Do you deserve transparency?

[Ardory 2978]

40 minutes ago, Turbo_Dog said:

 this is a classic topic. Remember to remain civil in the comments here

 

You don’t understand… I need… I need to grrr… I NEED TO VAGUEPOST ARUUUUUUUU!

[Smmer 2441]

7 minutes ago, Nectorist said:

I believe that transparency insofar as ban policy, procedures, and standards is a must, but otherwise I generally agree with @Navigatorhere. Doesn't mean there aren't bans that I disagree with, but transparency doesn't need to be the blanket standard. Some players have done things that are better not revealing openly for one reason or another.

 

This is why the topic is centered on false pcv's and more so the cgvs that are going on 4+ years by now. These guys arent villains, they've been made to look like ones because they cant even say their ban reason so all there is left is speculation and knowing mcrp its nothing but misconstrued information. They actively deny their appeals because they DONT KNOW what they did wrong Nectorist. Would you ask a man to stand trial when he doesn't even know what he was charged with? How are you able to come up with an appeal that isn't just slop jumbled together in a feign attempt at hitting the mysterious goal post shrouded in thick ass fog. Do you write that you apologize for harassing someone you didnt even know you offended? Do you write that you're sorry for 'participating' in a metaplay report when all you did was join a discord gc u werent even active in? Would you if you were banned for 6 months right now on an admin appeal cgv feel confident enough if left with 0 explanations that you could get them to undo it? MANY of these guys are on bans they don't even know what they did wrong and those who get the unbans have spent months to get some sort of communication back.

[Rig 17580]

This is a conversation we've had for fifteen years. 

A CGV is a high-profile ban, so no, people do not deserve an answer. Because it concerns a high-profile case where the people who have been on the receiving end of foul play have either been repeatedly harassed, doxxed, or something of that nature. For your average PvP/minor harassment ban, yes, you should be told. High-profile cases require discretion in order to prevent the people on the receiving end (or even the offender) from facing retaliation. 

[Navigator 4260]

2 minutes ago, Smmer said:

This is why the topic is centered on false pcv's and more so the cgvs that are going on 4+ years by now. These guys arent villains, they've been made to look like ones because they cant even say their ban reason so all there is left is speculation and knowing mcrp its nothing but misconstrued information. 

So I'm going to say something you're going to definitely disagree with because evidently you're friends with PCV'd and CGV'd people (arguably a weirdge thing to admit to, but alas), but, in my experience with LotC (don't go off what my forum account says), PCVs and CGVs are very rarely false and, way more often than not, are the actual devices that Administration uses to ban genuinely horrible people from the server, whether because of their behavior, attitudes, actions, intents, or whatever. I could give examples but I don't want their Discord alts or legions of still-playing fleeper friends to harass me.

 

Anyway. Nectorist is right. Combine what I said with what he said, and you have the perfect positioning in regards to transparency. Policies, standards and smaller bans? Sure.

 

Never give any kind of transparency into PCVs, CGVs and TOS. If you catch one of those, I hope you never find out why - because if you think what you did or didn't do is justifiable, you don't belong on a community. 

[Smmer 2441]

3 minutes ago, Rig said:

This is a conversation we've had for fifteen years. 

A CGV is a high-profile ban, so no, people do not deserve an answer. Because it concerns a high-profile case where the people who have been on the receiving end of foul play have either been repeatedly harassed, doxxed, or something of that nature. For your average PvP/minor harassment ban, yes, you should be told. High-profile cases require discretion in order to prevent the people on the receiving end (or even the offender) from facing retaliation. 

 

The point isnt publishing their ban reason to the server, it's getting enough attention towards the fact that even in private they aren't even given an opportunity to speak on their side let alone learn the reason why theyre banned god forbid they even try to ask admins privately what they did wrong and get the silent treatment but yet theyre still allowed to write an appeal? What would you appeal for if you weren't told what you did wrong. I am asking for admins to have the decency to explain to the low profile cases as well btw who are on appealable bans what they did wrong because to just keep denying an appeal, offer no insight privately is really childish and cringe atp. We're grown adults, these arent kids handling any of the reports, these are people who should be professional enough to understand.

[MrMojoMordor 2413]

10 minutes ago, Navigator said:

This is not real life - this is the services of - technically - a company, which we are """"clients"""" of, to an extent, and are owed no explanations to why they cancel their services (ban/kick/remove us), because we do not actively pay to use or have any manner of subscription or legal binding that forces LotC to explain to you why you're unable to access their service.

holy shit - i did not expect to see an evil corpo manifesto in my funny MC minecraft server forums.
Is everything a 'service' & a 'company' & a 'client' now?

I do somewhat agree though, despite the insane way that whole comment started.
There are some topics that just - yeah. Shouldn't be brought up. And i'd like to believe that the mods don't abuse that power <3

[Tav 4336]

using a song that’s a message about systemic injustice, fighting racism, and giving a voice to the oppressed for some dumbass minecraft pixel drama is crazy btw 

[Navigator 4260]

Just now, MrMojoMordor said:

Is everything a 'service' & a 'company' & a 'client' now?

Note the italicized and bolded technically and the mention of 'cold unethical truth'. I don't agree with what I said at the start, I just pointed out how it technically works.

[Nectorist 12869]

11 minutes ago, Smmer said:

Would you ask a man to stand trial when he doesn't even know what he was charged with?

No, but this isn't a trial, it's a minecraft server. We can't simultaneously deride admins for "corporate speak" while also demanding fully professionalized services. Sometimes admins will shoot and miss, but we get what pay for (which is nothing).

 

In Ryan's case, I've always felt that he should be unbanned and that his ban length is heavily driven by personal dislike, but he's also the exception that proves the rule, mostly because his ban came before metaplay bans were a thing. Ultimately though, the admins have a responsibility to keep the community safe and prevent drama from boiling over onto everything. If they wholeheartedly believe that certain players have done things that are heinous enough to have a CGV ban, then it means that they're people they don't ever want back on the server. If that's the case, then there's no real logical reason to entertain appeals unless some totally exculpatory evidence surfaces.

[Smmer 2441]

2 minutes ago, Navigator said:

So I'm going to say something you're going to definitely disagree with because evidently you're friends with PCV'd and CGV'd people (arguably a weirdge thing to admit to, but alas), but, in my experience with LotC (don't go off what my forum account says), PCVs and CGVs are very rarely false and, way more often than not, are the actual devices that Administration uses to ban genuinely horrible people from the server, whether because of their behavior, attitudes, actions, intents, or whatever. I could give examples but I don't want their Discord alts or legions of still-playing fleeper friends to harass me.

 

Anyway. Nectorist is right. Combine what I said with what he said, and you have the perfect positioning in regards to transparency. Policies, standards and smaller bans? Sure.

 

Never give any kind of transparency into PCVs, CGVs and TOS. If you catch one of those, I hope you never find out why - because if you think what you did or didn't do is justifiable, you don't belong on a community. 

 

Harfleur was on a 2+ year ban pending investigation, given the tos tag on their forum account and was cgv banned for doxxing. Their investigation revealed he was innocent all this time. It took him fighting the silence despite having proof to get them to undo it. Hope this helps you see that mistakes do happen. Dpmagicians tos was also overturned and changed to a pcv after he endured years of harassment and called a pedofile. I understand where you come from, we are their clients we arent entitled to their attention or their answers. But I will die firmly on this hill that people deserve answers, even in a corporate scenario I can never envision myself ignoring someone whos just trying to understand where they went wrong. As shown by the other posts and my status's i am an EXTREMELY highly emotionally intelligent person, I lead with that perspective that I need to put players and their needs first, as I had done when I was briefly a mod. I told them as much detail as I could, do you want to know what happened during a cgv investigation? The admin at the time messaged a discord and told the users being investigated that they were going to be perma banned from lotc and were being investigated.  

[Crevel 7557]

People should receive clear reasons behind their bans if the intention is to have a fair system. If staff want players to have accountability for their behaviour, they're not going to be able to take accountability when they don't know what they did or what they've been supposedly accused of. Depending on the circumstances, I think it is justifiable that some of the evidence isn't disclosed if it is believed that it could be genuinely compromising to someone's wellbeing. It is silly to expect that someone who did some atrocious thing wouldn't already try retaliate against anyone they suspected contributed towards their ban to begin with. They wouldn't need confirmation on what their ban was for for them to ramp up against people they might've messed with in the past.

 

It needs to also be acknowledged that there have been circumstances where one-sided evidence has been leveraged in the past before in the hopes of trying to secure a ban for someone despite the reporter being complicit in some form. Take the example of toxicity/harassment cases where people say something like "kill yourself" as a joke to each other and then later on someone will delete their own messages to make it seem like these were harassing messages. The banned player should obviously be informed of the context of which they were banned so they can refute it with additional context if possible, especially if they're in a position where they're able to appeal. 

 

That being said, I'm not sure whether I would say we deserve it or not. It's easy to say that this is the way things should be, but it's not always practical. LotC moderation and administration can get steeped in bureaucratic hell which can delay verdicts, but also sometimes the best way to get rid of an undesirable player is to just ban them under some other false pretence and than ignore them. It shouldn't be like this but it's effective. I think that administration should be allowed to flat-out ban undesirable players indefinitely for being inherently problematic but they get by normally for skirting the line. It may not be well-received, but I think the transparency in doing that is much better than just keeping people banned under false pretences and ignored. 

[Navigator 4260]

Just now, Smmer said:

Harfleur 

Horrible example. You're using the good old 'yeah, but this right here'. Tale as old as time: exceptions serve to confirm a rule. The one time a PCV/CGV was false, it was overturned. Did it take time? Definitely. Why? Because they are the mechanism administration uses to punish serious, potentially legally threatening situations, such as pedophilia, doxxing, threats, et cetera.

[Smmer 2441]

6 minutes ago, Tav said:

using a song that’s a message about systemic injustice, racism, and giving a voice to the oppressed for some dumbass minecraft pixel drama is crazy btw 

 

I didnt have anything else, give me some song recommendations :// MJ is the only person who exists to inspire? its not meant to downplay irl systemic injustice nor racism, its a song and songs don't come with guidelines or instructions (redlines for the chronically online) on how theyre used. I see nothing wrong in putting a song /about/ injustice on a post thats directly talking about injustice. Even if its about dumbass minecraft pixel drama?

2 minutes ago, Navigator said:

Horrible example. You're using the good old 'yeah, but this right here'. Tale as old as time: exceptions serve to confirm a rule. The one time a PCV/CGV was false, it was overturned. Did it take time? Definitely. Why? Because they are the mechanism administration uses to punish serious, potentially legally threatening situations, such as pedophilia, doxxing, threats, et cetera.

 

"but, in my experience with LotC (don't go off what my forum account says), PCVs and CGVs are very rarely false and, way more often than not, are the actual devices that Administration uses to ban genuinely horrible people from the server"

 

[Navigator 4260]

Just now, Smmer said:

 

 

"but, in my experience with LotC (don't go off what my forum account says), PCVs and CGVs are very rarely false and, way more often than not, are the actual devices that Administration uses to ban genuinely horrible people from the server"

 

Yes, I don't like generalizations, but since you're trying to use that, I'd have put 'never, except x', but I didn't think you'd actually use Harfleur as an example because it'd just... prove the rule.

[Tav 4336]

5 minutes ago, Smmer said:

I didnt have anything else, give me some song recommendations :// MJ is the only person who exists to inspire? its not meant to downplay irl systemic injustice nor racism, its a song and songs don't come with guidelines or instructions (redlines for the chronically online) on how theyre used. I see nothing wrong in putting a song /about/ injustice on a post thats directly talking about injustice. Even if it’s about dumbass minecraft pixel drama?

it’s in poor taste, that’s all i’m saying.