Things Which I Have Yet To Be Able To Understand

[MrExtrodinaryMr]

Because if we are forced to pardon a ban due to the evidence being removed, it's only fair that the person who removed the evidence gets the same exact punishment as a hacker. Please keep in mind, every person who removes evidence HAS SIGNED the agreement at the bottom of the format. That format clearly states if you need to remove evidence, contact a moderator for approval first, so they can re-upload the footage onto their own channel. We have a very strict rule on this and it will not be lifted anytime soon.

Just a question, if a person got banned for 3 days due to abuse, and the person who reported him deletes the evidence, will he face a permaban, because if I remember correctly (maybe not), he will still face a permaban.

Althought I get where you're coming from, I feel like this rule just excludes the whole idea that the mod who actually banned the player holds some responsibility and that he deserves some consequences if he was wrong about his actions, maybe it's just me.

We have lots of Moderator's with terrible internet. Abuse reports would never get done if we had to re-upload every single video that was provided as sufficient evidence. That's why the agreement exists.

If the channel is shut down forcefully and you had no control, and you have ways to prove that, then it's a different story than willingly removing the evidence yourself. Contact a Sr. Moderator if this ever happens to you.

I get what you're trying to say, but there are people who don't have the best internet either and still send report abuses, so if they can spare some time of their day to upload a video and send it to you, why can't you? I mean, you did volunteer to spare some time of your day to improve the server...

 

[Cameron]

Just a question, if a person got banned for 3 days due to abuse, and the person who reported him deletes the evidence, will he face a permaban, because if I remember correctly (maybe not), he will still face a permaban.

Althought I get where you're coming from, I feel like this rule just excludes the whole idea that the mod who actually banned the player holds some responsibility and that he deserves some consequences if he was wrong about his actions, maybe it's just me.



I get what you're trying to say, but there are people who don't have the best internet either and still send report abuses, so if they can spare some time of their day to upload a video and send it to you, why can't you? I mean, you did volunteer to spare some time of your day to improve the server...

To my belief you only get a permanent ban if you delete evidence for a permanent ban. Also first offence abuse will almost always be an imgur which stays up for a very long time.

Answering your other question we actually do have to upload the evidence if the person hasn't signed the agreement (which can be frustrating for the 10 minute videos but that's our job). That's why it's nice that we can trust the community in report abuses when they do sign the agreement because it makes everything a lot smoother. There's honestly not many excuses for deleting evidence so you shouldn't really be afraid of this rule in the first place.

 

[DE5T1NY]

Banning someone who was originally trying to help the server by removing rule-breakers accomplishes nothing but punishing the offender. If banning then meant the evidence magically came back I wouldn't disagree with this rule as much as I do right now. For example; when a hacker is banned it spares the community of having to put up with them on top of punishing the hacker for the committed offence. When a chat offender says something that shouldn't be said and is muted/banned, it doesn't put us through their bs. Banning someone that was originally trying to help the server literally accomplishes nothing.

 

[MrExtrodinaryMr]

To my belief you only get a permanent ban if you delete evidence for a permanent ban. Also first offence abuse will almost always be an imgur which stays up for a very long time.

Answering your other question we actually do have to upload the evidence if the person hasn't signed the agreement (which can be frustrating for the 10 minute videos but that's our job).

Regarding this, there are websites that allow you to crop a video online, so the only part you'll have to download is the part where the user breaks the rules, for example: http://ytcropper.com/

 

[Jimmer]

If you want your YouTube to be nice and clear, then give the evidence to a staff member and let them deal with it appropriately. It doesn't always have to be on your YouTube. That is what the staff members are for. Just ask, and they'll be happy to help you out.

 

[Mamiamato24]

To respond to the first point, I had made some arguments a while ago opposing it. At the time, people didn't know it was ever a rule in the first place, which was extremely unfair. It's also a horrible idea to rely on a video-sharing website in which the user is allowed to upload and remove videos. There is no way YouTube could possibly revoke the privilege of deleting videos. Anyway, it's one of those rules that's in place so people don't exploit loopholes. It isn't entirely fair, but we'll have to live with it until a better system is put into place.

 

[hax]

Rules are rules, simply don't use gamma.
or don't record

 

[MrExtrodinaryMr]

Rules are rules, simply don't use gamma.
or don't record

That's a really apathetic way to look at this, congrats.

 

[Petar]

That is queation for Sr.Mod

 

[Ceroria]

Banning someone who was originally trying to help the server by removing rule-breakers accomplishes nothing but punishing the offender. If banning then meant the evidence magically came back I wouldn't disagree with this rule as much as I do right now. For example; when a hacker is banned it spares the community of having to put up with them on top of punishing the hacker for the committed offence. When a chat offender says something that shouldn't be said and is muted/banned, it doesn't put us through their bs. Banning someone that was originally trying to help the server literally accomplishes nothing.

That rule was originally put in place due to the fact that hackers were coming up to the people that uploaded their evidence, and then bribing/convincing them to delete the video so the hacker can then go "Hey look, I have no evidence! You have to unban me, muahaha" and in most cases they will be unbanned because we can't hold them to evidence that doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, this rule went very unknown for the longest time and people fell prey to accidentally deleting the videos and then in turn receiving said permanent ban.

As for gamma, I'm just going to leave it at the fact that I'm not sure what super bright blocks will do other than hurt your eyes, or be a huge help cave mining because you don't have to craft torches. Maybe if this was a survival/factions server I could see why there could be a rule against it because using gamma literally decreases the need for torches, but even most factions servers allow it, which is where it makes a difference.

Either way, the rule isn't up to me to decide

 

[DE5T1NY]

That rule was originally put in place due to the fact that hackers were coming up to the people that uploaded their evidence, and then bribing/convincing them to delete the video so the hacker can then go "Hey look, I have no evidence! You have to unban me, muahaha" and in most cases they will be unbanned because we can't hold them to evidence that doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, this rule went very unknown for the longest time and people fell prey to accidentally deleting the videos and then in turn receiving said permanent ban.

As for gamma, I'm just going to leave it at the fact that I'm not sure what super bright blocks will do other than hurt your eyes, or be a huge help cave mining because you don't have to craft torches. Maybe if this was a survival/factions server I could see why there could be a rule against it because using gamma literally decreases the need for torches, but even most factions servers allow it, which is where it makes a difference.

Either way, the rule isn't up to me to decide

The gamma rule is just a bit dumb as a number of the bans for this have been as they have accidentally left it on after playing a uhc. It can also be helpful and has more advantages then it has disadvantages.

 

[Omar]

Both points are really good to discuss with MCGamer staff members and I hope they see what you're on about ^-^

Edit: Ceroria god told us bout the evidence deleting issue which is understandable, second point still is f'ed up imo x)