Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

Quote:

---

・Obstructing transit/progress
This means obstructive behaviour such as group blocking of passages or facilities along which many players pass or obstructing another person's game play progress, for example by overlapping an important NPC deliberately for a long time.

---

https://i.imgur.com/PWTPguO.jpg
Hundreds of players obstructing an important NPC (Rodney <<Expedition Ferryman>>) in Moogle, chaos data center 2019 for hours..

Some of them even spam holy skills.

What to make out of this? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterShield

It appears that you haven't read any of the posts that contradict your views

---

It appears you haven't read the post I was replying to. And yes, I've said my piece on rules open to abuse. Frankly it's very much in poor taste to imply GMs are incompetent and back it with anecdotes on banned because parsing, something along those lines. Only reason I speak up here is because as a member of this community, the negative opinions on GMs and the rules do not reflect mine. And neither do I want to be represented by folks who have them. I don't have a problem, not gonna throw GMs under the bus and say they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterShield

snip

---

I'm sure they will make adjustments, but the same goes for you. You want US to accept your opinion based on random examples, and do not even cite a dictionary to explain wording. You say that we are unilaterally rejecting you opinion. No, we are not. Look up unilaterally. We are trying to have a rational conversation citing definitions and examples, while you talk about thoughts and ifs :(

Everyone is panicking over nothing, we are just trying to make you guys chill. I'm sure an official response will come soon. It's probably too early for that. I think I'll just wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaedan

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion - Some people don't understand what "unilateral" means. It means to decide/order yourself without any consultation. In other words, being a dictator.

---

I don't think that is correct. A dictator is someone, especially one with power/authority, who dictates to others what they should/should not do. Unilaterally rejecting another person's opinion doesn't have to involve dictating on someone else. If someone has the opinion that a main tank should remain in tank stance, someone else can unilaterally reject their opinion without dictating that they should change their opinion.

With that said, I think all these arguments are missing the point. What is prohibited are "expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion." It does not say you cannot disagree with someone, it says you cannot say that someone has no opinion that matters. When you say "Don't listen to A, anyone who likes Eureka has no opinion worthy of consideration," that's an expression that unilaterally rejects another person's opinion. You can disagree with someone over a particular opinion without unilaterally rejecting that person's opinion by showing why you think that person may be uninformed/misinformed in forming that particular opinion (because people's opinions are not wrong by themselves, but rather the facts they may have used in forming those opinions may be false).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterShield

Personally I'm exhausted of defending this from people who are unilaterally rejecting my opinion. It's clear that unless I fully accept your outlook, I am no longer welcome here. Which is just a shame.

I'm done with this community. Congratulations on becoming the same as every other community. Goodbye

---

Hey don't leave yet. A community is still made up of different people and ideas no matter how many rules would try to force it.

I will speak for myself in that, I don't want to meet new people who are afraid to talk or be themselves. I don't want everyone to be fake. I want to know who people are whether they are an A*hole or not and if they talk like a sailor. I want to know their beliefs, opinions and crazy ideas. I may like their attitude that way or totally disagree with them and they can disagree with me passionately! That should be mine and everyone else's choice on how to handle other people. We all grow one way or the other.

Yes, hand out punishment for those who would stalk, threaten, repeatedly harass, intentionally trying to hurt someone else through mental or physical harm. (that goes for all sides of the political spectrum)

I don't support banning for what the "social norm" would condemn as weird, odd, different, or just a rude person in general. I may not like them either...I think so many of you guys are so weird :p I still think that would be wrong.

Some people will be happy to conform to the "don't be a jerk and you're fine" attitude, and that's totally okay.

For myself, I'll stay true to myself whatever that may be and deal with whatever comes my way.

Last...
Punishment: It will have to work both and all ways, not favoring one side over the other. Many of us are concerned a GM will take the side that shares their beliefs and ideology. I'm willing to cross that bridge when we get there and will be keeping a finger on pulse of this whole situation.

square enix, i know you have a bunch of lawyers at your disposal, ask them if any of these overly vague 'rules' with the odd bit of pseudo-legalese would EVER fly in a non-napoleonic court of law

you NEED to codify these rules in a way that are specific in intent, easy to understand, and do not contradict one another (several of them do)

that this thread reached 80+ pages and people are no closer to reaching a consensus on how these apply to the community at large and some of them rely on people being able to divine with 100% accuracy what may or may not 'offend' or 'distress' a random person on the internet they do not know BEFORE even entering a zone (as some people WILL get offended at someone's appearance, and according to the text of the rules offense without intent is still an offense)

please, you have a great community, do not allow this travesty of vague and largely contradictory guidelines be actively implemented because i guarantee you it will cause problems, it has already caused an 80+ page discord from trying to figure out what good it could possibly do, and THIS WILL BE WEAPONIZED (and im not even talking the eternally offended crowds that troll the internet, what if 2 people have a falling out and decide to spite-report each other out of the game? or a large fc disintegrates from internal drama and the cliques start chain-reporting people and their friends for every perceived sleight they ever had?)

all you really needed was to clarify a few rules to allow things like rmt and stalking to be acted upon by gms, make it easier to report the incredibly obvious bot packs roaming arr, and give the gms the ability to act upon the most egregious examples of harassment (like erping in open chat, or using shout chat to fling about slurs or attempt to dogpile on another player, or taking actions that would fall under stalking) and you would go a lot further with keeping the community civil

in short, Keep It Simple Squeenix

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jellybums

It appears you haven't read the post I was replying to. And yes, I've said my piece on rules open to abuse. Frankly it's very much in poor taste to imply GMs are incompetent and back it with anecdotes on banned because parsing, something along those lines. Only reason I speak up here is because as a member of this community, the negative opinions on GMs and the rules do not reflect mine. And neither do I want to be represented by folks who have them. I don't have a problem, not gonna throw GMs under the bus and say they do.

---

Here is the problem with what you are asking.


Isn't discussion of actions taken against an account itself against the TOS? You are asking for evidence that, by the very nature of the rules, cannot be provided and the mods would have no incentive to keep visible. On another site you might have more open discussion, but how can an even debate about this develop when what opposition that can speak up has the potential threat of getting erased?

Square Enix doesn't write law. "Legal terms" doesn't mean anything unless specifically referred to as such. And on that note, it's not as if all laws have the same definitions for the same words. Definitions for rather dubious words are provided for context, and can vary from law to law. This is so that future or past laws don't interfere with other laws unless specifically designed to.

Not all of us are lawyers, and even if we were Square should still be thorough if intending for their set of rules to be treated as seriously as a law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kallera

Here is the problem with what you are asking.

Isn't discussion of actions taken against an account itself against the TOS? You are asking for evidence that, by the very nature of the rules, cannot be provided and the mods would have no incentive to keep visible. On another site you might have more open discussion, but how can an even debate about this develop when what opposition that can speak up has the potential threat of getting erased?

---

I haven't asked for anything. Not even benefit of doubt which I thought anyone would have given upon agreeing to ToS and staying subscribed. Just threw in my 2 cents in this court of public opinion where GMs/new ToS are on trial for... possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jellybums

It appears you haven't read the post I was replying to. And yes, I've said my piece on rules open to abuse. Frankly it's very much in poor taste to imply GMs are incompetent and back it with anecdotes on banned because parsing, something along those lines. Only reason I speak up here is because as a member of this community, the negative opinions on GMs and the rules do not reflect mine. And neither do I want to be represented by folks who have them. I don't have a problem, not gonna throw GMs under the bus and say they do.

---

How about that people do not like, when the service they are paying for has loose terms of service, which allows to reject their service for no reason?
You are saying that gms are competent and so they will not do this.
You dont know, you cant guarantee that the person behind the GM nick wont ban you for the political views or something, lets say on US server where political debate does not exist anymore and people are super hostile because X is not Y. Can you guarantee that, there will be enough staff and enough of their time given to analyse every report sent to them? You are super naive if you think people could objectively judge others all the time and not make mistake or do something because of bad mood, its the nature of everyone of us and you could experience it on all social media where moderators pretending to be the objective ones ending up banning some people for their views or because they dont like them.

Those rules are not only loose but also super strict.
There will be more reports being send by crybabies and more bans being given to players which with old ToS will never be warned or banned, the game will start losing players. I could imagine the WoW players going into FFXIV and saying something passive-aggressive will get them banned, player will not be allowed to be in a bad mood or use a curse word.