Tank dps harrasment

[KaldeaSahaline]

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.

This is a naive statement. If you're familiar with traffic streams even something as simple as delaying a light by x seconds or adding a cycle lane has a tremendous downstream impact that requires a staggering amount of modeling to ensure it doesn't push any stream past its congestion flow maximum.

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.

My example was made up based on the data you were giving me. I had asked if I had fabricated a story indicative of what you were trying to convey and it looks like I did a pretty good job.

Your English is not bad by any means. Don't short sell yourself.

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.

You keep mentioning "doing nothing is bad", but that's actually not true. Sometimes doing nothing is in fact doing something, and in this case doing nothing most likely leads to less harassment. Imagine if they were opt in and all the harassment that could come from that. You could save one life and kill twenty.

Was it worth it?

Contrary to popular belief it is not "report worthy" if I decline you from my party asking you to open your logs" either if it was opt in.

The other thing you didn't account for is you can't just make changes willy nilly and roll them back if they don't work. The damage is done and isn't unwound that easily. How you're not familiar with that concept is bewildering though. Just like in the court of the law, the lawyer says something they KNOW will be overruled and withdrawn, but it doesn't matter once the jury hears it, it's there forever. The damage is done regardless if the judge required it stricken from the docket.

Also, most companies that collect data are opt out, not opt in, because opt in doesn't work. It destroys the product they offer. I'm not sure what your professional background is in (I do some biz dev) and let me tell you if companies had to opt in to these databases my work would be irrelevant. There'd simply be no data for me to analyze.

Much like if someone posts a picture of me on instagram/facebook etc. I have to log in and request it be removed. Might as well go on a crusade about them too.

You don't even see it but your notions are the very picture of "doing something good for the sake of good regardless of the consequences". It's an incredibly juvenile and naive viewpoint and I wish you were more open to looking deeper inward on this.

[winsock]

I drop tank stance, but don't really care what a pug tank does so long as they hold threat and use appropriate cooldowns.

Honestly, the tank not dropping tank stance is least of worries. If the average party had a tank that could hold threat and use cooldowns, DPS who knew their rotations and when to aoe, plus a healer that didn't idle excessively... then I'd start caring more about a tank's stance in a 4man

[Bobs]

I think the solution is simple.

If SE wants Tanks to max DPS they need to take away the penalty for doing so.

This is just like how they changed DPS for Healer. They obviously wanted the healer to DPS too so they took away the penalty. It seems they are taking into account DPS from all players in the raid/party when they are making new content so they need to change the abilities to coincide with that. The fact that they are not just shows negligence on their part; ether on the dungeon creation side of the players skill tools side.

The only reason why this is not a "Healer DPS Harassment Thread" is because it was resolved. Time to revamp the Tank DPS now.

[HoodRat]

If SE wants Tanks to max DPS they need to take away the penalty for doing so.

There is no penalty for doing so.

[dotsforlife]

There is no penalty for doing so.

B-but mah immersion. D:

[Awha]

Snip . . .

First of all both of our views are based off theoretical situations, mine is based off the theoretical position that it will prevent 1% of harassment surrounding parser abuse, and yours is based around that it will harassment. In both cases we do not know what effect it would have. Neither of us know if making FFLogs opt in will either decrease or increase harassment. So if both options are theoretical, why is latter considered the lesser of two evils because it does nothing and keeps the status quo?

Around my area the government is adding a cycle lane to the one of the main roads that more or less circles the island, yeah people are not happy about it, since it made what once was a four lane street soon to be two lane street with a bike lane on each side. I am okay with it, sure people complained, but the government deemed that the benefits outweigh the consequences. That is all I am asking is for SE to look it into, and if their data shows it might change something why not try it. I do acknowledge that the changes regarding extra cross walks and making FFLogs opt-in would have an effect, but the question regarding the scope of the effect is something those in power have the data that will allow them to come up with an answer. At this point we are simply going back and forth between theoretical outcomes.

I do not think I have ever said that not allowing someone to join a PF group or removal of a player for not meeting the standards set by the group should be report worthy. Rejecting a player is not the problem I have, it is how some players go about said rejection. I know my suggestion will not get rid of discrimination, but at the very least if someone has their logs hidden and if asked to show logs said player will have a better idea as to what sort of group they are trying to join. Simply provides the player with more information to help them make a choice as to if that group fits their desired play style. As it stands if someone is so inclined they can look up the logs and mock them for their poor performance, if the logs were opt-in and even those that are inclined to mock another player to limit the amount of 'trash players' asking to join they would be more likely to place an open log requirement in the PF. As it stands the player that either does not know our FFLogs or knows their performance is sub-par for whatever reason has no real means to know if a group is looking at logs or not. Opt-in logs would maybe make it so more people will place a log requirement for joining said group. It provides more overall options for the all players, which I do not see as a bad thing. Once again this is all theoretical only people that could even come up with a general idea as to what effect a change would have is SE, and sadly we do not have access to that data so we are stuck with theoretical situations.

Once again leaving all that aside, the thing is the one making use of the data on FFLogs is not SE, it is FFLogs. If SE had their own official parser / log then your example would make more sense to me, but this is a third party site using the data gathered from the first party product, in which said first party does not officially support. Granted it is trivial data, but putting the importance of the data aside. It still does not make sense as to why a person would have to make an account on a site that is not supported by SE to hide data that is generated through a product provided by SE, since the third party is making that data widely know. I do not know data privacy laws, and am I sure FFLogs is within their legal right, still honestly does not make sense why SE says the do not support FFLogs, place to the burden to not want to be part of FFLogs on the players. The burden should be placed on those that wish to use the tool, not those that have no desire to use said tool.

End of the day both of views on this situation are theoretical since we do not know what effect either would have, you are on the side that hiding would increase harassment, I am on the side that it would decrease harassment. Sadly the only ones that have the data to prove otherwise is SE.

I understand what you are saying, also never meant to imply a change can be undone with the flip of the switch, but way I see it people will never change, you can punish, condemn, and or shame all you want sometimes people will not change unless the powers that be help facilitate such behavioral changes. Though way I see most the damage would be on FFLogs side which being a third party site I do not think should factor into the general equation as to why a third party feature should be opt-out instead of in for the general everyday FFXIV player that does not wish their data to be collected and cataloged by a site / feature not supported by the company in which they bought the product from. I simply do not see how your examples compare to the relationship between SE and FFLogs.

[Ayer2015]

80% of my dungeon tanking is sword oath / dps stance i stay in the tank one only when dmg reduction is necessary or when i need to build enmity rest is dps stance that how tank are supposed to be played.

I don't recall SE putting out a "how to tank" manual. That is how you tank.,,,,

[Dualgunner]

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 doesn't matter how reasonable FFLogs is. Get the point: if Square Enix takes any action on FFLogs, they lose their neutral stance on parsers. They would then have to take a positive stance and ask them to go opt-in, or a negative stance and work to get the site shut down.

If you don't think them losing that neutrality would affect the playerbase, just look at every time a healer AI even touches stone; you see the forums erupt with "See? SE says healers should dps!"

I've presented my arguments to you; it looks like none of them have changed your mind. But to reiterate: I see more harm than good coming out of SE doing anything with FFLogs, and I see more harassment than not coming out of FFLogs being opt-in than opt-out.

[Awha]

Snip . . .

As I have said before this thread was bumped up, no one is going change the mind of anyone regarding this we are all firmly in our camps. You clearly think it will have a negative effect, and I think it may have a positive effect neither of us know what kind of effect such a change would have. Still enjoying the discussion.

Does SE really have a neutral stance on parsers, have they not openly said they do not support them, but know players use them, more of a don't ask don't tell sort thing (not sure which interview it was though). Following that stance, why should players have to opt-out of something that SE has mentioned they do not support? Just like all third party functions regarding video games from my knowledge they function on an opt-in system not opt-out, please correct me if I am wrong in this statement I do not play many online video games. As to where if you want the data to be gathered you link your account to the site in question and your data will be gathered. I still do not see why it is a reasonable expectation to place on the everyday player that does not wish for their data to be gathered or categorized to have to create a account on a third party site to hide their logs. I am of the position it should never be asked of a player to have to create an account on a third party site that has any effect on them whatever so in the base game. Especially if said feature / site is not supported by the first party company.

I get it will have an impact for FFLogs, but I am sure it will not destroy the tool or relationship they currently have.

[akaneakki]

I don't recall SE putting out a "how to tank" manual. That is how you tank.,,,,

Do ultimate and it rings another bell.