"Rebellion" - Please read fully.

[BaccaBoy1999]

I don't agree with getting banned for 'admitting' to hax, because that's like arresting someone because they said "I killed someone". You can say it's an unfair comparison all you want, but people making similar comparisons all the time. Do you believe someone when they say they're murderers? Chances are you won't. Do you believe someone when they say they're hacking? Chances are you still don't, but you decided to ban them anyways. That really doesn't make much sense to me. I understand that you don't want to take the risk, but is it really worth banning people for joking around and trying to have fun?

The only problem with your comparison with admitting to hacks and admitting to murder is that you can tell the way someone says something in real life, but in MC chat, some people take something serious, when some people are joking.

 

[HalfSquirrel]

The only problem with your comparison with admitting to hacks and admitting to murder is that you can tell the way someone says something in real life, but in MC chat, some people take something serious, when some people are joking.

Yes, but if someone admits to hacking jokingly and someone believes him, then the person that said he was hacking turns out to not be hacking no harm is done other than a bit of fear of the hacks and maybe a bit of hateful chat. It's really not that big of a deal until someone makes it a big deal.

 

[Claq]

The only problem with your comparison with admitting to hacks and admitting to murder is that you can tell the way someone says something in real life, but in MC chat, some people take something serious, when some people are joking.

Not really... If I said I killed someone with a straight face and in a serious tone, I'm sure no one would actually believe me.

 

[Col_StaR]

I've only been here for about a year, but I've seen 7 attempted "rebellions", 11 attempts to demote a member of the Sr. Staff (all of questionable credibility), 3 change.org petitions, 2 players from communities attempting to snipe our staff, and 4 politically-charged hashtags. And between all of those were countless arguments, flame wars, and drama-causers to fill the space.

How many times have they actually accomplished their objectives? Zero. This community survived the banning of Bajan Canadian and the subsequent fallout of that in its relative infancy; we can handle a few kids who want to play Che Guevara.

In fact, those little "rebellions" only hurt themselves and the likelihood of actually changing things. Think about it like this: if the staff has to deal with drama, flaming, and trolling at the hands of a group of players whom appear intent to cause trouble in order to get their way, do you really think we would see them as credible and reputable individuals worth talking to? No matter how legitimate of a grievance you may think you have, you are hurting your own cause by resorting to setting things on fire then claiming it's for a greater good. No, it's not for a greater good: it's a politically-convenient excuse for you to cause trouble against people they don't like.

That's the ironic truth of the political change: the more extreme a group becomes in their actions, the more they drown out the more politically-effective moderates who are the key to actually achieving change between parties. I want the moderates, and we need them in order to have a healthy political process. Unfortunately for the online world, the internet has a tendency to make everyone's opinions extreme under the delusion of moderate discourse.

And that, Mooclan, is more or less what happened with the EMP Summit. What was supposed to be a calm and moderate discussion of grievances and concerns between two cooperative parties quickly turned into yet another "rebellion". In order to be a part of the Summit, everyone had to agree to a number of stipulations, including keeping things calm, mature, and purely within the scope of the Summit. Things were going fine at first, but things quickly got out of hand before the staff even knew what the Summit was. They didn't realize what was occurring until Summit members started DDoSing them privately, attacking them en masse on third party systems (including Facebook), and bragging about how they were going to get them fired. Extreme views lead to extreme actions that delved beyond the scope of the Summit and broke the arrangement that everyone at the Summit agreed to, thus dooming any attempt for cooperation between the two parties. As such, the Summit had already failed by the time the time the staff finally decided "enough was enough" and got involved. That lead to the bans for investigation, nearly all of whom were unbanned and forgiven within a few days. But the damage was done, and the political climate on both sides has yet to recover.

I've learned a lot about politics ever since I've been here. All I can say is that is that politics for a community this size really is a full-time job. But the fact that we're turning this easy-going Minecraft gaming community into a political battlefield is the real problem here.

 

[Scott]

I've only been here for about a year, but I've seen 7 attempted "rebellions", 11 attempts to demote a member of the Sr. Staff (all of questionable credibility), 3 change.org petitions, 2 players from communities attempting to snipe our staff, and 4 politically-charged hashtags. And between all of those were countless arguments, flame wars, and drama-causers to fill the space.

How many times have they actually accomplished their objectives? Zero. This community survived the banning of Bajan Canadian and the subsequent fallout of that in its relative infancy; we can handle a few kids who want to play Che Guevara.

In fact, those little "rebellions" only hurt themselves and the likelihood of actually changing things. Think about it like this: if the staff has to deal with drama, flaming, and trolling at the hands of a group of players whom appear intent to cause trouble in order to get their way, do you really think we would see them as credible and reputable individuals worth talking to? No matter how legitimate of a grievance you may think you have, you are hurting your own cause by resorting to setting things on fire then claiming it's for a greater good. No, it's not for a greater good: it's a politically-convenient excuse for you to cause trouble against people they don't like.

That's the ironic truth of the political change: the more extreme a group becomes in their actions, the more they drown out the more politically-effective moderates who are the key to actually achieving change between parties. I want the moderates, and we need them in order to have a healthy political process. Unfortunately for the online world, the internet has a tendency to make everyone's opinions extreme under the delusion of moderate discourse.

And that, Mooclan, is more or less what happened with the EMP Summit. What was supposed to be a calm and moderate discussion of grievances and concerns between two cooperative parties quickly turned into yet another "rebellion". In order to be a part of the Summit, everyone had to agree to a number of stipulations, including keeping things calm, mature, and purely within the scope of the Summit. Things were going fine at first, but things quickly got out of hand before the staff even knew what the Summit was. They didn't realize what was occurring until Summit members started DDoSing them privately, attacking them en masse on third party systems (including Facebook), and bragging about how they were going to get them fired. Extreme views lead to extreme actions that delved beyond the scope of the Summit and broke the arrangement that everyone at the Summit agreed to, thus dooming any attempt for cooperation between the two parties. As such, the Summit had already failed by the time the time the staff finally decided "enough was enough" and got involved. That lead to the bans for investigation, nearly all of whom were unbanned and forgiven within a few days.

I've learned a lot about politics ever since I've been here. All I can say is that is that politics for a community this size really is a full-time job. But the fact that we're turning this easy-going Minecraft gaming community into a political battlefield is the real problem here.

Well said.

 

[TotalyNotHawk62]

Honestly, this has got to be the worst rebellion to date. Trust me, I never wanted a revolution when I was here, I just wanted change, and that still got me no where. Besides, if theres one thing my time here taught me its that things in life are always going to be unfair, and theres always going to be stupid rules thet you're going to have to follow. You just have to learn to deal with it. Theres a right way and a wrong way to provoke change, rebelling falls into the ladder. We should all realize how fortunate we are to even to be able to play video games. we should just enjoy them for fun, as was meant to do. While things like "oh, the staff plays favorites!" may be an issue you need to know this happens everywhere. Most of the time people playing favorites is just an asumption, and it isn't like it affects us anyway. On top of that a good chunk of the staff are good people, but every basket has its bad apples.

All and all people have it pretty nice at mcsg, lets please keep it that way people.

Edit: it's pronounced nïjer anyway, if you think it's funny I have a feeling you don't get invited to a lot of parties.

 

[Krafty]

aaaaand this is why i quit minecraft

 

[roguehh]

Can we please not call this a rebellion? Rebellions are usually aimed at destroying or taking over the position of those in power. This is something that is not easily achieved in an online community such as ours, if possible at all. But it's certainly not possible in the way these people are going about it.

I understand that in a community this large, not everyone will agree with certain decisions. But if you want to change peoples minds, causing fuss isn't the way to do it. Instead try going through the proper channels. This process isn't fast or effortless, but at least it has a chance to succeed.

This small group of people, however, aren't trying to change anything. All they're trying to do, is cause trouble by provoking staff members. Calling that a 'rebellion' makes it seem more serious than it is. All they really are, are rabble-rousers. Nothing more. And if they break a rule, they should be punished accordingly. Just like anyone else.

 

[Iamsortanormal]

I have an answer for the whole problem.
To Staff: Try to be lenient when dealing with a person and remind them that arguing with staff isn't allowed, and they can report/complain about a staff member on the forums.
To Community: Focus a bit more on the game, and a bit less on the drama. We don't say everything that goes on in a staff meeting, well, because it is a staff meeting, and if we say 1 thing, it will get twisted and turned until it is the complete opposite of the point we are trying to convey. If you don't test staff when we are trying to deal with other people, you won't get in trouble.

I know the community is a reason for a lot of you guys are around, but if some of you guys actually playing the game a bit more and not pile up in hub 8 and complain about staff, you might have more fun.

While I support the servers, and I enjoy playing on them, there have been a few questionable bans lately. For example, SlavTheRussian made a video about how he and some friends tried to set him to to get him banned for aimbot. So, they set up a scenario in which it may look like he was actually aimbotting. In the end, he ended up banned. (Video here:

!) This shows that the whole argument of the staff not doing their job well does have a little bit of ground, because if the staff member who had banned this player had spent a little bit of time on the evidence, and not just looked for certain "tells" of aimbot, Slav wouldn't have been banned in the first place, even if that was his intention. Once again, while I don't support the whole 'Rebellion" and "We need new staff members" argument, I do feel like the staff needs to be a bit more thorough when dealing with ban disputes, and with some of the players too.

 

[BaccaBoy1999]

While I support the servers, and I enjoy playing on them, there have been a few questionable bans lately. For example, SlavTheRussian made a video about how he and some friends tried to set him to to get him banned for aimbot. So, they set up a scenario in which it may look like he was actually aimbotting. In the end, he ended up banned. (Video here:

!) This shows that the whole argument of the staff not doing their job well does have a little bit of ground, because if the staff member who had banned this player had spent a little bit of time on the evidence, and not just looked for certain "tells" of aimbot, Slav wouldn't have been banned in the first place, even if that was his intention. Once again, while I dson't support the whole 'Rebellion" and "We need new staff members" argument, I do feel like the staff needs to be a bit more thorough when dealing with ban disputes, and with some of the players too.

I have talked to slav on skype before, enough to know his pvp skills go out the roof. When someone gets a combo like he did, he didn't allow the other guy to even touch him. Now not pointing fingers, but whoever dealt with this report probably just looked to see common signs of aimbot, such as getting outragous combos or the person gets doublehit or more. (Not saying that everyone who gets a combo, or everyone that gets a 2x hit is hacking)

This is why we prefer evidence to be recorded as a spectator, because it is easier to see hacks when you personally aren't fighting them.

 

[Mango]

I was planning on writing a big response. Then I realised that this pretty much sums it up and is a great deal shorter. Danke.

 

[Iamsortanormal]

I

I have talked to slav on skype before, enough to know his pvp skills go out the roof. When someone gets a combo like he did, he didn't allow the other guy to even touch him. Now not pointing fingers, but whoever dealt with this report probably just looked to see common signs of aimbot, such as getting outragous combos or the person gets doublehit or more. (Not saying that everyone who gets a combo, or everyone that gets a 2x hit is hacking)

This is why we prefer evidence to be recorded as a spectator, because it is easier to see hacks when you personally aren't fighting them.

I understand where you're coming from, and I understand why spectator hacker reports are easier, but he recorded the death match fight. To me, it just seems to appear that the report was just dealt with quickly and sloppily. Also, if you look in the comments, TehSteelFlexer typed up a paragraph that made tons of sense about how there wasn't enough evidence in the first place. Correct me If I'm wrong, but while I do agree about the whole combo thing, if a bit more time had been spent, this ban could have been prevented.(And, just for curiosity's sake, was the mod who looked at Slav's report demoted?)