・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion
In other words, you aren't allowed tell someone that they can't hold an opinion. It's fine to disagree, though. This seems perfectly reasonable.
-
02-13-2019, 12:13 PMLalarrific
-
02-13-2019, 12:24 PMredcurrant18Here's another weird story from your side of the oceanQuote:
Originally Posted by Kurando
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...yrics-14543694
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/in...ng-rap-lyrics/ -
02-13-2019, 12:27 PMStereomixYou didn't read it either...it states that another paper "clamed" that she harassed the victim and the they "alleged" that she used multiple accounts. Which is to say that they have no evidence to these accusations and are merely defacing someone publicly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurando
-
02-13-2019, 12:29 PMMorbolvampireQueen6Maybe i a clean cut world.. but the world is messy..Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalarrific
Example.
P1: "the sky is better in the day than the night"
P2: " i disagree the sun causes skin cancer the night is much safer as well"
P1: *gets angry and over zerks your reported for insulting my opinion
2 hours later
Gm: p2 your getting a temp ban for offending others and stepping on their opinion
P2. Wth is going on?
Yes this is how it plays out in reality the world isnt black and white.. -
02-13-2019, 12:31 PMKurandoThat's my point though about the publication in question though, it cannot be trusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereomix
And that would never happen in another country, perhaps like the US where if white person makes a comment like that and that they also wouldn't suffer backlash? Come on now, it's grasping at straws. Anyway it's going off topic....Quote:
Originally Posted by redcurrant18
-
02-13-2019, 12:35 PMNedkelI was thinking about it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Its_Elodie
Some people are playing over a wifi or wireless internet connection and they may get dc'ed from this to time. You cant get ban for it right now or from leaving the duty, but if they start banning people because of it, then i guess it will not work well for them.
Even moba games does not have such strict rules like ffxiv is going to have for this.
Im not sure what you all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurando
Do you dont believe UK police could stop you for hate crime from online activity, or do you want to know are people being arrested at all?
If thats the thing you are asking then yes, it is true and it is here roughly 1600 arrested over a online hate crime in england and wales.
offtopic finished -
02-13-2019, 12:35 PMredcurrant18You shouldn't get visited by the police for a seemingly edgy Instagram post. There are bigger problems in the world to deal with like actual crimes. Don't you guys have another mess with the Count Dankula guy that got all popular on youtube after he got arrested for doing a joke with his dog?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurando
-
02-13-2019, 12:50 PMKurandoNot something I was aware of, but I did Google it and to be fair what that person did wasn't really acceptable at all. I mean making a joke of a massacre like that isn't exactly a nice thing, wouldn't you agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by redcurrant18
Having figures doesn't tell us how bad the hate crimes were to begin with, they are just numbers. Roughly 1600 arrested for a population of 50+ mil is not a lot to begin with anyway. My gripe was you say it happens all the time, how often is all the time to you, every day? every week? Regardless it's just not correct to say it's all the time, it's false information to spread it like that, scaremongering for no reason. Already said it was going off topic though, let's leave it be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedkel
-
02-13-2019, 12:50 PMAwful
This is gonna be fun being in a group with 2 DPS as a tank and neither of them are AoEing, or getting into a group and giving constructive tips to help the person only to be reported. I don't get why SE is allowing people who are clearly under performing in a group the whole "he said she said thing" where they're feeling emotionally attacked because I said "hey can you please use your abilities and AoEs thank you".
Might as well give everyone participation medals too so the people who don't get commendations a safety net as well so they don't feel like they were victimized either. -
02-13-2019, 01:02 PMKusanoha_KirigakureIt's not that the rules are "harsher" it's that they are vague and cover a potentially limitless scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxclon
You can be harsher with your old rules simply by enforcing them more often and with harsher penalties. Also, not being able to take action on EVERY incident isn't really a problem because not "every" incident requires action, obviously.
Redefining "harassment" in this case isn't a harsher set of rules, it is a vaguer set of rules. The only reason to make rules more vague is to give moderators more leeway in their interpretations of events.
That creates an environment where a moderator/GM and how convincing an alleged victim is is of more importance than context, intent, and evidence. There will be less (or no) accountability for GMs who make incorrect decisions. There will be less (or no) accountability for malicious reporting on innocuous incidents. There will be less (or no) way for an accused person to fight back should they find themselves the target of an angry GM or a vindictive player.
All because the rules are vague. This rule change makes THE COMMUNITY harsher, not the rules. Please for the love of Odin, change it back to the sensible old rules. -
02-13-2019, 01:23 PMbrasteir
I'm gonna be an ice mage and there's nothing you can do about it. <<cackle>>
-
02-13-2019, 01:28 PMNanaWilohI am fire mage with a fireball for you bring it on <<laughs>>Quote:
Originally Posted by brasteir
-
02-13-2019, 01:36 PMHyoMinParkIncorrect. The JP thread has posters asking for clarification about the new guidelines because they seem intentionally vague, and one even comments about how the wording seems sly and weasel-like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lium
On the flip-side, vague guidelines with no examples or concise rules lead to people questioning what exactly is “okay” and what is “not okay”. People keep going on and on about “common sense” and “common courtesy” and “decency” and “manners”, but all of these vary between individuals, as do levels of tolerance for things that may conflict with a person’s personal values/common sense/courtesy/decency/manners/etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by MirielleLavandre
Considering one of these guidelines literally says “other expressions that offend another person”, it gives the connotation that “anything goes”. Especially nowadays where there’s those out there who are offended by anything and everything. Others are downright difficult to enforce—enforcing statements that go against/offend someone’s “morals”? There are so many morals out there that it will be difficult to even apply this guideline to such a diverse community. “Unilaterally rejecting a person’s opinion”? What do they even mean by this? Because it carries the connotation that we have to be careful even telling someone that we disagree with something they say in the event they lose their mind over it (and this does happen).
Providing more concise guidelines/examples and then adding an addendum of “anything else that GMs consider against conduct policies given the context of the report” is much better than what we have now. Even the JP thread is asking for examples and clarification. -
02-13-2019, 01:43 PMNedkelI give up, this island is lost, have fun in USSR 2.0 xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Kurando
I will pull 1 group of mobs at time, hehehe.Quote:
Originally Posted by brasteir
-
02-13-2019, 02:30 PMSigma-Astra
Honestly, some of the over-the-top hyperbole reactions from others is a bit...well, grossly dramatic towards very vague definitions. Most people who already don't break the rules shouldn't have anything to worry about essentially because if you don't spark the drama yourself then you already have the good graces of the rules on your side. Let the other side get triggered enough to act obscenely and belittling. I know though, sometimes it's hard to control oneself from prior experiences.
It seems like the people throwing fits might be ones who have trigger happy mouths already, and thus, would be more affected by these rubix cube ToS definitions more so than anyone else usually. I've had my moments of being foul sometimes, but never got a GM punishment for it. At the same time, I don't throw really immature banter in-game similar to things like "I hope you all get cancer" either.
Self-control and picking your battles wisely. -
02-13-2019, 02:58 PMStereomix
To whom it may concern,
I love this game and hope to keep playing and having fun with random people from everywhere.
I can only say that I feel blindsided by the resent announcement and only hope that any action that I may/may not have take did not contribute to the new rules. Playing off and on since beta of 2.0, I only really have overall good things to say about the social interactions of people in Final Fantasy XIV. There may be a bad apple here and there but the overall experience is the best by far when compared to other mmo's. That I can only really attribute to the previous code of conduct and a great community that it has already built.
The wording of the announcement to what the code of conduct actually states seams to be in conflict. While I don't doubt that a great deal of time has been spent on how to describe what constitutes as a violation of the . The vague nature of some terms used leaves too much room for personal interpretation, as such these rules are not clearly defined nor are they concise enough to distinguish between someone who is following the law and someone who is in violation of it.
As I write this I find myself questioning where these changes are coming from...are they from the publisher, the gms, a parent/partner company or Yoshida-san himself? I find this question counter productive, none the less, I find myself plagued with doubt the more I see consisted language follow across codes of conducts that have proven to be divisive to their respective communities.
The common concern of this thread seems to be that this new system could/will be used maliciously against them. The only thing I can say to this is "If something can go wrong, it will." While the common counter argument is that if you are an upstanding member of the community you shouldn't worry about something that won't affect you. Both of these points seem to be made across multiple games and/or platforms with no visible change to the course of action from the developer/company.
I love final fantasy xiv and only hope the best in its development and continued growth (beat wow's sub count in the new expansion/now!). I merely hope that Final Fantasy XIV does not follow a similar path. "If it isn't broken don't fix it."
-Thanks for your time -
02-13-2019, 03:09 PMShibiAre you referring to this post by kig?Quote:
Originally Posted by HyoMinPark
If so, that's not "weasel words". I think it's more... "cat and mouse game". I read this more as (I am very heavily paraphrasing this) "If the rules are to the letter it becomes a cat and mouse game with new rules needed each time a new bad behavior appears".Quote:
ゲーム運営に限った事では無いのですが、かっちり書いてしまうと、書いてないからOKと拡大解釈する輩が出てくるのと、色んな事例に柔軟に対応出来るようにだと思いますよ。
こういうのはイタチごっこなので、新しい手法が出てくるたびに追記するよりは、運営側で判断するので怪しい事はやめてねと濁した方がやりやすい事もあるのではないでしょうか。
So the opposite to what some on the American forums seem to be wanting - all the i's dotted and t's crossed.
If it's not that post, do you have a link please so i can read it? I ask as the JP forums DO seem to be very accepting on this, as I would expect due to culture. I only see 5 posts in their thread and none of them are dissenting. (2 of those 5 ask... "what's changed", one asks for some examples if possible, and one asks "what are the devs doing about hacks")
Edit: I would classify the code of conduct quite simply as "Be awesome to one another". The play style one is really weird, but all the rest seem to be quite in line with "Be awesome". IMHO the more precise the rules, the more often they need to be revised. Keep them vague and on broad principles without going into precise detail, then give the GMs the ability to move depending on the severity of the infraction. -
02-13-2019, 03:26 PMFyceGetting back on this to avoid the confusion some people may have: what was quoted was put in the ToS for legal reasons. Just like countless other companies who also have this thing, they do not plan on using this arbitrarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by NanaWiloh
The policy change we are talking about in this thread is different from that kind of text. The policy is actually enforced and will be the guidelines for GMs to take actual decisions, which isn't the case for the ToS text above. These changes are made so people actually follow them on a daily basis.
In short, the ToS text above has no repercussion on our daily routine and on how we are supposed to play the game. The new policy is almost the opposite of that, as it does impact greatly our actual interaction with the game. This change in the policy isn't simply SE covering themselves legally. It's actually the very direction they want to drive their actions regarding how we interact with each other and what happens when we don't.
To be even more clear, the ToS text above is very much a passive and harmless thing, while the new policy is actively enforced ingame.
This is the reason why they used the terms "major changes", "fundamental policy", and "very important". They don't say that when they simply update the ToS for legal shenanigans. -
02-13-2019, 03:37 PMHyoMinParkYou’re interpreting this far different from myself. “Cat and mouse game”, in my interpretation, is literally a stalemate where neither side ends up winning. Both parties arrive at an impasse, and that’s a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibi
Take the following scenario: You have a random matched party in an Expert dungeon. The tank decides to do large pulls, and the healer dissents, saying that large pulls are “stressful to them” and that the tank is “being inconsiderate by trying to force the large pulls on them”. This would fall under “emotional distress” caused by “compelling a playstyle”. Conversely, the tank becomes frustrated because the healer now wants to dictate that they do small pulls over large ones, thereby “compelling a playstyle” on the tank. So, who wins here? Under these current guidelines, both can be spun into “emotionally distressing” situations of “compelling a playstyle”, but who gets punished? The one who does a better job of wording their argument? The one who reports first? How do we know? How can we determine it? It’s a stalemate.
There is very little clarity with these statements, and that is what the NA forums (not “American forums”) want. As well as players that are from other regions (e.g., EU) that post here (the guidelines were not posted in either the French or German subforums, from what I saw).
Even with only a handful of posts on the JP side, them asking for examples comes off as synonymous with asking for clarification, in my opinion. I never said they were outright dissenting the implementation (I’m already well aware that Japanese tend to not outright disagree with things even if they do disagree with them), but that they were asking for clarifications. The poster I responded to said that they “don’t give a crap”, but I don’t think they’d be asking for clarifications/examples if they “didn’t give a crap”.
“Be awesome to one another” means different things to different people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibi
These guidelines give full autonomy, but that can lead to inconsistencies in moderation because now the GMs don’t have exact guidelines to follow. It seems like it will fall more upon the whims of whatever the particular GM that gets your ticket has. As I said before, some of the guidelines posted are downright unenforceable in a game that has so many different cultures, each with differing values and “morals”. -
02-13-2019, 03:55 PMFreytEasy. Which player does the GM moderating the situation favor less? They're the ones that get the punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by HyoMinPark
-
02-13-2019, 03:55 PMKurandoIf you don't understand that's fine, just say so but please don't act ignorant. It's also a poor analogy to use, people who actually lived in an USSR occupied country will tell you the situations are very different. That's something someone could very well be offended by, especially with the updated rules, but I'm sure you know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedkel
-
02-13-2019, 04:11 PMTiraelinaIt's also yet another example of trying to insert logic into this that doesn't exist. By your own example the healer states they don't want to because its stressful or because they can't do it very well, the why doesn't really matter. It's going to be right on the tank if they want to make it difficult by forcing wipes because he refuses to adapt in a roulette. What's the tank going to do if the healer is too poorly geared for/simply can't handle large pulls or the DPS can't do enough damage? Throw a tantrum and force everyone to wait out the kick timer? If you 100% want your way, go make a manual group and stay the hell out of roulette if you can't adapt to whatever hand you are dealt.Quote:
Originally Posted by HyoMinPark
There's more than enough clarity if everyone would take a step back instead of plotting passive aggressive scenarios as a "Told you so!". You are the only one that can dig your grave when it comes to these if you get reported for something. -
02-13-2019, 04:17 PMDriskusThis has literally happened to me twice in DF parties since Stormblood released. Even using "hello" was met with a very harsh response both times. I reported and blacklisted both of them. With these new rules, now we're at fault instead of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NessaWyvern
-
02-13-2019, 04:20 PMHyoMinParkYour example isn’t much different, to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiraelina
Why can’t the healer adapt in a roulette? Why does it have to be the tank?Quote:
By your own example the healer states they don't want to because its stressful or because they can't do it very well, the why doesn't really matter. It's going to be right on the tank if they want to make it difficult by forcing wipes because he refuses to adapt in a roulette.
What if the healer is in full i390/400 gear and the DPS are doing “enough damage”?Quote:
What's the tank going to do if the healer is too poorly geared for/simply can't handle large pulls or the DPS can't do enough damage?
When did I say the tank was going to throw a tantrum? What if the healer did this?Quote:
Throw a tantrum and force everyone to wait out the kick timer?
The same can be said to the healer?Quote:
If you 100% want your way, go make a manual group and stay the hell out of roulette if you can't adapt to whatever hand you are dealt.
You’re literally proving my point. These guidelines can be spun to fit anything. So who wins? Who is “right”?
I’m not trying to do a “Told you so!”, but thank you for assuming. Comparing this Code of Conduct to other MMOs’ codes of conducts, the latter examples give explicit examples of things that are strictly prohibited, and none of them have strange guidelines like “unilaterally rejecting another’s opinion” or “compelling a playstyle” or “contravene (undefined) morals”. That’s all people are asking for, because these “guidelines” carry the connotation of “anything that offends someone”, which is incredibly vague.Quote:
There's more than enough clarity if everyone would take a step back instead of plotting passive aggressive scenarios as a "Told you so!". You are the only one that can dig your grave when it comes to these if you get reported for something.
But, that’s just too much to ask for, I guess.
Why would the tank have to concede? How is larger pulls “obstructive behavior”? Tiraelina said that you have to deal with the hand you’re dealt with in roulettes... except apparently in the case of this healer? Where they are allowed to now dictate the pace of the tank/party? The tank is suddenly the one who has to deal, but why is this not being applied to the healer? What makes them exempt from “dealing with the hand you’re dealt with”?Quote:
Originally Posted by linay
-
02-13-2019, 04:23 PMlinayI think, in this case, the tank would probably have to concede. Pulling more than the party could handle could end in failure leading to a wipe while pulling less than a party can handle just lengthens the time it takes to complete a duty. Thus, while both sides could cite emotional distress, the healer could also cite obstructive behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by HyoMinPark
-
02-13-2019, 05:08 PMkikix12Multi-pulls are possible. More people are capable of doing that than you would think in most dungeons. Though there are some particular groups of mobs that are absolutely not recommended to mix without really good gear, most can be safely grouped up.Quote:
Originally Posted by linay
In that situation, one could say that the healer is "obstructing the gameplay" of the others if they fail to fully utilize their kit to heal thus "causing wipes". By being bad they make it impossible to play efficiently. For many AoE's in this game it is pretty much necessary to pack two groups because at three mobs their potency just isn't high enough to make them better than single target attacks. And that's without taking into account the cooldowns sharp decrease in efficiency.
In the end, whenever we are talking about anything remotely "playstyle"...we are talking about either everyone being in the wrong or no one. There's ALWAYS going to be someone that needs to cave in...or the party will just need to quit. And there's really no way to decide this fairly as an outsider. The party members can vote to do it one way or another, but at four party members it's possible to get a tie. And someone's still going to "get distressed". -
02-13-2019, 05:23 PMShibiIf it is that post i copy pasted that you were referring to, you interpreted as weasel words/sly, and it's not. Please refer to: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/いたちごっこ to see the idiomatic meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by HyoMinPark
Impasse suggests there is an ultimate ending to it where neither side wins, maybe a better translation is "Arms race" as in, a situation where it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger ad infinitum?
The poster was saying (paraphrasing even more then I did before): Make the rules 100% invariable and people will sneak their way around them, so more 100% invariable rules need to be added, and people will sneak their way around them, so more 100% invariable rules need to added.
Legislating Playstyle is weird. I said that in my post. Please re-read and check. I strongly think SE need to clarify just this one a bit, all the rest are quite clearly "being excellent to each other" but this legislation of playstyle isn't and is very weird. (Note that it's the same wording and meaning in the JP version, weird)Quote:
Take the following scenario: You have a random matched party in an Expert dungeon. The tank decides to do large pulls, and the healer dissents, saying that large pulls are “stressful to them” and that the tank is “being inconsiderate by trying to force the large pulls on them”. This would fall under “emotional distress” caused by “compelling a playstyle”.
We are in agreement on this point, yes?
Forgive my imprecise use of "American", it was not means as a slight, just to describe this side of the forums when I didn't know better. I will refer to this side as the NA forums not the American ones. Sorry.Quote:
There is very little clarity with these statements, and that is what the NA forums (not “American forums”) want
-
02-13-2019, 05:34 PMThoosa
What I will find interesting is behaviours in future in Alliance Raid and Savage.
Whether people will tone down the colourful conversations I’ve witnessed before or calling out people messing up in fear of any punishments.
Also I want to give an example of Savage specific scenarios.
For example what would happen in a run where people are making mistakes for whatever reason and someone points it out, will that still happen and will people live in fear of potential consequences? Say in these situations:
if the boss is enraging due to low dps, people not knowing the fight, failing mechanics consistently, or just not playing their job properly, do people think that this will lead to an influx of complaints from people receiving criticisms for the way they are playing? Will people still point out bad play?
Also one more example:
The run is failing and the part leader decides that the group won’t clear so they leave the group and kick those who they feel aren’t performing - do you think this will still happen or will people just simply disband groups to avoid any potential complaint?
:) -
02-13-2019, 06:00 PMAnselmet
Let's be real, these rules are gonna be abused by two types of people. 1. the type we all wanna punish, the actual toxic players, and 2. the overly sensitive players that can find just about anything to be problematic.
The ones who will suffer from these rules? The average player. -
02-13-2019, 06:10 PMNakaressAs a fellow American, there is nothing (nationality does not equate race I'm afraid) racist in their comment at all. Please educate yourself on the meaning of such words and contextual use before you sling around such ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizunoko
You got generalizing correct though, but you really need to stop with the hyperbole that's so rampant in this damn country anymore.
Also these new rules are too vague and seem easily abuse-able in favor of people that nitpick and complain too much.
I'll basically be treating the game as a single player game even more so than I already have been doing. -
02-13-2019, 06:11 PMCelefI think I'll make a maccro with something like :Quote:
Originally Posted by Driskus
"Hello, regarding SE's new policy about controlling interaction between players this message is the only one you'll get from me during this run in order to avoid any risk of offense. Have a nice day :)" mark the use of a smiley to make it more friendly -
02-13-2019, 06:18 PMHyoMinParkOkay, but now you need to consider the other hand: we have vague and broad guidelines that insinuate anything and everything can be reported if a person considers it “offensive” or “emotionally distressing” enough (which, in this day, is not an uncommon practice, unfortunately), and they can be manipulated in anyone’s favor for anything. (Too many “anything’s” here.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibi
Why do we need a this wide of an umbrella? You can still be specific in examples while adding a footnote of “We also reserve the right to take action against anything else we consider to be excessively offensive that may not be listed here” (in far more poetic wording). That covers this fear of “constantly having to add more and more rules”.
Leaving rules up to such a wide array of interpretations isn’t good design, in my opinion. Too much gray area is not a good thing. If there were only a few people that had concerns about the vagueness, then I would understand comments about how this isn’t that big of a deal, but I don’t think it’s just a few people who are questioning what the guidelines actually mean. Unfortunately, without clarification, we have to just wait and see what happens. I would like to think there isn’t going to be a sudden increase in draconian rule enforcement.
The example was not about me misunderstanding that we are in agreement, nor about misreading your post. It was to show you that broad and poorly thought-out rules can be twisted to fit any scenario, no matter how benign (and to also illustrate how you end up with a scenario where there is absolutely no way to determine who should “win” despite both parties having an argument under these new rules). And to also have you consider the question of how you would legislate them in a fair manner for these scenarios.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibi
Speaking personally, that is not the only guideline that I think should be looked at and amended. None of the other MMO code of conduct pages I looked at had anything about “unilaterally rejecting another’s opinion” or punishing for “contravening morals” in their lists of prohibited or “nuisance” behavior. I also disagree with the clause declaring that, even if it was not the intention of someone to hurt another player’s feelings, they may still get a mark on their account if the other party feels the need to report over it.
There are other guidelines that I read and understood where they were coming from (and I addressed them several pages back in this thread with individual thoughts on them). But there are others that are so vague that I found myself wondering what they really meant when I first read through them (and still question how some are even going to be enforced even now after several hours of trying to parse them).
I did not mean to infer that you meant it as a slight. I was merely saying that it’s not just Americans who post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibi
-
02-13-2019, 06:36 PMLunaProtege
This kind of interventionalist approach is just going to create an environment of internal isolation within the game. People will avoid what little banter there is in Duty Roulettes, they will avoid reaching out to find like minded people while in the game itself, and will resort to forming guilds with people they've found in off game sites and IRL.
… At that point, you may as well be playing on private servers for all the interaction with others you're having.
Duty Finder will eventually fall to the wayside as people are driven to play with only their friends from outside the game. The wait times will extend... Not sure by how much. Players will actively avoid open world and "open duty" content like Eureka, and PvP will become scarce for fear that someone may abuse the system to weed out the winners.
How well founded will their fears be? It won't matter. The mere possibility that this policy might be abused will cause fear regardless. It could turn out that nobody will end up trying to abuse the policy, and yet everyone is going to be afraid they might. And that fear will drive the game into an age of the gated community.
The funny thing is that this may actually cause a surge in Savage raiding, as the people forced to have a consistent play group OUTSIDE of Savage realize that they can just use that same group for the next stage. -
02-13-2019, 07:36 PMlinayI highly doubt SE would equate not being good to being obstructive. Obstructive behaviors are behaviors that are made by choice, not due to inability to do something.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
I disagree. A non-tank who consistently pulls ahead of the party and brings in more than the party can handle is clearly in the wrong regardless if that person simply likes that fast playstyle without having any malicious intent toward the rest of the party.Quote:
In the end, whenever we are talking about anything remotely "playstyle"...we are talking about either everyone being in the wrong or no one. There's ALWAYS going to be someone that needs to cave in...or the party will just need to quit. And there's really no way to decide this fairly as an outsider. The party members can vote to do it one way or another, but at four party members it's possible to get a tie. And someone's still going to "get distressed".
-
02-13-2019, 07:41 PMKatinahoodieHow does this new ToS apply to Discord
"Creating, Distributing, Using or Promoting Utilities that interact with the game" this is a blanket statement that discord falls under. Does the use and link distribution of the communication program Discord go against ToS.
-
02-13-2019, 07:46 PMlinayMaybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Discord is considered "tools that permit automated or “absentee” play."Quote:
Originally Posted by Katinahoodie
-
02-13-2019, 07:50 PMSDaemonOut of curiosity, how does Discord interact with the game that you believe causes it to fall into this category of offense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katinahoodie
-
02-13-2019, 07:58 PMSigma-AstraDiscord....cannot control your character and play the game for you. It also can't tell you when mechanics are happening. It's a completely separate and stand alone communications program that does not interact with the software or data meant to run the game with. You also can't use Discord to replace the in-game chatting method completely either. Discord doesn't really interact with the game at all as you can still play the game just fine with or without it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katinahoodie
-
02-13-2019, 08:21 PMIscah
Re. rules against disclosing real-world information: this may well be to protect Square Enix from being legally responsible for any consequences of people revealing their personal information - especially if it somehow got intercepted, or accidentally displayed in a public channel, or something. If anything happens, they just say "we said they shouldn't, so it's not our responsibility that they did."
Nobody is actually going to report their friend for giving them requested contact details, after all!
There is a very critical factor that you're overlooking in this scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by NessaWyvern
The rules say that you may (ie: if the GM judges it appropriate) get penalised if the other person took offence where you didn't mean it. Not that you will.
The GM still has to decide whether this is a valid complaint or not. It's not automatically in the reporter's favour just because they claim they were offended.
Even if the GM "accepts" that the reporter feels offended, they are not required to take any action against you because it is not required. It is only an option that is open to them if the case calls for it.
And any sort of "GM having a bad day" scenario would surely be taken out against the reporter rather than their target. Seriously, how vindictive and petty would someone be to choose to uphold a report like that and go through the process of punishing someone and logging a caution against their account because they said 'hi'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lium
I assume, if you got investigated for that, they'd see it's genuinely random - dropping suddenly mid-battle, coming back and trying again, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Its_Elodie
Deliberate disconnecting is going to be a very different pattern - repeatedly "disconnecting" just as they load into certain dungeons, or every time a cutscene starts in a MSQ roulette dungeon. (Plus what they do once they reconnect - a genuine disconnect during a cutscene would *hopefully* be polite and wait for the rest of the party to be released from the cutscene lock.
Again: a penalty may, not will, be imposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by AelisDuNochd
Also there are cautions and warnings (not required to escalate each time) before someone gets even a temporary ban for a minor issue.
Side note on forum function: "page 44" isn't a useful reference because people can change the number of posts displayed per page. (This is still only a 14-page thread for me.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuuchi
If you want to point to a specific post, you need to refer to the post number in the upper-right corner of the individual post - and this is actually a hyperlink from which you can copy the URL and use it to directly link to the post from anywhere. -
02-13-2019, 08:22 PMNaryoril
My take on the new rules is: they made them sound stricter than they will actually be policed, just to be on the safe side so nobody will be able to complain "but that dick thing i did doesn't violate the rules, so you are not allowed to ban me". It doesn't mean that they will ban everyone who has a different opinion than somebody else. It will also most likely come down to HOW you say stuff. Just don't be a dick and i doubt you'll ever have problems.