Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Xtrasweettea]

It's the same jargon they use whenever you have to do HR training at a new job nowadays, intent doesn't matter only how your actions/words made another feel. Technically you could get fired from a job for saying "hi" to someone if you made them feel bad enough, in practice though I've never seen anyone abuse it to that point. Only time I've seen it enacted is when people are attempting to make joke and someone takes offense to it.

Yeah, but that is the real world where people at least try to pretend to be adults.

This is the internet, where people are perpetually offended. There is no real risk or loss of face (or chance of being sued) for reporting someone for something in video game that "offends" them. There is real risk, loss of face, and a chance of being sued for reporting for "offense" through a HR department.

[Fangorn]

SE guys, this is frustrating.
In the game which is known for the best gaming community, you impose a censorship on players with really vague rules for the sake of wokeness. You frightening me to play freely the game that is welcoming and friendly. Actually, your new rules hurt me by several "prohibited activities" you mentioned there.
I think i'm gonna report the 1st message of this thread.

[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)

[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.

[Iscah]

Another element that I think is getting overlooked is the Account Penalty Policy, linked in the original post, which lays out the different levels of responses to reports. There are "cautions" and "warnings" for minor infractions, with no guarantee that the level will be increased the second time unless you've actually received a ban in the past.

Even if a petty complaint got accepted against you, they're not going to leap straight to the escalating bans.

[CaptainLagbeard]

・Expressions that compel a playing style

So, we're not allowed to tell someone they're doing a terrible job at a role? Like a tank not using any enmity generating skills (the combo, or Flash/Overpower/Unleash, and not using Shield Oath/Defiance/Grit) according to that we're not allowed to tell him that's not how you play a tank...

・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

So if I declare being a Lalafel as offensive towards me, will you ban all Lalafels?

[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.

[Moshantu]

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.

I don't feel like I risked anything. I don't feel put-upon by these rules in the slightest. I don't think anything I said could be taken as offensive by a reasonable person. See below rule.

*Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive

And I didn't state my view points in a way that forbade others from combating them or imply that I refused to engage other opinions. See below rule.

*Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion

There's no rule that states that I can't simply disagree with someone. Just that I can't -unilaterally- reject their opinion, specifically in an offensive way. But people seem to think there is a rule against general discussion. So I want to see if the GMs agree.

[noxen]

I'd say give it a couple months, once SE realises the workload increase with tickets to deal with they'll revert the changes. Maybe I'm overly optimistic.