Explain this to me

"Public bans and kicks are now private." Kling posted this on the thread here. And I don't understand it. The poll showed a 50 to 11 vote, with 8 not bothered. I'm not troubled because I wanted them public, that's fine. But, I just don't understand how a vast majority of the community shows they want something, then you go against their wishes? On the thread, Kling also says, "know this was made to inform the staff team on how the community feels about the change whether its mainly positive or negative." So the staff team were informed on our opinion, but don't really care about it? Sounds a little messed up if you ask me.

I know the server isn't exactly famous for listening to the community, but I feel like this crosses the line. You can't make a poll saying you would like to hear from the community, then not care. If it was a lot closer, I would understand, but the results were overwhelming. Out of the 69 who voted, 50 wanted something, and 8 were either way, but you still go and do what the minority of 11 says? 11 people. That is just over a fifth of the majority. This shows me that the poll meant nothing, which is contrary to what Kling said.

If it is easier for staff to have private bans, then that is 100% fine. I don't mind them being private if that's what the staff team want. I respect their wishes and if they prefer something one way that is perfectly okay. But why do a poll, say "We would like the community to display their views and opinion on the matter. Make sure to select a choice on the poll and all feedback is taken into consideration," and then ignore the majority. I know it doesn't state that what the poll says is going to happen, but when results like these are painfully obvious, it really seems like nothing was taken into consideration. We weren't even given an answer on why they are private now, which is the least you could do. It just baffles me on how little a say the community seems to have.

And before you go and say "You have no idea what goes on in staff", then why not tell us. I would truly like to see the decision making that goes on to consider a 72.5% opinion to not matter.

Notice: This isn't aimed directly at Kling, just the staff team in general. And I still respect all your choices, I would just like this to be explained to me. Thank you.​

 

This has happened many times in the past.

Its usually due to the "wrong players" answering the questions (banned, bad histories, toxic, poor attitude)
And poor motivation. I mean look at the thread its literally between nosey people and non nosey people.

That and the staff doesn't take what you say half as much as they say unless you can come up with a extremely unique ans generally negative perspective on the subject.

All in all - staff do what staff want, as it always has been so.

Edit- plus dein comes along and words no spectacularly and that brings everyone else to follow lmao

 

Maybe because the no crowd made legitimate arguments with valid points.

The yes crowd said "lul it entertains me"

 

It's because a bunch of players got triggered two days ago when Clueless banned lolli for stealing, even though he was doing his job.

 

The first mistake you are making is assuming it was a majority vote, it wasn't.

And no, it's never the better choice to forgo one customer's privacy for another's entertainment.

 

Privacy?! Why should we give privacy to people who betray the server and choose not to follow the rules?

 

Because it's good business.

 

There is only a few select areas on the server where the concept of majority rules actually apply. It's a bit odd to assume the intent of a thread seeking community opinion and nowhere in that post did it even imply majority rules would be applied there.

Applying a standard majority rules on this server is not a good idea because players aren't and shouldn't be focused on the good of the server with every decision. Their role is to consume the product and enjoy themselves and speak to what would make them enjoy themselves more. It's the staff's role to weigh further player enjoyment with possible consequences of action. This is exactly what they did here as they considered the entertainment of players to not outweigh the various negative aspects of public/private bans.

I disagree that anyone deserves to know anything about another person when they are not affected. There is already precedent of private talking with a staff if in a situation where it does affect you. IE: I'm buying a rank, does this person scam | I'm going to promote person to <position> is there anything in his/her background that would put anything at risk? Bans are not considered private as a whole because when you appeal it's there publicly and being read by everyone.

But most importantly - Treating all customers, regardless, with respect is simply a good business decision. Privacy is generally one of basic standards of said respect.

 

The poll offered no real insight to the reasons for the overall decision. Speaking from a perspective that had view of both sides, it caused nothing but issues. Yes, it may have been entertaining for you, and it was argued the community had matured, I must disagree about that overall, as here's an example of what it was like anytime a staff member was simply doing their job:
In addition, it started numerous discussions that had to be shut down relatively quickly due to the sheer immaturity of arguments about the simplest of kicks.

It's simply a lot easier to keep the privacy between the player and staff, as well as keep the general immaturity under control more.

 

But this is an easy way to stir up issues that didn't need to be there in the first place. Earlier posts have highlighted what I mean - problems such as harassment can easily result from public bans. MeepCraft has a young playerbase that does not always make the most responsible decisions whilst playing (not all players are like this, of course), so why provide them with possible fuel in the form of information that they can weaponise against anyone they dislike?

And, no, (at least on a private Minecraft server), the public does not inherently deserve anything. Especially in this case, where it is detrimental to the server but provides essentially nothing to outweigh the negativity.

 

That imagine is exactly why I decided that public bans were almost worthless. Not entirely sure why it got changed back.

 

Ill explain it since Im in an explaining mood.

Kling asked the community for his own knowledge. Us admins never asked as we set it public to make us more accountable for our bans. We were banning for reasons like "Come back in 10 minutes". When we looked for why they were banned, we had no idea. SO we set it public to get rid of this and force ourselves to put more thought into the ban as many would criticize it.

The bans are between the staff and that player. This server is not a crappy new server that needs the public to laugh at others bans. Its childish. We are above that. We had planned on making it private again since the day we made it public. Ill use this example for the 3rd time this week.

You have an electrician at your house and its a boss (30 years experience), and 3 helpers working with him for the summer. The 3 kids say "lets just run it through here! Easier!!" The boss knows its easier but its not the right way to do it. Should he do a poor job because majority voted? Or should he use the experience and responsibilities entrusted in him to say, "no, thats not the way to do it. Were doing it this way".
Its flawed logic to always use majority.

As much as I took your opinions into account and saw the staggering numbers that wanted to leave it public, I must make the hard choice to go against it for the betterment of the server.

Hope you understand.

 

Impressive use of analogy.

 

Because you can drive away a paying customer (if they buy ranks, have in the past, or are planning to). Simply put, it is unwise to give the generally immature community information which they can then weaponise to harass or insult other players. I have seen it happen, I have heard of it happening, and public action messages are not something that improves the general atmosphere after someone gets kicked or banned.

 

hey my ban was shown, thats nice

 

Myself and numerous other staff members believed it would be a good idea for the thread to inform us of the communities opinions. We are all on at different times so some of us do not see the reactions of the change because there are only 10 players online. With that the main things for publicity was it's funny/entertaining. Where as the opposing had better reasoning for it to be private for instance one of the comments was brought up from the public bans thread before it became private which was to do with spam and what not.

 

I might be late and I dont care. The short and basic from what I'm seeing is that you don't like staff hiding stuff while the players could have some usefull feedback on that correct? That has been a problem ever since I first played. and while I agree that maybe sometimes asking feedback from the people affected by whatever change can be usefull. I honestly don't see it ever happening... I will admit that I can see some reasons why staff wouldn't do that.

 

Dead or not still felt like talking about it. And I'm afraid it's always been that way... Unless you have a player report or ban appeal..

 

I liked it when bans and kicks were public. While it may cause some immature arguments to sprout, that is what staff signed up for when they applied for helper. It lets us know who to trust and who not to. and its hilarious.