Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Lauront]

Nope. But they can report you for infringing on gameplay, because the advice you're giving is unsolicited. If you want to coach the knowledge you've obtained, I suggest joining a program that allows you to do so instead of imposing your playstyle onto others in a dungeon. If that ice mage bothers you so much, then abandon the duty and form a premade party. DF isn't for your convenience. It's for everyone. Either bite or bail.

LMAO "imposing"

By not playing their job properly, they are weighing down on other players. He's not "imposing" his playstyle on anyone - he is explaining the mechanics of the game to the player. This can be done in a courteous and respectful way, or a matter of fact-ly one, or an abusive one. The rules should SOLELY deal with that latter instance, i.e. abusive behaviour.

If DF is for everyone, why should OTHER players be forced to put up with bad ones? You do realise that the option now will be to simply remove dead weight as opposed to helping players improve? Since that is an option.

DF is very much there for convenience. If you want to render it dysfunctional by having some players never improve as a result of a lack of feedback, that is an awful idea.

Although I don't think most players are so foolish as to ignore advice offered in good faith, this is just the sort of attitude that breeds narcissistic individuals unable to cope with the realities of the world.

The rules are intended to deal with abusive behaviour, harassment and cheating. Yet the way they are written catches much more than this, especially due to being at GM discretion. Hardly transparent.

[CatfishCassie]

LMAO "imposing"

By not playing their job properly, they are weighing down on other players. He's not "imposing" his playstyle on anyone - he is explaining the mechanics of the game to the player. This can be done in a courteous and respectful way, or a matter of fact-ly one, or an abusive one. The rules should SOLELY deal with that latter instance, i.e. abusive behaviour.

If DF is for everyone, why should OTHER players be forced to put up with bad ones? You do realise that the option now will be to simply remove dead weight as opposed to helping players improve? Since that is an option.

DF is very much there for convenience. If you want to render it dysfunctional by having some players never improve as a result of a lack of feedback, that is an awful idea.

Although I don't think most players are so foolish as to ignore advice offered in good faith, this is just the sort of attitude that breeds narcissistic individuals unable to cope with the realities of the world.

The rules are intended to deal with abusive behaviour, harassment and cheating. Yet the way they are written catches much more than this, especially due to being at GM discretion. Hardly transparent.

Other players aren't forced to put up with bad players. Just like I can choose to leave and take the lockout when someone's being abusive to me, they can choose to leave and take the lockout if they think my play is sub-par. Just like I can choose to only play with people I already know because I've run into so many abusive players, they can choose to only play with people they know if they've run into so many sub-par ones. Duty Finder isn't "for everyone". Duty Finder is for people that don't care about the quality of their dungeon experience. If the quality of the experience means so much to someone that they feel the need to be abusive, they can make a pre-formed party with their friends instead, skip the abusiveness entirely, and be assured that they'll have a higher quality play experience.

[Lauront]

Other players aren't forced to put up with bad players. Just like I can choose to leave and take the lockout when someone's being abusive to me, they can choose to leave and take the lockout if they think my play is sub-par. Just like I can choose to only play with people I already know because I've run into so many abusive players, they can choose to only play with people they know if they've run into so many sub-par ones. Duty Finder isn't "for everyone". Duty Finder is for people that don't care about the quality of their dungeon experience. If the quality of the experience means so much to someone that they feel the need to be abusive, they can make a pre-formed party with their friends instead, skip the abusiveness entirely, and be assured that they'll have a higher quality play experience.

Or they can, and probably will, vote dismiss.

[CatfishCassie]

Or they can, and probably will, vote dismiss.

Sure, but that's already a reportable offense...

"・Improper expulsion voting
This means excluding another person by manipulation of expulsion voting."

[CatfishCassie]

Why would it be improper? If the rest of the players feel you're not playing to an acceptable standard, that seems like perfectly reasonable grounds for removing you. How would you even prove that it's improper if not a word is said?

Like I said, the problem with turning DF into a hive of "you don't pay my sub" is that there will be no cross-pollination of knowledge. Knowledgeable/skillful players will stick to PF and their linkshells and avoid it like the plague. There are so many other ways to get tomes now that the only people this will harm are the people who are precisely the ones who need this assistance most - leveling players.



Thanks for saying this. It is exactly one of my concerns about the whole thing.

The pop-up that appears when you vote to kick someone exclusively lists what the function can be used for. Any other use is, by definition, improper.

Now... it's certainly possible that abandoning all the lower-skilled players to Duty Finder while skilled players exclusively use Party Finder or pre-made parties might result in Duty Finder becoming unplayable... but it's not probable. More likely, if such an extreme thing were to happen, the lower-skilled players would find ways to get better on their own, now that they don't have people covering for their lack of skill. That's certainly what happens among higher-skilled players when they're hitting new content... they fail a lot until they learn how to succeed. They incrementally improve until they're good enough to continue on. And, for that matter, it's how newbies of all stripes (skilled or not) learn the game in the beginning. Certainly, I agree with your assumption that putting the banhammer behind interpersonal interactions makes it less likely that someone is going to share knowledge. That's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. But I think that the ideal way forward is to make such positive interactions tenable without removing the specter of being banned for negative interactions. How to do that, exactly, is a more difficult question, but probably involves being able to look at a specific player's behavior over time instead of simply a snapshot of that one interaction. Maybe a points system, where if someone is reported often enough for taking a "get gud" attitude instead of a constructive attitude, that administrative action is considered, but only after a certain number of such negative interactions.

Certainly, there also needs to be an appeals process. Unfortunately, especially given how rarely appeals work out on various social media platforms, I have my doubts as to whether such a process would be effective without a neutral, third-party mediator... which is probably too expensive and time consuming of a proposition for something like this.

[Paladinleeds]

The pop-up that appears when you vote to kick someone exclusively lists what the function can be used for. Any other use is, by definition, improper.

And unless they've changed their stance on it, "Difference of Playstyle" has always been an acceptable reason for dismissal. We shall see if that is still the case I guess.

[CatfishCassie]

And unless they've changed their stance on it, "Difference of Playstyle" has always been an acceptable reason for dismissal. We shall see if that is still the case I guess.

I haven't checked in several months, but the last time I saw a "Vote to Kick" screen, the only acceptable reasons were because the player disconnected, was afk, or was harassing other players. I've never seen "Difference of Playstyle" on that screen, ever.