Tank dps harrasment

[Awha]

Snip . . .

As I have said in the past, if the change provided has the potential to limit harassment without altering the core function why not do it? As I have said my request is more akin to adding more crosswalks or extending the allotted time for pedestrians to cross the street. Said change would inconvenience drivers but it would not have an overall large impact on how they commute to work. My change is not extreme, while my mindset to you may be considered extreme the change I have proposed is far from extreme it will be a minor inconvenience at best for those that wish to use the tool.

As for the second part sorry if I did explain it well enough for you. Our FC has members that have certain limitations, and we try to make it know to those members that if they need something they can simply ask us or other allies to the FC that understand the limitations they have. However, at our core group is not good enough to carry three to four people through more relevant content so we rotate them around instead of taking four sometimes we only take two of them along so they can see the content. Now the issue is the players that have been rotated out may seek another group to tackle said content which at times results in hurtful comments which results in a negative experience that could have been avoided if logs were opt-n since if said group asked for the logs they would no clue what they are or how to obtain them. That being said we had no clue that we could hide logs prior to this.

On to how you interrupted what I wrote let us say that was the case, where in that post was mentioned no one disclosed info that it was a carry group? Not even sure how you got to that point, I know my command of the English language is rather weak, but I am not really sure how you got to that point. Though your example is interesting though in that in the past when we were much smaller we did try to fill spots with PUGS telling them that it was a carry group, and to not expect much from two of the DPS. Some people did say they understood, but they underestimated us in when we said do not expect much and one player did berate said members out of frustration. Which is understandable that is why I do not like the simple report and move on, since at the core a lot of these players do not make said comments with malicious intent, and most of the time they stem from frustration. That is why we have made it a policy for said members to request help from within the FC or allies tied to the FC if they do not want to risk harassment.

Though the context is simple, if this has happened to members of my FC, one cannot deny the possibility that it has happened to others who share similar circumstances, and a simple opt-in feature would go a long way to prevent such issues, while offering very little impact on how the tool's usefulness. While in a normal situation many could brush off negative feedback like nothing, others do not. So if a change that has very little impact on the overall game itself can even mitigate 1% of harassment why not do it? I get that overall it will not help much, and while I would love to remove all harassment I know that it is an impossible task while keeping within the realms of being reasonable, however my request is far from unreasonable.

Overall please understand I do not want the removal of the tool in question. My request is not akin to removing all cars from the roads because it will reduce automobile related accidents. Since I have stated to know that nothing will get rid of harassment, as I have said while it would be a wonderful if it was not a thing, I by no means think it is reasonable to bring forth ideas that function on the bases of removing harassment all together. Impossible tasks are impossible. As I have said my request is more akin to adding extra crosswalks and increasing the allotted time for pedestrians to cross the street. While not a perfect solution but still mitigates the potential risk for said pedestrians while having a relatively small impact on drivers as a whole. It will inconvenience drivers, but will not force them to make major alterations to their commute.

When it comes to the issue of harassment we probably we never see eye to eye, and while I am sure parser abuse is not a wide spread thing, it does happen, and no matter how infrequent if changes can be done that prove to force players to alter their play style in a drastic way (this is something only SE can know) and even if the change in question seems inconsequential if that change even has the slightest chance to curb harassment even by 1% I am all for it, and I know I will not change any minds here, I highly doubt you will say anything that will change mine.

Now regarding your last point. You examples do not take into account one thing. FFXIV is a product provided by SE. Please tell me why a feature that is not integrated into the game by SE places an expectation on the player that does not wish to be part of a feature that is not supported by SE have to register an account with the site, claim your characters then go to settings to hide ones logs? If people want to use FFLogs the burden should be placed on them since they are the ones that wish to use a third party program, not the other way around. Granted I understand it is not much to ask of a player to do, but the point is it should not be asked of a player at all. FFLogs is not part of the product one gets when they buy FFXIV, it is not a listed feature so it should not be forced on anyone period. For us that wish to FFLogs we can, just means an extra hoop we have to go through. A consumer of a game should not be forced to opt out of a feature not supported by developer. Does it happen? Sure, still does not make it right.

[Dualgunner]

Your arguments come off as unreasonable for two main reasons:
1: its the nuclear option
You have noble intentions: you want to prevent people being hurt no matter what. But like Kaldea said, you're essentially asking for cars to be outlawed.
2: you have no proof this would even affect anything
Its been brought up to you that the people who would harass for low logs would harass for hidden logs. Even thrn you've never quantified how many are harassed, which while you stand by "if even 1 person is harassed that's bad", this also means you cannot tell us or prove to us that harassment will go down, or indeed, that it ever went up in the advent of fflogs.

[Awha]

Snip. . .

Call me crazy but I get this feeling that you two think I want the total removal of FFLogs, I am not sure where I said that but that was never my intent.

How is making a feature opt in a nuclear option? I am asking for more crosswalks and extended time for pedestrians to cross the street. That is all, will it inconvenience people sure, but far from the fact of forcing them to alter their commute. No one has proof on this subject, though if something has the potential to prevent even one case without causing people to change their very way of being why not do it? I have never stated to have proof, but if the potential is there to even prevent one case shouldn't it be looked at? As I have said we just have a different mindset when it comes to this, if opt-in will prevent even one person from getting looked up on logs and then proceed to called a shitter instead of simply saying sorry you do not met our groups requirements, and making it opt-in has been proven (by only people that can SE) to have no impact on the game why not make the change?

In the end only people that can prove anything is SE, leaving that aside though if a change like opt-in even removes one case of harassment isn't that an okay trade off? I mean to upload the data we have to create an account anyways, so making it opt-in would not change much of anything just adds an extra step after the account creation on FFLogs.

In the end we are still talking about a third party feature that is not supported by SE being something players have to opt out of. Which in itself makes no sense. We can leave all other arguments at the door, makes no sense no matter little work is involved would have to go to a third party site, make an account, to hide info they had no intention nor told when they bought game would be shared and accessible by any player that happens to know your characters name.

[Taika]

Our FC has members that have certain limitations[...] Now the issue is the players that have been rotated out may seek another group to tackle said content which at times results in hurtful comments which results in a negative experience that could have been avoided if logs were opt-n since if said group asked for the logs they would no clue what they are or how to obtain them.

Assuming these FC people of yours wouldn't have their logs up in the first place, how do you think the situation would be better when they join groups with strangers? I'm reading this as their performance is really bad, and the logs accurately describe their performance. Now you're suggesting that instead of joining or forming easygoing groups where high (or even average) level of performance is not required but everyone is free to perform at their own level without judgement, your FC people should keep joining groups they're not ready for (if I understood you correctly), they should just be able to hide that from the group beforehand? I'm really confused why you would imagine this to be better for anyone involved. And also, do you really imagine that people who would be harsh about a random person's log in the first place would be somehow nicer about that person's actual performance? What exactly would this protect your FC people from?

[Dualgunner]

How is making a feature opt in a nuclear option? I am asking for more crosswalks and extended time for pedestrians to cross the street. That is all, will it inconvenience people sure, but far from the fact of forcing them to alter their commute. No one has proof on this subject, though if something has the potential to prevent even one case without causing people to change their very way of being why not do it? I have never stated to have proof, but if the potential is there to even prevent one case shouldn't it be looked at?

It's the nuclear option because you're asking for official action on a third party site. The moment Square has to act on it, their only option is to shut the whole thing down given their official stance on parsing.

And the problem is, no. You cannot prove there is even the potential to prevent one singular case; you can't even prove that this wouldn't cause even more harassment than it solves. That's why you don't do it; you don't act without the proper data, because if you do there's the chance you hurt more people than you help.

In the end only people that can prove anything is SE, leaving that aside though if a change like opt-in even removes one case of harassment isn't that an okay trade off? I mean to upload the data we have to create an account anyways, so making it opt-in would not change much of anything just adds an extra step after the account creation on FFLogs.

You don't know if it would even remove one case of harassment. As I've pointed out, it's more likely to cause more cases of harassment. If you prevent one case of harassment, but cause two more, what did you really do in the long run?

if opt-in will prevent even one person from getting looked up on logs and then proceed to called a shitter instead of simply saying sorry you do not met our groups requirements, and making it opt-in has been proven (by only people that can SE) to have no impact on the game why not make the change?

Where has it been proven? Up till now you claimed no evidence, but now you just made a claim that needs evidence.
Opt in will not prevent one person from being looked up on FFlogs. It will cause the phrase "Open logs or kick" to become mainstream. It will cause more harassment than it already does. Get off your moral "If I can just save one person..." crusade, because by saving that one theoretical person you're opening up who knows how many more to worse scrutiny.

I have always prefixed this if it has the potential to help even just a little by SE why not give it a try? Where is the harm? In the end though only way to prove something is to try it.

Because the only action they can take regarding FFLogs is to destroy it, given their official stance on parsers. If they acted in any other way, they'd be endorsing parsers; their neutral position up until now is a big "If I don't see it, it's not a problem" which stops them from directly acting on sites like FFLogs.

If they were to do what you suggested, they might as well implement a first-party system, break FFLogs, and then host their own damage leaderboards. The forums would be on the brightest fire you can imagine.

[Awha]

Assuming these FC people of yours wouldn't have their logs up in the first place, how do you think the situation would be better when they join groups with strangers? I'm reading this as their performance is really bad, and the logs accurately describe their performance. Now you're suggesting that instead of joining or forming easygoing groups where high (or even average) level of performance is not required but everyone is free to perform at their own level without judgement, your FC people should keep joining groups they're not ready for (if I understood you correctly), they should just be able to hide that from the group beforehand? I'm really confused why you would imagine this to be better for anyone involved. And also, do you really imagine that people who would be harsh about a random person's log in the first place would be somehow nicer about that person's actual performance? What exactly would this protect your FC people from?

The issue in question came about because one member just could not wait till it was his turn in the rotation so he looked to party finder, he hit up a player and said player was more then candid. At this time we had no idea you could hide your FFLogs, which I will say is on us we should have done more research before carrying said people through content or just not uploaded the data. To be fair we never expected said site to be opt-out anyways being a third party site for a third party function that we were under the impression SE did not support.

Way I see if FFLogs were opt-in and he tried to join a group they more then likely would ask for logs, which I can tell you he has no clue as to what purpose they serve or even how to get them. So my FC mate would more then likely simply ignore the person all together or move on. Now I do know this could have gone many different ways, but end result was he asked to join a group they looked up his logs and they mocked him. Now do I think making FFLogs opt-in would solve all forms of harassment, I do not, hell I do not even know if it would solve this case as I have said before. I do not think it is reasonable to even expect any change to fix issues of harassment, but I rather try something to see if it works instead of try nothing due to the risk of failure or at worst nothing changes. Though I do know if everything went the same and FFLogs was opt-in he would not have been mocked.

As I have said making FFLogs has the potential to limit cases of parser abuse, will it not sure, but if said change is proven to have a little impact on how data is gather with FFLogs, and third party function not supported by SE where is the harm in trying it?

snip . .

I have always prefixed this if it has the potential to help even just a little by SE why not give it a try? Where is the harm? In the end though only way to prove something is to try it. Call it a crusade, but in my eyes beats not trying anything. FFLogs is a third party feature, it simply does not make sense why a third party feature is opt out instead of in. As I have said before to even use FFLogs you need to make an account so making it opt-in would add a few extra clicks after we made an FFLogs account.

But why are you assuming the person who mocked your FC member's logs wouldn't have mocked them for not having logs? If he's the kind of a person who has a habit of being rude to people they meet in a game and have never met before, don't you think they're likely to find things to be mean about one way or another?

Also, you're writing in a more than a little condescending manner about this FC mate of yours. A player should also consider what kind of group activities they are signing up for and know their own limits and abilities. I mean I won't trial for a rugby team because I know I couldn't handle it for 5 minutes, and I also wouldn't join a clear party for Ultimate when I've barely seen the first phase of the fight. The basic issue behind your example case seems to be that your friend is looking to be carried, if not intentionally, then in ignorance, because you and their other FC buddies are doing your best to "protect" them from the fact. The FC mate shouldn't be joining parties they can't handle in the first place (which is of course no excuse for anyone to be mean about the fact). That doesn't mean they can't take part in the content though, especially with other players with similar performance level, so they can actually play at their own level and improve instead of others "helping" by doing all the heavy lifting.

To be honest an assumption is all I have to go based off, since in reality even though I did say if everything were the same, expect for x. That in itself would alter the situation. So assumption is all I got. As I have said before this could have gone many different ways across the board. Also not my intent to come off as condescending, my English, grammar , syntax, and word choice are not the best. Just that this issue was not fun for us as a whole, and overall we know that we are not faultless , and I do not blame the guy for what he said. Since from the outside looking in going based off the information he had available I cannot fault his judgment. I do not agree with what he said, but I can see why he said it. We had no clue this was going on after we told this week was not his turn. It is on us for not being more mindful and not having the skill to carry more players. Overall I do agree they are being carried, not going to say if it is intentionally, or out of willful ignorance.

I do not know what the impact my suggestion would have, no one does that is why I am only suggesting such a change be considered if the SE deems the benefits outweigh the cost / risk. Also as I have said I know my train of thought is not ideal, and do agree with what many of you are saying. One thing I simply do not understand is how such a request is considered extreme, I by no means am asking for FFLogs to be removed from the game all together.

Snip . . .

FFLogs seems fairly reasonable I am sure if SE asked them to make it so their site was opt-in instead of out they would consider it. We do not have to view this only from extremes, I am trying my best to avoid extremes in my suggestions.

It goes both ways those. My fun comes from large pulls and seeing just how much damage I can do during them. Comparatively, I'm bored out of my mind if a tank just one pack. If enough people feel the way I do in that particular party, why should we do one only one other person wants?

You are right it is not a reasonable exception to think DF means the group can only do small pulls. If one person is not okay with large pulls without being an ass the group should have every right to either ask said person to adjust or ask them to kindly remove themselves from the group. Though the same should be if the roles were reserved if three people wanted a slow run, does not give that one person the right to pull more with the exception that it is okay until the group vote kicks.

Why are you carrying them in the first place? That's what I find condescending. When our FC has had people who are new to raiding and / or inexperienced with the game, we put them in a party together and they play and learn and progress at their own pace, of course sometimes with people who have done the content before if there are extra slots - but with people challenging the content together, not with 6 people challenging the content for 2... Of course you and your FC are free to play the game in any way you enjoy, I just wouldn't find your arrangement enjoyable myself.


I just don't see any benefit in your suggestion for anyone - even for the purpose you're claiming you're suggesting it for. Mean people will be mean, logs available or not. It's better we use our energy to battle the mean people instead of battling the service that in itself is not mean but very useful.

Not my place to go into detail nor do I know how to put this without going into detail. I will just say reason I do it is because I understand where they are coming form, and how at times it sucks feeling helpless without much control over the hand you were dealt. I would be lying if I said it was always fun, it can be stressful to say the least especially when when you are 10% away from a kill only to sigh and mutter only if we had an extra dps or two. That is why we shifted away from trying to carry two people during prog, we are simply not good enough to do that.

As for your last point this is the crossroads I think this conversation will never get past. I will always disagree with not trying something simply out of the risk of failure. While naive changes can always be reverted within a video game, so I do not see the harm in trying. I simply do not see the harm in trying something out to see if it works trial and error I guess. Though I do respect your position though, and understand where you are coming from. I agree dicks will be dicks, and not sure about you but it seems easier to alter the system to foster change then try to foster a change in a person. If that makes any sense. Though to be frank, I really do not understand why a third party feature is requires someone to opt out of. Isn't that a little strange for a feature SE claims they do not support yet said feature requires someone to jump through hoops do not be part of that feature.

[Taika]

Way I see if FFLogs were opt-in and he tried to join a group they more then likely would ask for logs, which I can tell you he has no clue as to what purpose they serve or even how to get them. So my FC mate would more then likely simply ignore the person all together or move on.

But why are you assuming the person who mocked your FC member's logs wouldn't have mocked them for not having logs? If he's the kind of a person who has a habit of being rude to people they meet in a game and have never met before, don't you think they're likely to find things to be mean about one way or another?

Also, you're writing in a more than a little condescending manner about this FC mate of yours. A player should also consider what kind of group activities they are signing up for and know their own limits and abilities. I mean I won't trial for a rugby team because I know I couldn't handle it for 5 minutes, and I also wouldn't join a clear party for Ultimate when I've barely seen the first phase of the fight. The basic issue behind your example case seems to be that your friend is looking to be carried, if not intentionally, then in ignorance, because you and their other FC buddies are doing your best to "protect" them from the fact. The FC mate shouldn't be joining parties they can't handle in the first place (which is of course no excuse for anyone to be mean about the fact). That doesn't mean they can't take part in the content though, especially with other players with similar performance level, so they can actually play at their own level and improve instead of others "helping" by doing all the heavy lifting.

[Paladinleeds]

Opt in will not prevent one person from being looked up on FFlogs. It will cause the phrase "Open logs or kick" to become mainstream. It will cause more harassment than it already does.

It's possible, that by saying "Open logs or kick", it would allow for reports to be sent in and get people banned. But, SE don't have the manpower to enforce it, so it won't happen like that.

The FC mate shouldn't be joining parties they can't handle in the first place (which is of course no excuse for anyone to be mean about the fact).

Honestly, at this point, I think meanness is the only way forward. With how shielded his FC member has been, I think the meanness was the right thing to do. While it's not something I'd do myself, sometimes you need tough love.

58 pages later, and this is still going....
I understand squeezing out all the dps you can in savage content. What I never will understand why people think they should impose it on the core casual content. Just let the community at large have their fun.....
And before people start going down the 'differing play styles, /votekick' road.... Do we really want to foster that type of community? Personally, I don't think 5-10mins extra on a DF run isn't going to impact anyone's life to a material degree.

For those that want it, yes, we should foster that type of community. In expert dungeons and other casual content, I'm not one to care either way, but yes, for those that want that, I think it's fair game to push for it.

[Ayer2015]

58 pages later, and this is still going....
I understand squeezing out all the dps you can in savage content. What I never will understand why people think they should impose it on the core casual content. Just let the community at large have their fun.....
And before people start going down the 'differing play styles, /votekick' road.... Do we really want to foster that type of community? Personally, I don't think 5-10mins extra on a DF run isn't going to impact anyone's life to a material degree.

[akaneakki]

It's possible, that by saying "Open logs or kick", it would allow for reports to be sent in and get people banned. But, SE don't have the manpower to enforce it, so it won't happen like that.
.

Honestly this isn't about manpower only. There is a lot more than that. The fact that the end game players, the really good ones, provide guides, do the clears, help others with rotations, are the people who actually helps alot in the community. Also keep in mind these players are also those who bring a lot of attention to the non FFXIV players. Xenos is an example where many play the game because of him. I know its not a huge majority, but I think we both know it would be stupid by square enix to bann over 500-800k players.