Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[MorbolvampireQueen6]

If I find their playstyle incompatable with mine, I will leave. Why should I argue and lose time and energy over that? If they didn't listen the first time, they likely won't listen the second time. If they are adamant about (as example) playing in Sword Oath during an Ex primal farm/clear and I see no progress being done I see no point why should one argue instead of simply leave and find/form another group.

And now you can be banned for leaving so that's no longer a option

[MuseTraveller]

And now you can be banned for leaving so that's no longer a option

Why should I be banned? I excuse myself and leave. You should consider GMs are not bots, these are people there.

[Kurando]

Why should I be banned? I excuse myself and leave. You should consider GMs are not bots, these are people there.

This was mentioned in the previous page;

Obstruction of play
"Obstruction of play" means all behaviour in general that obstructs another person's game play. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of obstruction of play:

・Intentional leaving or disconnection
This means obstructing another person's game play by intentionally leaving the game or disconnecting from the server.

Essentially I think if you leave the duty and take the penalty is still allowed because nothing should force you to partake in something you don't want to, SE can't make you play the game you know. However if the player disconnects or logs out without saying anything just to get out of the duty then that is obstruction as the party would have to Dismiss and replace that player.

Oh Billy got there before me, never mind!

[Rowde]

Why should I be banned? I excuse myself and leave. You should consider GMs are not bots, these are people there.

Example:

"Hello GM, I joined a PF for an EX/Primal clear today that was eventually ruined because a Bard left after we wiped a few times. The rest of the party lost moral after that and left as well. The Bard kept trying to tell me that I should be in Shield Oath too, but from the research I've done on forums it says that MTs should be in their DPS stance as much as possible. I only had a few hours to play the game last night, and after the Bard left there wasn't enough time to form another party in the PF from scratch so I was not able to get the clear. I feel like we could have beaten it if everyone had stuck it out, but I mostly blame that Bard for first demoralizing the party by implying I should be playing differently and then for leaving the party first, which forced us to leave the duty altogether since we were now short a person and wouldn't be able to get an LB3.

Sincerely,
Sword Oath ONLY Tank"

[Alaray]

Example:

"Hello GM, I joined a PF for an EX/Primal clear today that was eventually ruined because a Bard left after we wiped a few times. The rest of the party lost moral after that and left as well. The Bard kept trying to tell me that I should be in Shield Oath too, but from the research I've done on forums it says that MTs should be in their DPS stance as much as possible. I only had a few hours to play the game last night, and after the Bard left there wasn't enough time to form another party in the PF from scratch so I was not able to get the clear. I feel like we could have beaten it if everyone had stuck it out, but I mostly blame that Bard for first demoralizing the party by implying I should be playing differently and then for leaving the party first, which forced us to leave the duty altogether since we were now short a person and wouldn't be able to get an LB3.

Sincerely,
Sword Oath ONLY Tank"

You know they'd look at the actual chatlogs, right.

[Rowde]

You know they'd look at the actual chatlogs, right.

The chat logs would confirm that:

He said the Tank should be playing Shield Oath instead of Sword Oath (based on prior posts) AND that he left first.
As a result of him leaving the party had to abandon and then disbanded. Reported.

[Alaray]

The chat logs would confirm that:

He said the Tank should be playing Shield Oath instead of Sword Oath (based on prior posts) AND that he left first.
As a result of him leaving the party had to abandon and then disbanded. Reported.

It's GM discretion is my point. The rule you're citing is more likely to be used towards the Duty Finder system, than the Party Finder system. As one's a long queue you opt in for with the understanding you might end up in an instance you don't like, while the later has it's already defined rules and if the party doesn't meet those expectations laid out or someone needs to leave due to running out of available time, they can. Especially since PF groups don't have a time limit attached to them.

The disconnection point likely has to do with people taking advantage of d/cing in order to get kicked from instances, to exploit aspects of instances, or to circumvent design intention from SE.

If someone was reported for leaving a PF, the likelihood anything would be done even under these rules is basically nil. If someone was reported for "Compelling a different playstyle" that's up to GM discretion to decide whether or not the exchange warranted it, and the note of "reasonable people" is used in the ruleset. If it was overtly rude, or laced with vulgarities, then yeah you'd get punished as per the other rules that dictate conduct with strangers they have set forth.


Kind of like if you're in a Seiry Ex Farm Party but no one understands what they're doing, or your shield oath-only tank is part of the reason the party can't beat the enrage. The likelihood a GM would action someone for leaving that instance is low, and I'd be more surprised if they actually did unless there were other variables in the chatlogs involved. And even if they did, it wouldn't be a ban. Or even a temporary suspension. Probably not even a warning. At worst it'd just be a caution, and in the most likely scenario it'd be nothing.


There's not a lot of clarity with a lot of the rules they made, such as the "unilaterally disagreeing with opinion" one, but this example you're making is a bit of a reach.

[Mirakumi]

Example:

Yeah but GM's aren't clueless. They know how helpful the Shield Oath ability works. If anything they will agree to investigate the situation to satisfy said player. Then they will look over the other player - if other player checks out as okay then they will drop the investigation. It's not as complicated as people are making this.

[Beckett]

Example:

"Hello GM, I joined a PF for an EX/Primal clear today that was eventually ruined because a Bard left after we wiped a few times. The rest of the party lost moral after that and left as well. The Bard kept trying to tell me that I should be in Shield Oath too, but from the research I've done on forums it says that MTs should be in their DPS stance as much as possible. I only had a few hours to play the game last night, and after the Bard left there wasn't enough time to form another party in the PF from scratch so I was not able to get the clear. I feel like we could have beaten it if everyone had stuck it out, but I mostly blame that Bard for first demoralizing the party by implying I should be playing differently and then for leaving the party first, which forced us to leave the duty altogether since we were now short a person and wouldn't be able to get an LB3.

Sincerely,
Sword Oath ONLY Tank"

In that example, the bard would not get a mark on his record for leaving. He could get a mark on his record for an "Expression that compels a playing style" though.

Yeah but GM's aren't clueless. They know how helpful the Shield Oath ability works. If anything they will agree to investigate the situation to satisfy said player. Then they will look over the other player - if other player checks out as okay then they will drop the investigation. It's not as complicated as people are making this.

The problem is that it's an entirely subjective ruling. The Bard could be nothing but polite, trying to calmly explain the benefits of using Shield Oath for 15 minutes with the Paladin going, "no that's stupid im sword oath!" and the Bard finally ends with, "I'm tired of dealing with your ignorance. I'm out of here."

One GM might read that exchange and think, "Yeah, that PLD was really dumb. Moving on." and another GM might read that and go, "Whoa, that Bard insulted the Paladin! That's not allowed!" and give the Bard a negative mark. There's absolutely no way to know what the outcome is going to be because it's entirely up to the GM's personal opinion on what constitutes "An expression that is offensive to another person".

GMs are human too... and capable of applying common sense. Tired GM is just as likely to say "seriously, you're wasting my time reporting a player because they called a Lalafell short?"

And that's the problem. Even if your example you're "just as likely" to get a mark on your record for an off-hand remark as you are that the GM will ignore it.

Seems to me that anyone worrying about receiving penalties maybe do need to examine their own behavior. It's all pretty common courtesy/decency stuff.

"Only those with something to hide would be upset with the government inspecting their personal homes."

I mostly stick to Discord and almost never use in-game chat at all, let alone use it to be rude to people. That doesn't mean I can't recognize this new policy for the terrible idea that is.

[InkstainedGwyn]

You've seen people saying exit lines when they leave after the first wipe ? oO

Frequently.

"Lrn 2play your classes, dumb***es."

"F*ing retards."

"Omg don't say farm if you're not ready" (we were listed as a learning party)

These are just some of the "quips" I've gotten as people have bailed before.