]

MCM is meant to represent the whole business side of Minecraft, not just be a forum for people to speak on. If someone is sending messages threatening to break rules on the site or just break laws in general then they should be punished on the site as well.

 

[Landon]

MCM is meant to represent the whole business side of Minecraft, not just be a forum for people to speak on. If someone is sending messages threatening to break rules on the site or just break laws in general then they should be punished on the site as well.

MCM is exactly what you said it isn’t. All it is is a forum to speak on. MC-Market in no way represents the business side of Minecraft. If that was the case, it would be affiliated with Mojang.

MC-Market does not represent Minecraft in any way :tup:

“We are not an official Minecraft product and are not approved by or associated with Mojang.”

The Minecraft Bedrock Marketplace is the true business side of Minecraft. This is just some random forum in all seriousness and legality.