Rule Change Suggestion

[Vibe 1,088]

Description - Change the current forum rules to allow people not directly involved to comment their opinion on a thread.

Reasoning - This rule is only used and enforced when the forum administrator feels like it.  Multiple appeals in both Rust and GMOD have multiple replies from numerous parties, Bruh's 2nd Ban Appeal is a prime example. Ban Appeals should be for community members to voice their opinions. The current MRP staff team lacks communication and common sense. When low ranked staff are banning established members permanently and their higher up staff are saying there was not enough proof then that's the perfect example of community feedback needed. It would be different if it was shitpost, but when ex staff are saying very valid points and starting meaningful conversations are warned and blocked from posting for 24 hours at the least. 

Additional Information - Not Needed

[Dexx 395]

+1 Why slients the community voice?

Edited January 10, 2020 by Dexx2

[Panini 148]

+1 shouldn't even be a rule in the first place. Why ruin community interaction? Discussion could bring new viewpoints and evidence.
 

Edited January 10, 2020 by PaniniV2

[Turtle 14]

+1 This rule just seems unhelpful. What if someone not involved has something important to add.

[Hofman 41]

Big  +1. I understand why they added this rule in order to avoid spam. But other staff members and players might be even more experienced with other situations that may be similar, this is a community and everyone should have a voice.

[Kendal 450]

In any community i've ever been a part of, appealing your ban was never something that was made public for the entire community to add input on. If you look at some of the replies on Bruh's ban appeal for example, they can be downright toxic and don't add any actual input other than voicing hate in some way.  There are many comments that do provide some good opinion, however the Ban Appeals should be left between staff and all that are actually involved in the situation made. 

Gamma was involved in the thread because he was part of the situation on Silo's ban appeal for example, however he added that last bit where it insinuated that staff were incompetent and witch hunting. Thats why it was removed. If he hadn't thrown that in, his input would have been more valuable. 

The community's opinions /+1's & -1's don't actually do anything. Staff aren't swayed in their decision process based on the comment that says "This guy is a good guy, +1". Staff looks for proof, and a conversation with the banned person.

[Dexx 395]

12 minutes ago, Milton said:

In any community i've ever been a part of, appealing your ban was never something that was made public for the entire community to add input on. If you look at some of the replies on Bruh's ban appeal for example, they can be downright toxic and don't add any actual input other than voicing hate in some way.  There are many comments that do provide some good opinion, however the Ban Appeals should be left between staff and all that are actually involved in the situation made. 

Gamma was involved in the thread because he was part of the situation on Silo's ban appeal for example, however he added that last bit where it insinuated that staff were incompetent and witch hunting. Thats why it was removed. If he hadn't thrown that in, his input would have been more valuable. 

The community's opinions /+1's & -1's don't actually do anything. Staff aren't swayed in their decision process based on the comment that says "This guy is a good guy, +1". Staff looks for proof, and a conversation with the banned person.

However voices should be heard, yes you guys don't really act  on +1s/-1 but does give overall different perspective while looking at a appeal. Hiding people comments to just you guys look like you don't care about what the community has to say at all.

 

To add on if a comment just appear "this guy is good guy +1" Then don't hide his comment, reveal his comment show others can see how that is useless comment and you guys don't even act on +1s/-1s anyways so there is really no need to hide them.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Dexx2

[Kendal 450]

2 minutes ago, Dexx said:

However voices should be heard, yes you guys don't really act  on +1s/-1 but does give overall different perspective while looking at a appeal. Hiding people comments to just you guys look like you don't care about what the community has to say at all 

A ban appeal thread isn't the place for the entire community to provide input. I've said this multiple times, it is meant for staff and the banned player to communicate on an official level with what happened. It is meant for staff to provide further evidence, the banned player to provide their own input on what happened, etc. Anyone involved in the incident is allowed to provide their side of things if they can. 

I think of it like this, there is an obvious reason staff on MRP don't give jail punishments where other players hang out. Like, I don't jail a 2GA PVT in the middle of RU base because they'd get shot at by idiots, shit talked to, etc. 

The community does typically have good opinion to add to the ban appeal threads and shit, I won't deny that. But there are toxic -1's/+1's, as well as the fact that... Like I said, Staff doesn't care about +1's or -1's. They care about the evidence, the facts, and any valuable input from eye-witnesses and the banned player themselves. Those comments from the community only make the threads more crowded and harder for staff to find what they are looking for.

[PrisonNightmare 741]

Honestly I think it depends on the situation if one should remove a post or not. If someone brings a new perspective to the table that hasn't been brought up before and is relevant to the situation, then I don't think it should be removed and should be allowed to stay, regardless of who said it. However, if we have eight people saying essentially the same thing or just +1/-1ing without a proper response/not bring any new perspective or evidence to the table, then I don't think they should post anything. I know a lot of people who use ban appeals to get that "sweet sweet post count/reputation", and I also know some others who actually genuinely put effort into their replies and want to contribute to the situation.

 

Let me give an example, if someone just posts something like this:

 

 

Then they're obviously just trying to increase their post count, and aren't contributing to the thread at all.  I think this kind of stuff should be targeted, the current rule seems just a little too "censorship" like in my opinion. However, if someone is actually trying to leave their genuine opinion and actually contributes to the thread in some way or manner, than I do believe it should still be allowed up. Sorry if my grammar is absolute aids, 3 am rn lol.

[.lua 234]

4 hours ago, said:

If it weren't for lua's videos chances are that FreeBird would have been unbanned

 

This is another example where Sleepy provides another suspicious and it definitely helps Operators making a decision

 

I couldn’t find the rule described in this suggestion, nevertheless it seems like it’s present. 

As broken said, if it weren’t for community input and useful points many people would still be unbanned beating time. 

Sometimes that’s not the case because you get people like in @PrisonNightmare’s example. Since they’re multiple forum moderators it seems now, they can easily clean those up and give them a warn and such. In the end community opinion matters as in the long run they’re usually effected by decisions made on here.

[Vizii 566]

+1, When it comes to certain situations where someone who has been suspected of hacking and has been apart of the community for so long there should be more caution taken into mind. When it comes to silo I think this ban was unjustified just due to how the staff team could only provide one clip deemed evidence. Now, am I saying this evidence isn't valid? No, the clip itself was extremely sus but there needs to be set requirements when it comes to banning someone who has been suspected of hacking. With he ban of Bruh, There were tons of evidence showing his blatant hacks and there was no way of getting around it. But when you only have one clip that is very sus then you should take that and keep it in a safe place until other people have evidence instead of using that one clip and then banning on the spot.

 

Although I don't know the circumstances of the US standpoints of the ban, Overall there needs to be a middle ground with the staff team before taking action. With a situation where someone in the staff team has either a singular clip of evidence or a hand full of clips showing the suspected player hacking. I think instead of one staff member banning that player, There should be a staff meeting With Head Mods + discussing the evidence that is provided and the staff team as a whole should make the decision on banning the suspected player. 

[Nutter 15,197]

1 hour ago, .lua said:

community opinion matters as in the long run they’re usually effected by decisions made on here.

When it comes to appealing a ban/warning you were never involved in, no, community opinions is more often than not lackluster and ignored by the staff dealing with the situation. This is not a case of "silencing the community" as Dex said, but rather removing the ability for users to make a pointless post as to bump up their post count. Somebody had brought up "other communities" well, other communities literally make it so the person appealing is the only one who can view their own post, aside from forum staff. Not the best argument there.

 

If you're not directly involved in a situation, you can't possibly provide useful input in regards to the situation.
Denied

[Nutter 15,197]

I went ahead and made this adjustment

  

On 12/7/2019 at 7:13 PM, Garnet said:

Suggestions, Applications, Appeals and Reports Rules

• When responding to a report/appeal thread you must be directly involved to the situation, or have relevant information that could sway the final decision

But that's as far as I'm taking it, because frankly, i'm sick of reports and appeals being a hub for minges or faction buddies fighting for somebody who earned their punishment.