Recent Developments of TOS Actions Taken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

---

Not sure where you got that from, but okay. I don't even know the guy, nor do I really care about them or their account. I just want some consistency. That isn't unreasonable.

If the policy has changed, then we need to know exactly how and when it is going to be enforced. It also needs to be enforced in a consistent and fair manner, with a proper appeal system in place.

A player can invest a considerable amount of time, effort and energy into the game. That isn't something that should be taken away lightly. If an account is otherwise clean and the act itself isn't something extremely terrible then it baffles me that the default approach isn't simply a verbal warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirstnameLastname

So many mindless fanboys (and -girls, and -whateverkindamicrowaveornanimalyouare since I don't want to get reported for sexism or whatever) in this thread just repeating "tHeIr GaMe ThEiR rUlEs" - wow. Seriously. And y'all so incredibly hurt over this, like your precious, fragile self was "brutally assaulted" (actual quote) instead of the BLM in the clip in question. Next thing you know they start banning people that post in r/TalesfromDF on reddit and didn't blur out their own names because thats "brutal assault" and you are gonna cheer for that, huh?

And yet you lot wonder why "no one is talking in dungeons anymore". Yeah, take a wild guess there mate how this could have come about. Maybe it's because everyone and everything is instantly reported if they dare and voice an opinion different than those of the god damn snowflakes I see ruining my game experience everywhere.

You can now press report on this post because I "brutally assaulted" your precious feelings. See ya in a couple weeks.

---

This isnt the same thing as "No one talking in dungeons" or other strawmans of that sort. Look at the situation as described - a public streamer with a large enough following was trash talking another player to his followers without even so much as masking the name or information. If you honestly believe that this wouldnt have knock on effects, you are naive and living in a bubble.

Im all for people venting, or saying what they want to say to an extent, but there is a drastic difference between saying "A player I ran into was trash, this is their numbers and this thing bothers me" and "Mr.Bigglesworth on this server is a trash tier player and check their numbers to see how trash they are." Im being oversimplistic of course, but the gist is that regardless of whether you say anything in game, you are purposefully creating a situation where it will have repercussions IN game. He may not be saying to his streamers "Yeah go harass this person" or "Dont ever play with this person", but that is gonna be the end effect and the streamer has to know this. If they dont, then theyre either extremely naive and ignorant of how this all works, or theyre being disingenuous. If it was just him talking about parses and annoying players with no info, I would think SE is in the wrong. It's when he creates a direct link of information to a specific player on a public stream that this then becomes a problem, regardless of whether he says anything in game or not.

Parsers are against ToS, but the spirit of why it is is anti harassment and anti toxicity. It's why SE doesnt typically ban accounts of streamers using parsers. Hes violating that concept by trying to be clever and not being toxic in game but on his stream that will carry over to the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

---

That's not the problem. Some here seems to use that a focal point but it's not. We care about how inconsistent SE is with bans, here and in-game. I know, I know... "don't be a jerk".

Anyway, if you really believe that this person should get punished (and he should) you are letting it go easily. FFXIV is right now in a content lul and he can go and stream anything else because the company that should be given the disciplinary action was not involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

---

I wager the majority are mad at the lack of consistency. Arthars is merely the catalyst for that argument. If he can be banned based off a twitch vod. All players should be subjected to that same criteria; i.e. people can stream botters, speed hacks and etc to show evidence of those players cheating.

If this is merely a one off, then it shows a blatant double standard. They'll punish someone for being a jerk but not someone for cheating. Why? Because the guy being a jerk is more popular on a third party platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driavna

The GM did not watch the rant live. A time stamp of the recordad video was linked.

---

Is it a link to a time stamped VOD on the streamer's own channel? Then the streamer wouldn't doctor the video to make himself look bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahlnir

Err, perhaps I should have rephrased. Some live streams are recorded, and those can be edited.

---

If the source can still be viewed, then an edited video wouldn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linay

Is it a link to a time stamped VOD on the streamer's own channel? Then the streamer wouldn't doctor the video to make himself look bad.

If the source can still be viewed, then an edited video wouldn't matter.

---

Correct, on both accounts.

Can't believe people actually defend companies proclaiming themselves the police on platforms completely unrelated to their own. How anyone who isn't in a high position at a company could support a corporatocracy is beyond me. I find it incredibly unlikely that actions taken against someone for something they did on another platform would ever hold up under legal scrutiny, but unfortunately it's not worth the cost of trying to bring in any legal action, and so companies get away with doing whatever they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Risvertasashi

So, let's look at what he did.

- Talked a lot of crap about a player in his party
- Enlarged the parse screen
- Used special sound effects and animations to draw even more attention to the "bad player"
- Showed their name in the clear; no attempt to obfuscate their identity.

If we're now in an era where SE takes action on this kind of evidence (And really, SE is behind, because most other operators of online games already do), I'm perfectly OK with SE suspending someone like this.

I also reported that streamer to twitch, since I'm pretty sure his actions violate their ToS too.



Streamers/youtubers/etc have a lot of power to start witch hunts. Not only did he show that player's name, he made it even bigger and more prominent on his stream.

---

Pretty much this^ If you're going to be toxic then reap the consequences, especially if you're going to be using third party software to do it with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

I wager the majority are mad at the lack of consistency. Arthars is merely the catalyst for that argument. If he can be banned based off a twitch vod. All players should be subjected to that same criteria; i.e. people can stream botters, speed hacks and etc to show evidence of those players cheating.

If this is merely a one off, then it shows a blatant double standard. They'll punish someone for being a jerk but not someone for cheating. Why? Because the guy being a jerk is more popular on a third party platform.

---

They punished him not cause hes popular, but because his actions have a direct impact on another player and he was (IMO) trying to be cute and clever by doing this in a live stream and not in game with the impression that he would not get punished for it cause 'its not in game'. He was completely ignoring the fact that the point of anti parser ToS is to stop harassment but still did it thinking he would use the literal rules to be safe. If you want to argue he did get made an example of, thats fine, but lets not try and be cute and say "WELL SE SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS CAUSE NO RULES WERE VIOLATED!" Because if we want to really have a system where everything is clearly labeled and spelled out with no room for interpretation, thats gonna create inflexibility for SE and their response to that will be to create very harsh and draconian ToS.

For all the "SE has to be clear about the rules" shtick, it typically overlooks that Parsing is against the ToS but SE turns a blind eye to it for our sake. Being too specific is just as bad as being overly vague. At the end of the day, he used his parser and streaming power to go after a specific player publicly. We dont live in the 90s. He knew that this would rile up some of his viewers and cause trouble for that player. Frankly, if he was a real boss about things, hed just have the anatomy to talk that smack in game and deal with it. But he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WrenElessedil

Can't believe people actually defend companies proclaiming themselves the police on platforms completely unrelated to their own. How anyone who isn't in a high position at a company could support a corporatocracy is beyond me. I find it incredibly unlikely that actions taken against someone for something they did on another platform would ever hold up under legal scrutiny, but unfortunately it's not worth the cost of trying to bring in any legal action, and so companies get away with doing whatever they want.

---

People get fired for using their public twitters that link to the company they work for to be complete and utter jerks. This guy was using SEs property to make money. He didn't follow the rules, so he's subject to getting banned. SE doesn't want their property to be viewed in a negative light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

People get fired for using their public twitters that link to the company they work for to be complete and utter jerks. This guy was using SEs property to make money. He didn't follow the rules, so he's subject to getting banned. SE doesn't want their property to be viewed in a negative light.

---

Ironically, it now gets much more negative attention than it would have, had they not chosen to take this ridiculous course of action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

They punished him not cause hes popular, but because his actions have a direct impact on another player and he was (IMO) trying to be cute and clever by doing this in a live stream and not in game with the impression that he would not get punished for it cause 'its not in game'. He was completely ignoring the fact that the point of anti parser ToS is to stop harassment but still did it thinking he would use the literal rules to be safe. If you want to argue he did get made an example of, thats fine, but lets not try and be cute and say "WELL SE SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS CAUSE NO RULES WERE VIOLATED!" Because if we want to really have a system where everything is clearly labeled and spelled out with no room for interpretation, thats gonna create inflexibility for SE and their response to that will be to create very harsh and draconian ToS.

For all the "SE has to be clear about the rules" shtick, its typically overlooks that Parsing is against the ToS but they turn a blind eye to it for our sake. Being to specific is just as bad as being overly vague.

---

Follow the money. Bottom line is SE cares about subscription and revenue, as any company should. Arthars suspension was inconsistent on SE's part but was probably done to protect FF14's image of being welcoming to casual players. Casual players pay the majority of the bill. The same thing with Parsers- if SE started banning everyone who used parsers, so many people would stop playing. The "use it but don't harrass people with it" rule was to keep parsing players paying the sub, and to keep casual players playing as well who might be turned off if people give them a hard time about their dps numbers. So of course SE hasn't been consistent in enforcing their ToS/rules, but from a revenue perspective, SE is always consistent in doing what they can to protect their brand. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just how it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FirstnameLastname

Ironically, it now gets much more negative attention than it would have, had they not chosen to take this ridiculous course of action.

---

I think thats up for debate cause frankly I am more in line with SE on this. Using your megaphone to start a witch hunt or make someone else in game's life worse I think is within SE's purview. If he had not name dropped or hid the name, than thats something else and the streamer would be in the right. But thats not what happened.

Moral shoudl be pretty simple: You want to vent or rant, dont be posting other players info. Only reason to do that is to start crap and if thats your goal, I personally wont be sticking up for you when the hammer drops.

I read somewhere that streamer has been provoked by that guy, who was the first person who started all the fuss harassing tanks in team for poor performance and he done that in agressive manner.

Cant tell 100% because i have not seen the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seddrinth

Follow the money. Bottom line is SE cares about subscription and revenue, as any company should. Arthars suspension was inconsistent on SE's part but was probably done to protect FF14's image of being welcoming to casual players. Casual players pay the majority of the bill. The same thing with Parsers- if SE started banning everyone who used parsers, so many people would stop playing. The "use it but don't harrass people with it" rule was to keep parsing players paying the sub, and to keep casual players playing as well who might be turned off if people give them a hard time about their dps numbers. So of course SE hasn't been consistent in enforcing their ToS/rules, but from a revenue perspective, SE is always consistent in doing what they can to protect their brand. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just how it is.

---

I wont contest this point broadly. Yeah, theyll do what they have to to be profitable, so if that means bending rules or enforcing a bit oddly - fine. I get that. But this is a particular situation that even despite that, this was a streamer starting problems by using teh parser and his stream to publically shame another player. I personally dont find that acceptable and think SE was in the right to punish. It's the principle of the matter that Im concerned with - namely using your platform and followers to make life hard on another player and trying to be clever by not doing in game directly to avoid punishment. If it wasnt name dropping or direct info, Id say SE was in the wrong. But thats not what happened here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedkel

I read somewhere that streamer has been provoked by that guy, who was the first person who started all the fuss harassing tanks in team for poor performance and he done that in agressive manner.

Cant tell 100% because i have not seen the video.

---

Theyre not a public figure, so even if the guy was being an ass, using your platform to ruin their time in game isnt acceptable. Or are we gonna start arguing that its all ok cause he was being a dick. Cause I can see that quickly resulting in a situation where you better not piss off or slight any streamer or they have carte blanche to ruin you with their follower base. I can imagine that being loads of fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedkel

I read somewhere that streamer has been provoked by that guy, who was the first person who started all the fuss harassing tanks in team for poor performance and he done that in agressive manner.

Cant tell 100% because i have not seen the video.

---

What is the point of your statement since you haven’t watch the video but already choose to stand on streamer’s side?

SE handles consistency about as well as this gif.

https://tenor.com/view/half-baked-fu...l-gif-13074562

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedkel

I read somewhere that streamer has been provoked by that guy, who was the first person who started all the fuss harassing tanks in team for poor performance and he done that in agressive manner.

Cant tell 100% because i have not seen the video.

---

I read the same thing. If I may be honest, I care more of the streamer hosting a clown fiesta against a person so a possible massive witch hunt could ensure.
Those who saw the BLM act could simply report him and move on. The streamer decided to take it next level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

They punished him not cause hes popular, but because his actions have a direct impact on another player and he was (IMO) trying to be cute and clever by doing this in a live stream and not in game with the impression that he would not get punished for it cause 'its not in game'. He was completely ignoring the fact that the point of anti parser ToS is to stop harassment but still did it thinking he would use the literal rules to be safe. If you want to argue he did get made an example of, thats fine, but lets not try and be cute and say "WELL SE SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS CAUSE NO RULES WERE VIOLATED!" Because if we want to really have a system where everything is clearly labeled and spelled out with no room for interpretation, thats gonna create inflexibility for SE and their response to that will be to create very harsh and draconian ToS.

For all the "SE has to be clear about the rules" shtick, it typically overlooks that Parsing is against the ToS but SE turns a blind eye to it for our sake. Being too specific is just as bad as being overly vague. At the end of the day, he used his parser and streaming power to go after a specific player publicly. We dont live in the 90s. He knew that this would rile up some of his viewers and cause trouble for that player. Frankly, if he was a real boss about things, hed just have the anatomy to talk that smack in game and deal with it. But he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

---

That isn't what I said.

I said if they're going to use Twitch videos as evidence now, when they haven't in the past. It should apply to everyone, regardless of their popularity or verification status on Twitch. If I go and record someone botting right now and submit that evidence to a GM, the botter should be dealt with accordingly. If they opt to ignore it or fall back on "we cannot accept outside evidence," it shows a blatant double standard. Put another way, they would be picking and choosing when they want to enforce their ToS outside the game. And in this hypothetical, it'd be when a popular Twitch streamer potentially hurt their image compared to an otherwise unknown botter or speed hacker cheating. Not exactly a good look for their moderation.

As for parses. Lets be honest. They tolerate them out of necessity. If they were to ever ban ACT or FFlogs at this junction, their raid scene will die. And they know it. Not to mention, people would just go underground with that information. ACT and FFlogs essentially give them the same benefits WoW has but none of the responsibility since they can always say "you shouldn't be using it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

What is the point of your statement since you haven’t watch the video but already choose to stand on streamer’s side?

---

Because being meanie is being meanie and he and streamer should get banned anyway.

This is not a defense of anyone involved just how I see things based on what I've seen.


I feel like a verbal warning would make more sense if anything in the case of Arthars, as for the aspect of people not being banned for things that are generally worse then him talking crap about someone outside game and on his stream.

They didnt Ban him for ACT use which would have made more sense given what is currently within the ToS to do, over him saying something *mean* on a third party platform.

They spoke on him talking poorly about someone. Does he have the power to start a *witch hunt*? Yes he does. Did he, has he, will he? No.

As a long time MMO player I feel its just part of what comes with the game. I think everyones been there and talked about the dumb things they see, and made inside jokes and memes.

While some may not like the reality of it, its a normal aspect of playing online games. For SE to do what they did opens the flood gates to people being banned with out of context evidence being used against them, which can prove to hurt them as a company.

I for one don't think I should be held accountable for saying something about someone in a group I was in being a bad player on ANY third party platform, that means twitch, discord, skype, teamspeak, twitter, etc. The list goes on.

I feel attempting to police the community outside the game will change nothing. You cannot ban people or be mad at anyone for venting, or making jokes as a means to NOT say it to that person in game where SE's jurisdiction is. So cracking jokes about a Bad BLM to twitch chat, not bannable, saying something foul in DIscord, not bannable, talking crap on twitter not bannable.

SE needs to be more clear going forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

snips

---

I oversimplified what you said, so sorry bout that. And yes, you are right. It shouldn't matter how big your channel size is. If youre gonna be a jerk and post names and what not to start crap on public streams to directly impact another player, than that should be addressed; channel size shouldn't be a factor.

As for botting, thats a separate issue. Here's the distinction and why it matters. In this case, we have a specific player (arthars) being an ass to another player and using his parsing and streaming to publicly shame another player. He is the one doing the aggression and recording himself doing it. This isnt like recording a botter or hacker. In that case, you are providing evidence on another player's wrong doing from your perspective and there is some level of possibility that things are being skewed or framed in a bad faith way. Let me try to frame this another way: There is a difference between you recording yourself running a red light and bragging about it, and someone taking a picture of a person crossing an intersection on what appears to be a red light. That red light in the picture could be a broken traffic light blinking red intermittently. The picture in of itself is not inherently indisputable evidence of wrong doing. And thats why SE doesnt typically use player provided evidence on another player because theres a chance of it being tainted evidence. But I also wouldnt be surprised that while they wouldnt ban on it, they may investigate it quietly themselves if there are enough compelling reports.

As for parses, it doesnt matter if its bad for SE, or its for money, or whatever. They have rules and they bend those rules for our sake. Arguing that they should be listing every little thing and only adhering to the specifically listed rules and there should be no 'spirit of the law' flexibility is gonna make things way worse for us. It's like saying "How dare that officer let me off with a warning for that rolling stop! I shouldve been given a ticket cause its clearly illegal!" Dont think anyone is gonna be super in favor of every rule and by law being enforced with teh addition of new rules that address every nuance and its up to US to know all the rules and abide by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

So if they are fair and are now using outside information, anyone streaming with a parser should theoretically be punished. Because they are using something which is against the ToS.

---

Parsing is officially against the ToS, but Yoshida has said you can use it if you keep it to yourself, but an interesting question is brought up: Is streaming considered keeping it to yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

If the policy has changed, then we need to know exactly how and when it is going to be enforced.

---

Don't break the ToS. Problem solved. Unlikely that you'll get a definitive answer to "Which rules are we allowed to break?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

A player can invest a considerable amount of time, effort and energy into the game. That isn't something that should be taken away lightly. If an account is otherwise clean and the act itself isn't something extremely terrible then it baffles me that the default approach isn't simply a verbal warning.

---

Already taken into account with the penalty system:
Account Penalty Policy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

They'll punish someone for being a jerk but not someone for cheating. Why?

---

Because harassment is handled by GMs and cheating is handled by the STF. Good luck getting any info on how the STF operates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

If I go and record someone botting right now and submit that evidence to a GM, the botter should be dealt with accordingly.

---

Ignoring the fact that GMs do not deal with bots, the appropriate example would be submitting a link to a stream/VOD hosted by the botter while they were botting, not of you catching them botting on your stream.

https://i.imgur.com/xYdPoyl.png
Update from Arthars. Nutkin censor for my own sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linay

Anyone can be offended at anything and can report the offense, but SE will still have to make a judgment call on whether it is an actionable offense. The potential to offend someone with anything does not excuse actions that are actually meant to be offensive (again, SE will have to make a judgment call on that). (I didn't see the actual clip, so this is not talking specifically about this incident.)

---

That's why Im more worried about it and mainly din't touch the chat

An example I found in Reddit (Can't verify tho)

Code:

---

I was downvoted to hell when they notified everyone about changing the TOD for harassment a while back. They made the language so vague that even telling someone how to do mechanics could be considered “criticism of play style” and worth a suspension.

I was suspended a few weeks ago for 3 days. My offense? During one of the raids, I asked in chat, “does anyone not know the mechanics? You have to actually stand in the circles and save the LB for the end.” That was my only message.

I was then told I’d be suspended for offending another persons play style. I said I only gave advice after confirming that raid was indeed the reason I was getting suspended.

I was told by the GM, “even advice violates our TOS if another play feels uncomfortable.”

It was unbelievable. I screenshot it and showed my wife. I literally do not use chat at all anymore for fear of it happening again. I ignored everyone and everything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedkel

I read somewhere that streamer has been provoked by that guy, who was the first person who started all the fuss harassing tanks in team for poor performance and he done that in agressive manner.

Cant tell 100% because i have not seen the video.

---

A FC friend saw the video and confirm me the BLM was complaining about the streamer gameplay too. And that can lead you to think the whole situation was premeditated. If he was seeing the stream he knows how he would react to a BLM doing poor DPS. Not that I condone this actions but I feel he is the one who fell in the BLM trap in the end

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xeros_cl

snips

---

Id have to say I need more proof from that reddit post, because other than an overzealous GM, the likelyhood of saying "Use LB at the end of a fight and dont stand in circles" resulting in a suspension comes across as far fetched. Letting my cynicism and skepticism take a stab at that claim, Id say that the poster is downplaying their words to appear more innocent. In my time a this game and on sites, Ive only seen one legit case where that a player was short term suspended for saying something innocuous and was due to a misunderstanding that eventually over turned the suspension. Most times the player is being incredibly abbrasive in chat among other things that results in the suspension. The more 'demure' the story, the more likely Im to disbelieve it unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

I said if they're going to use Twitch videos as evidence now, when they haven't in the past. It should apply to everyone, regardless of their popularity or verification status on Twitch.

---

Actually, the verification status might be a differentiating factor. It's one thing to take outside evidence from someone else and it's another when it's a self-implicating evidence even if it's from an outside source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xeros_cl

That's why Im more worried about it and mainly din't touch the chat

An example I found in Reddit (Can't verify tho)

Code:

---

I was downvoted to hell when they notified everyone about changing the TOD for harassment a while back. They made the language so vague that even telling someone how to do mechanics could be considered “criticism of play style” and worth a suspension.

I was suspended a few weeks ago for 3 days. My offense? During one of the raids, I asked in chat, “does anyone not know the mechanics? You have to actually stand in the circles and save the LB for the end.” That was my only message.

I was then told I’d be suspended for offending another persons play style. I said I only gave advice after confirming that raid was indeed the reason I was getting suspended.

I was told by the GM, “even advice violates our TOS if another play feels uncomfortable.”

It was unbelievable. I screenshot it and showed my wife. I literally do not use chat at all anymore for fear of it happening again. I ignored everyone and everything.

---

---

That would be bad, if true, but like you said, it can't be verified. That said, I don't think it's beneficial to live in fear of what is presumably a fringe case, as that seems a weird example of a violation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vnolan

Parsing is officially against the ToS, but Yoshida has said you can use it if you keep it to yourself, but an interesting question is brought up: Is streaming considered keeping it to yourself?

---

Most streamers cover/blur the names of their party members/chat/etc, so its been probably overlooked. Again, the point of the "Dont Parse" and "Parse is fine if you keep it yourself" is to address harassment. They probably dont care if you parse or stream parsing so long as its not being used to go after other players.

Alright time to post what I said in another area.

This streamer literally painted a big red target on themselves. When you are streaming to a group of people, you are, at that moment, a face for XIV. You are reflecting the game. Your account is also right there for everyone to see.
When SE says that they can't take certain evidence into account, it's because that evidence is easy to doctor or edit. This was just something yelling "hey, look at me!!"

We all here have had times where we had a bad run. Yell about it to your friends. Yell about it to your static. Don't tell the world. Or if you are going to block the person's name out. That simple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

snip

---

Your analogy only applies to pictures not video. Hence why I referenced the latter. A live stream cannot be doctored since even the recorded playback is housed by Twitch not the streamer themselves. Therefore, the GMs could easily do their own investigation to determine if the report has merit. Simply shadowing someone accused off botting or hacking would be enough. Not like it isn't easy to notice bot movements given how stiff and rigid they are. Saying there may be a chance is little more than an excuse to not actually do anything. Considering even WoW handles bots and cheaters better than FFXIV, it speaks volumes to how apathetic they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Most streamers cover/blur the names of their party members/chat/etc, so its been probably overlooked. Again, the point of the "Dont Parse" and "Parse is fine if you keep it yourself" is to address harassment. They probably dont care if you parse or stream parsing so long as its not being used to go after other players.

---

No, they don't. In fact, almost none of them blur or obscure names of players on ACT. Happy and Sofie are among the only streamers who don't have ACT—names and all—shown directly on the screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noitems

https://i.imgur.com/xYdPoyl.png
Update from Arthars. Nutkin censor for my own sake.

---

This really isn't rocket science and the guy can't seem to understand.
Literally, just don't be jerk. That's all he has to do.
He can do what he's been doing as long as he isn't blasting people
out the water like he just did. If he can't understand what he did wrong
then have fun eventually getting permabanned.

I personally feel the GM grossly overstepped their bounds.

It'd be one thing if it was for the use of third party software (ACT), but another thing entirely to ban for trashing the player outside of in-game chat.

They should only police what's happening actually in-game and a stream should be inadmissible IMO, unless of course they're going to apply using outside sources to everything including RMT and not strange case by case situations (they won't).

The other problem with SE not getting bots based off video is that they're basically playing Pest control in this case.

Yeah, SE can get a video for ASDFGJHKL botting, but they're looking for the queen, not the soldiers. Basically, looking for the master owner of the accounts that are botting and finding out where and how they're doing it so they don't IP ban an area that affects players in that zone. They want to also find out the scope, (are they using stolen credit cards). So they can put in a preventative measure that bans the wave.

That said, the report system on botting is HORRIBLY outdated and could use better efficiency in reporting them to begin with. The good step at least was finding away to GAOL nuisance advertising bots based on players reporting them with right click.

Now in terms of the player harassment, all of this reminds me of the webcomic Let's Play, and is a good reminder everyone on all sides are human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jybril

This really isn't rocket science and the guy can't seem to understand.
Literally, just don't be jerk. That's all he has to do.
He can do what he's been doing as long as he isn't blasting people
out the water like he just did. If he can't understand what he did wrong
then have fun eventually getting permabanned.

---

It's more of a desire for a defined line. Since, while:

- Maybe he got in SE trouble due to the link he had attached to a lodestone character, placing his content technically within SE's jurisdiction (and they have used this to action people before).

- Maybe he overstepped a limit with how hard he went on the guy, though as he's been doing it for so long at this point, it's sudden for it to be over the line now. Which means, other things that could be seen as fine/innocuous on twitch, could potentially also be actioned on in the future with no hard defined limit as to what constitutes a TOS break on third party platforms, to the point where SE will action it. (Like, if someone's streaming with mods and is reported for using them, would SE choose to come down on that? Or if someone did say an expletive on their stream, or even just called someone "an idiot" in a "that idiot just got me killed on this fight"-level way). And this extends outside of twitch -- if your character can be linked to, for example, your Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr account etc... could things you say on these platforms get you actioned? We do know SE actioned people who lewdly modded their characters, but what about people who use Reshade? What about more wholesome/innocent mods? They haven't been actioned so far, to my knowledge, via these other venues, but who's to say it'll remain consistent? And suddenly something people have an understanding is okay, such as streaming the game with the ACT overlay on as another example, is suddenly not okay?

- Maybe it's only being actioned as someone went through the trouble to actually report it. Which means, what else would be a violation if someone decided to report it? Since, the TOS includes things like: not swearing in-game, but that can extend to third party platforms where the game is featured. Do I think they would action someone saying an expletive in a moment of celebration, or a moment of frustration? Probably not. But that's just it: "Probably".

(My guess is: He went too far, had the link of his content on his lodestone character & was reported through an in-game means. That's what makes the most sense, but even then, it's still a guess. I can't say I know exactly what he did to get himself in hot water, because I don't: The GM does).

It's not about did he deserve to be suspended, and more about: well if the evidence in question is a third party platform where the TOS is being applied to, are there limits to what SE would action from that platform? Does a case need to be extreme, or excessive, or reported by a player in-game with the attached clip? Does it need to be a verified source? Does this only cover excessive cases? Does it cover any case?

And it'd also help situations in-game, too. Where people are dealing with stalkers, harassment of a different nature than a "you suck at this game" nature. Since a lot of those interactions aren't often dealt with, and the things that are actioned and not actioned never feels particularly consistent from the GM's. And wanting a clear-cut limit that's defined is... normal. Not in a "how can I twist it in my favor" normal, but in a "okay, so it is absolutely guaranteed that if I don't do x/y/z I won't get in trouble, so I'm going to adjust what I'm doing around that to avoid problems going forward."

The limits should be more defined, especially when there are people who rely on twitch income for their livelihood built off streaming the game. Because anyone who puts forth a reason for the suspension, who is not a GM, is only able to presume and guesstimate (and maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong: either way, there's still a maybe).




It's already accepted that, yes, he got in trouble for being excessive in ripping into a player. But that's not what the overall focus should be on: it's just wanting clear, defined limits involved in handling cases outside of the game, rather than a nebulous "Everything in the TOS may apply at individual GM discretion" since that... covers a lot of things. Like... why, specifically, this case over a case where someone is being actively harassed/stalked etc... in game? Or why is this case allowed to be used as grounds for punishment, but another player who said far more egregious things, is not? What makes this case different from the other two cases.


I'll add that: sometimes having not-super-clearly-defined rules is a positive thing, since it can circumvent rules-lawyering, people getting out of stuff on technicalities etc... but the way things do get enforced often times feel, and seem, very "well... why did this get actioned, but not this other event that occurred in-game?"

Do I, personally, care? I don't personally care on a level wherein I think I'd ever run amok with things, but at the same time I can understand the side of people who stake their livelihood on the game/supplemental income on the game, desiring a more clear process.

(and, again, I'm not defending a stance of "We should all be allowed to beat on each other/mean to each other" but just a general "some lines of absolute Don'ts would be good for out-of-game interactions that involve the game." Like, maybe it is purely in just being a massive dick to someone, that's fine, but it's not a 100% that's absolutely the only thing that could ever get you in trouble)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QT_Melon

The other problem with SE not getting bots based off video is that they're basically playing Pest control in this case.

Yeah, SE can get a video for ASDFGJHKL botting, but they're looking for the queen, not the soldiers.

---

It's not gibberish bots farming sands and mats in ShB areas and I know of several that have been active at cap for years. I've seen one or two bot while advertising RMT sales in PF.

Anyone who uses a parser knows there is a Blur names option anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noitems

Update from Arthars. Nutkin censor for my own sake.

---

This is why I will never want SE to show where the line is drawn and why no one will ever get that response from the moderators. If you can't figure out how to be a decent person and need to know how far you can go, chances are you are problem already and are going to use it as a baseline to skirt that said line and intentionally make people as uncomfortable as possible. But when push comes to shove, they will run away and hide, then point to the ToS and say they didn't break any rules while saying it is clearly okay for them to do what they are doing and act the way they act.

The ToS is fine the way it is. Learn some morals and practice common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyreil

This is why I will never want SE to show where the line is drawn and why no one will ever get that response from the moderators. If you can't figure out how to be a decent person and need to know how far you can go, chances are you are problem already and are going to use it as a baseline to skirt that said line and intentionally make people as uncomfortable as possible. But when push comes to shove, they will run away and hide, then point to the ToS and say they didn't break any rules while saying it is clearly okay for them to do what they are doing and act the way they act.

The ToS is fine the way it is. Learn some morals and practice common sense.

---

Hey, if someone deserves to be punished then SE can have at it. They broke the ToS. However, they shouldn't cherry pick who to punish on a 3rd party platform. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions, whether it's naming and shaming, botting, hacking, etc. What they've done here is opened a door that they told us was closed and completely off limits prior to this incident. And that's fine, but they should probably leave the door open now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyreil

...

---

Arthars is not arguing that the ban was not warranted. Hell, he even admits that he deserves it. He's arguing that if evidence from outside the game is now fair game, it needs to be very clear that is now the case and, if limited to a specific subset, which TOS violations would accept this evidence from outside of the game. Note that they did not accept evidence from outside the game previously. This isn't even a matter of "learning morals and practicing common sense". This is a matter of whether we are being policed on platforms outside of the game and if this to be applied to all TOS violations. People have brought up cases where, if outside evidence had been accepted at the time of their report, a ban would have been given such as Feast win trading, admitting in private conversations to botting on their main account, etc. If they're accepting outside evidence for slander/profanity, surely these cases should be subject to the same scrutiny? It's about fairness. Being a streamer shouldn't hold him to a distinctly higher standard in the eyes of the TOS.