Make JMod/Mod Handbooks Public

Ok well then it's a bad handbook.

 

But no frinds in ral live so frinds in mindcraft ar idots liek @Versions

Remember, the majority of brawls community are under the age of 9 so if you say to them they are smelly poo bums, they might be offended and tell their mummys.

 

I hope to it English very proper

 

I've been muted 3 times, the first mute ever was after I told this guy who was complaining about a team of 2 to just "be quiet and shut up" because he had 4-5 teammates most games (HG peeps). The chatreport literally does not pick up context or anything, often leaving out half of what was actually said.
I think that AT LEAST the mute and ban protocol should be made public, not to give loopholes, but to enable players to get far more accurate reports out.

 

It's not the fact that we get 'offended', it is the fact that we have clear rules on Brawl. If we think you're not behaving well, we mute you. Is it that big of a deal? We made the rules and you should follow them at any time.

If people get muted without knowing that what they did, they should learn from this offense. If they're smart, they won't tell someone to 'shut up' or 'kys' if they really don't want to be muted.

 

Now Dasky has told everyone that like 20 times: We only have 3 examples in the handbook.
The only thing we should release is those examples we have, but personally that is useless if you want to know what is mute-able and what is not. If your argument is that you really want to know when something is a mute-able offense ( which wasn't your argument at the beginning of thread ( correct me if I'm wrong )), then we shouldn't reveal the entire handbook but only a few general examples.

 

Just something I want to point out. A lot of the suggestions the community and staff highly agree with are always thrown out the ****ing window just because of 1 persons own opinion himself and overrules them just because he doesn't like the idea of it.

I didn't know about half the **** read in the thread not even the caps thing in chat because the system is pretty much hidden LOL. In my own personal summary ChickenPutty your servers system needs a ****ing fix and rework LOL. Not just the system but by the looks communication between you and your staff. Lmfao

 

I would love to believe that the world is that innocent. Yes, saying mean things isn't morally right or fair, but the neither is the world. The internet is a prime example of this, just check out the youtube comments. It's a toxic mess precisely because people can say something like that without fear of a hostile reaction that they may get by saying it to someone IRL. Nobody takes the youtube comments seriously because they're so toxic it's quite to get anything truly useful out of them, but it's so widespread it's very difficult to deal with.

The fact is, brawl could introduce a new policy stating that nobody is allowed to say anything mean at all, irrespective of the context. The problem with that is it wouldn't even solve the problem. For one thing, what you and I consider to be mean are two very different things, you might take offense to something I'm completely fine with. The same thing applies to brawl, they would deem offensive something that you don't. They'd likely have to do that with a policy like that to appease the most conservative of people who tend to be very sensitive to insults. It wouldn't even stop the problem as there are certain chats related to brawl which aren't governed by brawls, for example the CTF team chats. Those that didn't find the comments offensive but having to avoid using them would find it annoying as they can't see the problem. Brawl would end up annoying a lot of their player base to try and stop offensive comments in a way which doesn't fully work. A flexible handbook is needed for these comments to exist, because that way the staff can use common sense to deem whether or not a comment is appropriate or not, and then deal with them accordingly. Even then the system isn't perfect, you're still relying on the staff having common sense (which can be debatable at times) but at least you're not angering half your playerbase from preventing any kind of stupid comment.

I'm not interested in having the handbooks released publically just for additional examples to be given out, precisely for the reason I stated above. Factoring in common sense, it makes an example fairly redundant in the first place. Knowing what's mutable or not depends on the context of course, and if you want that kind of information, that's what the "rules" forum section is for. I'm more interested in releasing the handbook to prevent future staff liability claims. There are certain protocols that aren't explained in the rules, and as @TheMightyHead already said in his first post, this means staff blamed for enforcing protocols they have to enforce because players don't actually know they exist in the first place. Morever, doing something like this improves transparency with the playerbase, and they can then suggest potential improvements for this protocol. Right now pretty much all of this protocol is hidden (even from semi-staff members like the build and wiki team groups) and so we can't tell what you guys are liable for or whether you're enforcing the protocol wrongly. Hell, it could even be that the protocol itself is wrong, which wouldn't be entirely surprising given every document and procedure has inherent that could be discussed and improved. True you could work those out internally with the staff system, but having say the 500 pairs of eyes + of the community is definitely better than the couple dozen in the moderator team for suggesting improvements to the system. Yes, it's been said that the useful information about being law abiding players is already public, but I'm definitely more interested in the laws, protocols behind them, and what can be done with them to improve them so everyone benefits.

As for the argument that "the staff will be ridiculed for not following the handbooks exactly" well, can't you put at the start of the document in the first place that they're guidelines not absolute rules, and that that they are open to interpretation via common sense? I'd be amazed if that isn't in there already (and if it isn't then that's clearly something you should consider changing). If you're worried about the extra complaints, well you shouldn't get any additional complaints if you're doing your job correctly, this measure would only highlight when you aren't doing the job correctly, which means the problem is identified faster. False claims can exist yes, but you get a lot of those already from what I gather, so I don't see this as a reason to prevent the books being released either.

As long as the handbook clearly states (and I mean clearly, like at the top at the very start in bold lettering) that it's a guideline and not to be followed to the letter I don't see much of the community being stupid enough to miss something like that. There are multiple benefits for both the players and the staff, ensuring protocol is followed in a reasonable way and potentially debatable protocols can be corrected, and it also improves transparency and honesty between the two groups. It's not uncommon for me to question some of what the staff say on a regular basis (and I'm sure they can tell you I question them on those matters) and I bet I'm nowhere near the only one with that view.

 

There are already it, Also why you need it otherwise if there is theard abiut the Moding activaty

 

I mean, there are it at the theard to read before you applying

 

Just stay quiet in public chat and pm anyhting you want...

 

@SoCool21 we still need you

When you become jmod for your server, you only have perms on that one server. You're given the jmod handbook the second you are accepted. Then if you pass the hack test and become a mod, you are given the Mod handbook, which is a separate link from the jmod one, and discusses more about replays, protocols for hacking, appeals and reports, and more. The same is done for when you become smod. There is no admin handbook.