Chat, Fair Play and Moderation Rules
Mitos.is is a competitive game. Rivalry, trash talk, criticism and frustration are part of the experience. Staff intervene when conduct becomes harassment, actually disrupts chat, or breaks the rules of the mode being played.
1. General principles
We do not require every conversation to be polite. Staff step in when behaviour becomes harassment, makes chat hard to use, or violates the rules of the current mode.
The purpose of moderation is to stop harmful behaviour and let everyone keep playing. Sanctions must be proportionate, progressive and explained, taking into account context, severity, frequency and recent history.
2. Chat: tolerated behaviour
The following are normally tolerated:
- In-game trash talk, jokes, sarcasm and competitive provocation.
- Swearing and occasional venting.
- Isolated ordinary insults during an argument, provided they do not fall under the serious conduct listed below.
- Criticism of the game, the developers, the moderators and their decisions, even when that criticism is harsh.
An unpleasant message does not automatically lead to a sanction. Staff assess the context and the overall behaviour, not a single word taken in isolation.
3. Chat: sanctionable behaviour
Staff intervene in cases of:
- Persistent insults or harassment directed at the same person.
- Attempts to continue harassment by evading a block or using other accounts.
- Spam or flooding that makes chat difficult to use.
- Discriminatory attacks or sexual harassment.
- Personal threats, encouragement of self-harm, or sharing of private information.
Rivalry in the game is allowed. Pursuing a person beyond ordinary in-game interaction is not.
4. Criticism and insults toward staff
Staff are held to the same standard as other players. Criticising a moderator, challenging a decision, or directing an isolated ordinary insult at them does not carry a heavier penalty.
There is no extra sanction for “disrespecting staff”. Repeated harassment and serious conduct are handled under the same criteria used when they are directed at any other user.
5. Ordinary chat sanctions
For spam, persistent insults and non-serious disruption, this progression applies:
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| First incident | Warning and a request to stop |
| Continuing after the warning, or a new offence | 15-minute mute |
| Further repeat offence | 1-hour mute |
| Further repeat offence | 6-hour mute |
| Further repeat offence | 24-hour mute |
| Further repeat offence | 3-day mute, subject to review |
| Persistence after the previous actions | Mute of up to 7 days, subject to review |
A mute prevents writing in chat, but the player can continue playing.
The serious conduct listed in section 3 may lead to an immediate mute and a staff review, without a prior warning. Credible threats, sharing of private data, or severe persecution may also justify an account suspension, with a specific reason and a duration proportionate to the case.
Ordinary insults and spam, on their own, do not result in a permanent game ban.
6. Fair play: teaming and trucing
Restrictions on teaming and trucing apply only in modes that expressly state them.
Teaming: intentional cooperation between players who should be opponents, for example through mass trades, mutual protection or coordinated attacks.
Trucing: a mutual non-aggression agreement, either explicit or clearly shown by behaviour, used to gain an advantage in a mode where it is forbidden.
The following, on their own, are not proof of teaming or trucing:
- Being near each other without attacking.
- Declining a risky fight.
- Attacking the same opponent for individual convenience.
- Being friends or belonging to the same clan.
- A single ambiguous encounter.
Players are not required to attack every opponent as soon as possible. Moderation must distinguish an individual tactical choice from agreed cooperation.
7. Sanctions for minor gameplay offences
For teaming, trucing and similar breaches of rules expressly stated by the mode, without cheats or bug abuse, this progression applies:
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| First confirmed offence | Warning with an explanation of the rule |
| Continuing after the warning, or a new offence | 15-minute exclusion from the mode |
| Further repeat offence | 1-hour exclusion |
| Further repeat offence | 6-hour exclusion |
| Further repeat offence | 24-hour exclusion |
| Systematic offences despite sanctions | 3 to 7 day exclusion, subject to review |
Where technically possible, the exclusion applies only to the mode concerned.
In tournaments, a confirmed offence may also void the result of the match involved, from the first incident. These minor offences do not automatically reset an entire season.
This scale does not cover cheats, bots, macros, exploits or fraud, which are handled separately.
8. Progression, repeat offences and review
- Chat and gameplay progressions are separate: an offence in one category does not increase the sanction in the other.
- After 30 days without a new offence in the same category, that ordinary progression restarts from a warning.
- Multiple messages in the same incident are not counted as many separate offences in order to jump immediately to a long sanction.
- If the behaviour continues after an intervention, staff may move to the next level.
- What counts is proof of the behaviour, not the number of reports received.
- Every sanction must state the contested behaviour, the rule broken and the duration.
- Sanctions apply to the account that committed the offence. Other accounts are not punished in advance: staff must wait until the offence is repeated on that account. If it is certain that the author is the same person, a higher step on the scale may be applied.
- A player may ask staff for a review. Challenging a sanction is not, by itself, another offence.
9. Binding rules for moderators and staff
9.1. No involvement in personal disputes
A staff member who is personally involved in an argument may not moderate that case directly, and may not issue warnings or sanctions. They must contact another staff member who is not involved, and that person will assess the situation independently.
If no other staff member is available, the assessment is postponed. The same rule applies when the argument concerns criticism or insults directed at that staff member.
9.2. No sanctions while playing
A moderator or other staff member who is taking part in the game may not apply sanctions for misconduct noticed during their own participation, even when they are not personally involved in the offence.
In those cases they must contact another staff member, who may step in as an observer and assess the facts independently. This rule applies to both chat offences and gameplay offences.
Staff may use their moderation powers only while acting as observers, without taking part in the game. Switching from player to observer does not allow them to take over an incident noticed while they were playing: that case must still be handed to another staff member.
If no other staff member is available, the case is reported for later review, without applying sanctions directly.
9.3. Specific conduct is sanctioned
Every action must be based on identifiable, verifiable conduct. Generic phrases such as “toxic attitude”, “disrespect” or “negative behaviour” are not sufficient reasons.
Criticising staff or challenging a decision is not, by itself, an offence. A moderator’s personal annoyance cannot determine whether a sanction is applied or made more severe.
9.4. Sufficient evidence and context are required
Teaming and trucing offences must be shown by a meaningful sequence of play, or by other clear signs of cooperation.
Mere proximity, a failure to attack, or an isolated screenshot showing only those elements is not enough. Possible tactical explanations of the behaviour must also be considered.
Without sufficient evidence, staff may explain the rule in general terms, but they may not apply sanctions, issue a formal warning against the player, or record an offence.
Anyone who receives a report, including from another staff member, must assess it independently: a report is not proof, and it is not an order to sanction.
9.5. Sanctions cannot be removed without collective verification
A sanction issued by any staff member cannot be removed, shortened or cancelled by another staff member acting alone.
Removal is allowed only after collective verification by staff.
9.6. Sanctions apply to the offending account
A punishment must be directed at the account that committed the offence. It must not be copied onto other accounts in advance.
On any other account, staff must wait until the offence is repeated. If it is certain that the author is the same person, a higher step on the relevant scale may then be applied.