Explosive arrows are a purchasable feature which grant players an advantage over others in-game. This directly violates the EULA set in place by Mojang, and therefore puts the server in jeopardy of being punished. Due to the adversity this causes for both the players and the server, explosive arrows should be removed from MCC as a purchasable feature (as a feature that can be earned by playing, they can certainly stay).
In all of the sub servers, there are major perks that players buy with real money. For example, /fly on skyblock is a huge thing. Minecraft central, however, is not breaking any rules because it clearly says they are donors, not buyers (whether this is fair or not, you decide. Donating is allowed by the EULA). Players are informed that it's just a thank-you for donating to the server. For example, on top of the list of perks on each subserver, it says "Donator Perks," and in the lobby it says "Donator Ranks." Explosive arrows are just another perk given to donors, however maybe they should find a way to say that it's a donor perk on the actual skywars server. Personally, I would find it more fair if explosive arrows could be bought by credits, although minigames have very few donator perks.
Explosive arrows are a feature that can only be unlocked upon paying real money to the server. Regardless of the title they put over it (donation or purchase) it still violates the EULA because of that very fact. Upon asking the mods about this, even they admitted to it breaking the agreement. The other features I can't say much on as I don't play those parts of the server much, but I'm sure it's a similar situation.
As an Immortal ranked user, I believe that donating for a slight advantage over unranked players is fair as it helps support the server. I agree how there should be a way that unranked players should be able to access the feature such as using credits just to make it more even for all players. However, there really isn't much of an advantage as the arrows do not deal extra knockback, just destroys environments.
Thanks for your input; however, the issue lies more in the fact that it's an EULA violation than that it's unfair.
