This evening I was playing ECC when I saw some user in global chat warning a builder who was spamming in trade chat. (I don't know if the builder was actually spamming or if that's why mods didn't respond to him or whatnot, but that's not the point here.) The player in global said something along the lines of "#Player, please do not spam in trade chat." To me this seemed like a clear cut case of Mini-Modding (when a player acts like staff). I was informed by some players and a couple staff that what the player in global did wasn't mini-modding, and that mini-modding was only when a player threatened punishment on another player. I looked up the rule on this, and I'm going to quote it here for your convenience: Link: https://www.ecocitycraft.com/wiki/index.php?title=Network_Rules#Clause_7_-_.22Mini-Modding.22 Turns out they were right, the rule doesn't say anything about commanding players not to break rules, and as far I saw, the player in global was not overly "demeaning, condescending or rude"; which means that as the rule currently sits, the person in global didn't do anything wrong. Here's my problem with the way this rule currently sits. Don't get me wrong, I think that players informing other players of the rules can only be a good thing that leads to a better community. My problem is when players speak in a commanding, rather than informing, tone. If a player is spamming, talking in trade, swearing, or generally breaking other chat rules, you can respond in two ways. 1. Informing 2. Commanding Method number 1 is when one player is informing another player in a friendly manner about a rule (the other player may not even know about the rule). Method number 2 is only found when a moderator is doing their job, or when a player is, in my opinion, mini-modding. If I can spend all day telling people what and what not to do, as long as I don't inform them of consequences, then I'm basically doing part of a moderators job, which is mini-modding. But if I spend all day informing people of the rules (in a friendly manner), then I'm simply being a helpful member of the community. Feedback is very welcome.
People spamming is annoying. If someone spams and it's annoying me I'll be like plz stop. That's not mini modding. That's me telling ppl to stop spamming up my chat cause it annoys me. -1 rule is fine.
-1 Completely against this. If anything I think the rule should be even less strict. Sometimes mods don't see if someone is talking in trade or spamming in local, and players should be allowed to ask them to fix their problem.
Making the rules more explicit won't solve problems, it just opens the door to loopholes and rule bending. The rules regarding this should be made more vague, not explicit.
The definition of mini-modding is where a non staff player threatens with a punishment. For example if a builder was spamming trade chat and a non staff player said 'Can you not spam trade chat, or you will be kicked' Imo if someone was spamming and a player said 'Can you not spam please' I would say this should be fine because if anything, they are informing the user of the rules. Also how do you judge where to cut the line on whether a players comment on someone who is rule breaking is informative or commanding, as sometimes this can be misinterpreted; consiquently meaning this might be hard to enforce.
Last I knew loopholing and rule bending was against the rules... Being more vague means more people will [indirectly] bend rules and loophole, too. Although I agree with the OP, defining informative vs commanding requires not only a level of intelligence, but also knowing English and the user who sent the message. It's easier when there is a tone of voice... However, knowing a user's tone of voice in text can take a while to learn and it can vary from person to person (especially a non-native English speaker who is speaking (typing) in English) and cultures. I disagree with changing the rule(s) unless the change is small enough to be "informative vs commanding decided by Staff discretion." Even then, it is vague. It'd be nice to have a vague clause added for it, but in the end Staff can still use the blanket "Staff discretion" if they really think someone is being rude and technically mini-modding (without threats of punishment). (Because honestly, mini-modding actually includes commanding/moderating users.) Also, don't forget that a non-Staff member who is mini-modding won't be taken as seriously (or taken seriously at all) by other users. All they are really doing is being rude and/or scaring (and confusing) [newer] users. It can be helpful when Staff aren't online or aren't paying attention, but that's also what Complaints, PMs, and Skype are for. +1/-1
I was online when this discussion happened last night and the point that I'd like to discuss is where do we draw the line when we allow non-staff to act in this manner? If we continue to allow players to make commands in the form that a mod would, will it create a sense within these players that they can get away with further rule-bending? And will adding this to the current law prevent players from pushing into full mini-modding? Consider it like a squirrel and a bird feeder. If you allow the squirrel to get into the bird feeder once, it will continue to return to the bird feeder and progressively abuse its new freedom until either the bird feeder is destroyed by the squirrel's weight, or the birds stop coming to the feeder. This may be a slippery-slope argument, but IMO the slope in this situation is pretty slippery. Adding this rule won't make players less inclined to helping others, it'll simply brighten the attitude of chat by making players inform others of their mistakes rather than command them. +1
Mini-modding is more like imitation. If I warn a player continuously about [insert here], or just to try act like a Mod in general (chat), then that's mini-modding. What you described is me trying to tell someone to stop annoying me. -1
Err, no. Users really /can't/ bend vague rules/find loopholes in them; That's the point. It's hard to find loopholes in vague rules as they encompass so many possible situations, whereas explicit rules encompass a few situations. Rules should purposely be made vague to prevent rule bending. What's being suggested here is to make the rules even more dense/explicit which will just create problems, not solve them.
As the person who fought with WeWin about the intent and wording of this rule for about a week until we got to the current context of the rule (though the actual wording of the rule has changed and expanded since then, the intent and context has not), I disagree with this proposed change. Mini modding treads a very thin line, and a certain amount of discretion and circumstances need to be looked at by staff when enforcing this rule. Making this rule more specific closes those doors, and as United said, causes more problems than it fixes. The current rule is exactly how WeWin wanted it done when mini modding was the huge issue, and i can't imagine the needs of this rule have changed enough to warrant any redefinition, at least definitely not from my experiences in recent months.
