Remove rule 1.21

[CakeSG]

"1.21 Follow the instructions of staff members."

Staff member: go kys

Member: No

*Member gets banned*

If you need an actual example, scroll down

 

[tjrgg]

Being the rule writer here at MC-Market, let me explain rule 1.21.

Rule 1.21 is a nice little cushion for us, I won't lie. It gives us something to use that actually makes staff instructions enforcable. So, if you are behaving in a manner that could be considered inappropriate or the majority of members are somehow negatively impacted by your actions, a staff member can put a stop to said actions by instructing you to cease those actions. Rule 1.21 makes those instructions enforcable and punishable, should you choose to ignore them.

Obviously, you went to extremes in your initial post on this thread to make a point, but I'll address it anyway. If a staff member told a member to go kill themselves, their position on the team would be reconsidered (a fancy way of saying they'd be demoted), as we don't and would never tolerate that sort of behavior from our staff members.

That all being said, I completely understand that some things that staff may say could be misinterpreted. Therefore, we'll work on making sure that we are clear when we are instructing you do something (or to not do something).

I keep an eye on staff members and their behavior quite regulary. If a staff member does step out of line, I make sure to inform them of it and nip the behavior in the butt right away so that it doesn't become a habit. If you feel that a staff member has stepped out of line, please tell me about it by sending me a message, as I want to know about it. However, I would challenge you to think about any situation from the staff member's perspective first. Ensure that you didn't do anything to warrant any statements that you received from the staff member and that said statements were actually out of line.

 

[Tylerzz]

Seems like most members like to bash staff when ever they get the slightest chance. They are human, just like you.

Edit: I don't think this rule should be removed but it should be reworded.

 

[Emecay]

Really, I fail to see the issue with the rule in the first place. As someone who's staffed a lot of forums, managed a lot of communities, etc, there is almost always the need for a rule like this. People like to push their limits, going in and out of rules, borderline breaking them. And I mean hey, it obviously doesn't apply to everyone, or even a majority of people, but there's always a handful of people that will do what they can to get away with what they can. When you try to get them to stop whatever they're doing, it comes down to an argument of "well, what specific rule am I breaking?"

Touche, you've found the loophole of technicalities! Doesn't change the fact that you're being a dick in whatever it is that you're doing.

This rule remedies that. It's the fallback for "you're purposefully doing things that you know you shouldn't be doing and technically getting away with it". It gives staff the final word - which, at the end of the day, they do have, whether you like it or not. You can say that people have to earn your respect, that just because they have a rank doesn't mean you're obligated to respect them - and, yes, that is true, but you are obligated to listen to them, whether you like it or not. Because, yes, it's "just a rank", but they have more authority than you, they have the power to tell you that what you're doing isn't okay, and they have the ability to punish you if you fail to comply with reasonable requests.

Give respect to who you will when you will, but by using these forums you agree to the rules that are set forth, you do have to understand that those with more authority than you, despite their age, notoriety, whatever, are going to have every right to punish you for doing something wrong or to tell you to stop when you play around in that "grey-area" of acceptable behavior.

If you want the rule to be reworded, what exactly do you propose it be? You can make it as specific as you want, there will always be loopholes for it, and there needs to be a way for staff members to have a valid reason to say "what you're doing right now isn't okay, and you need to stop". I mean if it's used in abuse, then sure, by all means, dispute it. Bring it to public light. But so far the most compelling arguments this thread has to offer is a more adult way of saying "They won't let me get away with just anything if I can find a loophole for it!"

TL;DR Whether you like it or not, the people who are in charge DO have the authority to enforce what's necessary. If there were instances of abuse, then that's it's own argument against that staff member, not the entire rule.

 

[Bryce]

This thread gave me cancer when i read it.... Oh whoops. Sorry Tyler was that too disrespectful? Lets all make a thread to ban Pablo!

 

[Ajdin]

M6Gaming and Tyler Remember to stay on topic. This is a suggestion thread. If you're looking to argue take it to a PM.

 

[IseeHD]

Your question isn't a yes or no question.

Yes it is. You're voting "Yes they should remove/revise the rule" or "No dont remove or revise the rule".

 

[Ivain]

could do with a bit of reworking, but that is all.
Basically, if a staffmember where to do what you said in the example, they'd be seriously abusing their power, and I highly doubt the rest of the staff team would stand for that. If they did, this site would be dead in a matter of weeks.