Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[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.