Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PharisHanasaki

FFXIV team updating rules so people don't exploit them. Please are now exploting the new rules by reporting everyone for 'emotional distress' xD Good job NA.

Have you guys even looked up the definition of emotional distress? Does a tank making big pulls keeps you up at night? Or do you turn to alcohol or drugs because a healer is not dpsing in savage? You should probably stop playing and go to a doctor if you do. No GM can help you with that.

---

I don't think you completely understand the broadness of these rules being punt in by SE and the lack of any definitions tied to them.

The dictionary term for "emotional distress" may not be SE's or a GM's definition of "emotional distress." Even if it is, SE or a GM cannot ask the person who is under "emotional distress" to provide any proof that they are under actual emotional distress on a medical level since that would violate several laws that SE can get sued for. SE and the GMs are going to have to take the emotionally distressed person's word that they are emotionally distressed.

I look at rules all day as a Service Level Agreement Subject Matter Expert for a telecommunication company I work for. You would be surprised about how much customers try to get away with claiming something they clearly do not have, but want to not pay or want special services. If certain rules are not clear and words not defined, then the customer will abuse them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

This argument essentially says that the party as a whole has to cater to the whims of its 'weakest' player. Meaning that if a healer doesnt want to or feels that its 'to hard' to do large pulls, everyone else in teh party is forced to abide by the healers demands. This is a problem because what if the healers demands causes a normally 20 -25 minute run to take near an hour. What if that forces players to have to leave due to time constraints. Theyre getting punished because the healer is refusing to play at a higher level due to it being 'to difficult.'

This isnt sustainable nor fair to players. It actively punishes better players by wasting their time, and empowers poorer players by giving them a cudgel to control the party dynamics with by way of reporting to a GM. And this is where its going to get even more complicated: The party will just start kicking those players who pull that. So youll end up with poorer players being forced out of content if they voice their discontent, or poorer players who wont say anything and report to the GM the second they get the chance.

This isnt a feasible situation and the fact that its now a possibility because the ToS is broadening to much to cover 'offense' and 'emotional stress' rather than talking in more concrete terms and holding players accountable to other players. Much like a playground, if you spend your entire time running to the teacher the second anything you dont like happens, most of hte other kids arent going to want to play with you. Remove the teacher aspect, and most kids learn to conflict resolve, usually by falling in line with the standards of the group. Broadly, these overly broad times of terms will probably end up crippling the community long term, much like similar terms have done in other games or other platforms.

---

GMs won’t care if someone going slower (single group pulls vs mass pulls) as long as the duty is completed in the generous time limit. There is nothing in the rules that says a dungeon must be completed as quickly as possible. If a player hs only 20 minutes before they have to leave, then their options are to not run the duty or form their own party. It’s unreasonable to expect the duty finder, which has players of all skill levels and time playing, to provide the best service for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCurls

In none of those scenarios were any rules broken! The GM is likely to punish neither player. The only time a punishment will be handed out is when someone crosses the line and becomes a jerk about the situation. Reports are not a zero sum situation where someone must be at fault.

---

Except that the GM had to waste their time with it, which is a more perplexing angle IMO about this whole deal. Do we really need resources diverted to hiring/managing more GMs/complaints instead of creating actual content?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aulainn

https://i.imgur.com/qCwHzv4.png

Guys, I think I'm done for. It was a good run, I wish you all the best. :(

---

And this is exactly why I'm against this bs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea

I don't think you completely understand the broadness of these rules being punt in by SE and the lack of any definitions tied to them

---

I do. I'm also aware that I agreed to the terms that stated that my account does not belong to me, nor anything related to it.
And it also said that my account coukd be terminated at any thing for any reason, without SQEX having to notify me.
I'm still fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCurls

GMs won’t care if someone going slower (single group pulls vs mass pulls) as long as the duty is completed in the generous time limit. There is nothing in the rules that says a dungeon must be completed as quickly as possible. If a player hs only 20 minutes before they have to leave, then their options are to not run the duty or form their own party. It’s unreasonable to expect the duty finder, which has players of all skill levels and time playing, to provide the best service for you.

---

Its also unreasonable to cater to the lowest common denominator at the expense of the rest of the entire player base. Most players do not find it fair nor fun to have to wait for a player to play at an average level. Again, yorue argument implies that the whole party has to cater to the weakest player or face retribution. All youre going to see is people start getting reported for nonsense, or people getting kicked. Broad rules open the door most often fro abuse and complications and usually fail to actually correct bad behavior. I predict were probably going to see some level of degredation in the community due to changes like these. If it doesnt happen, then thats great. But I dont think thatll be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

Nothing is going to be abused. I guarantee you nothing will change from how it is now. I guarantee it.

---

Apparently, you do not right rules or deal with customers that want to pay as little as possible and want the moon and stars for it.

I write customized service level agreements (SLA) for a living. If I wrote an SLA that would be tied to any of these broad rules that are like the rule SE put out, I would be out of a job. The company would be losing money hand-over-fist because of the openness of these rules.

These rules are ripe for abuse. There are no definitions for any of these words. You can't point to the dictionary. These companies do not use the dictionary to define their terms. For example: The term "outage" is different in Webster's dictionary than what is used in my company. I have customers who's definition of "outage" was different then ours. I have to write SLAs around who's definition we will use.

SE has to define the terms to lessen abuse. I can guarantee from real life experience, abuse will happen if they do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonhand

And this is exactly why I'm against this bs...

---

Because of a screenshot lacking context or potential previous chat? Let’s say the new person screwed up a couple times and wiped the party- then that “oh boy” becomes passive aggressive and this guy is hiding behind “I said nothing to you” when it could clearly be -about- them.

I am in no way saying that’s what happened as I wasn’t there, but being against something with no context given is...asinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PharisHanasaki

I do. I'm also aware that I agreed to the terms that stated that my account does not belong to me, nor anything related to it.
And it also said that my account coukd be terminated at any thing for any reason, without SQEX having to notify me.
I'm still fine.

---

Then you will be completely fine with having yourself getting disciplined for things you say in chat or perform in the game that could be harmless to you and your closest friends, but not to 3rd party who is witness the action or can see the words you typed on the screen. You will be good with being disciplined, even if it is no more than a warning at first, for such words and actions due to the broadness of the rules and the lack of SE defined terms.

If you can accept those things, then good for you. That is your sub money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheCurls

Because of a screenshot lacking context or potential previous chat? Let’s say the new person screwed up a couple times and wiped the party- then that “oh boy” becomes passive aggressive and this guy is hiding behind “I said nothing to you” when it could clearly be -about- them.

I am in no way saying that’s what happened as I wasn’t there, but being against something with no context given is...asinine.

---

Well, I can tell you right now it had nothing to do with him. While he was attacking a single enemy, the healer accidentally aggro'd 4 more while tank wasn't looking. Not like a GM is able to review the moment of the crime in the future.
PS. it was nothing serious, there were no wipes, I was BLM so I just used Sleep on the mobs and that was that.