REMOVE OR DECREASE RULE 1.23

[jxhdvn]

I think I speak for everyone when I say 35 warning points is too much. Max this rule should be is 20, 10 is appropriate. Simply said there aren't any direct competitors to this site, the one that's out there that we know isn't known as being a MINECRAFT site

 

[Norska]

Sure, but warning points should also expire after an extended period.

 

[jxhdvn]

Sure, but warning points should also expire after an extended period.

That in general, I wanted to make that clear but I was never aware of this crazy one

 

[blob]

I think I speak for everyone when I say 35 warning points is too much. Max this rule should be is 20, 10 is appropriate. Simply said there aren't any direct competitors to this site, the one that's out there that we know isn't known as being a MINECRAFT site

This is because of Choo right? lol

 

[jxhdvn]

This is because of Choo right? lol

no i remember usagi getting it as well

 

[jxhdvn]

for 1.23, no. it doesn't.

Did you see the should in his sentence

 

[jxhdvn]

p sure he implied that they do, "they should do that man" sorta like that

No he said they should also expire. Saying they don't but they should, as well

 

[Grace.]

Overall the rule should be less stringent. I think there should be 2 forms of this rule for varying levels of severity. For lesser advertisements, and for say a more severe advert like visit ---.minecraftmarketsominanother . --- , etc where it's more direct, the punishment can be say 30 warning points, that expire in 4 months, and maybee 15 warning points that expire in 3 months if you link a fortinite market or somin xD

 

[jxhdvn]

.

 

[Jayson]

You should already not be getting warned the full 35 just for stating a name. 35 is for the obvious/intentional ads which try to bring people to a competitor.

You may try reducing the warning through a ticket if it wasn’t promoting a competitor and was more on the passive end.

 

[jxhdvn]

You should already not be getting warned the full 35 just for stating a name. 35 is for the obvious/intentional ads which try to bring people to a competitor.

You may try reducing the warning through a ticket if it wasn’t promoting a competitor and was more on the passive end.

well my friends got the full 35 lol

 

[Lotus]

I don’t believe the severity of the warning should be adjusted at all but perhaps made more clearer to the community on how far they can push their boundaries.

Rule 1.23 -

1.23 Do not discuss, link, or promote sites which could be considered to compete with MC-Market.

Why should we be lenient to those with the intention to promote their own site on this platform?

You say there aren’t any ‘direct competitors’, but I disagree. Yes, this site’s core is based around Minecraft, but it is much more than that.

To be eligible for rule 1.23, you need to :
a) Be a marketplace. Doesn’t matter if Fortnite is the selling point or whatever and isn’t exactly the same, another marketplace in a forum format such as this will always compete with MC-Market. (That is the loose classification of a competitor for me at least).

b) Have the intention to leech off this community to further grow another marketplace’s user base.

If you meet the above criteria, in my eyes you fully deserve the 35 warning points placed on you. We don’t want people within this community with those intentions. It’s practically half a ban, we only give you one more chance, and it’s justified.

The keyword here is promote. You shouldn’t get the 35 warning points unless you are promoting a competitor. Depending on the context of the situation, smaller infractions should warrant the 10 warning points for rule 1.21. And everything else should just be a verbal warning (which will give you another chance before we issue warning points).

There is a difference between “x is better than MC-Market! Join here!” vs “Oh yeah I got this on x”.
One could be viewed as direct promotion, and I fully believe you deserve 35 warning points for that. The latter can be viewed as a simple mistake by a member unknowing of our rules. We would give a verbal warning for that (although the situation would change drastically if you ignore our warning). We do censor out the more prominent marketplaces, but if we believe your sole intention was an attempt to promote that marketplace regardless if it was censored out, you will be issued warning points.

Removing the rule would serve no purpose. Decreasing it just offers more leniency to these types of people which I don’t fully agree to support.

Note this is just my personal view on whether we should bother being more lenient on rule 1.23. Other staff may just as well disagree with me and I’d love to see their perspective.

 

[Mick]

This rule has been decreased from 35 points at its most severe to 15, which I believe is fairer.

I'll move this to accepted, thanks for the suggestion.

Edit: To clarify, we will not be retroactively going back to old warnings that any users received with the 35 points to lower them to 15, it's just that in the future the punishment will be lower.