Mutes for Chat Offenses, not bans

“Maybe a mass unban and never banning for chat offenses (only muting) would couple even better than just a mass unban.” - Me (on an older suggestion thread)

“Procedure for chat offenses has been changed slightly to something similar to this method.” - Clue

—————-

Chat offenses should = mutes

A chat offense that would result in a perm ban (ex. Repeated harassment, repeated racism, etc), should now result in a perm mute.

The point of a mute is to take them out of chat, and inconvenience them. Party chats are secluded and private and should be fine. Sharing images on discord should be fine.

Parroting someone’s message into global is not fine.

But dissuading mutes just because people can communicate outside of meep isn’t really logical.

 

Yes yes yes. I've wanted to say this all day but I'm scared of @KlutchDecals (KD, Kraft Dinner?) love u KD don't ban me

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 22, 2019, Original Post Date: Jan 22, 2019 ---

They've been using people now for a while it was just klutch that banned yes +1

 

@zsuzsu

 

If you read the full sentence @KlutchDecals i made it bold

 

I don’t think I have a say in this because this actually applies to me, but I’d take the perm mute and appeal it in a few months no doubt.

+1

 

Isn’t that a bad thing? I would hope that if two players had the same history and both committed a chat offence that they would both get equal punishment, and as this thread stated I would expect it to be a mute.

 

No because saying a curse, and saying a racial slur are both "chat offenses" but one is WAY worse than the other.

 

Of course players will be treated equally if the context is the same, though as @Courtneyyy pointed out, it never is. While I’m not against using mutes more than bans which generally is what happens for minor offenses, I don’t like the idea of accepting this suggestion and limiting the staff team to mutes for chat offenses. Staff members should be free to chose which punishment to issue fairly to each player depending on the severity of the offense and the situation. If staff members are what they are, it’s specifically because they know where to draw a fair line and punish those who deserve it according to the actions they have done, and they shouldn’t have their hands tied by being limited to a single option.

 

I agree. Sorry I should’ve specified I meant if they commit the same chat offence.

 

because tradition doesn't make something right. if there is a better way to moderate, why shouldn't we want staff to moderate that way?

first of all, if they're muted you don't have to babysit them. second of all, the purpose of moderation staff is to moderate chat, so don't act like they didn't sign up to babysit people.

why isn't this premise stated in the rules then?

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 24, 2019, Original Post Date: Jan 24, 2019 ---

Stop leaving it to value judgments, which are undoubtedly subjective . If one thing is worse than another, then write it in the rules. Otherwise, execute the rules as they are written with respect to precedent.

 

I do think that racial slurs are worse than cursing, but I still think both should be mutes rather than bans, but yes the cursing mute should be shorter

 

I agree with this opinion. Other people may not, including staff members. Before I was recently permed, I received three different punishments from three different staff members all in regard to a certain thing I wrote in global chat. One staff member gave me a 1day mute, one gave me a 6hr mute, and one gave me a permanent ban. If we want staff members to execute rules consistently and properly we need explicitly written rules with clear premises. For example, the rules could say, "all racial slurs will result in permanent bans." Some people say the n word and get a kick, others say it and get perm banned. Stop the silliness, learn law.

 

I know that moderating chat can become tedious or stressful at times, but staff should always be striving to maintain patience; this is a voluntary job.

I don’t see the point of harming our playercount when a mute solves the issue.

Bans being based on judgement calls opens the door way to bias.

I’ll give an example of something that has happened in the past.

Player A is being quite tedious in chat. No serious offenses that warrant a perm ban, but small chat offenses such as cursing, inciting spam, and arguing in chat and refusing to stop (harassment or toxicity). They had no ban history.

I would personally have muted them for a few hours, the offenses were only in chat.

Another staff member was online and banned them for 5 hours.

This is not the same punishment, one is much much more harsh than the other. Punishments can be based on an individuals opinion of how long the ban length should be; but there should be a range.

We shouldn’t see a perm ban for something a mute could easily solve. And we shouldn’t just hop on a banning spree if it’s not needed.

 

Or maybe just don't use racial slurs and you won't have to worry about punishment inconsistencies?

 

This is not a valid argument. Imagine a judge decides that your speeding offence is worth the death penalty. I'm sure you wouldn't go around saying, "Just don't speed."

 

chill out dude. This isn't a court. The idea that you guys are shocked you were banned for saying the n word on a minecraft server is laughable.

The goal of bans/mutes doesn't have to be to stop chat violations from occurring. You might get banned or muted as a punishment because staff don't want you to use meepcraft.

 

Wow Dude I Like How You Assumed That We Were "Shocked" That We Were Banned For Saying The N Word On A Minecraft Server. I Am Also Intrigued By Why You Think That I Need To "Chill Out Dude." How Are You Able To Tell That I Am Upset Through Text?

I Provided A Suggestion In This Thread. If You Don't Like My Suggestion Then Discuss How My Suggestion Is Bad Rather Than Telling Me To Chill Out And Makeing Assumptions About Me Which Are Completely Irrelevant To My Post.