Purpose & scope
This policy explains the standards Uros uses when responding to suspected rule breaches across the Minecraft server, forums, official Uros spaces and endorsed community spaces where the conduct is sufficiently connected to Uros.
The purpose of a sanction is to protect the community, stop or deter harmful behaviour and maintain fair roleplay. Sanctions are not intended to be personal punishment or retaliation by staff.
Fair decision making
Staff should establish what can reasonably be supported by available information, distinguish disputed facts from proven facts and give an involved player a reasonable opportunity to explain their account where the circumstances allow.
A person's reputation, previous reports or staff familiarity with them does not by itself prove a new allegation. Relevant previous substantiated conduct may be considered later when deciding the proportionate outcome where policy permits.
Severity framework
Uros uses broad severity rather than a rigid automatic strike table. Similar conduct can reasonably lead to different outcomes where the harm, intent, context or history is materially different.
Minor or first-time conduct with limited harm that can usually be corrected through advice, a reminder or a low-level warning.
Clear rule-breaking, repeated lower-level conduct or behaviour causing meaningful disruption that may justify a formal warning, mute, timeout or short restriction.
Significant harassment, deliberate exploitation, major disruption, serious dishonesty or comparable conduct that may justify a substantial temporary ban or restriction.
Conduct presenting severe community, safety, security or integrity risk, or behaviour so serious that permanent removal may reasonably be considered.
Available moderation actions
The action selected should be the least severe measure reasonably capable of addressing the problem while protecting the community. More than one platform may be covered where the underlying behaviour affects more than one Uros service.
- Informal advice or direction where formal action is unnecessary.
- Formal warning recorded against the relevant case.
- Minecraft mute, Discord communication restriction or equivalent limited communication measure.
- Kick or immediate removal from an active situation where needed to stabilise it.
- Temporary Minecraft, Discord, forum or Uros-wide restriction.
- Permanent restriction where the seriousness, risk or established history justifies it and the required senior approval has been obtained.
- Content, access or permission restrictions reasonably connected to the matter.
Aggravating & mitigating factors
Staff may consider factors that materially affect seriousness or the risk of recurrence. These factors should not replace proof of the underlying rule breach.
Possible aggravating factors
- Deliberate planning, concealment or attempts to destroy relevant evidence.
- Targeting a vulnerable person or sustained harassment over time.
- Abuse of trust, staff access, technical knowledge or another privileged position.
- Repeated similar substantiated behaviour after clear previous intervention.
- Material impact on multiple players, server integrity or service security.
Possible mitigating factors
- Prompt acknowledgement and genuine efforts to stop or repair the harm.
- Limited impact, ambiguity or a reasonable misunderstanding of a genuinely unclear situation.
- Reliable evidence that the conduct was accidental rather than deliberate.
- A long period of positive conduct where previous history would otherwise increase the response.
Previous moderation history
Previous case involvement must be read carefully. Being reported, being a witness or being involved in a case that resulted in no action is not equivalent to a substantiated breach.
Relevant previous substantiated findings or sanctions may inform proportionality after the current matter has been established. Staff should consider relevance, age and seriousness rather than treating any previous entry as an automatic escalation.
Approvals & senior review
Routine low-impact action may be taken by authorised Moderation staff within their delegated authority. Longer, permanent, unusual or cross-platform sanctions should receive the level of Manager, Team Lead or Administration review set by the current Moderation SOP and sanction matrix.
A staff member should not be the sole reviewer of their own contested high-impact decision where an independent reviewer is reasonably available.
Temporary sanctions & expiry
Temporary sanctions should have a clear start, scope and expiry. Where Uros automation supports it, restrictions should be applied and lifted through the case/sanction system so staff do not have to rely on memory.
An expiring sanction must not remove a separate active restriction. If several sanctions overlap, the player remains restricted until every applicable sanction has ended or been revoked.
Emergency action
Staff may act before a full investigation is complete where delay would allow continuing serious harm, active griefing, exploitation, harassment, security risk or similar disruption. The initial action should be the minimum reasonably necessary to stabilise the situation.
Emergency action is not automatically a final finding. Significant action should be documented in a case and reviewed as soon as reasonably practical.
Player conversations
Where reasonably practicable, substantive moderation conversations should involve one lead staff member and one supporting or observing staff member. The second staff member helps corroborate what occurred and monitor professional conduct; they are not there to overwhelm the player or create a two-against-one interrogation.
Urgent or routine matters may still be handled by one staff member where necessary. Significant conversations should be recorded appropriately when they form part of a case.
Recording & review rights
Formal sanctions should be linked to the relevant case and record the rule or issue, outcome, reason, staff member, approval where required, scope and duration. Automated enforcement activity should also be recorded where the system supports it.
Eligible moderation outcomes may be challenged under the Appeals & Reviews Policy. An appeal does not erase the original record; if an outcome changes, the review decision and any resulting sanction change are added to the history.