Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

So that means by virtue of playing the game in any way, I am both simultaneously offending people and being offended by people having different play styles that aren't conducive to mine.

Thus, 100% of people are ban-able just by virtue of playing FF14.

Great rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hasrat

And? No mod is going to take action just because, "Well, under some extreme circumstances, 'hi' could potentially be construed as offensive; bans all around."

Civilized interaction isn't under attack here.

---

Well, I'm pretty sure people have been reported and had disciplinary action before for spamming "Hello!" and "Nice job!" in the Feast when someone messes up, so I wouldn't say it's completely left-field.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...chat_commands/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockette

Gm's are human too. You think that a guy having a bad day who's had to look at multiple reports taking your comment to offense is going to give you leniency?

No such thing as crooked cops, right.

There are MANY examples of lesser offenses getting players banned from the forums.

---

I do agree here but again if you are watchful of what you say and not intentionally harming anyone, why should you worry so much?
This is also a good example of, well I expressed my opinion, I can't change anyone's so... this is where my replies end.

I do understand the worry but I think it's really exaggerated. Just play nice, help people out if you can, leave politely if you can't and enjoy the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hasrat

And? No mod is going to take action just because, "Well, under some extreme circumstances, 'hi' could potentially be construed as offensive; bans all around."

Civilized interaction isn't under attack here.

---

Who knows ? It GM discretion so how can we be sure how sentences will be interpreted by GM ?

Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive.

This is my only real, "big," thing that needs to be changed/removed. The fact of the matter is that, "Reasonable," is extremely subjective and everyone has a wide and varying degree on what they consider offensive or inoffensive. Leaving it up to GMs means leaving it up to their bias (and yes, it's biased, as they must decide for themselves whether or not they personally would find the comment(s) offensive).

While I'm sure that this policy was put into place with good intentions, it's easily abused, and it's easily misrepresented by new and old GMs alike (language barriers, tolerance levels, management environment, etc). Ultimately, I think this point, in particular, should be removed (as many other points already cover offensive behaviors that would fold into this rule).

Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion.

Unilaterally: used to indicate that something is done by only one person, group, or country involved in a situation, without the agreement of others.

I think this particular bulletpoint just needs better phrasing. There's a reason people are misinterpreting this to be, 'You can't have disagreements anymore!' Different playstyles exist depending on difficulty and preferences. And there are plenty of "hot topic" debates about what "is" and "isn't" acceptable to do in XYZ situation (everyone remembers the Cleric Stance discussion). And that's just tackling game-related things and not the plethora of conversations/debates that happen online. If someone comes in and says, "No, I think X way of playing is wrong/ineffective/etc," this phrasing leaves it open that they could be banned for it. It's just messy and I think the phrasing could be cleared up.

Expression that contravene public order and morals.

This is another one I know came from a good place but definitely needs clarity. Given the political state of some places XIV is housed in, this is a policy that gets messy real fast. Also, the use of "morals," here is probably unnecessary and is a major grey area.


Ultimately, I think a lot of the changes were necessary and I'm thankful for them. But, I think that this update needs a "hot fix" on terminology and possible removal of expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive.

I see no problem with these. Be a good person, be excellent to one another and be a compelling, and valuable member of the community and ones account should remain in good standing. We have too many jerks to deal with day to day in real life, and games are to get away from that for some people. Don't take your bad day out on others period, but especially don't do it in a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

GMs are human too... and capable of applying common sense. Tired GM is just as likely to say "seriously, you're wasting my time reporting a player because they called a Lalafell short?"

Doubly so if dismissing it means all they need to do is click the delete button instead of having to take action.

---

Yeah except you aren't taking what they actually write in the report into account...

If their report provides a viable reason why the word "short" triggers them, then it would be considered valid under these new terms. After all, there technically wasn't any reason to specifically call out that when the "offending" player simply could have said "I didn't see the other player there." They didn't have to call them "short" on top of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuseTraveller

I do agree here but again if you are watchful of what you say and not intentionally harming anyone, why should you worry so much?
This is also a good example of, well I expressed my opinion, I can't change anyone's so... this is where my replies end.

I do understand the worry but I think it's really exaggerated. Just play nice, help people out if you can, leave politely if you can't and enjoy the game.

---

Because of this.


Re-read this thread. There are a people who have been banned up to 4 times for the same offense, via multiple emails (perhaps multiple GM's approving a flag?) a system that is clearly broken and we have no indication of any corrections. Of course there are legitimate needs for rules and consequences but don't be so blind. Look at the hundreds of examples of this going wrong.

There is no appeal process. There is now no streamlined rule set. All decisions are final.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NessaWyvern

Well, I'm pretty sure people have been reported and had disciplinary action before for spamming "Hello!" and "Nice job!" in the Feast when someone messes up, so I wouldn't say it's completely left-field.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...chat_commands/

---

And therein lies a core part of the problem. People don't know how to take criticism anymore, and bad play is rewarded with with a coddling mentality. Yes, this is a casual game for the most part - that doesn't mean people need to walk on eggshells in fear of getting reported for pointing out things. This whole 'please don't say anything even slightly negative' mentality that we seem to be going towards and the devs seemingly pushing towards it is creating a disturbing trend.

I'm interpreting this revision as a step towards that direction.

They should just add single player option. Where you be by yourself and no others around. It would make it a lot easier on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowde

If their report provides a viable reason why the word "short" triggers them, then it would be considered valid under these new terms. After all, there technically wasn't any reason to specifically call out that when the "offending" player simply could have said "I didn't see the other player there." They didn't have to call them "short" on top of that.

---

FF14 is slowly becoming like Twitter, were you need to take an hour to write a message and to make sure you won't offend anyone
https://images.ecosia.org/SsW3FQIULI...31e007a1f5.jpg
(This meme is not a critic toward blond people willing to wear blue dresses, feel free to wear red or yellow if you wish)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaivaC

And therein lies a core part of the problem. People don't know how to take criticism anymore, and bad play is rewarded with with a coddling mentality. Yes, this is a casual game for the most part - that doesn't mean people need to walk on eggshells in fear of getting reported for pointing out things. This whole 'please don't say anything even slightly negative' mentality that we seem to be going towards and the devs seemingly pushing towards it is creating a disturbing trend.
I'm interpreting this revision as a step towards that direction.

---

Sir, your wise words are going to join my signature !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockette

[URL="http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/368711-Can-we-talk-about-the-elephant-in-the-room-Permanent-Bans-from-the-Official-Forums"]Re-read this thread.

---

Oh gods, someone got banned for posting a gif of Lightning, and the GM thought he posted a gif of themself. Is.. Is that why I don't see that gif on the forums anymore? Was it the one with the handbag? O.o

Now I am seriously worried. If a GM can mistake a Lightning gif for a real person, what else can happen?

Time to go full on controller. Won't be needing the keyboard anymore.

I'm glad I can be banned for:

Not liking your glam.

Saying you're wrong about something.

Saying no we shouldn't commit genocide on a fantasy race.

Asking you to cast or not cast specific things.


This is going to be fun.

I'm actually pretty sure rescuing someone out of an AE is now bannable as it's an expression promoting a playstyle.

Quote:

---

Good thing you aren't a GM

---

If my time doing guide/incident CS for Sony and Riot taught me anything, youd be much better off if he was than with people who actually handle these sorts of things. People who joke about this stuff wouldnt actually ban you, people who get to read through thousands of nonsense reports a day will.

I have read the incident reports that have led to people being banned. It is not sane or logical. Theres a very good reason I no longer contract with, play games by or publically support Riot (but do for Sony)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barraind

I'm actually pretty sure rescuing someone out of an AE is now bannable as it's an expression promoting a playstyle.

---

"You didn't save my life!

You ruined my death!"

I was on board with the revisions until I started reading them. A lot of these seem really vague to the point where it sounds like you can have action taken against you just for daring to disagree with someone else. Or for saying anything at all, really, it's hard to tell because these points are mired in subjectiveness. These are so broad that daring to exist could potentially offend someone and apparently give them reasonable grounds to report me. I know in reality that these are just exaggerations, but it's the principle of the matter: these revisions need greater clarity and specificity.

I will say I do admit checking how the JP respond to this exact post. They are still on Page 1 and accepted without popcorn posts. Pretty telling how much exaggeration is being applied.

So you can get ingame bans just as random as forum bans. Nice job. :rolleyes:

The new rules seem to be extremely vague, especially the sections on nuisance behavior.

We can literally be banned for typing anything in chat with this ruleset, because we'll all eventually come across someone who is offended by whatever it is we had to say. Tank accidentally forgets to turn their stance on after entering a synced dungeon? That could result in a ban for politely letting them know with a simple one-word chat message. I've even seen multiple people take offense to me or others typing hello in chat at the start of a dungeon. I guess we shouldn't even say that anymore because of the "Other expressions that are offensive to another person" part of the rule. We might as well remove chat from the game entirely at this point.

I'll probably be taking Rescue off my hotbar too. Can't be using that properly, because someone's going to find it offensive and get you banned for getting them out of a lethal AoE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirakumi

I will say I do admit checking how the JP respond to this exact post. They are still on Page 1 and accepted without popcorn posts. Pretty telling how much exaggeration is being applied.

---

I wonder if it doesn't have to do with less vague phrasing on their end. Because that could have a lot to do with it, NA's tendency for theatrics aside. But meh [shrug]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirakumi

I will say I do admit checking how the JP respond to this exact post. They are still on Page 1 and accepted without popcorn posts. Pretty telling how much exaggeration is being applied.

---

...I kinda want to see this now :) Can you share?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaivaC

...I kinda want to see this now :) Can you share?

---

Just check the dev tracker its right smack there.

Some of the changes are welcome while some seem completly stupid.However people need to remember that all these are still subject to reviews my GM's so it doesnt mean you will get a ban for many of these things.

Some of the things i dont agree with are getting banned for someones views on religions.I'm sorry but religion has no place in society or in games.this is personal beliefs and nothing more.If you punish someone over this you are regressing society back to archaic ways.

About people getting upset over peoples coments etc.Too many snowflakes exist in society today thanks but so much political correctness and propeganda from feminists and extreme left wing groups.
We need to be realistic about whats considered to be upsetting someone and when the issue is that the person is just taking offensve to everything for the sake of being PC.

Some good things have come from the changes like finally mentors might get banned for instance abandoning certain instances they dont feel like doing when roulette pops.Im expecting this could result in a culling of all the awful mentors out there and for people trying to leave 24 man raids they expect other people to carry them through.

My main question though is will we finally see the banning or punishment of free companies selling clears to people for real money or gil that goes to gil selling sites.Every day on chaos data centre we literally have a page full of this advertised in party finder.If anything this should atleast be considered spam.
Also are we finally going to see the banning of people leveling multiple accounts by running multiple clients at once and people who dual box acounts to leave one afk in a zone with hunt radar active?

For a while, I've been occasionally doing /no at people who are currently botting or who I know to bot at times when I pass by them.

I think I'm going to lay off now since I know many of them are petty enough that they'd probably consider it harassment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirakumi

I will say I do admit checking how the JP respond to this exact post. They are still on Page 1 and accepted without popcorn posts. Pretty telling how much exaggeration is being applied.

---

Wait... are you attempting to invalidate the legitimate opinions of other users in this thread by holding them to a completely different cultural standard?

That sounds like something I've seen somewhere before... what could that be...
- Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity

Basic common sense changes and you all forget that a GM will be held accountable if it's proven that his action were in the wrong. They are not all powerful beings and such and if the case escalates for sure there are penalties.
Now, I see that people are overreacting and don't wait to see how this plays out. It could be very well as many as stated , but it could just be a way to provide a way for GM to intervene in cases they couldn't before.

Yes, the text is vague and it's likely that some will try to abuse , but after 2-3 reports in which the GM deems that the reports are not qualified to be taken seriously, what do you think it will happen to the ones that keep abusing the reporting and wasting the GM time?
My 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowde

Wait... are you attempting to invalidate the legitimate opinions of other users in this thread by holding them to a completely different cultural standard?

That sounds like something I've seen somewhere before... what could that be...
- Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity

---

Holy crap....I actually missed the part about thinking in the changes. ...I suppose we'll just have to see just how bad it actually gets over the next several months, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cougarel

Basic common sense changes and you all forget that a GM will be held accountable if it's proven that his action were in the wrong. They are not all powerful beings and such and if the case escalates for sure there are penalties.
Now, I see that people are overreacting and don't wait to see how this plays out. It could be very well as many as stated , but it could just be a way to provide a way for GM to intervene in cases they couldn't before.

---

But how do you tell the devs or whomever is overseeing the GMs (assuming they have any sort of oversight) when a GM is in the wrong? There is no appeals process. This is a fundamental issue that goes hand in hand with these new changes. GMs or players could EASILY abuse this system and victims of this abuse will have no recourse.

Feelings police has arrived, hooray modern internet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeroAlex

But how do you tell the devs or whomever is overseeing the GMs (assuming they have any sort of oversight) when a GM is in the wrong? There is no appeals process. This is a fundamental issue that goes hand in hand with these new changes. GMs or players could EASILY abuse this system and victims of this abuse will have no recourse.

---

I am sure in such cases it can be escalated. Now the others have pointed out the flaws in their announcement now, that there is no text about the appeal and some broad wordings that spiked this avalanche .

Most likely they will review it and provide clarifications .

Knowing how un-PC I am, I just won't say anything to anyone in-game but just the typical robot fake idgaf who you are "hello" or "o/" since everything else is just opening myself up for account termination. I really hate this PC era we're in. "Excessive criticism"?? Really?? If that person sucks at their job and I'm trying to get them up to par I can get banned for that??? I guess I should just be a ray of sunshine and sprinkles and put up with it huh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuseTraveller

I do agree here but again if you are watchful of what you say and not intentionally harming anyone, why should you worry so much?
This is also a good example of, well I expressed my opinion, I can't change anyone's so... this is where my replies end.

I do understand the worry but I think it's really exaggerated. Just play nice, help people out if you can, leave politely if you can't and enjoy the game.

---

No matter how "polite" you are, someone is going to be "offended" no matter what, simply because of how broad and subjective this is.
And that's the issue: being offended is subjective, and while you can reduce the risk of offending people by "being nice", the risk of them getting offended anyway is out of your control and up to GM appreciation. And if someone manages to show that they legitematly got offended by something you said, no matter how nice it was put, there is no reason not to believe that you won't get punished. As long as the GM believes that you offended someone, according to that new policy you should receive a strike.

Also, don't forget that any infringement will be permanently present on your account, and that any new infringement will trigger an even greater punishment than the previous one, regardless of what you actually did. So even if the risk of getting a strike after saying anything is small, it's still too much when you consider that strike system.

You say that the reaction is exaggerated, but that's the point... This new policy allows that kind of extreme scenarios to happen. You have absolutly no guarantee that "being nice" is enough to be 100% sure that you won't get a strike that will stay on your account forever. And that's the problem with how the new changes are worded.

Tl;dr: You can be nice and still offend people. And thus get reported and punished under this new policy.

I’ve been trying to find a way to put my thoughts into coherent statements about this change. Overall, I think that there’s a certain amount of vagueness and subjectivity to some of these new parameters, and without clearly defined examples (the key words here are “clearly defined”), there is a potential for abuse.

I am not trying to “fearmonger” and claim that there will be a sudden/huge influx of false reports designed to intentionally hurt another player or that people will suddenly start reporting every little transgression as “offensive” (that’s silly)—however, I am concerned about what some players may opt to do, especially considering a recent story I read about a fellow Forum Member’s Dun Scaith experience (those who read the Tales of the Duty Finder thread are probably aware of the story I am referring to). There are people that exist that are just mean, and it is those individuals that I fear these vague guidelines will lend fuel to should they try to twist words in their favor.

Quote:

---

◆Offensive expression
"Offensive expression" means an expression in general that inflicts emotional distress by being offensive to another person.

---

While there are “given things” that are easy to consider offensive to a majority (i.e., slurs of any kind), what else defines “offensive expression”? What about “emotional distress”? These are both subjective measures (the latter extremely so), and while I know there are examples that try to define “offensive expression” listed (I’ll get to those further down), how does one measure “emotional distress”? What is the “acceptable definition” of this in Square Enix’s eyes? This varies so much among individuals—and among cultures—that I am concerned about the ability for malicious people to spin situations in their favor by claiming “emotional distress” with nary a concern for the other party who may be far more distressed than these people over finding themselves punished for something they considered small/ridiculous/inconsequential (and I realize that this is also a subjective measure).

Again, I am not trying to “fearmonger” and say that this will become some rampant problem, but there will be incidents where players will report another player as an act of “revenge” against them.

—

Now on to the “examples”.

Quote:

---

Offensive expression may include:

・Aggressive expressions such as violent language/slander/insult/threat.

---

Self-explanatory. I have no qualms about this one, as it goes back to what I said about things that a majority would consider offensive, like slurs. It’s a given.

Quote:

---

・Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule

---

Okay, I can see this. Belittling someone kind of goes back to the first point with “insults”, and provocation/ridicule can be seen as a type of harassment. So those are a given.

I just wonder how much criticism SE considers “excessive”? In before someone says “what a reasonable person would consider excessive criticism”, there are different levels that different people use for “excessive”. I’m personally assuming that this means “harping on someone repeatedly over something”. I just wonder how many times are given to someone before their criticism is considered “excessive”.

Quote:

---

・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person

---

Okay, I get this one as well. No issues here. Another given.

Quote:

---

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion

---

What even is this? “Unilaterally reject another person’s opinion”? Is this saying that we aren’t allowed to disagree with something someone else says? Because I certainly hope not.

How are we supposed to have proper discourse if we aren’t allowed to have differing opinions, openly disagree with opinions we disagree with, and share our reasonings why? I can understand comments like “Your opinion is stupid and dumb and you should feel stupid and dumb for having it”, but what about several players saying “I disagree with what you are current saying because. . . .”? As we all know, there can be very heavy divides amongst the playerbase with regards to... certain topics. How can both sides have constructive discourse if one isn’t allowed to say they disagree with the other’s side?

I’m honestly not even sure what this statement is supposed to mean. I could be completely misinterpreting it, but...

Quote:

---

・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive

---

I get this one. It ties in with the first two points with regards to “aggressive language” and “belittling/ridiculing” someone. It’s a bit redundant in that sense.

Quote:

---

・Expressions that compel a playing style

---

This one has me concerned as well. It’s long been inferred that “differences in playstyle” is a valid reason to remove a person from a party (randomly matched and pre-made), so is this statement negating the previous conception? Does it also shield players from (constructive) criticism of their playstyle?

Am I no longer allowed to ask DPS to use AOE abilities on large trash pulls?
What about asking healers in high-end content to do more than just standing around and healing occasionally?
Am I no longer allowed to ask a person to “stop jumping around the boss and contribute”?

Some clarification on this would be appreciated.

Quote:

---

・Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc.
(Except when in accordance with rules set by an administrator such as a Free Company Master)

---

Only question I have for this is, does this still apply to Party Finders? If I create a Savage party that asks for a certain level of skill or a certain level of ability, am I allowed to exclude players that I find to contradict the parameters I put forth in the PF? I would like to assume so, since I would be the “administrator” of the party.

Quote:

---

・Expressions that contravene public order and morals

---

I feel like “public order” and “morals” vary far too much between cultures/individuals to try and enforce this unless the expressions being used are something extreme that most, if not all, cultures can agree upon. I’m assuming this rule is referencing those extreme situations, and not just any situation one claims to be “morally offensive”.

Quote:

---

・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

---

Again, I’m hoping that this rule is referencing things that are reasonably offensive, like threats and insults that utilize aggressive language/slurs, and that it’s just being redundant and emphasizing the other similar rules...

However, I know how easily offended some people can be over just about anything—is this rule going to cater to their personal perceptions of offensive? Because personal perceptions can differ—for example, I know some people find it “offensive” to have someone offer them constructive advice on a job, or to question a particular playstyle. There was a person in the Novice Network on my server that apparently got into it with another player about whether or not “hell” was considered a curse word (and they seemed offended by the use of it in a “what the —“ context and subsequently kicked the other person from the NN). Does this apply to that? I can understand some of the more heavier curse words (I personally don’t care, but I know some people do), but the ones that are also used within the game itself?

Honestly, this is an even broader repeat of the “Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive” rule—but one which also somewhat contradicts the “any reasonable person” qualifier to now cover “anything anyone finds offensive”.

Another from the Prohibited Activities revision I have questions on:

Quote:

---

Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity

---

The majority of this makes sense... but what on earth do you mean about “discriminatory expressions based on thinking”??? Is this just... miswording?


Bit of a long-winded post (oops), but TL;DR: I’m honestly not sure what to think about this. I tried to see the rules from an objective standpoint, but I still cannot help my own concerns regarding a couple of them and their subjectivity. Perhaps I’m completely wrong in all the things I typed here. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkstainedGwyn

However, I find it interesting that everybody has immediately jumped to the conclusion that "free speech is dead I can no longer be myself or I'll be banned" and not thought more about situations like the ones we read about "my ex is stalking me and won't remove me from their friends list and constantly makes alts to send me rude/disturbing messages, but SE says they can't step in so all I can do is blacklist them".

---

Personally, I think it was because one of the parameters was worded “expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion”, which almost makes it sound like we’re no longer allowed to disagree with someone else’s opinion because “feelings”. I can understand something like dog-piling onto a person and ridiculing them for having an opinion, but for simply disagreeing? I consider myself to be fairly reasonable, and I can see where people are getting this interpretation from (at least with regards to this specific rule).

The parameters are too vague, and there are some things listed that are extremely subjective with regards to both measure and interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hasrat

Suggestions are not compulsions. Being polite about it is different from demanding.

Seems to me that anyone worrying about receiving penalties maybe do need to examine their own behavior. It's all pretty common courtesy/decency stuff.

---

You can’t make others see your “suggestion” of “please use [AOE skill] when I pull lots of mobs” as just a polite suggestion. Considering how many players I’ve seen throw a fit when they’re asked to press their AOE buttons against a pack of 10 mobs, I don’t think they’re taking it as a “nice suggestion”—they see it as you trying to force them to play how you want and as uncalled for/harsh criticism of their chosen way of play (it’s criticism, but it’s certainly not uncalled for or harsh in an appropriate situation).

This is all about the perception and interpretation of any given player that makes these parameters difficult to measure. It’s fairly clear that some players’ definitions of “common courtesy” and “decency” vary with regards to some things in this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowde

Wait... are you attempting to invalidate the legitimate opinions of other users in this thread by holding them to a completely different cultural standard?

That sounds like something I've seen somewhere before... what could that be...
- Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity

---

I'm really hoping that thinking thing is like a REALLY poorly worded way of saying dont discriminate against neuro-divergent people.

But other than that a lot of these rules are just flat out bad. Prohibiting playstyle suggestions will do nothing but encourage "you dont pay my sub" types to carry on getting carried, bringing down the experience of the other 3-7 people in the group. If I can get banned for saying "I'm at full health it's ok to dps" or "please put garuda on obey" or "please use skills other than skill sunder, the game highlights your skills for you to know which order to press them in", then that makes me really not want to use duty finder in fear that I'm going to either have an absolutely grueling time in a dungeon, or get banned for just wanting to help others get the most out of the game.

Revert these changes and go back to the drawing board as what you have implemented is to vague.
It is not a matter of if but how badly will players and GM's will abuse that very fact to silence other players.

You are effectively telling players to not help others, to not give opinions, to not communicate or you might offend them.

Dont lead the community on like that and just disable chat like you did in the 'Feast'
At least that way the migration of chat to other platforms like Discord will be swift and painless, this is such a disappointment to seeing that even the SJW agenda has infected this game. SMH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roda

I'm really hoping that thinking thing is like a REALLY poorly worded way of saying dont discriminate against neuro-divergent people.

---

That would make sense - and it's a rather hard thing to give a one-word neutral all-encompassing summary of.

But if it's designed to stop "autistic" from being the new general-purpose insult, I'm all for it.


...I think this policy needs to come with a glossary section.

(Not 100% sure but I think the "reasonable person" thing is legal/formal terminology for this kind of policy - and for actual laws, too.)

Just go back to the old policy but add on being stricter about stalking. These rules are ripe for abuse for conflicting reasons. The first on harassment with including gender/sexual orientation/gender identity is good but thinking harassment is weird. Even then there is Obscene/indecent expressions which is subjective because the act of being outside of the norms is obscene to some who are. Even then there are so many new rules that weren't an issue but now are. Something that wouldn't have constitute a report will now be used just to spite someone they don't like even if it didn't offend them. All they have to do is make enough of an impassioned plea for GM to intervene.

Now that you are choosing to involve yourselves with how we talk to one another, true bad actors of these rules will just leave to talk and organize on discord or skype and use these them to hurt people with speech that didn't bother them in the first place but they will know that you will act on now. This doesn't do anything against people who get really harassed in game with outside tools. Basically making this silent game more silent. I'm not saying don't try but these rules are really overreaching. The last bastion of amusing talk which was silly banter/sassy is just gone. I haven't seen hard flaming in the game since heavensward for DR. I know things haven't changed for some people but idk I'm just conflicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roda

Prohibiting playstyle suggestions will do nothing but encourage "you dont pay my sub" types to carry on getting carried, bringing down the experience of the other 3-7 people in the group. If I can get banned for saying "I'm at full health it's ok to dps" or "please put garuda on obey" or "please use skills other than skill sunder, the game highlights your skills for you to know which order to press them in", then that makes me really not want to use duty finder in fear that I'm going to either have an absolutely grueling time in a dungeon, or get banned for just wanting to help others get the most out of the game.

---

The rules don't say, "You may not politely tell people how they can play more effectively." They say we're not allowed to "compel a playing style".

"The intended use of Veraero and Verthunder is that you take advantage of the Dualcast trait to cast them instantly as the second spell after a faster spell like Jolt. They're not meant to be slow-casted on their own, as you would only be able to cast 2/3 as many spells this way." is a reasonable explanation of basic RDMing and no reasonable person should find this offensive.

"(Insert Skill Name) (Please use it.)" is usually a reasonable request that does not fall under any of the bullet points of the Offensive Expression section, except possibly the catch-all final bullet point, but a reasonable GM should not support the classification of this type of request as "offensive".

"If you don't use (Insert Skill Name) we're going to kick you" is quite different from either of the other examples and obviously an example of the sort of imperative that the play style rule is meant to guard against.

These new rules are extremely unclear as to what is prohibited and what is not.
Taken literally some of them imply that saying or doing nearly anything in the game could be considered a prohibited activity. There can always be someone who will take offense to even the most innocent statements for example.

These rules seem to create a highly uncomfortable environment for players, where they are afraid that anything they do could be considered a prohibited activity.