VRC rules & community guideline need improving and better clarification on whats allowed and what's not.

[Sam Smith]

I have fully read the rules but my main concern is that I have been banned for supposed hateful avatar, I read the rules and it does not mention what is hateful and what is not the rules need to be more detailed.

I am not a hateful person or have any hateful avatars yet still get banned for a month for hateful avatars even though I do not have any hateful avatars.

My main issue is that vrc expects people to know what is allowed even when the rules are not written in the community guidelines and their response is use common sense, and even when you do use common sense you still get punished.

[Eddie]

What was the avatar

[Sam Smith]

Originally posted by Ponky:

What was the avatar

No clue which is why the rules are pretty stupid that they rely on common sense yet sometimes people will not have enough common sense to know so they are unable to correct their mistakes, A Month off VRC is a bit extreme over a supposed offensive avatar

[Eddie]

Originally posted by Tibbles Mcquibbles:

Originally posted by Ponky:

What was the avatar

No clue which is why the rules are pretty stupid that they rely on common sense yet sometimes people will not have enough common sense to know so they are unable to correct their mistakes, A Month off VRC is a bit extreme over a supposed offensive avatar

That sucks, I'm sorry boss. Is there an appeal thing or whatever? I genuinely don't know the process of being banned for a time.

[Sam Smith]

Originally posted by Ponky:

Originally posted by Tibbles Mcquibbles:

No clue which is why the rules are pretty stupid that they rely on common sense yet sometimes people will not have enough common sense to know so they are unable to correct their mistakes, A Month off VRC is a bit extreme over a supposed offensive avatar

That sucks, I'm sorry boss. Is there an appeal thing or whatever? I genuinely don't know the process of being banned for a time.

I did but they refused my appeal and the response was automated they are so vague its ridiculous I am one of the nicest person on VR and I get punished with no warnings.

[Teefa]

Originally posted by Tibbles Mcquibbles:

Originally posted by Ponky:

What was the avatar

No clue which is why the rules are pretty stupid that they rely on common sense yet sometimes people will not have enough common sense to know so they are unable to correct their mistakes, A Month off VRC is a bit extreme over a supposed offensive avatar

The rules really are not hard to parse. You know what hateful conduct is. You can guess what is and is not allowed.

[Xesteelia]

watch, i bet thats slang for them using a crasher

[Sam Smith]

Originally posted by TDPS:

Originally posted by Tibbles Mcquibbles:

No clue which is why the rules are pretty stupid that they rely on common sense yet sometimes people will not have enough common sense to know so they are unable to correct their mistakes, A Month off VRC is a bit extreme over a supposed offensive avatar

This is pretty sus. I am guessing you know exactly what avatar you were using at the time.

The rules really are not hard to parse. You know what hateful conduct is. You can guess what is and is not allowed. You don't get a month's ban for nothing. Moderation can see what avatar you were using when you were reported. They can easily verify this sort of conduct.

My top three guesses, since you left us guessing

1940s era german avatar
someone wearing white robes
a caricature of a particular race

not at all I have no hateful avatars, I don't even own any meme avatars

[Sam Smith]

Originally posted by HottieSlays:

watch, i bet thats slang for them using a crasher

eesh, I never even crashed anyone or ever had any crashers so it cannot be that.

[Teefa]

What avatar do you suspect the ban was for then?

It doesn’t make sense that you have “no hateful avatars” but you also think this is an issue of a misunderstanding of “common sense.”

Which is it? Your innocence is incompatible with the statements you have made.

[LegendaryNotarikon]

Even if there was or wasn't, an avatar that was hateful by it's nature or design, anyone can report another person because their feelings got hurt , or in their crazy mind... were offended, enough reports and you will get flagged, all it takes is one crazy person and a group of "friends" to report bomb you. either you're trolling and you did something dumb or you got targeted (which happens), only vrc csr can resolve this, no one here has all the facts to make an informed decision or detailed analysis of your problem,
I would suggest next time you are able to get on, clean out your avatars that you suspect may be the root cause of this issue.

[Knickerbocka]

what did you use your "common sense" on? I think everyone wants to see what you think is ok and we will all probably disagree because they arent handing out month long bans for no reason

[Sam Smith]

Originally posted by Knickerbocka:

what did you use your "common sense" on? I think everyone wants to see what you think is ok and we will all probably disagree because they arent handing out month long bans for no reason

I never had any hateful avatars thats the thing all the avatars I had were decent

[Bunkerotter]

As the term "hateful" and it's meaning is quite subjective, so is your own perceived innocence about it.
Usually people get banned like that after it did go through moderation (means a person issued the ban). But let's assume it was automatic, at least after your appeal a person of the moderation team did took a look at the case and found it justified.

The moderation team only bans if they have evidence of the users wrong doing/violating ToS.
But as the operator and owner of that plattform, they can also not allow (ban) someone on it if they think they would cause trouble or distress for other users.
From my own experience talking with staff members, it takes quite a bit of bad behaviour to get banned, or an obvious violation of the rules/ToS with proof.

I'm basically saying that the ban was justified with a probability of >99%.

But about your proposal with the Community Guidelines, and that they are quite vague...
Did you ever read some law texts? They are also quite vague, sometimes very vaguely written. This is on purpose, because if you write it to specific, people can more easily find loop holes were they can say after the fact that "it wasn't specifically illegal/not allowed, so it is allowed!" even tho "common sense" (which nowdays is quite uncommon sadly) would tell the average Joe that it wasn't okay. With the text being more vague and open to interpretation, they left themselfs more leeway for edgecases.

TL;DR: It was justified, and they wrote it vague because of edgecases.

[Sam Smith]

Originally posted by Bunkerotter:

As the term "hateful" and it's meaning is quite subjective, so is your own perceived innocence about it.
Usually people get banned like that after it did go through moderation (means a person issued the ban). But let's assume it was automatic, at least after your appeal a person of the moderation team did took a look at the case and found it justified.

The moderation team only bans if they have evidence of the users wrong doing/violating ToS.
But as the operator and owner of that plattform, they can also not allow (ban) someone on it if they think they would cause trouble or distress for other users.
From my own experience talking with staff members, it takes quite a bit of bad behaviour to get banned, or an obvious violation of the rules/ToS with proof.

I'm basically saying that the ban was justified with a probability of >99%.

But about your proposal with the Community Guidelines, and that they are quite vague...
Did you ever read some law texts? They are also quite vague, sometimes very vaguely written. This is on purpose, because if you write it to specific, people can more easily find loop holes were they can say after the fact that "it wasn't specifically illegal/not allowed, so it is allowed!" even tho "common sense" (which nowdays is quite uncommon sadly) would tell the average Joe that it wasn't okay. With the text being more vague and open to interpretation, they left themselfs more leeway for edgecases.

TL;DR: It was justified, and they wrote it vague because of edgecases.

I disagree with you purely the fact that hateful must have involved hate which none of my avatars have had any of the sort

[Bunkerotter]

Originally posted by Tibbles Mcquibbles:

I disagree with you purely the fact that hateful must have involved hate which none of my avatars have had any of the sort

You're free to disagree, but it doesn't change anything about what I said and what happend.
Even tho I'm repeating myself: "Hate" is a feeling, and as such is highly subjective. What you think hate is, is probably not the same that someone else feels about it, or the guy next to them.
Which, btw. is a huge issue that lawmakers are facing at the moment because "hate crime" as such can't be really defined because it's so subjective.