The truth about inconsistent and biased punishments on MC-Market.

[Ghast]

I’ve been on here for almost 4 years, the only reasons I ever got warned was for playing with fire on a leaking oil field. I felt the burn and moved on, and so should you.

 

[Remnicore]

The giftcards thing was mainly to ensure that they weren't carded I'm sure. Most sold giftcards on here are unfortunately. I was looking back on it and found another moderator doing a similar thing to people before she resigned. (no names)

It's still not consistent. At one point I was exploiting a glitch in a movie theater app which allowed me to reserve unlimited free tickets and I was re-selling them to IRL friends since we all go to the same movie theater. Long story short, the glitch stops working if you change the location of the theater, meaning I can't sell to people on MCM who are in different states. I never made an actual sale on MCM, but she gave me a ton of warning points and said that what I was doing was "objectionable content". It's just an incredibly vague rule (5.6) meaning if the staff doesn't like something, they can punish you for it. Nothing about what I was doing was objectionable. It's not more objectionable than reselling store giftcards (stores don't allow the resale of GC's), the resale of MC accounts (violates Mojang's TOS), sniping usernames (maybe I find that objectionable. Who's to say)?[DOUBLEPOST=1592707285][/DOUBLEPOST]

Nah

Dude, you have no say in this. You can't even make a comment without having your altercation with Han Solo being altered in several special editions. We all know you didn't shoot first. "Maclunkey".

 

[Remnicore]

I shot first, Han just shot me in a mortal spot. Ask him why he doesn't have any kids.

I can't. He's dead, and so is his kid.

 

[wizard-chan]

But look who's back from the dead, that's right, me. Greedo always wins!

maclunky

 

[Jdsgames]

Suggestion for equal warning points: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/605329/

You are given predetermined warning points and expiry dates: https://www.mc-market.org/wiki/warnings/

The original crime:
Cam said the term "minecraft condoms" in a joke fashion in chat. This resulted in a 10wp warning for NSFW content & a 2 week suspension, (only 3 days past before this was reversed). Some may argue that this content was NSFW content, that is correct. However the main argument from this is the bias a certain staff member has towards certain members, the staff member will remain un-named as to not direct hate.

Why is this biased?
I consider this biased as many other users said the same term or worse, on the same day (before & after the warning was issued) whilst discussing the suspension.

http://screenshots.cam/i/NRceB9Ya.png
http://screenshots.cam/i/33LyvztM.png
http://screenshots.cam/i/wI5aCEs4.png

http://screenshots.cam/i/kkrCShBW.png

I think you are having issues understanding how moderation functions on the site. Users report the message/post we respond to it. What you see as staff bias is not the case.

In this case, you point out why we didn't warn other users of similar offenses. In this case, Cam did the right thing and appealed the warning. Context and intent when going through the whole conversation were not enough to issue warning points.

However, in regards to why other users didn't get warning points for the same thing, if the context and intent are under review, why would we add multiple extra warnings for the same thing? It would only lead to more appeals clogging up the queue.

Then you also have to consider the rabbit hole that persists when we let something go. Oh, because you let this happen, that should also be allowed. Oh, you let those two things happen, so this should be allowed. Oh, but you didn't warn for this, so we should be allowed to do that. Please refer to the stolen movie tickets and reselling of purchased gift cards argument made earlier.

This was before the original punishment was overturned, so the staff member that originally punished Cam would have been resolved to do the same for all of the above cases, with the same phrasing being used. (Yes I am among those screenshots, mainly advocating for the wrongful punishment)

Other cases of unproportionate punishments:

Arh, recently was paraphrasing a video (made by someone else, this was the fake awards ceremony for Katy Hopkins)

Screenshots provided below:
http://screenshots.cam/i/XnDINdSY.png
http://screenshots.cam/i/yYgjgSw8.png
http://screenshots.cam/i/RKCRjnde.png

User was banned from SB for inciting hate and harassment, however was simply laughing at a video which has been out in the public media for many years now. This should not be a offence punishable by this warning, as the figure is a public figure who's branding is built from general hatred, and as said before the user was quoting the video, not making the comment themselves.

I will respond to this section later ---

I'm sure there are various other examples of inconsistent/unwarranted punishments. Most of the suggested punishments have been happening quite recently, however I am sure it's an ongoing issue. I have put in a few hours of research for this thread obtaining screenshots and the likes, if anything is inaccurate or inconsistent or if there's any other examples of unwarranted punishments happening continuously, reply or hit me up in PMs - I can have it added.

I will respond to this section later ---

This post was originally made out of my outrage for a specific user's overruled punishment, however I've found it to be an underlying issue on many fronts. I will gladly edit/change sections if they're inaccurate or slanderous, the screenshots of this are intended only to educate, not to incite hatred or break the rules myself, these are not my words, but the words of others.

I am glad to see you are trying to discuss things reasonably.

 

[Yule]

The reason you get a warning is because you did something that is against the TOS, instead of complaining on a forum, have the decency to just suck it up and move on instead of blaming it on "inconsistency". The staff on MCM try to help out the community where they can and try to be as consistent as possible, a thread that rants about staff does not help anyone :tup: