My solution to the controversial topic "deleting evidence"

[SAOtaku]

We aren't changing the rules because of people not reading them; that's like saying if I murdered someone, I shouldn't be punished because I didn't know it was illegal/wrong to kill people.
(If you want a less obvious example, it's like saying I can get away with jaywalking in Seattle because I didn't know it was illegal.)

The problem is not that we want this rule changed because some people were banned because they did not know of the rule, but because the rule is just stupid. A player who is trying to help the community vs. hacker and the player trying to help the community gets permanently banned. Dat logic doe. I understand why it is a rule, but the consequences are way too harsh imo. Not everyone is deleting the evidence with the purpose of defying the rules. Who the heck would report their friend in the first place and then delete the evidence so he gets unbanned? Yeah, no one really. And as stated before, sometimes when evidence is deleted it's not necessarily their fault. They could have been flagged or YouTube just has it's issues one day.

In my personal opinion, the permanent ban for removing evidence is completely fair and well-deserved for people who do remove evidence. It's not like you have to pay for each video that you have on your YouTube account.

Some people are YouTubers who look at their video manager and can see all the videos. Looking at the amount of hacker reports when they're trying to find their actual videos is a pain. So, to make it more neat and tidy, they delete videos they don't need, which means the reports that have already been dealt with from ages ago.

If the rule must stay, there are other solutions to make peace with the angry cscoop fanboys and whatnot.
1. I like this one the best. State a minimum amount of time in which the reporting player must keep the evidence and a maximum that the reported person has to dispute their ban. After the time is passed, the reporting player can delete the evidence and the reported player can no longer dispute it.
2. Treat it like hacking; first offense is a 7 day ban, next time is permanent. If the hackers get a 2nd chance, why can't someone who just deleted a video get one?
3. Sean's idea

If nothing changes, what if a Youtuber uploads an SG where he kills a hacker in it and one of his fans or the Youtuber himself reports the hacker and later that video is removed. The hacker tries to dispute his ban. Does the Youtuber, who could have been trying to protect the hacker, get banned because of deleted evidence? If not, then why? :3

 

[BlitzCometITU]

bush did 9/11

 

[bcfcAnt]

I honestly find this rule ridiculous all together. Now this is my opinion:

We, as members of the community decide we want to report a hacker. Let's just say we accidentally remove some evidence, or your channel gets shut down, whatever the situation we could get permanently banned if I'm correct?

MCSG should take responsibility of the evidence as soon as the evidence is provided. It's their network and we're helping their network by reporting these hackers. Why should we be at risk of a permanent ban for actually reporting someone breaking the rules? I find this completely unfair.

I also hate the rule where we are required to unlist videos, I upload many forgetting to change it to unlist. I also strongly believe that if I record a hacker I should have the right to publish this hacker. I believe in name and shame. However, I completely understand if the proof was not evident enough. I think it should be up to the user if they want to publicly show hacker proof, or keep it unlisted. It's our channels (youtube).

To honest at the moment, most people are better off not reporting hackers as some could fear a permanent ban.

 

[Mango]

There's no way in hell. Unless there was 5 people where you died, you won't get evidence fast enough. And if they are rendered, most hacker vids are about 2-3 mins long. A 3 min long vid in 1080p is about 1/2 a gig, give or take. Now NINETY of those? That's 45 GB of mine I could use for steam games, etc etc. On hacker reports that if YT glitches, I need for backup. Think how stupid that is for a minute.

Uhhh, a 1 minute video for me is almost 2 gb, and I record in 1080p...

The thing is you don't need to record minutes of footage in order to get a hacker banned. All of the videos I upload are 16 seconds or less, to my knowledge, not one of the 90 in the folder has been successfully disputed.

 

[Ava]

Who the heck would report their friend in the first place and then delete the evidence so he gets unbanned? Yeah, no one really.

That actually happens way more often than you think...

 

[Devblock]

I really could write a lengthy essay on this (as I have umpteen reasons to support shorter ban lengths for this offense), but all that needs to be said is 'second chances'.

Hackers have to go on the internet, search up 'hacks in minecraft', download one of the clients that come up, search up how to install it, log into a server, then use it.

Morally speaking, they are given so many opportunities to stop what they are doing and back out. The real question is not why deleting evidence is a permaban, but rather why hackers get a second chance when they know they are doing wrong, and people who delete do not, when there are so many circumstances that can implicate it..

 

[1qw3er5t6y]

wow ur a hack

 

[Prismel | Monsters]

In my personal opinion, the permanent ban for removing evidence is completely fair and well-deserved for people who do remove evidence. It's not like you have to pay for each video that you have on your YouTube account.

I thought all mods were supposed to download evidence and upload it to their own channel. When I was a mod this was a rule and everyone was supposed to do it.

 

[MoLoToV]

I thought all mods were supposed to download evidence and upload it to their own channel. When I was a mod this was a rule and everyone was supposed to do it.

It's not a rule, as for some moderator it's almost impossible to do that because of a slow down / upload speed. It's preffered though, and even if the video is reuploaded, the user who reported the hacker is not able to know if the video has been reuploaded or not, so they should keep the video up no matter what.

 

[LizzyBethyMC]

Below I have a few quotes from other players that already touched on aspects that I will elaborate on.

However, let me just state the most important points and problems that I encountered with this rule.

1. As already stated by a few other people and as you all are aware of, Youtube is unreliable and by flagging, copyright strikes or other reasons, videos can be taken down, without it being the intention of the person who uploaded it.
2. In real life, this would not work that way. As Devin pointed out, of course you cannot say that you didn't know the rule so you don't have to be punished. However, just imagine this scenario: A witness gives a statement in a court that was the main evidence to cause a murderer's conviction. This witness is later killed robbed and incapacitated by the gang of the murderer, main point being, that he cannot testify anymore. If the case goes into appeal, the witness wouldn't be punished for not being able to testify anymore, right? If that happened, everyone would agree that it's completely unreasonable! In another scenario, the witness decides to just not testify anymore because you have the right to remain silent. That would also not cause him to get punished in any way because the evidence was there in the first place. This leads me to my last point.
3. This rule implies that there is not sufficient trust in the moderators or Sr. moderators. For someone to get banned, there must be sufficiently clear evidence that this person broke the rules. Usually a moderator looks through the evidence and decides that it is enough for the person to get punished. If months later the evidence isn't there because of whatever reason, why do you need to punish the person who originally reported the problem in an intent to help the community? Shouldn't it be enough that a moderator confirmed that this person broke the rules? And even if it isn't, why can't you unban the person? If it was really a hacker, he would hack again and get caught again.

Because of all that and also the quotes listed below, I really don't see a reason to punish the person who reported the case originally because it honestly discourages anyone from reporting others.

I hope you understand my points and take them into consideration.

What if the deleting if evidence is accidental? e.g YouTube channel shutting down, copyright strikes, accounts hacked, something like that.

I love this.

Adding on, I was talking to a friend of mine about this, and he brought up a very interesting point. In this example, the player reporting wouldn't be at fault, however the player that was reported and the way YouTube works would.

After asking for his/her evidence for the ban, the player takes the video, flags it, gives it to a bunch of his friends, who also flag it. Eventually, the video gets so many flags that YouTube doesn't even take the time to watch it; they delete the video without warning. At this point, there's no way of getting the video back up unless you have it stored on your computer.

YESSSS YouTube is really unreliable like that! No matter how hard it is to make a database for these video files, its much better than YouTube. They could just put a length limit on report abuse videos so as they don't take space, and something that takes longer to get evidence for (proving someone is a perm-banned player or something) they can just talk to higher staff directly.

We aren't changing the rules because of people not reading them; that's like saying if I murdered someone, I shouldn't be punished because I didn't know it was illegal/wrong to kill people.
(If you want a less obvious example, it's like saying I can get away with jaywalking in Seattle because I didn't know it was illegal.)

In response to Devin's post, this example isn't the best, a better example would be: If someone was murdered (caught hacking), he is only put in jail for a week on first offence, and finally sentenced for life if done a second time, but if the scientist who is doing the forensics accidentally misplaces the DNA samples that prove the person guilty of the murder (the person who puts up ban evidence), he's put in jail for life. THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN! The scientist may be fired from his job for being a clumsy idiot (temp-ban) but not put in jail FOR LIFE, for a complete accident like this.

 

[Ephiza]

Below I have a few quotes from other players that already touched on aspects that I will elaborate on.

However, let me just state the most important points and problems that I encountered with this rule.

1. As already stated by a few other people and as you all are aware of, Youtube is unreliable and by flagging, copyright strikes or other reasons, videos can be taken down, without it being the intention of the person who uploaded it.
2. In real life, this would not work that way. As Devin pointed out, of course you cannot say that you didn't know the rule so you don't have to be punished. However, just imagine this scenario: A witness gives a statement in a court that was the main evidence to cause a murderer's conviction. This witness is later killed robbed and incapacitated by the gang of the murderer, main point being, that he cannot testify anymore. If the case goes into appeal, the witness wouldn't be punished for not being able to testify anymore, right? If that happened, everyone would agree that it's completely unreasonable! In another scenario, the witness decides to just not testify anymore because you have the right to remain silent. That would also not cause him to get punished in any way because the evidence was there in the first place. This leads me to my last point.
3. This rule implies that there is not sufficient trust in the moderators or Sr. moderators. For someone to get banned, there must be sufficiently clear evidence that this person broke the rules. Usually a moderator looks through the evidence and decides that it is enough for the person to get punished. If months later the evidence isn't there because of whatever reason, why do you need to punish the person who originally reported the problem in an intent to help the community? Shouldn't it be enough that a moderator confirmed that this person broke the rules? And even if it isn't, why can't you unban the person? If it was really a hacker, he would hack again and get caught again.

Because of all that and also the quotes listed below, I really don't see a reason to punish the person who reported the case originally because it honestly discourages anyone from reporting others.

I hope you understand my points and take the into consideration.

1. NICE HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER GIF IN UR SIG M8
2. Are you a wizard? Cause this is a really good post :3

 

[LizzyBethyMC]

2. Are you a wizard? Cause this is a really good post :3

Not a wizard... just a lawyer