Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[HyoMinPark]

I will say I do admit checking how the JP respond to this exact post. They are still on Page 1 and accepted without popcorn posts. Pretty telling how much exaggeration is being applied.

Silence doesn’t equate acceptance. The post as of the time of me posting this only had 43 likes, so it doesn’t exactly scream unanimous.

I wonder if it doesn't have to do with less vague phrasing on their end. Because that could have a lot to do with it, NA's tendency for theatrics aside. But meh [shrug]

Unless I’ve mistranslated, the statement in the JP thread is asking for examples. So I think we can infer that there’s at least some questions about the vagueness and subjectivity of this topic there as well.

[SenorPatty]

At this point, I feel like it would've been better for SE to forego all these new rules but keep the intent active. The TL;DR version of their post is basically "we're gonna be more pro-active" about enforcing rules. Well, could've just done without all the vague new rules. Sometimes, we don't need to know all the behind-the-scenes decision, at the very least, when it comes to moderating the game, especially when at times, it just feels completely nonsensical and arbitrary.

I know Equilibrium's a good movie and all but don't mean the game and forums need a "lite" version of it.

[geekgirl101]

It doesn't take much for someone to immediately scream out "descrimination!" or "harrassment!" that you'd be too scared to say or even look at someone a certain way and the more reasons you give people to make an accusation the more it'll get abused.

[Kaedan]

These changes literally say that I can be reported for having an opinion and disagreeing with someone elses opinion. I'm suddenly incredibly worried about the future of this game.

Not in the slightest.

Unless you are expressing your "opinion" in a offensive way, then it's reportable.

[Beckett]

The intentional disconnect thing is aimed squarely at the players who are doing it to skip the cut scenes in the MSQ roulette.

This makes sense. I find it unlikely that they would put a mark on anyone who "just happened to d/c at the start of that hated dungeon" but when you've got players consistently d/c'ing right at the start of cutscenes in the MSQ dungeons, it's far easier to prove it's intentional.

My question is how do they know its on purpose regardless my cat has stepped on my power cord turning off my ps at times i try to come back as fast as i can

Because your cat stepping on your power cord right at the start of every cutscene is ridiculous. Especially if you already have a record of your "cat" pulling your cord in MSQ Roulette on several other occasions.

[RognarB]

These new policies are begging to be abused by ill intended people willing to remove someone from the game with the help of GMs. Literally any behavior could be interpreted as offensive and would then require punishement.

・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person
so not treating someone as if they are the absolute navel of the universe would fall into this category, bang here is your caution

・Expressions that compel a playing style
so telling someone in a pf that spamming heavy thrust isnt how you're supposed to play DRG, bang here is your warning

・Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc.
so having someone in a blacklist would fall into this category, bang there is your suspension

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion
so simply walking away from someone and not wanting to hear anything from them? Bang, there is your longer suspension

・Other expressions that are offensive to another person
literally ANYTHING? Bang your account is gone

Someone who really doesnt like you could spend a weekend to get your account gone by feinging offence and with the current social trend here in NA, GMs cannot be trusted to act fairly and are expected to support whoever claims to be the victim of anything.
These rules seems to be made with the specific intent in mind to literally ban anyone for anything and gms will not even tell you what you did wrong on top of that. it is a profoundly unfair system and one that encourages complete non-interaction with people as the best way to avoid falling victim to it.
This goes against all notions of fairness and its stunning that SE would even consider such draconian measures to ensure the "safety" of its playerbase, by literally making it so unsafe to interact that and let the perpetually offended people decide who gets to play.

I have cancelled my subscription as of tonight as I will not support or ignore these policies, only someone wishing to bring harm to others could possibly be glad that this is the new way Square Enix decided to approach user interaction.

[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.

[Xuled]

Big yikes all around on these. It was fine before, these are heavy handed.

[Beckett]

■Ignoring the Game Master (GM)'s instructions
If the Game Master (GM) gives an instruction based on the Terms of Use and/or other rules, failure to follow the instruction is a violation. If you are given an instruction by the GM, please follow this immediately.

This one baffles me. Are there things the GMs would ask you to do that they simply couldn't do themselves?
"Report to jail!" (instead of just sending them there)
"Return the stolen item to Player B!" (instead of just moving the item to Player B's inventory)
"Apologize to Player C for hurting their feelings!" (oh god it's this one, isn't it?)

[KaivaC]

snip

The new rules are vague and a bit of a shock...but personally, I don't think it's serious enough to unsub over.