Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[cougarel]

But how do you tell the devs or whomever is overseeing the GMs (assuming they have any sort of oversight) when a GM is in the wrong? There is no appeals process. This is a fundamental issue that goes hand in hand with these new changes. GMs or players could EASILY abuse this system and victims of this abuse will have no recourse.

I am sure in such cases it can be escalated. Now the others have pointed out the flaws in their announcement now, that there is no text about the appeal and some broad wordings that spiked this avalanche .

Most likely they will review it and provide clarifications .

[Violet_Galaxy]

Knowing how un-PC I am, I just won't say anything to anyone in-game but just the typical robot fake idgaf who you are "hello" or "o/" since everything else is just opening myself up for account termination. I really hate this PC era we're in. "Excessive criticism"?? Really?? If that person sucks at their job and I'm trying to get them up to par I can get banned for that??? I guess I should just be a ray of sunshine and sprinkles and put up with it huh.

[Fyce]

I do agree here but again if you are watchful of what you say and not intentionally harming anyone, why should you worry so much?
This is also a good example of, well I expressed my opinion, I can't change anyone's so... this is where my replies end.

I do understand the worry but I think it's really exaggerated. Just play nice, help people out if you can, leave politely if you can't and enjoy the game.

No matter how "polite" you are, someone is going to be "offended" no matter what, simply because of how broad and subjective this is.
And that's the issue: being offended is subjective, and while you can reduce the risk of offending people by "being nice", the risk of them getting offended anyway is out of your control and up to GM appreciation. And if someone manages to show that they legitematly got offended by something you said, no matter how nice it was put, there is no reason not to believe that you won't get punished. As long as the GM believes that you offended someone, according to that new policy you should receive a strike.

Also, don't forget that any infringement will be permanently present on your account, and that any new infringement will trigger an even greater punishment than the previous one, regardless of what you actually did. So even if the risk of getting a strike after saying anything is small, it's still too much when you consider that strike system.

You say that the reaction is exaggerated, but that's the point... This new policy allows that kind of extreme scenarios to happen. You have absolutly no guarantee that "being nice" is enough to be 100% sure that you won't get a strike that will stay on your account forever. And that's the problem with how the new changes are worded.

Tl;dr: You can be nice and still offend people. And thus get reported and punished under this new policy.

[HyoMinPark]

I’ve been trying to find a way to put my thoughts into coherent statements about this change. Overall, I think that there’s a certain amount of vagueness and subjectivity to some of these new parameters, and without clearly defined examples (the key words here are “clearly defined”), there is a potential for abuse.

I am not trying to “fearmonger” and claim that there will be a sudden/huge influx of false reports designed to intentionally hurt another player or that people will suddenly start reporting every little transgression as “offensive” (that’s silly)—however, I am concerned about what some players may opt to do, especially considering a recent story I read about a fellow Forum Member’s Dun Scaith experience (those who read the Tales of the Duty Finder thread are probably aware of the story I am referring to). There are people that exist that are just mean, and it is those individuals that I fear these vague guidelines will lend fuel to should they try to twist words in their favor.

◆Offensive expression
"Offensive expression" means an expression in general that inflicts emotional distress by being offensive to another person.

While there are “given things” that are easy to consider offensive to a majority (i.e., slurs of any kind), what else defines “offensive expression”? What about “emotional distress”? These are both subjective measures (the latter extremely so), and while I know there are examples that try to define “offensive expression” listed (I’ll get to those further down), how does one measure “emotional distress”? What is the “acceptable definition” of this in Square Enix’s eyes? This varies so much among individuals—and among cultures—that I am concerned about the ability for malicious people to spin situations in their favor by claiming “emotional distress” with nary a concern for the other party who may be far more distressed than these people over finding themselves punished for something they considered small/ridiculous/inconsequential (and I realize that this is also a subjective measure).

Again, I am not trying to “fearmonger” and say that this will become some rampant problem, but there will be incidents where players will report another player as an act of “revenge” against them.

—

Now on to the “examples”.

Offensive expression may include:

・Aggressive expressions such as violent language/slander/insult/threat.

Self-explanatory. I have no qualms about this one, as it goes back to what I said about things that a majority would consider offensive, like slurs. It’s a given.

・Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule

Okay, I can see this. Belittling someone kind of goes back to the first point with “insults”, and provocation/ridicule can be seen as a type of harassment. So those are a given.

I just wonder how much criticism SE considers “excessive”? In before someone says “what a reasonable person would consider excessive criticism”, there are different levels that different people use for “excessive”. I’m personally assuming that this means “harping on someone repeatedly over something”. I just wonder how many times are given to someone before their criticism is considered “excessive”.

・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person

Okay, I get this one as well. No issues here. Another given.

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion

What even is this? “Unilaterally reject another person’s opinion”? Is this saying that we aren’t allowed to disagree with something someone else says? Because I certainly hope not.

How are we supposed to have proper discourse if we aren’t allowed to have differing opinions, openly disagree with opinions we disagree with, and share our reasonings why? I can understand comments like “Your opinion is stupid and dumb and you should feel stupid and dumb for having it”, but what about several players saying “I disagree with what you are current saying because. . . .”? As we all know, there can be very heavy divides amongst the playerbase with regards to... certain topics. How can both sides have constructive discourse if one isn’t allowed to say they disagree with the other’s side?

I’m honestly not even sure what this statement is supposed to mean. I could be completely misinterpreting it, but...

・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive

I get this one. It ties in with the first two points with regards to “aggressive language” and “belittling/ridiculing” someone. It’s a bit redundant in that sense.

・Expressions that compel a playing style

This one has me concerned as well. It’s long been inferred that “differences in playstyle” is a valid reason to remove a person from a party (randomly matched and pre-made), so is this statement negating the previous conception? Does it also shield players from (constructive) criticism of their playstyle?

Am I no longer allowed to ask DPS to use AOE abilities on large trash pulls?
What about asking healers in high-end content to do more than just standing around and healing occasionally?
Am I no longer allowed to ask a person to “stop jumping around the boss and contribute”?

Some clarification on this would be appreciated.

・Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc.
(Except when in accordance with rules set by an administrator such as a Free Company Master)

Only question I have for this is, does this still apply to Party Finders? If I create a Savage party that asks for a certain level of skill or a certain level of ability, am I allowed to exclude players that I find to contradict the parameters I put forth in the PF? I would like to assume so, since I would be the “administrator” of the party.

・Expressions that contravene public order and morals

I feel like “public order” and “morals” vary far too much between cultures/individuals to try and enforce this unless the expressions being used are something extreme that most, if not all, cultures can agree upon. I’m assuming this rule is referencing those extreme situations, and not just any situation one claims to be “morally offensive”.

・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

Again, I’m hoping that this rule is referencing things that are reasonably offensive, like threats and insults that utilize aggressive language/slurs, and that it’s just being redundant and emphasizing the other similar rules...

However, I know how easily offended some people can be over just about anything—is this rule going to cater to their personal perceptions of offensive? Because personal perceptions can differ—for example, I know some people find it “offensive” to have someone offer them constructive advice on a job, or to question a particular playstyle. There was a person in the Novice Network on my server that apparently got into it with another player about whether or not “hell” was considered a curse word (and they seemed offended by the use of it in a “what the —“ context and subsequently kicked the other person from the NN). Does this apply to that? I can understand some of the more heavier curse words (I personally don’t care, but I know some people do), but the ones that are also used within the game itself?

Honestly, this is an even broader repeat of the “Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive” rule—but one which also somewhat contradicts the “any reasonable person” qualifier to now cover “anything anyone finds offensive”.

Another from the Prohibited Activities revision I have questions on:

Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity

The majority of this makes sense... but what on earth do you mean about “discriminatory expressions based on thinking”??? Is this just... miswording?


Bit of a long-winded post (oops), but TL;DR: I’m honestly not sure what to think about this. I tried to see the rules from an objective standpoint, but I still cannot help my own concerns regarding a couple of them and their subjectivity. Perhaps I’m completely wrong in all the things I typed here. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

However, I find it interesting that everybody has immediately jumped to the conclusion that "free speech is dead I can no longer be myself or I'll be banned" and not thought more about situations like the ones we read about "my ex is stalking me and won't remove me from their friends list and constantly makes alts to send me rude/disturbing messages, but SE says they can't step in so all I can do is blacklist them".

Personally, I think it was because one of the parameters was worded “expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion”, which almost makes it sound like we’re no longer allowed to disagree with someone else’s opinion because “feelings”. I can understand something like dog-piling onto a person and ridiculing them for having an opinion, but for simply disagreeing? I consider myself to be fairly reasonable, and I can see where people are getting this interpretation from (at least with regards to this specific rule).

The parameters are too vague, and there are some things listed that are extremely subjective with regards to both measure and interpretation.

Suggestions are not compulsions. Being polite about it is different from demanding.

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.

You can’t make others see your “suggestion” of “please use [AOE skill] when I pull lots of mobs” as just a polite suggestion. Considering how many players I’ve seen throw a fit when they’re asked to press their AOE buttons against a pack of 10 mobs, I don’t think they’re taking it as a “nice suggestion”—they see it as you trying to force them to play how you want and as uncalled for/harsh criticism of their chosen way of play (it’s criticism, but it’s certainly not uncalled for or harsh in an appropriate situation).

This is all about the perception and interpretation of any given player that makes these parameters difficult to measure. It’s fairly clear that some players’ definitions of “common courtesy” and “decency” vary with regards to some things in this game.

[Roda]

Wait... are you attempting to invalidate the legitimate opinions of other users in this thread by holding them to a completely different cultural standard?

That sounds like something I've seen somewhere before... what could that be...
- Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity

I'm really hoping that thinking thing is like a REALLY poorly worded way of saying dont discriminate against neuro-divergent people.

But other than that a lot of these rules are just flat out bad. Prohibiting playstyle suggestions will do nothing but encourage "you dont pay my sub" types to carry on getting carried, bringing down the experience of the other 3-7 people in the group. If I can get banned for saying "I'm at full health it's ok to dps" or "please put garuda on obey" or "please use skills other than skill sunder, the game highlights your skills for you to know which order to press them in", then that makes me really not want to use duty finder in fear that I'm going to either have an absolutely grueling time in a dungeon, or get banned for just wanting to help others get the most out of the game.

[zztoluca]

Revert these changes and go back to the drawing board as what you have implemented is to vague.
It is not a matter of if but how badly will players and GM's will abuse that very fact to silence other players.

You are effectively telling players to not help others, to not give opinions, to not communicate or you might offend them.

Dont lead the community on like that and just disable chat like you did in the 'Feast'
At least that way the migration of chat to other platforms like Discord will be swift and painless, this is such a disappointment to seeing that even the SJW agenda has infected this game. SMH

[Iscah]

I'm really hoping that thinking thing is like a REALLY poorly worded way of saying dont discriminate against neuro-divergent people.

That would make sense - and it's a rather hard thing to give a one-word neutral all-encompassing summary of.

But if it's designed to stop "autistic" from being the new general-purpose insult, I'm all for it.


...I think this policy needs to come with a glossary section.

(Not 100% sure but I think the "reasonable person" thing is legal/formal terminology for this kind of policy - and for actual laws, too.)

[Hyperon]

Just go back to the old policy but add on being stricter about stalking. These rules are ripe for abuse for conflicting reasons. The first on harassment with including gender/sexual orientation/gender identity is good but thinking harassment is weird. Even then there is Obscene/indecent expressions which is subjective because the act of being outside of the norms is obscene to some who are. Even then there are so many new rules that weren't an issue but now are. Something that wouldn't have constitute a report will now be used just to spite someone they don't like even if it didn't offend them. All they have to do is make enough of an impassioned plea for GM to intervene.

Now that you are choosing to involve yourselves with how we talk to one another, true bad actors of these rules will just leave to talk and organize on discord or skype and use these them to hurt people with speech that didn't bother them in the first place but they will know that you will act on now. This doesn't do anything against people who get really harassed in game with outside tools. Basically making this silent game more silent. I'm not saying don't try but these rules are really overreaching. The last bastion of amusing talk which was silly banter/sassy is just gone. I haven't seen hard flaming in the game since heavensward for DR. I know things haven't changed for some people but idk I'm just conflicted.

[Rongway]

Prohibiting playstyle suggestions will do nothing but encourage "you dont pay my sub" types to carry on getting carried, bringing down the experience of the other 3-7 people in the group. If I can get banned for saying "I'm at full health it's ok to dps" or "please put garuda on obey" or "please use skills other than skill sunder, the game highlights your skills for you to know which order to press them in", then that makes me really not want to use duty finder in fear that I'm going to either have an absolutely grueling time in a dungeon, or get banned for just wanting to help others get the most out of the game.

The rules don't say, "You may not politely tell people how they can play more effectively." They say we're not allowed to "compel a playing style".

"The intended use of Veraero and Verthunder is that you take advantage of the Dualcast trait to cast them instantly as the second spell after a faster spell like Jolt. They're not meant to be slow-casted on their own, as you would only be able to cast 2/3 as many spells this way." is a reasonable explanation of basic RDMing and no reasonable person should find this offensive.

"(Insert Skill Name) (Please use it.)" is usually a reasonable request that does not fall under any of the bullet points of the Offensive Expression section, except possibly the catch-all final bullet point, but a reasonable GM should not support the classification of this type of request as "offensive".

"If you don't use (Insert Skill Name) we're going to kick you" is quite different from either of the other examples and obviously an example of the sort of imperative that the play style rule is meant to guard against.

[MistakeNot]

These new rules are extremely unclear as to what is prohibited and what is not.
Taken literally some of them imply that saying or doing nearly anything in the game could be considered a prohibited activity. There can always be someone who will take offense to even the most innocent statements for example.

These rules seem to create a highly uncomfortable environment for players, where they are afraid that anything they do could be considered a prohibited activity.