Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Iscah]

After reading the changes and the updated TOS, all I have to say is that I am not entirely happy.

You cannot regulate compassion. Try all you want, you just cannot regulate compassion.

You cannot force people to become compassionate by the "fear of the report".

You can't force compassion... but you can ban people who are so averse to being compassionate that they'd rather break the rules than control their own behaviour to avoid a ban.


I can't even begin to comprehend seeing compassion as a negative, "forced" thing you could complain about having to follow.

[Maeka]

You can't force compassion... but you can ban people who are so averse to being compassionate that they'd rather break the rules than control their own behaviour to avoid a ban.

The problem with this mentality is that we already had a perfectly fine system in place, where if you actually did anything bad to somebody, you'd get in trouble.

Now, the new system is that if you "hurt" somebody (which can be anything) you can get banned no matter what it was, if the GM is in a bad enough mood.

[Moshantu]

The problem with this mentality is that we already had a perfectly fine system in place, where if you actually did anything bad to somebody, you'd get in trouble.

Now, the new system is that if you "hurt" somebody (which can be anything) you can get banned no matter what it was, if the GM is in a bad enough mood.

I think you're over-estimating how difficult it is to actually get -banned.- Banning isn't their step 1 unless it's a -very- serious violation, which likely involves things like death threats, spreading personal information with malicious intent, that sort of thing. And that goes beyond the things covered as "nuisances" or "offensive" and goes more into full-on harassment, which the rules for are much less vague.

Also can we call a moratorium on this "if the GM is in a bad mood..." cherry-picked argument? How grumpy does everyone think these GMs are? How -unprofessional- do you think they are? Can it happen? Of course it can. But it's not even close to being common enough to be considered a behavioral trend. It's basically fear-mongering. I fully expect to be linked reddit and forum posts of examples where people have been on the receiving end of a GM in a bad mood, but those are examples out of how many cases? How many open tickets ended that way? Let's say that I am somehow linked 1,000 examples of GMs in a bad mood. That would mean that to even be 1% of all tickets, there'd have to have only been 100,000 tickets in all of FFXIV:ARR's lifetime. And I know there's far fewer examples than 1,000, and far more lifetime report tickets than 100,000.

[Olivia0x25]

I think you're over-estimating how difficult it is to actually get -banned.- Banning isn't their step 1 unless it's a -very- serious violation, which likely involves things like death threats, spreading personal information with malicious intent, that sort of thing. And that goes beyond the things covered as "nuisances" or "offensive" and goes more into full-on harassment, which the rules for are much less vague.

Also can we call a moratorium on this "if the GM is in a bad mood..." cherry-picked argument? How grumpy does everyone think these GMs are? How -unprofessional- do you think they are? Can it happen? Of course it can. But it's not even close to being common enough to be considered a behavioral trend. It's basically fear-mongering. I fully expect to be linked reddit and forum posts of examples where people have been on the receiving end of a GM in a bad mood, but those are examples out of how many cases? How many open tickets ended that way? Let's say that I am somehow linked 1,000 examples of GMs in a bad mood. That would mean that to even be 1% of all tickets, there'd have to have only been 100,000 tickets in all of FFXIV:ARR's lifetime. And I know there's far fewer examples than 1,000, and far more lifetime report tickets than 100,00.

Yeah but the fact of the matter is, that something went from no chance in happening, to now a POSSIBILITY of it happening. The simple fact that you are disagreeing with her right now, she can say her feelings are hurt and report you for what you wrote because you see a different view than her, and that can be a warning placed on your account for doing something so horrible as to disagreeing with her point of view.

Just like I can technically be held responsible for assuming Maeka's gender...

I'm part of the LBGT community, and even I find these new policies unhealthy for anyones sort of benefit.

[Maeka]

Just like I can technically be held responsible for assuming Maeka's gender...

With these new rules, I could have you banned (or try to) just because you assumed I had a gender. What if I identify as an asexual snail? I could, in all honesty, report you for hurting my feelings by implying I have a gender.

(Obviously I wouldn't do that, but with the way the rules are worded? That is very much a possibility)

[Xtrasweettea]

With these new rules, I could have you banned (or try to) just because you assumed I had a gender. What if I identify as an asexual snail? I could, in all honesty, report you for hurting my feelings by implying I have a gender.

(Obviously I wouldn't do that, but with the way the rules are worded? That is very much a possibility)

Not if I report you first for offending me about you not having a gender. (Which I wouldn't do at all, but the rules state I can).

Which brings up a point, "whoever reports first, wins."

Example: party in a dungeon, fully pugged. PLD tank asks if it is ok to do big pulls and gives his opinion on why they should. The healer and one DPS say yes. The other DPS says no and gives their own opinion. The group states they will pull big anyway, rejecting the non-big pull DPS's opnion. The healer feels belittled by the opinion of the rejecting DPS. Both the healer and the rejecting DPS will report. The rejecting DPS will report for not having their opinion considered and it causing some exclusion. The healer will report the rejecting DPS for belittlement.

Who gets disciplined can be based on who is reports first. If the rejected DPS gets reported first by the healer, the GM could take action against the DPS but not the rest of the group for their "infraction." If the DPS reports first, the GM could discipline the whole group, but not address the belittlement by the rejecting DPS.

[Hamada]

Not if I report you first for offending me about you not having a gender. (Which I wouldn't do at all, but the rules state I can).

Which brings up a point, "whoever reports first, wins."

Example: party in a dungeon, fully pugged. PLD tank asks if it is ok to do big pulls and gives his opinion on why they should. The healer and one DPS say yes. The other DPS says no and gives their own opinion. The group states they will pull big anyway, rejecting the non-big pull DPS's opnion. The healer feels belittled by the opinion of the rejecting DPS. Both the healer and the rejecting DPS will report. The rejecting DPS will report for not having their opinion considered and it causing some exclusion. The healer will report the rejecting DPS for belittlement.

Who gets disciplined can be based on who is reports first. If the rejected DPS gets reported first by the healer, the GM could take action against the DPS but not the rest of the group for their "infraction." If the DPS reports first, the GM could discipline the whole group, but not address the belittlement by the rejecting DPS.

Well I am going to assume they keep this part way it is handled now (I am not sure if they amended this anywhere) but what the gms would do would not be take action who reports first, but on both. I think this is part of the reason they may have "private policy" in being very strict of not giving you hints who reported you, since it leads to revenge reporting and if you got a date, they will investigate past conversations.

Also it is not clear to me, what happens if a person got 6 petty warnings? These things stay on your account forever. Like you could of got a 1 day back in ARR, because of that, you mess up in HW somehow, get a week just because you got a 1 day in the long past, then this comes along to ban you over the most petty thing because someone makes a good argument to a GM.

Is this the kind of rule enforcement we should be supporting? You have to remember these warnings never go away be it 1 year, 10 years, etc.

So now every time we have a disagreement, we also have to talk it out? On a forum I can understand. In game? Not always feasible, espeically if its in the middle of combat. That being said, discourse is not always required. If someone gets on my case in-game about how “healers should only heal”, I don’t tend to engage with them because I don’t want to mess with it.
.

Ask a healer to dps, get told healers heal only, explain to them how the game works, get reported for hurting their feelings of being a "pure healer" then get banned cuz you got a week in HW.

10/10

[Moshantu]

Yeah but the fact of the matter is, that something went from no chance in happening, to now a POSSIBILITY of it happening. The simple fact that you are disagreeing with her right now, she can say her feelings are hurt and report you for what you wrote because you see a different view than her, and that can be a warning placed on your account for doing something so horrible as to disagreeing with her point of view.

Just like I can technically be held responsible for assuming Maeka's gender...

I'm part of the LBGT community, and even I find these new policies unhealthy for anyones sort of benefit.

I encourage her to report me, honestly. I openly disagreed with her but in a respectful way in a general discussion forum, the place where discussion is supposed to happen. I'd gladly risk taking the warning on my account out of sheer curiosity to see if I'd actually get one or not. Call it an experiment in the obtuse wording of the new rules.

[Olivia0x25]

I encourage her to report me, honestly. I openly disagreed with her but in a respectful way in a general discussion forum, the place where discussion is supposed to happen. I'd gladly risk taking the warning on my account out of sheer curiosity to see if I'd actually get one or not. Call it an experiment in the obtuse wording of the new rules.

I mean... it says it right there in the rules. Whether you intended or didn't intend to hurt her feelings. It literally says it there. There shouldn't be any sort of "test". This should be reportable to begin with. But I mean... to each their own.

The fact that there's a risk factor is purely... absurd.

[Xtrasweettea]

You can't force compassion... but you can ban people who are so averse to being compassionate that they'd rather break the rules than control their own behaviour to avoid a ban.

You are still trying to enforce compassion. You cannot force someone to do an action that they either have no capability of doing or refuse to do. Those people will either be disciplined, or be smart enough to only associate with people who are like them.