The new treatment of ''harassment'' in the ToS.

I will keep it brief, as brighter minds in better words can be found explaining the problem on Youtube, like HeelvsBabyface.

The main reason I am writing this is to have my voice be ''heard'', even if I end up to be but a single tally on the list of people concerned about the new method of handling ''Harassment'', to me it will be worth it.

In short, I feel the new policy is dangerous and destructive to the (mostly) amazing ff14 community. I have met many different people over the course of my years playing this game. In fact, in the droughts of content that inevitably occurred between the releases of patches, it was the community that kept me here, and on a practical level, that kept me paying my sub and retainers - and that is not to speak of the mogstation items.

But the truth is that not all of the people I have met have been fantastic, and when one such thing occurred, and truly after many attempts to come to an understanding with one another, if it could not be reached, the blacklist served to almost extinguish this person from my gameplay experience. And that was all I needed, and all that ever should be needed. The new system behind the policy - if executed perfectly, which no system is - would reach the same goal as the current one. The only difference is that one person is bereft of all they worked on, all they cared for. In addition to the dangerous and -in my own opinion vile- joy that the person that requested the ban might get from seeing someone's work be ripped from them.

This is why i feel the new system is innately set up to be abused. That no matter how much the GM's -of which I have yet to meet any that treated me with anything but respect- do their best to judge accordingly, I have met manipulative people in this game that would no doubt be able to get many a player banned.

The right to censor of what enters one's ears (or chat box) has always been in place, the community should not fear to speak, or risk engaging in ''risky'' dialogue to grow as people, to connect to others, and to learn of others because one might find themselves banned over nothing but a misunderstanding. ''Intentional or not.''

The new ToS contains the ground works of a system that rules by fear, and not common sense. There is no respect when it comes to fear, no ability for growth or betterment of oneself. It could be the death of learning, and would only serve the ones that mean to abuse it.

Finally, the fact that I have to add the following is telling that I already feel like I have to cover my bases: I have many friends from all walks of life. Be they open about their real lives or closed. They count among the entire list of groups protected, and not one of them is happy about this ''protection'' from ''harassment'' being forced on them.

In short, I sincerely would like to request you [square enix] to reconsider the new ToS related to ''harassment''.
Yours Truly,
Tybalt

Just because the issues you have encountered have been solved by the blacklist does not mean all issues can be. I am cautiously optimistic that the GM team will use their best judgement in enforcing these policies. Just because something can be bannable, does not mean the GMs will ban anyone who could possibly be counted as doing that infraction.

In my time in the XIV community, I've encountered people parking large mounts on other players trying to run community events. I've encountered stalkers using the player search to follow their victims when they're in the open world. I've encountered MANY bots who use the same pathing to go to nodes and regularly pull 24+ hour gathering sprees, but who could not be detected by the Special Task Force tooling. I've encountered griefers approaching housing plots that have the timer on and spamming flashy abilities or dissonant bard performances to disrupt the people trying for the plot. Blacklisting these players would not prevent their harassment. But with the policy changes, the GMs would be able to use their best judgement to enforce consequences in these cases.

While the wording has potential for abuse by corrupt authorities, I have trust in the FFXIV GM team that they will act appropriately and continue to improve.

I agree with OP on this. I feel all that needs to be said under that section is "Offense is taken, not given." Anyone anywhere can "feel offended" over anything and with how broad of a stroke they're going with it, it's bound to be abused and lead to skyrocketing false reports and unjust bans.

Let's be real here, the vast majority of players in this game are adults therefore they should treat problem players like adults. Either put up or shut up. Talk it out and if you can't, there's tools to deal with that too. Hell they even included discriminatory thoughts in the updated terms. How much more Orwellian can you get???

@Lucerna
If I somehow made it seem that the blacklist was a cure-all for all the ways people get harassed, then I suppose that has been a miscommunication. Beyond that my post was specifically meant to be about the new wording that is rather up to personal preference to when it is applied.
A player standing on top of an NPC, there-for limiting other players ability to select the NPC is easily proven. These are not the things that concern me. Stalking is horrible, but from past experiences luckily not my own but of dear friends I have seen the GM's being more then capable of handling the issue in side the games boundaries. Yes this particular case ended in the same result as the new method would -namely a ban- so i trust in the GM's ability to handle it without leaving open the opportunity for someone to abuse it.
The main issue comes with putting it black on white. A GM is bound by the ToS to indicate what they can and need to intervene with, several cases have gone from ''can'' to ''must''.
Example: A player reports that they have been targeted by harassment from another player, and claims now to feel dreadful about themselves.
- Previously a GM could investigate, decide or not if there really was harassment, and if so can punish the player.
- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.
I don't lack fate in the GM's, i just dislike the notion of the Terms being abused to force a GM's hand. Regardless if this would occur, the principle to not have the rules set up like that alone, is important enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TybaltJustAnotherMiqote

@Lucerna
If I somehow made it seem that the blacklist was a cure-all for all the ways people get harassed, then I suppose that has been a miscommunication. Beyond that my post was specifically meant to be about the new wording that is rather up to personal preference to when it is applied.
A player standing on top of an NPC, there-for limiting other players ability to select the NPC is easily proven. These are not the things that concern me. Stalking is horrible, but from past experiences luckily not my own but of dear friends I have seen the GM's being more then capable of handling the issue in side the games boundaries. Yes this particular case ended in the same result as the new method would -namely a ban- so i trust in the GM's ability to handle it without leaving open the opportunity for someone to abuse it.
The main issue comes with putting it black on white. A GM is bound by the ToS to indicate what they can and need to intervene with, several cases have gone from ''can'' to ''must''.
Example: A player reports that they have been targeted by harassment from another player, and claims now to feel dreadful about themselves.
- Previously a GM could investigate, decide or not if there really was harassment, and if so can punish the player.
- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.
I don't lack fate in the GM's, i just dislike the notion of the Terms being abused to force a GM's hand. Regardless if this would occur, the principle to not have the rules set up like that alone, is important enough for me.

---

Where do you see that they must? Reading the wording, I saw that:

"Square Enix reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to (i) determine which activities are prohibited or violate Square Enix’s policies or terms of use, (ii) enforce such policies and terms of use, and (iii) revise this list."

Which means that they have the right to determine that an activity also isn't prohibited. It's possible I misread another part. Could you please quote the wording of the lines you were referring to?

I think there are a fair few things that were added that I'm honestly surprised weren't against the rules before. Maybe they were, and I just never read them. It's not hard to act respectfully toward people.

Things like

・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive
・Expressions that contravene public order and morals

Or basically anything under harassment and not nuisance behavior

・Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity
・Discriminatory expressions about a state/religion/occupation/organisation, etc.
・Obscene/indecent expressions
・Actions that inflict emotional distress using content related to historical events or crimes
・Stalking
・Disclosing or indicating personal information such as contact details with the aim of meeting up in the real world
・Disclosing or indicating another person's real world personal information without permission


These things are no-brainers. These things are perfectly fine. However, I draw the line on a few points under nuisance behavior:

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion

This basically means that telling someone they're wrong when they don't want to be told that is a reportable and bannable offense.

・Expressions that compel a playing style

If the healer is bad and you tell them they suck, it's now reportable. Even if you tell them how to improve. Even if you are constructive. This is now reportable and bannable under the new terms.

・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

This is a no-brainer. This could mean anything. Literally anything. Someone got offended over my alt's name once. Their name was Bubba Gunch. "I don't know what a gunch is but I don't like it."

Obviously I wouldn't have gotten banned for it. Gunch doesn't mean anything. But it would have resulted in a report which would have taken up valuable GM time to investigate when they could have been doing something that was worthwhile.

These terms i've laid out are incredibly vague and could, and probably will, lead to all sorts of fun and interesting situations like the kind we've seen in other games where saying "GG" automatically mutes you. Even with all these new changes in place, I could at least accept them if they only resulted in a chat ban and not a full account suspension. But they don't.


In conclusion I think a lot of the rule changes are fine. I think most of the things (like stalking and obstruction of play) are things that can't be solved with a blacklist, and are perfectly fine as bannable offenses. They do cause real emotional distress to people, or really do hamper their enjoyment of the game.
If you don't like the way someone is speaking to you, or if you don't appreciate that the tank says that you are a bad healer, then blacklist them and never speak to them again. There's a good chance that you'll never see them again, and in the event that you do, you can report them for stalking you.

In all of these cases it will be the chat (and to a lesser extent the action log) that will determine guilt. If you gave someone advice but called them a dumbass first or yelled mechanics at them during a rant or used some demeaning macro then there could be consequences even though in the barest sense, they were 'helped.' In a perfect world people would be accountable for their own actions and that would be all that was needed but often the system itself is used to hide or misdirect where the real problem lies. Online MMO continue to be carte blanche for some people's bad behavior. Since SE can't change hearts or minds, they change rules. I can't say I mind a heavier hand on the ban-hammer even as I know these new expanded criteria also could bite me in the ass as well. I'll take that gamble because of all the things that are outside my control, myself isn't one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucerna

Just because the issues you have encountered have been solved by the blacklist does not mean all issues can be. I am cautiously optimistic that the GM team will use their best judgement in enforcing these policies. Just because something can be bannable, does not mean the GMs will ban anyone who could possibly be counted as doing that infraction.

In my time in the XIV community, I've encountered people parking large mounts on other players trying to run community events. I've encountered stalkers using the player search to follow their victims when they're in the open world. I've encountered MANY bots who use the same pathing to go to nodes and regularly pull 24+ hour gathering sprees, but who could not be detected by the Special Task Force tooling. I've encountered griefers approaching housing plots that have the timer on and spamming flashy abilities or dissonant bard performances to disrupt the people trying for the plot. Blacklisting these players would not prevent their harassment. But with the policy changes, the GMs would be able to use their best judgement to enforce consequences in these cases.

While the wording has potential for abuse by corrupt authorities, I have trust in the FFXIV GM team that they will act appropriately and continue to improve.

---

The wording is vague, and that is bad all by itself. It means either it is lazy (and badly written, and thus not considered fully) or it has been well-thought-out and the INTENT is to be vague.

If the intention is to save time, it fails at that; more GMs will be combing through MORE reports because more things are now an "offense."

If the intent was to be vague on purpose, that is also terrible. It means the intent is for the players not to understand the rules or be able to defend themselves when they have not broken the rules at all.

The policy change (in specific about harassment) isn't good either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ursa_Vonfiebryd

In all of these cases it will be the chat (and to a lesser extent the action log) that will determine guilt. If you gave someone advice but called them a dumbass first or yelled mechanics at them during a rant or used some demeaning macro then there could be consequences even though in the barest sense, they were 'helped.' In a perfect world people would be accountable for their own actions and that would be all that was needed but often the system itself is used to hide or misdirect where the real problem lies. Online MMO continue to be carte blanche for some people's bad behavior. Since SE can't change hearts or minds, they change rules. I can't say I mind a heavier hand on the ban-hammer even as I know these new expanded criteria also could bite me in the ass as well. I'll take that gamble because of all the things that are outside my control, myself isn't one of them.

---

That last bit "of all the things that are outside of my control, myself isn't one of them."

The problem is these policy changes take your INTENT out of the equation. So no, you won't be in control of even yourself when it comes to guilt or innocence. This is a badly written rules change. As you said in your second sentence, "called them a dumbass first OR yelled mechanics at them during a rant" could be interpreted in any way by a GM at this point. Yelling could be interpreted differently by any GM, and so could "mechanics." The GM is now able to interpret your intent and what context your words were given in, not you. Evidence or chat logs are useless with this policy change; it is entirely left up to the interpretation of the GM, how convincing a "victim" is, and adherence to a (likely deliberately) vaguely described set of rules.

Having a heavier hand isn't hard to do without writing rules like this; just hire more GMs and crack down on people who are reported (and legitimately do bad things) more often. You don't need sweeping changes to the definition of "harassment" in order to crack down on actual harassment. You only need that if your intent is to "improve" your customers rather than improve your game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kusanoha_Kirigakure

That last bit "of all the things that are outside of my control, myself isn't one of them."

The problem is these policy changes take your INTENT out of the equation. So no, you won't be in control of even yourself when it comes to guilt or innocence. This is a badly written rules change. As you said in your second sentence, "called them a dumbass first OR yelled mechanics at them during a rant" could be interpreted in any way by a GM at this point. Yelling could be interpreted differently by any GM, and so could "mechanics." The GM is now able to interpret your intent and what context your words were given in, not you. Evidence or chat logs are useless with this policy change; it is entirely left up to the interpretation of the GM, how convincing a "victim" is, and adherence to a (likely deliberately) vaguely described set of rules.

Having a heavier hand isn't hard to do without writing rules like this; just hire more GMs and crack down on people who are reported (and legitimately do bad things) more often. You don't need sweeping changes to the definition of "harassment" in order to crack down on actual harassment. You only need that if your intent is to "improve" your customers rather than improve your game.

---

Except that isn't the case. Intent isn't taken out of the equation. In fact, it's now more of a factor. If some one is running a community event and a griefer follows them on a whale mount to block their character, it's clearly meant to be disruptive but was not "technically" against the ToS before. Now GMs have the ability to look at context to determine intent, rather than relying on more strict technical definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucerna

Except that isn't the case. Intent isn't taken out of the equation. In fact, it's now more of a factor.

---

""Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others or obstructs game play, but which is not classified as harassment. Even if it was not the intention, a penalty may be imposed if the end result was that another person was hurt or obstructed."

In other words, you can be banned regardless of intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

""Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others or obstructs game play, but which is not classified as harassment. Even if it was not the intention, a penalty may be imposed if the end result was that another person was hurt or obstructed."

In other words, you can be banned regardless of intent.

---

Not quite. Nuisance behavior is not listed as harassment, and is not a banning offense by itself. Also- please note that the wording you quoted says that behavior “may” be punishable. A GM is under no obligation to punish anyone in grey area cases. This just looks like a cover-all against griefers who keep trying new ways to skirt the rules of common social decency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucerna

Not quite. Nuisance behavior is not listed as harassment, and is not a banning offense by itself. Also- please note that the wording you quoted says that behavior “may” be punishable. A GM is under no obligation to punish anyone in grey area cases. This just looks like a cover-all against griefers who keep trying new ways to skirt the rules of common social decency.

---

Except it’s still saying that you can earn penalties on your account for “nuisance behavior”, which do add up over time. Especially since these strikes never go away. Get enough strikes and you are eventually banned for them.


Several of the new guidelines are grey areas in and of themselves. What is meant by “unilaterally rejecting another player’s opinion”? What about “compelling a playstyle”? What are these “morals” that we aren’t allowed to contravene? There’s no definition for what these mean. There’s nothing that explains what actually falls under them.

By now when I see terms like "offensive" and "harassment" thrown around (especially without clarification), and phrases like "it's not hard to act respectfully toward people", it's become painfully clear it has nothing to do with actually being a good person, but rather imposing one's beliefs on others.

Whether it's on purpose or not, a phrase like that is completely sidestepping, trivializing, and ignoring the actual issues being raised, and disingenuously paints the other person as somebody who just wants to cause trouble and harm. It's a way to shut down other peoples' opinions and make them look illegitimate and not worth listening to.

It's become way too often that things are mislabeled "offensive" or "harmful" as a way of forcing people to fall in line with their political beliefs.


Seeing people smile only because they have to doesn't really make me happy. A smile that's forced is not genuine...

This thread needs to blow up. Seriously not a fan of the new Prohibited Activities and Penalties.

Square, you've already given us the tools to deal with a lot of these things by ourselves. It's not YOUR responsibility to play mommy and make sure nobody's feelings get hurt. That's their problem, not yours. I believe this sets a pretty dangerous precedent for the community. The fact that you even thought of going this route cost you a lot of my respect.

If I ever get sent to a GM for "harassment" because someone took offense to something benign I said, I will not play this game anymore. That's a promise. And no, I don't trust you to be objective. The GMs' hands-off approach to dealing with issues concerning harassment, unlike other MMORPGs, is one of the primary reasons I play this game. I don't have to worry about watching what I say in fear of offending someone and getting punished for it. I play this game because we live in a victimhood society now where everyone wants to be a victim, and I liked that FFXIV didn't cave into that social pressure. It was refreshing. But if you decide to police people's opinions in fear of those opinions hurting peoples' feelings (let's be honest, that's exactly what you're doing, you even stated it in the ToS), you become no different from any other corporation out there who believe its their duty to push an agenda "for the greater good".

Do yourself a favor, Square. Stay out of it, and revert the ToS.

I truly think that while it's okay to have harassment rules, there need to be degrees in consequences appropriate to the degrees of offense. Further, I do think having some kind of appeal is essential in the event of dishonest player reports, dishonest GMs, or discrimination based on different views.

I figure most players and most GMs are probably fine, but especially in today's environment there is huge intolerance toward those with different opinions. One player described having an unpleasant experience being reported for not viewing Omega as trans when another player did. My impression from the account was that the reporting player was not ridiculed or shamed for having that interpretation, the penalized player simply didn't see things the same way and said so.

I know for me, I don't think it's a relevant question for Omega because it's a robot lacking feelings on the matter. There are characters in other media where that interpretation makes more sense to me. I also think if someone imagines Omega as trans, it's their right. But no one should be compelled to agree or remain silent for fear of a ban. Given the severity of bigotry accusations, I don't know that every GM or even most would be secure enough to give the accused a fair hearing under such circumstances. When it comes to authoritarians, anyone who disagrees for whatever reason can be accused as well.

Situations like that make me think checks to GM power/protection for players are important. I don't think it's currently an issue, but there's real danger there.

Something aside from the topic above.

I have played the game long enough to have heard of some fanfest throughout the recent months talking about changes to content and a bit of gameplay, but seriously. Some changes like ToS change are really sudden. No announcements, no notifications. You close your game, go do something else and rest. Next day, bam - new ToS announced.

Is there even something called roadmap?

Well was going to write a proper breakdown for why this ToS update is a horrible sordid mess, but apparently it was too long. Guess I'll have to do something shorter... Nah! Wall-o-text go! :D

As is I've already closed out my subscription over these TOS terms (yay for my sub re-upping just before the news broke). There's a lot of good that's in the new TOS (RMTs, certain, properly defined griefing behaviors, etc.). However when it comes to nebulous things like offending someone that's where it gets awfully troublesome and I sincerely doubt their CSR team is properly equipped to deal with this mess they've got brewing.

I've been with 14 since 1.0 and frankly our community has by and large been pretty decent with any noteworthy instances of harassment/abuse/etc. being so few and far between that it hardly warrants any kind of coded crackdown, much less one so broad that it is rife with the potential to be abused.

Seriously just looking at the Harassment and Nuisance behavior sections is enough to make my skin crawl:

・Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity - Please note the "thinking" in there. You can now get your sub potentially cancelled for wrongthink.
・Discriminatory expressions about a state/religion/occupation/organisation, etc. - Sortof okay, still a bit nebulous but we probably don't need an exhaustive list here/
・Obscene/indecent expressions - Subjective. One person's obscene and indecent is another person's hilarious and not a terribly frequent occurrence in my experience
・Actions that inflict emotional distress using content related to historical events or crimes - How does this even make the list and what's the context? As it is, this could be someone reporting you for having the ability to actually back up your statement with facts regarding an incident.
・Stalking - Yes, this is actual harassment and was probably on the list prior to this update.
・Disclosing or indicating personal information such as contact details with the aim of meeting up in the real world - To use a bit of hyperbole: Doesn't this make Fan Fest a bannable offense? This is indicating consensual disclosure of info, the only point where THIS should be an issue is if it's someone soliciting a minor, the broad reach of this statement is baffling.
・Disclosing or indicating another person's real world personal information without permission - So doxxing, agreed this is bad and easily defined. Good one to have.
・Other actions that are generally regarded as actions that inflict deep emotional distress on another person - Such as the existence of this new TOS? Can I get the guy who drew these up to face account penalties? After all it caused me enough distress I felt the need to cancel my subscription to make a statement. "Generally regarded" by whom? Who gets to decide this? The player base? We can't even agree if these rules are good or bad if this thread is any indication, so how can we even hope to properly define what would be 'generally regarded to inflict deep emotional distress'.

And then Offensive Behavior:
・Aggressive expressions such as violent language/slander/insult/threat. -threats I get, violent language again as written this indicates any violent language so long as it upsets me regardless of if I'm the target or not. Also this is a text medium, it's not "slander" it's "libel" please get your terms right.
・Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule - Subjective given everyone reacts differently barring some VERY overt examples. Know how you handle this? Blacklist and/or votekick.
・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person - Consideration how? There's a lot of things I can cite as someone being significantly inconsiderate but that's subjective to myself alone and to someone else it doesn't matter.
・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion - Like our opinions were rejected/not solicited on these changes?
・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive - Please define "reasonable". As was pointed out above someone was demonstrably quite unreasonable but a GM still intervened
・Expressions that compel a playing style - Compel how? Some people take very well to criticism when they're doing a poor job, others get incredibly defensive. Do you seriously want your GMs sifting through all of this? Again, blacklist and votekick has worked wonders for quite some time now
・Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc. - So if I and a group of friends do not want to play with someone that's bad, but the FC can make the "Club of no Homers" and that's okay. Gotcha.
(Except when in accordance with rules set by an administrator such as a Free Company Master)
・Expressions that contravene public order and morals - Again: Defined as what and by whom? If 99 people are okay with it but one person isn't is that enough? Or what if 50 people like it, 20 people don't and 30 people don't care? Where does the line get drawn please and thank-you.
・Other expressions that are offensive to another person - Holeee heck, can you possibly make this any more broad reaching? No, wait, please don't try I don't want to see the results. Sorry, but no. Just because you can't police your emotions means that I have to pay the price. I have no idea what may offend you personally, much less what will get you running crying to the GM over.

Most of the other stuff in the TOS update is fine and good, but these two lists, man. This is just absurd and disingenuous to have this mess foisted on us as if we're a bunch of kindergartners. In trying to define outliers for which we've had the tools to deal with for YEARS it's only going to serve to make the game more divisive by emboldening terrible players to do terrible things because now they're well within the letter of the law to do so, and I'm sorry in these situations it's the letter, not the spirit that has to be scrutinized.

TL;DR:
Your new policies are bad, and you should feel bad, and since your survey system had no proper means to report it I'm leaving this here to explain why I cancelled my sub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker

I truly think that while it's okay to have harassment rules, there need to be degrees in consequences appropriate to the degrees of offense. Further, I do think having some kind of appeal is essential in the event of dishonest player reports, dishonest GMs, or discrimination based on different views.

I figure most players and most GMs are probably fine, but especially in today's environment there is huge intolerance toward those with different opinions. One player described having an unpleasant experience being reported for not viewing Omega as trans when another player did. My impression from the account was that the reporting player was not ridiculed or shamed for having that interpretation, the penalized player simply didn't see things the same way and said so.

I know for me, I don't think it's a relevant question for Omega because it's a robot lacking feelings on the matter. There are characters in other media where that interpretation makes more sense to me. I also think if someone imagines Omega as trans, it's their right. But no one should be compelled to agree or remain silent for fear of a ban. Given the severity of bigotry accusations, I don't know that every GM or even most would be secure enough to give the accused a fair hearing under such circumstances. When it comes to authoritarians, anyone who disagrees for whatever reason can be accused as well.

Situations like that make me think checks to GM power/protection for players are important. I don't think it's currently an issue, but there's real danger there.

---

I would like to say I know the person who this happened to in Omega and I read the chat logs. What you said is exactly what happened. When did discussions become a crime? She merely pointed out that Omega is simulating two genders and the people who accused her of being transphobic overreacted. Thought crimes be real!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xeero

TL;DR:
Your new policies are bad, and you should feel bad, and since your survey system had no proper means to report it I'm leaving this here to explain why I cancelled my sub.

---

Considering the policies haven't actually caused anything bad yet, canceling your sub is on you, not SE. The policies are concerning and in need of clarification, but doing what you did is just melodramatic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TybaltJustAnotherMiqote

- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.

---

I think you're misunderstanding some parts of the wording here.

Quote:

---

■Nuisance behaviour
"Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others or obstructs game play, but which is not classified as harassment. Even if it was not the intention, a penalty may be imposed if the end result was that another person was hurt or obstructed.

---

There's an important word in here that a lot of people seem to be missing: "a penalty may be imposed", not "will be imposed".

The rules don't force a GM to punish a person regardless of their intent, it just gives them the option to do so. It's still entirely up to the GM's discretion.

What it does allow - and what I suspect is the actual intent of the wording - is that if someone claims they didn't mean offence but it's clear that they did, then the GM has the discretion to set a punishment regardless of them saying it wasn't their intention.

I remember there have been complaints in the past about GMs not being able to take action against someone who was clearly being a deliberate nuisance, unless that person outright stated they were doing it to inconvenience others. So I think this wording is intended to get around that past issue, and allow GMs to act on those "obvious but not admitted" behaviours.



I also can't see anything saying that a temporary ban is the "minimum punishment" - and the penalty policy seems to say the opposite.

Quote:

---

■Types of penalty
There are six levels of penalty in ascending order of severity: "Caution", "Warning", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (3 Days)", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (10 Days)", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (20 Days)", "Service Account Termination".

■Account Penalties Escalation
All actions taken against a service account are recorded permanently. In the event of a player committing multiple violations, the previous violations and service account actions are taken into account.
If a violation is repeated, a heavier penalty may be applied in the second instance of such violation. If the past record includes a Temporary Service Account Suspension, essentially a more severe penalty than the previous Temporary Service Account Suspension will be applied, even if the repeated violation was equivalent to Caution or Warning.

---

They aren't even required to give you a temporary ban if you've previously received a warning.



The closest thing I could see to saying a ban was the minimum punishment was this:

Quote:

---

■Harassment
"Harassment" means speech and/or behaviour that inflicts deep emotional distress on another person. It is an extremely serious violation. Where Square Enix determines that harassment has occurred, a penalty equal to or higher than "Temporary Service Account Suspension" may be imposed.

---

This doesn't come with the "penalty may be imposed regardless of intent" warning from the Nuisance Behaviour section, but again the word "may" makes an important difference in interpreting the rule. A temporary ban may be imposed - which implies that in some cases you may just get a warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

Considering the policies haven't actually caused anything bad yet, canceling your sub is on you, not SE. The policies are concerning and in need of clarification, but doing what you did is just melodramatic

---

I agree. It's one thing to cancel your sub if it becomes clear that these rules are being applied unfairly and having a negative effect on the game, but just on the principle that they could be abused (even if written with good intent) seems like a poor move.

Even for the people saying "right, I'm never saying anything in chat ever again".... why? If you're worried that the changed rules will lead to you getting an unfair ban, test it. Keep talking. If you get that initial three-day ban for something you don't consider reasonable, then you know you should stay quiet, or leave as a protest. But perhaps that will never happen and you can just keep on enjoying the game exactly as you always did, because the new rules aren't actually out to get you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anselmet

--------

---

Things like that creep me out so bad omg. People have gotten very casual with those kinds of thought crime accusations. When there's a big "accusation = guilt" mentality going on plus an allergy to fair hearings... it can get real bad real fast.

Jeez though, did more than one person pile on in that situation? Sounds like a huge mess.

Everyone, we need to spread awareness about this issue. Copy the URL for this thread and share it with any friends you have in-game. Even if the new ToS isn't abused in the near future, the potential is still there. Rules should be well-defined, objective, and rigid. Not vague, subjective, and nebulous like the new ToS.

I do not trust Square to have good judgment across the board when dealing with issues related to the new ToS, specifically the Harassment and Nuisance Behavior sections. Given that their nature is entirely subjective, literally anything can be harassment or nuisance behavior by SE's logic, and that should definitely worry you. Everyone is different, and everyone finds different things offensive. Also, GM's are humans too, which means they're just as prone to error as the rest of us.

Don't fix what isn't broken; the old ToS was perfectly fine. But if SE won't revert the ToS, then they need to at least remove anything that's subjective in nature. SE is opening Pandora's Box and they don't even realize it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

I agree. It's one thing to cancel your sub if it becomes clear that these rules are being applied unfairly and having a negative effect on the game, but just on the principle that they could be abused (even if written with good intent) seems like a poor move.

Even for the people saying "right, I'm never saying anything in chat ever again".... why? If you're worried that the changed rules will lead to you getting an unfair ban, test it. Keep talking. If you get that initial three-day ban for something you don't consider reasonable, then you know you should stay quiet, or leave as a protest. But perhaps that will never happen and you can just keep on enjoying the game exactly as you always did, because the new rules aren't actually out to get you.

---

While I'm not one of the people who choose to now stop using the chat*, I'm also not somebody who is overly fond of testing the boundaries of rules, so I can understand anybody paranoid enough to believe GMs are looking at the game as Banhammer Whack-A-Mole deciding not to use chat anymore.

I agree it's a bit ridiculous to think that they will; I agree it'd be nice if the rules were worded a bit more tightly. My stance on this whole thing is "I wish they were more specific regarding their rules, but it's not worth dropping the sky over."

*I'm generally not a talkative person anyway outside of my sphere of friends. I tend not to speak in DF no matter what because of this, outside of a friendly greeting and a friendly parting message.