Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

I agree with you here, but not for the reasons you would think. SE has chosen to intervene because we as a community, failed. They wouldn't have to do things like this if everyone was respectable and courteous to one another, and obeyed the freakin rules. But no. We've forced their hands and there's going to be increased policing as a result. Everyone needs to look in a mirror instead of pointing fingers at SE. It's not their fault. It's ours.

---

Nobody forced their hands, they already had the most tame and the least toxic playerbase in nearly any mainstream online game I've heard of.

I agree with most of the policy, but the "Offensive Expressions" portion is troubling to me. No one has a right to be heard, understood, or considered by another... in fact, there are often cultural or other barriers preventing that understanding. So the idea that administrative action can be taken because I "unilaterally reject another person's opinion" is something that I think needs to be reconsidered. If I have an opinion that I have considerably researched and found supportable, and someone else has a contradictory opinion with no factual evidence to back up their contradiction, their opinion deserves to be rejected... I'm not likely to accept it until they can submit some form of evidence to demonstrate why I should change my mind. And while that may not count as "unilaterally rejecting" someone's opinion, the guidelines are vague enough that I can see that being the case.

I also disagree with the portion about "Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another". While I do try to be considerate toward others, I'm not always as tactful as I want to be. Moreover, sometimes my attempt at being considerate toward another person is missed (or sometimes willfully ignored) by someone else who is looking to be hurt and offended. I'm certainly not innocent in this... there are times where I'm mad at someone and want to continue being mad at them as some sort of misguided way of punishing them for something I should've already forgiven them over. Part of the problem, also, is that there is no such thing as universally offensive behavior, no matter how much we might wish there to be. Murder is something that's offensive to most people, yet obviously not to some murderers. Cannibalism is something we'd think would be universally offensive, yet some cultures venerate it with religious respect. If those things can be offensive to some, but not to others, I think we can agree that there is no objective standard of offense.

Offense is something taken, not given, and I cannot control nor predict what another person finds offensive. All I can do is react to things that I personally find offensive with as forgiving a heart as possible until it becomes clear that offending me is the point of the behavior. I give people the benefit of the doubt, because chances are they're not trying to be offensive. If they persist... if they refuse to apologize or at least amend and bring the conversation into perhaps a less-offensive manner of addressing the same subject... then I'm going to start to assume that offense, rather than debate, is the goal and act accordingly. That said... free speech isn't about protecting speech you agree with or find fine. If it was, you wouldn't need it. Free speech is about protecting what you find offensive... even hateful. There's a difference between offensive speech and harassment... offensive speech can simply be stating facts or opinions you disagree with, or using wording that you find distasteful, but it gives you the chance to respond and say "Maybe don't use that word...". Harassment is when it continues afterward, after you've made your objections known. But even then, there's a thin line there... perhaps the person is just trying to explain themselves, and explain why they're using that word. Maybe they're not trying to offend, but rather using a word for hyperbolic effect, as happens with many words which we find offensive.

The point is... we can't just police everyone's speech because we find some speech distasteful. The main reason we can't do so is because there's no objective standard by which we can judge that speech. We can, however, police harassing behavior... people continuing to be offensive, for the purpose of being offensive, after they've been asked not to. A good guideline, and a needed change, would be to revert to such a standard... one that does not punish people for using the wrong words but, rather, punishes people for intentionally seeking to offend others.

Also... I like how there are all kinds of rules that can get you banned from the game for saying the wrong thing, but I still can't ban someone from my house, or from the FC mansion, to keep them from harassing my players until a GM arrives...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DamianFatale

Hey, I am so relieved and happy that stalking is finally a bannable offense.

Several guys on here have stalked me in game, and tried to find out real life information about me. This has always needed better understanding. I am also happy to see that homophobia against gender orientation, and that discrimination against gender identities is also clearly stated. Often a company will just label LGBT+ as other, or put us dead last on the list of priorities. It feels like they only do it because they have to.

My main issue however is everything else is pretty vague, and I feel like it could be abused by users. How do you determine what is morally correct in a game that is filled with people from all over the world? Sure you have separate datacenters, but that hasn't stopped people from joining over seas on my server.

Please be more clear on what is and isn't allowed on XIV.

---

Those have always been bannable, and even criminal in most countries. They just fell under the broader "harassment" thing, it just wasn't specified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkstainedGwyn

Some of it is valid worry from folks who like to interact and come across the usual "DF d*s" (see the Tales thread story HyoMin referred to). Some of it is out-of-proportion self-victimizing from folks who already know that they're offensive and are worried they might actually be called to task for it.

---

This is the exact thing I was thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

Nope. But they can report you for infringing on gameplay, because the advice you're giving is unsolicited. If you want to coach the knowledge you've obtained, I suggest joining a program that allows you to do so instead of imposing your playstyle onto others in a dungeon. If that ice mage bothers you so much, then abandon the duty and form a premade party. DF isn't for your convenience. It's for everyone. Either bite or bail.


Yes. You are in contempt because you are using a third party tool that allows you to see such numbers, which is and always has been against the ToS. Of course it's bannable, and should be. I honestly don't know how may players getting pissed off at you it takes for it to stick that your opinion on someone else's gameplay isn't needed, wanted, or asked for. DF is not the place to critique someone else's gameplay. "Learn to play your job" is typically a retaliatory response to rejected criticism, and you can best believe that is offensive.


I agree with you here, but not for the reasons you would think. SE has chosen to intervene because we as a community, failed. They wouldn't have to do things like this if everyone was respectable and courteous to one another, and obeyed the freakin rules. But no. We've forced their hands and there's going to be increased policing as a result. Everyone needs to look in a mirror instead of pointing fingers at SE. It's not their fault. It's ours.

---

I'm a casual player, and I hate someone critiquing my choice of gameplay modes as much as the next person... but never once did I think that someone should get banned, and be unable to enjoy a game that they're paying for, because they had unwanted opinions on my playstyle. Certainly I'd think they were rude, and at times it might even ruin my night. But I don't think getting them banned would actually have a positive outcome in terms of convincing them to amend their behavior... if anything, it will make them feel wronged and make them more likely to double down on their rude behavior.

Certainly, if you're on the other side of the coin, you can do a better job then telling someone to play better. Helpful tips (like "If you're a monk, use Riddle of Earth at the last second to extend your Greased Lightning through these long 'run away from the boss' sections... that way you can keep up your damage output") are a better choice than "lol, learn your job, noob". If you find someone's playstyle distasteful enough to complain about it, maybe try teaching them something that will make them better rather than belittling them. That's really the point of the policy. And while I agree with that point from a philosophical standpoint, I don't agree with it when it has the threat of the banhammer sitting behind it.

Good thing that we are no longer allowed to chat, because that will make us banned for anything.

Nice way to encourage the teamwork in the game, really excellent.
I will not use chat at all from now on and instead kick players from the duties if they perform badly, i dont bother.

I once grouped with a ninja who didn't memorize his mudras. The instance took an hour to complete.

Woulda taken 2 hours if I didn't speak up about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatfishCassie

I'm a casual player, and I hate someone critiquing my choice of gameplay modes as much as the next person... but never once did I think that someone should get banned, and be unable to enjoy a game that they're paying for, because they had unwanted opinions on my playstyle. Certainly I'd think they were rude, and at times it might even ruin my night. But I don't think getting them banned would actually have a positive outcome in terms of convincing them to amend their behavior... if anything, it will make them feel wronged and make them more likely to double down on their rude behavior.

Certainly, if you're on the other side of the coin, you can do a better job then telling someone to play better. Helpful tips (like "If you're a monk, use Riddle of Earth at the last second to extend your Greased Lightning through these long 'run away from the boss' sections... that way you can keep up your damage output") are a better choice than "lol, learn your job, noob". If you find someone's playstyle distasteful enough to complain about it, maybe try teaching them something that will make them better rather than belittling them. That's really the point of the policy. And while I agree with that point from a philosophical standpoint, I don't agree with it when it has the threat of the banhammer sitting behind it.

---

While thats right and proper in principle, I keep getting all these red flags that it can be abused, both ways even. Playing the victim on the part of the player who got critiqued and then filing reports in hopes of banning or warning the one who gave the critique (wheter it was constructive or not, doesn't matter) since you are pushing "playstyle" on others. Then on the other hand, the player giving the critique could see that the player playing sub optimally (wheter it is just some inconsistencies or just flat out Timmy the icemage again doesn't matter) since you could blame the other player from obstructing the gameplay and trolling and whatnot.

Now, instead of people talking about it, and things changing (or not) people are just kinda incentivized to just report, cause the rules are vague enough that you can just say, it really really hurt my feelings or something, and use that to solve your problems instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

Nope. But they can report you for infringing on gameplay, because the advice you're giving is unsolicited. If you want to coach the knowledge you've obtained, I suggest joining a program that allows you to do so instead of imposing your playstyle onto others in a dungeon. If that ice mage bothers you so much, then abandon the duty and form a premade party. DF isn't for your convenience. It's for everyone. Either bite or bail.

---

I'm not giving advice, I'm pointing out a fact - you don't know how to play your job. I'm not out to coach either. If DF isn't for my convenience, it isn't for theirs either. Why do I have to sit in a dungeon for 40 minutes or bite a 30min penalty because someone is too lazy to read tooltips? And forming a PF is far from being immune from those type of players joining. And I constantly fail to see why do these players have the right to be entitled so much that no one can even point out objective facts about their gameplay. Would you be offended if your hair was covered in mud and I told you 'go wash your hair, it's dirty' because it's an unwanted opinion?
Why don't you tell those players to go through 'appropriate program's to actually learn to play before joining the DF parties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

Yes. You are in contempt because you are using a third party tool that allows you to see such numbers, which is and always has been against the ToS. Of course it's bannable, and should be. I honestly don't know how may players getting pissed off at you it takes for it to stick that your opinion on someone else's gameplay isn't needed, wanted, or asked for. DF is not the place to critique someone else's gameplay. "Learn to play your job" is typically a retaliatory response to rejected criticism, and you can best believe that is offensive.

---

I don't even need a third party tool to tell me people are bad because Suzaku dies to enrage at 20% health in a farm party. I see what people are doing and what skills they're using anyway. And telling them they should get better is only offensive to people who consider this game to be their personal safe space and who think they have the right to waste other people's time due to their own laziness. And it would be a dangerous precedent to consider 'all opinion that is unwanted' as offensive and punishable, that's just a sick environment. If you want to learn, join learning parties, don't join farm and clear parties when you don't have the skill or knowledge of mechanics to clear it. And anyone telling me that when I have no right to call out those people is just tragicomically ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

I agree with you here, but not for the reasons you would think. SE has chosen to intervene because we as a community, failed. They wouldn't have to do things like this if everyone was respectable and courteous to one another, and obeyed the freakin rules. But no. We've forced their hands and there's going to be increased policing as a result. Everyone needs to look in a mirror instead of pointing fingers at SE. It's not their fault. It's ours.

---

I have to say - it's refreshing to see somebody who actually recognizes this. Because this has been my whole thought through the entire thread.

It's sad that in today's society it needs to be spelled out to people exactly what polite and acceptable behavior is - which tells me there are a lot of parents out there who clearly failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baalfrog

While thats right and proper in principle, I keep getting all these red flags that it can be abused, both ways even. Playing the victim on the part of the player who got critiqued and then filing reports in hopes of banning or warning the one who gave the critique (wheter it was constructive or not, doesn't matter) since you are pushing "playstyle" on others. Then on the other hand, the player giving the critique could see that the player playing sub optimally (wheter it is just some inconsistencies or just flat out Timmy the icemage again doesn't matter) since you could blame the other player from obstructing the gameplay and trolling and whatnot.

Now, instead of people talking about it, and things changing (or not) people are just kinda incentivized to just report, cause the rules are vague enough that you can just say, it really really hurt my feelings or something, and use that to solve your problems instead.

---

That was definitely my point. Putting the threat of the banhammer behind it changes the tone of what could've been a constructive policy into an ultimately destructive one.

And thats how Se put the freedom of speech out of the game,GG !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

Nope. But they can report you for infringing on gameplay, because the advice you're giving is unsolicited. If you want to coach the knowledge you've obtained, I suggest joining a program that allows you to do so instead of imposing your playstyle onto others in a dungeon. If that ice mage bothers you so much, then abandon the duty and form a premade party. DF isn't for your convenience. It's for everyone. Either bite or bail.

---

LMAO "imposing"

By not playing their job properly, they are weighing down on other players. He's not "imposing" his playstyle on anyone - he is explaining the mechanics of the game to the player. This can be done in a courteous and respectful way, or a matter of fact-ly one, or an abusive one. The rules should SOLELY deal with that latter instance, i.e. abusive behaviour.

If DF is for everyone, why should OTHER players be forced to put up with bad ones? You do realise that the option now will be to simply remove dead weight as opposed to helping players improve? Since that is an option.

DF is very much there for convenience. If you want to render it dysfunctional by having some players never improve as a result of a lack of feedback, that is an awful idea.

Although I don't think most players are so foolish as to ignore advice offered in good faith, this is just the sort of attitude that breeds narcissistic individuals unable to cope with the realities of the world.

The rules are intended to deal with abusive behaviour, harassment and cheating. Yet the way they are written catches much more than this, especially due to being at GM discretion. Hardly transparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rivers23

I'm not giving advice, I'm pointing out a fact - you don't know how to play your job. I'm not out to coach either. If DF isn't for my convenience, it isn't for theirs either. Why do I have to sit in a dungeon for 40 minutes or bite a 30min penalty because someone is too lazy to read tooltips? And forming a PF is far from being immune from those type of players joining. And I constantly fail to see why do these players have the right to be entitled so much that no one can even point out objective facts about their gameplay. Would you be offended if your hair was covered in mud and I told you 'go wash your hair, it's dirty' because it's an unwanted opinion?
Why don't you tell those players to go through 'appropriate program's to actually learn to play before joining the DF parties?




I don't even need a third party tool to tell me people are bad because Suzaku dies to enrage at 20% health in a farm party. I see what people are doing and what skills they're using anyway. And telling them they should get better is only offensive to people who consider this game to be their personal safe space and who think they have the right to waste other people's time due to their own laziness. And it would be a dangerous precedent to consider 'all opinion that is unwanted' as offensive and punishable, that's just a sick environment. If you want to learn, join learning parties, don't join farm and clear parties when you don't have the skill or knowledge of mechanics to clear it. And anyone telling me that when I have no right to call out those people is just tragicomically ridiculous.

---

You have to sit in a dungeon for 40 minutes, or bite a 30 minute penalty, because duty finder is expressly a random party matcher. If you only want people of a certain skill level, you are free to form that party ahead of time and skip the random matching part. But if it's not your job to coach people, then it's also not your job to belittle people when you've decided to throw out your primary method of "quality control" so that you can do the dungeon a little faster (or, more correctly, with a little less interpersonal interaction). It never occurred to you, I suppose, that "your job" or not, you could avoid that 30 minute lockout with less than 5 minutes of education, and then you'd both come away better off... you because you weren't locked out for half an hour, and them because they learned something new.

The commies are coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keddera_StormMoon

I have to say - it's refreshing to see somebody who actually recognizes this. Because this has been my whole thought through the entire thread.

It's sad that in today's society it needs to be spelled out to people exactly what polite and acceptable behavior is - which tells me there are a lot of parents out there who clearly failed.

---

The thing is that, what your version of "polite and acceptable behavior is" may not be the same as my version of "polite and acceptable behavior" is. I may find it completely polite to hold open doors for everyone: men, women, children, people of non-specified genders, gender-less individuals, etc. You may think that only women need to have the door held open for them. Who's "polite and acceptable behavior" wins here? Yours?

Also, we are playing with people from different culture and sub-cultures. Politeness carries differently in some rural town in Alabama, USA than in London, England. Who's set of societal social norms are correct and need to be followed? Who's parents clearly failed?

Nevermind that this whole "just use PF" attitude would atrophy DF of more skilled players, who can convey their knowledge to those less capable, since they may just prefer to group with people they know, or make use of the option to remove under-performing players whilst remaining silent as to why they're doing it.

vague rules and standards are open to the interpretation of the person making the decision, without knowing there is an peer review for this it seems to be allowing the GMs themselves to interpret how they want and a more free role to interject themselves into the situations. given the types of things that go on with abuses of power in tech companies in the states lately, do you really feel safe not knowing who is going to get to make these sorts of decisions about your behavior? Will it be a detached impersonal arbiter? or will it be a human being with their own prejudices and viewpoints?

as it is written this feels ripe for abuse and has the possibility of being used for people's own ideological crusades.

and I'm just talking about the GMs themselves. I'm sorry, no one is an island. we all have our own viewpoints and such vague rules will allow people to use their feelings to judge these situations rather than a set of rules.

There won't even necessarily be consistency either.

Very troubling. I feel bad about adding 90 days and pre-purchasing expac now :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

LMAO "imposing"

By not playing their job properly, they are weighing down on other players. He's not "imposing" his playstyle on anyone - he is explaining the mechanics of the game to the player. This can be done in a courteous and respectful way, or a matter of fact-ly one, or an abusive one. The rules should SOLELY deal with that latter instance, i.e. abusive behaviour.

If DF is for everyone, why should OTHER players be forced to put up with bad ones? You do realise that the option now will be to simply remove dead weight as opposed to helping players improve? Since that is an option.

DF is very much there for convenience. If you want to render it dysfunctional by having some players never improve as a result of a lack of feedback, that is an awful idea.

Although I don't think most players are so foolish as to ignore advice offered in good faith, this is just the sort of attitude that breeds narcissistic individuals unable to cope with the realities of the world.

The rules are intended to deal with abusive behaviour, harassment and cheating. Yet the way they are written catches much more than this, especially due to being at GM discretion. Hardly transparent.

---

Other players aren't forced to put up with bad players. Just like I can choose to leave and take the lockout when someone's being abusive to me, they can choose to leave and take the lockout if they think my play is sub-par. Just like I can choose to only play with people I already know because I've run into so many abusive players, they can choose to only play with people they know if they've run into so many sub-par ones. Duty Finder isn't "for everyone". Duty Finder is for people that don't care about the quality of their dungeon experience. If the quality of the experience means so much to someone that they feel the need to be abusive, they can make a pre-formed party with their friends instead, skip the abusiveness entirely, and be assured that they'll have a higher quality play experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gleipni

And thats how Se put the freedom of speech out of the game,GG !

---

SE would have to be the government in order to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatfishCassie

Other players aren't forced to put up with bad players. Just like I can choose to leave and take the lockout when someone's being abusive to me, they can choose to leave and take the lockout if they think my play is sub-par. Just like I can choose to only play with people I already know because I've run into so many abusive players, they can choose to only play with people they know if they've run into so many sub-par ones. Duty Finder isn't "for everyone". Duty Finder is for people that don't care about the quality of their dungeon experience. If the quality of the experience means so much to someone that they feel the need to be abusive, they can make a pre-formed party with their friends instead, skip the abusiveness entirely, and be assured that they'll have a higher quality play experience.

---

Or they can, and probably will, vote dismiss.

Quote:

---

"Harassment" means speech and/or behaviour that inflicts deep emotional distress on another person.
"Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others or obstructs game play, but which is not classified as harassment.
Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person
Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion
Expressions that compel a playing style
Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc.
Expressions that contravene public order and morals
Other expressions that are offensive to another person

---

What with all this nonsense, seems like I can be punished if anyone finds anything I said offensive for any reason.

Personally I find it deeply emotionally distressful when a DPS runs in front of a tankbuster, so I'll be reporting them from now on. Should that go under harassment, or obstruction of play?

So pretty much don't say anything to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea

The thing is that, what your version of "polite and acceptable behavior is" may not be the same as my version of "polite and acceptable behavior" is. I may find it completely polite to hold open doors for everyone: men, women, children, people of non-specified genders, gender-less individuals, etc. You may think that only women need to have the door held open for them. Who's "polite and acceptable behavior" wins here? Yours?

Also, we are playing with people from different culture and sub-cultures. Politeness carries differently in some rural town in Alabama, USA than in London, England. Who's set of societal social norms are correct and need to be followed? Who's parents clearly failed?

---

That's incredibly true. For instance, different religious traditions in different societies can be impactful even on the non-religious. America's "rugged individualism" can be tied directly to the brand of Protestantism that they brought from Europe... a brand of Protestantism that is not nearly as common in Europe. The more collective leanings of the EU can be largely tied to their common ties through the Catholic Church. And this isn't just my observation... I've heard noted atheists say the same thing. Some have even said that the Protestant movement was part of a larger, more gradual movement toward Atheism in that it was a movement away from the centralized authority of the church. Anyway... religion aside, different societal factors can have a profound impact on what rights different societies deem important, or how they see the interplay of things like free speech with other, more collective things like common decency. Thus different societies are going to judge where the line between the two is, and when it is crossed, very differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Or they can, and probably will, vote dismiss.

---

Sure, but that's already a reportable offense...

"・Improper expulsion voting
This means excluding another person by manipulation of expulsion voting."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keddera_StormMoon

I have to say - it's refreshing to see somebody who actually recognizes this. Because this has been my whole thought through the entire thread.

It's sad that in today's society it needs to be spelled out to people exactly what polite and acceptable behavior is - which tells me there are a lot of parents out there who clearly failed.

---

-dismissive attitude towards opposing arguments
-generalizing and strawmaning the opposition so you seem morally superior
-belittling others and treating them like children

Under these new rules, you can be banned, just like everyone else.

You are not in the cat-bird seat.

Please read the rules carefully. There are a lot to unpack and are very worrisome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Why would it be improper? If the rest of the players feel you're not playing to an acceptable standard, that seems like perfectly reasonable grounds for removing you. How would you even prove that it's improper if not a word is said?

Like I said, the problem with turning DF into a hive of "you don't pay my sub" is that there will be no cross-pollination of knowledge. Knowledgeable/skillful players will stick to PF and their linkshells and avoid it like the plague. There are so many other ways to get tomes now that the only people this will harm are the people who are precisely the ones who need this assistance most - leveling players.



Thanks for saying this. It is exactly one of my concerns about the whole thing.

---

The pop-up that appears when you vote to kick someone exclusively lists what the function can be used for. Any other use is, by definition, improper.

Now... it's certainly possible that abandoning all the lower-skilled players to Duty Finder while skilled players exclusively use Party Finder or pre-made parties might result in Duty Finder becoming unplayable... but it's not probable. More likely, if such an extreme thing were to happen, the lower-skilled players would find ways to get better on their own, now that they don't have people covering for their lack of skill. That's certainly what happens among higher-skilled players when they're hitting new content... they fail a lot until they learn how to succeed. They incrementally improve until they're good enough to continue on. And, for that matter, it's how newbies of all stripes (skilled or not) learn the game in the beginning. Certainly, I agree with your assumption that putting the banhammer behind interpersonal interactions makes it less likely that someone is going to share knowledge. That's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. But I think that the ideal way forward is to make such positive interactions tenable without removing the specter of being banned for negative interactions. How to do that, exactly, is a more difficult question, but probably involves being able to look at a specific player's behavior over time instead of simply a snapshot of that one interaction. Maybe a points system, where if someone is reported often enough for taking a "get gud" attitude instead of a constructive attitude, that administrative action is considered, but only after a certain number of such negative interactions.

Certainly, there also needs to be an appeals process. Unfortunately, especially given how rarely appeals work out on various social media platforms, I have my doubts as to whether such a process would be effective without a neutral, third-party mediator... which is probably too expensive and time consuming of a proposition for something like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatfishCassie

The pop-up that appears when you vote to kick someone exclusively lists what the function can be used for. Any other use is, by definition, improper.

---

And unless they've changed their stance on it, "Difference of Playstyle" has always been an acceptable reason for dismissal. We shall see if that is still the case I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeka

Nobody forced their hands, they already had the most tame and the least toxic playerbase in nearly any mainstream online game I've heard of.

---

Least toxic doesn't mean the game is devoid of it. Also, if you were a GM, your perception on how little toxicity there is within the game would likely change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New_Game_Plus

So pretty much don't say anything to others.

---

No, just start requiring people to join Discord (or other voice chat service). No chat log no evidence.

There is a lot of people freaking out about this, but I don't see why. Be respectful to your fellow players and you'll have no problems. Change seems good to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zanos

What exactly have people done? The FF14 community is way more tame than pretty much any MMO I've ever played. Maybe someone once /shrugged at me after I died in a trial, so damn rude. In fact, for the vast majority of random groups nobody says anything at all other than o/.

---

Maybe it became "toxic" in Japan and they want to change it.
You know, saying someone has low dps is an equivalent of stalking someone, or saying kill the ads, oh my killing thats some hi**er and stuff, very bad.
Or saying "Dodge the red", that clearly is a fa**sit political statement.

The world we are living in is getting crazier and crazier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

Least toxic doesn't mean the game is devoid of it. Also, if you were a GM, your perception on how little toxicity there is within the game would likely change.

---

Their perception is no doubt skewed. I've been on other MMOs, and comparatively speaking, this one has one of the most polite, friendly communities of any.

Sorry but I'm not going to take attitudes like offering advice on dps, or pointing out errors in dps rotations or the actions someone is taking, as "toxic".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaurieB

No one, no game, no institution, no nothing, institutes babysitting without a reason. Data shows them that, we as players don't have that information, and even if they did it would be "never happened to me that way must never happen at all" which is not true. All I know is that no one wants to spend time, money, effort, just to put you out in some way without a reason. It wouldn't have happened just "because they felt like it" somewhere along the way it got out of hand.

---

OK, then I'd like to see them provide the data justifying such easily abused, poorly worded new ToS, including how they plan to moderate and review GM behaviour in order to ensure it does not become unfair or biased. I'm not just going to swallow these rationalisations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaurieB

No one, no game, no institution, no nothing, institutes babysitting without a reason. Data shows them that, we as players don't have that information, and even if they did it would be "never happened to me that way must never happen at all" which is not true. All I know is that no one wants to spend time, money, effort, just to put you out in some way without a reason. It wouldn't have happened just "because they felt like it" somewhere along the way it got out of hand.

---

What are you talking about? Institutions have been stood up for the sole purpose of oppressing people thousands of times throughout history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladinleeds

And unless they've changed their stance on it, "Difference of Playstyle" has always been an acceptable reason for dismissal. We shall see if that is still the case I guess.

---

I haven't checked in several months, but the last time I saw a "Vote to Kick" screen, the only acceptable reasons were because the player disconnected, was afk, or was harassing other players. I've never seen "Difference of Playstyle" on that screen, ever.

Please SE. Consider pulling and rewriting this document. We all understand what you are trying to do here (dont be a dick to each other), but that is not what the words you have written say. They are easily misinterpreted and can be used to silence constructive attempts at actually helping people. The players in this thread are not pissed about the fact that you want to implement easy to understand rules, but the way it has been worded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatfishCassie

I haven't checked in several months, but the last time I saw a "Vote to Kick" screen, the only acceptable reasons were because the player disconnected, was afk, or was harassing other players.

---

They've always been just those, but GMs would say "Although it's not listed on the screen, playstyle differences are an acceptable reason" when a report was sent to them. That's what I was referring to.

Thirty-two pages of overreactions. XD

Whatever the text says, nothing has changed. Whether an account is banned or not now, as always, depends on how the GM is feeling at the time the report is made. These rules might SEEM like they're adding more restrictions, but really they're just justifying what GMs have been doing (or not doing, at the GM's judgment) all along. People have had no luck strong-arming GMs with the letter of the law up to this point, and that's not gonna change just because the law now has more letters. You don't need to worry about folks filing frivolous cases against you - as long as you keep a level head.

I know it's tough for some people, but as long as you stay civil, remain tolerant of others' shortcomings, don't lose your temper, and basically behave like a mature adult, it doesn't matter WHAT people report you for. The GM will take your side. Heck, if you follow those suggestions, the chances that you'll even be reported in the first place plummet to almost nothing. That's the way it's always been, and now is no different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElazulHP

There is a lot of people freaking out about this, but I don't see why. Be respectful to your fellow players and you'll have no problems. Change seems good to me.

---

Yeah. It seems like people on the sending end are upset about this.