General Changes to Rules

[EnderTehNerd]

This isn't a change that would affect the server or how anything appears, but I believe it is still worth talking about. The rules for PZ are very vague, and the punishment times are not properly listed. Not to mention, the rules aren't the easiest things to find. From what I know, an alarming number of players are banned/muted for little reason, for insanely long stretches of time.

I suggest that the rules are made more specific, possibly written so they supply examples about what the rule is about so the younger players of PZ have a higher chance of understanding the rules. Since most rules do have a short example, possibly a second example would be a good addition.

The rules also never mention specific time frames for how long you could be banned/muted for something. I think including this would be helpful.

The rules are in a forum which is in a folder of forums, which makes them a bit hard to find. Not all players have seen this site, either. I think there should be a command to see the rules on the server itself.

Despite not being mentioned in the first paragraph, I find the need to talk about the first rule, "Use common sense". First of all, this rule is insanely vague and doesnt provide any real material to the rule list. Secondly, common sense is developed over time. Children playing on PZ do not have common sense. The teenagers who play on the server have some common sense, but it isn't fully developed. This makes it impossible for most of the server to perfectly follow the rules.

I know this is short, but I feel like no examples of what I was talking about are needed, as the first rule is the embodiment of every issue with the rules of PZ.

Please tell me what you think about the revisions, so I can change the suggestion for the better.

 

[Ryy]

For players that have been punished, they have been for a reason. The rules are stated clearly, and people who choose not to follow them, are punished. Rule-breakers sometimes ruin other players fun, and do not make their experience enjoyable. There are many ways to find the rules, through some people’s signatures, certain forums, and the discord server.

Players that don’t follow the rules are also warned, so they aren’t banned without warning.

Here’s a straight link to the rules: https://mcpz.net/threads/partyzone-minecraft-server-rules.6724/

 

[EnderTehNerd]

For players that have been punished, they have been for a reason. The rules are stated clearly, and people who choose not to follow them, are punished. Rule-breakers sometimes ruin other players fun, and do not make their experience enjoyable. There are many ways to find the rules, through some people’s signatures, certain forums, and the discord server.

Players that don’t follow the rules are also warned, so they aren’t banned without warning.

Here’s a straight link to the rules: https://mcpz.net/threads/partyzone-minecraft-server-rules.6724/

-1

Yet when mentioning how I wasn't warned before being muted once in an appeal, a staff said that they don't warn people for some rules.

 

[Ryy]

Yet when mentioning how I wasn't warned before being muted once in an appeal, a staff said that they don't warn people for some rules.

They don’t warn people for sertain rules because they’re more serious, and people who choose not to follow them are muted/banned immediately. Although I’m not sure if it’s possible to be muted without warning.

You’ve probably been warned before, and can only be warned a certain number of times before muted.

 

[EnderTehNerd]

I suppose, alright. Any suggestions for how I could change the suggestion?

 

[Ryy]

I suppose, alright. Any suggestions for how I could change the suggestion?

You’ve listed your suggestion in detail, and if you think those things should be changed, don’t be afraid to keep your suggestion the way it is. Though I suppose you could suggest a place where to find the rules more easily.

 

[KinqOfTheClouds]

The rules for PZ are very vague, and the punishment times are not properly listed.

This was suggested recently (https://mcpz.net/threads/rules-and-their-punishments.53480/)

 

[EnderTehNerd]

Oh? I really should've looked around more then I did before suggesting this, sorry.

 

[Timelord]

Oh? I really should've looked around more then I did before suggesting this, sorry.

Yours is similar in the way of showing punishments but different by showing exact rules.

For showing punishments I disagree vaguely here as just showing a little information such as chat rules call for chat punishments and warning stuff etc would be nice, but for showing every simple rule with the punishment no that will certainly not happen.

For showing rules... I mean we aren't trying to write the constitution here. The use common sense rule is very vague its basically the the commerce clause in the constitution(very interesting) it doesn't define a exact parameter but a huge range of offenses.

I'm not agreeing with showing punishments but putting rules in more depth than just "use your brain" as this is a server that is more kid friendly than most and not many understand what is right or wrong.

 

[NaNatNat]

They are working on revamping the rules lists which includes examples of what would be a punishable offense. This can be seen here. The thread it was posted on is here. Giving out the punishments for a rule could possibly lead to more false punishments on behalf of new staff members because if they know the judgment the staff team requires, there is no point including questions on the staff application judging that. The staff member could have judgment that is WAY stricter than what we require and might tend to punish higher on a time for a mute for something that should be much lower. Anyway yeah, I'd leave your suggestion as it does have some valuable feedback on the "common sense" rule.

 

[mintyhour]

I mean, it's better to just have users assume every punishment is bannable, then you won't do it.

 

[Rumq]

I understand what you mean, there are ways to dance around the rules.
However I disagree with informing players of punishment criteria and lengths. If a player knew how they were to be punished for something, who says they wouldn't do it? At least with the unpredictability of punishments, players help back when breaking the rules.

 

[MariTheVillain]

I suggest that the rules are made more specific, possibly written so they supply examples about what the rule is about so the younger players of PZ have a higher chance of understanding the rules.

There is only so many examples we can add for every given rule before we'd need to make each rule have it's own spoiler folder, which while it would allow for each rule to be quite specific, wouldn't look nearly as good. Not to mention we can't just list every bad word you can't say, as the list, along with culture, can expand at any time. As you also said after this quote, most rules have some form of example already. Something I do feel can be added however is the clause that you can infact pm a staff member to ask if something is or isn't within the rules. And for now because it isn't logistically possible to keep up with culture perfectly, we use the "use common sense" rule you've also talked about to throw a general blanket on rules, such as not cursing. We could either spend a lot of time listing all the words and phrases not allowed, or we can say "do not curse or use inappropriate language" with the common sense clause.

I think there should be a command to see the rules on the server itself.

/rules

 

[Timelord]

There is only so many examples we can add for every given rule before we'd need to make each rule have it's own spoiler folder, which while it would allow for each rule to be quite specific, wouldn't look nearly as good. Not to mention we can't just list every bad word you can't say, as the list, along with culture, can expand at any time. As you also said after this quote, most rules have some form of example already. Something I do feel can be added however is the clause that you can infact pm a staff member to ask if something is or isn't within the rules. And for now because it isn't logistically possible to keep up with culture perfectly, we use the "use common sense" rule you've also talked about to throw a general blanket on rules, such as not cursing. We could either spend a lot of time listing all the words and phrases not allowed, or we can say "do not curse or use inappropriate language" with the common sense clause.



/rules

But where is the line since so many words can be taken as offensive now adays. With the common sense you basically can say this word is not allowed in culture but maybe to them it means something different. There are many loop holes in the rule where is it even valid to have it? I will look later but I believe not using offensive language and flame wars is also a rule which makes the common sense rule useless in that regard.

 

[Cattt]

A major con in allowing players to view punishment guidelines is that it can encourage players to commit additional wrongful acts.
How would that work? Isn't it supposed to prevent people from doing so?
Well, if a player does know the time-frame of a punishment, they can consider it and think "Oh, it's only [# of hours] mute? I can handle that." and just completely disregard our rules. The thing preventing the majority of our players from doing something against our rules, is not knowing the specific consequences for certain punishments.

As a member of the staff team, we handle most of our situations differently.
If we were to allow players to view our punishment guidelines, it would have to include each singular scenario, which would be very inconvenient and quite frankly, pointless.

The common sense rule is probably the easiest of them all and you are calling it vague because it is.
Common sense plays into each and every person's daily life. For example: "Should I really spend $50 on this?."
It isn't hard to apply that to the network. For example: "Should I really curse?"

Everyone has common sense, both children and teenagers.
Regardless of what "degree" they may have common sense, using our rules as a guide to this, it's quite easy to understand and follow them. It's like when a parent tells a child to do chores, that's their rules and it would be respectful to follow them.

We don't expect every player to be perfect, only that you consider our rules and abide them as much as you can.
We are currently working on creating examples for our rules, which will make them much easier to understand for those who already don't.

Because of us working on other ways to benefit the community, implementing something like this will only encourage bad behavior, which is why I'll be disagreeing.

 

[Fox]

Adding onto what Cat said. If someone looks at these MAJORLY expanded rules... People could say stuff like "It's not in the rules, its allowed" and get away scott free. While if its Vauge it expands basically everything under the category.

 

[Timelord]

A major con in allowing players to view punishment guidelines is that it can encourage players to commit additional wrongful acts.
How would that work? Isn't it supposed to prevent people from doing so?
Well, if a player does know the time-frame of a punishment, they can consider it and think "Oh, it's only [# of hours] mute? I can handle that." and just completely disregard our rules. The thing preventing the majority of our players from doing something against our rules, is not knowing the specific consequences for certain punishments.

As a member of the staff team, we handle most of our situations differently.
If we were to allow players to view our punishment guidelines, it would have to include each singular scenario, which would be very inconvenient and quite frankly, pointless.

The common sense rule is probably the easiest of them all and you are calling it vague because it is.
Common sense plays into each and every person's daily life. For example: "Should I really spend $50 on this?."
It isn't hard to apply that to the network. For example: "Should I really curse?"

Everyone has common sense, both children and teenagers.
Regardless of what "degree" they may have common sense, using our rules as a guide to this, it's quite easy to understand and follow them. It's like when a parent tells a child to do chores, that's their rules and it would be respectful to follow them.

We don't expect every player to be perfect, only that you consider our rules and abide them as much as you can.
We are currently working on creating examples for our rules, which will make them much easier to understand for those who already don't.

Because of us working on other ways to benefit the community, implementing something like this will only encourage bad behavior, which is why I'll be disagreeing.

I'm sorry but the world isn't perfect. "Common sense" rule is my biggest issue on this server currently. Making a rule underlining anything because it is opinionated is just insane. No it isn't easy and has not been easy as seen by many of the punishments through the years. Sorry but your point is not backed by evidence of such ease of the rules.

For example the USA's consitituation commerce clause can be interpreted many ways and some ways it can't be. The common sense rule is particularly similar due to many things could be interpreted in a wrong way making it fall under this category.

 

[Cattt]

I'm sorry but the world isn't perfect.

We don't expect every player to be perfect, only that you consider our rules and abide them as much as you can.

---

Making a rule underlining anything because it is opinionated is just insane. No it isn't easy and has not been easy as seen by many of the punishments through the years.

Our "common sense" rule is to provide a general understanding to the public that we cannot list every specific scenario and something we would deem as "against" the rules when it is not explicitly stated, yet still considered to be wrongful and/or punishable.

For example, we do not have the rule against having your plot name set to something inappropriate. Would that be allowed? Is it listed in the rules? No and no. It wouldn't take opinions to understand that, and that is why we have the "Common Sense" rule listed.

Common sense would be understanding that inappropriate messages are not allowed, so why would an inappropriate plot message be?

A few of our public rules:
"Do not harass other players"
"Be respectful to staff members"
"Do not spam chat"
"Do not ask for personal information"

And those are only 4. They are very easy to understand and follow, even more so in the future when we expand on our examples. You cannot tell me that these are not understandable when they are as simple as they can possibly be.

Mind you, you are comparing a 4-paged US Document to our 1-paged Minecraft PartyZone rules. A document that should apply to over 327 million people, ours applying to a maximum of 1 hundred. Even then, the US Consitution that has it's flaws.

Besides the point regardless, but your comparison of the Consitution to our rules is very, very far off.

 

[Timelord]

---


Our "common sense" rule is to provide a general understanding to the public that we cannot list every specific scenario and something we would deem as "against" the rules when it is not explicitly stated, yet still considered to be wrongful and/or punishable.

For example, we do not have the rule against having your plot name set to something inappropriate. Would that be allowed? Is it listed in the rules? No and no. It wouldn't take opinions to understand that, and that is why we have the "Common Sense" rule listed.

Common sense would be understanding that inappropriate messages are not allowed, so why would an inappropriate plot message be?

A few of our public rules:
"Do not harass other players"
"Be respectful to staff members"
"Do not spam chat"
"Do not ask for personal information"

And those are only 4. They are very easy to understand and follow, even more so in the future when we expand on our examples. You cannot tell me that these are not understandable when they are as simple as they can possibly be.

Mind you, you are comparing a 4-paged US Document to our 1-paged Minecraft PartyZone rules. A document that should apply to over 327 million people, ours applying to a maximum of 1 hundred. Even then, the US Consitution that has it's flaws.

Besides the point regardless, but your comparison of the Consitution to our rules is very, very far off.

I wasn't directly comparing them smh just the manner in which they are interpreted. Did you read any of my response in depth? Common sense is like a coin it can be heads or tails, good or bad. Everyone has a different opinion of common sense and making a rule that doesn't define a specific range and can be interpreted as anything such as a gangster sign. Some people think it is cool etc and some think it is disrespectful. How would you deal with this situation? It would be up to staff and so far that track record has been bad.

I'm just pointing out what could change. I do like the rule just not how it isn't completely understood.

 

[squid legend]

I don't really see how we can make common sense more specific, anyways. Like, how does one make "it really just depends" more specific, without defining other rules? I dunno, really.