The new treatment of ''harassment'' in the ToS.

[TybaltJustAnotherMiqote]

@Lucerna
If I somehow made it seem that the blacklist was a cure-all for all the ways people get harassed, then I suppose that has been a miscommunication. Beyond that my post was specifically meant to be about the new wording that is rather up to personal preference to when it is applied.
A player standing on top of an NPC, there-for limiting other players ability to select the NPC is easily proven. These are not the things that concern me. Stalking is horrible, but from past experiences luckily not my own but of dear friends I have seen the GM's being more then capable of handling the issue in side the games boundaries. Yes this particular case ended in the same result as the new method would -namely a ban- so i trust in the GM's ability to handle it without leaving open the opportunity for someone to abuse it.
The main issue comes with putting it black on white. A GM is bound by the ToS to indicate what they can and need to intervene with, several cases have gone from ''can'' to ''must''.
Example: A player reports that they have been targeted by harassment from another player, and claims now to feel dreadful about themselves.
- Previously a GM could investigate, decide or not if there really was harassment, and if so can punish the player.
- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.
I don't lack fate in the GM's, i just dislike the notion of the Terms being abused to force a GM's hand. Regardless if this would occur, the principle to not have the rules set up like that alone, is important enough for me.

[Lucerna]

@Lucerna
If I somehow made it seem that the blacklist was a cure-all for all the ways people get harassed, then I suppose that has been a miscommunication. Beyond that my post was specifically meant to be about the new wording that is rather up to personal preference to when it is applied.
A player standing on top of an NPC, there-for limiting other players ability to select the NPC is easily proven. These are not the things that concern me. Stalking is horrible, but from past experiences luckily not my own but of dear friends I have seen the GM's being more then capable of handling the issue in side the games boundaries. Yes this particular case ended in the same result as the new method would -namely a ban- so i trust in the GM's ability to handle it without leaving open the opportunity for someone to abuse it.
The main issue comes with putting it black on white. A GM is bound by the ToS to indicate what they can and need to intervene with, several cases have gone from ''can'' to ''must''.
Example: A player reports that they have been targeted by harassment from another player, and claims now to feel dreadful about themselves.
- Previously a GM could investigate, decide or not if there really was harassment, and if so can punish the player.
- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.
I don't lack fate in the GM's, i just dislike the notion of the Terms being abused to force a GM's hand. Regardless if this would occur, the principle to not have the rules set up like that alone, is important enough for me.

Where do you see that they must? Reading the wording, I saw that:

"Square Enix reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to (i) determine which activities are prohibited or violate Square Enix’s policies or terms of use, (ii) enforce such policies and terms of use, and (iii) revise this list."

Which means that they have the right to determine that an activity also isn't prohibited. It's possible I misread another part. Could you please quote the wording of the lines you were referring to?

[Bran3677]

I think there are a fair few things that were added that I'm honestly surprised weren't against the rules before. Maybe they were, and I just never read them. It's not hard to act respectfully toward people.

Things like

・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive
・Expressions that contravene public order and morals

Or basically anything under harassment and not nuisance behavior

・Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity
・Discriminatory expressions about a state/religion/occupation/organisation, etc.
・Obscene/indecent expressions
・Actions that inflict emotional distress using content related to historical events or crimes
・Stalking
・Disclosing or indicating personal information such as contact details with the aim of meeting up in the real world
・Disclosing or indicating another person's real world personal information without permission


These things are no-brainers. These things are perfectly fine. However, I draw the line on a few points under nuisance behavior:

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion

This basically means that telling someone they're wrong when they don't want to be told that is a reportable and bannable offense.

・Expressions that compel a playing style

If the healer is bad and you tell them they suck, it's now reportable. Even if you tell them how to improve. Even if you are constructive. This is now reportable and bannable under the new terms.

・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

This is a no-brainer. This could mean anything. Literally anything. Someone got offended over my alt's name once. Their name was Bubba Gunch. "I don't know what a gunch is but I don't like it."

Obviously I wouldn't have gotten banned for it. Gunch doesn't mean anything. But it would have resulted in a report which would have taken up valuable GM time to investigate when they could have been doing something that was worthwhile.

These terms i've laid out are incredibly vague and could, and probably will, lead to all sorts of fun and interesting situations like the kind we've seen in other games where saying "GG" automatically mutes you. Even with all these new changes in place, I could at least accept them if they only resulted in a chat ban and not a full account suspension. But they don't.


In conclusion I think a lot of the rule changes are fine. I think most of the things (like stalking and obstruction of play) are things that can't be solved with a blacklist, and are perfectly fine as bannable offenses. They do cause real emotional distress to people, or really do hamper their enjoyment of the game.
If you don't like the way someone is speaking to you, or if you don't appreciate that the tank says that you are a bad healer, then blacklist them and never speak to them again. There's a good chance that you'll never see them again, and in the event that you do, you can report them for stalking you.

[Iscah]

- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.

I think you're misunderstanding some parts of the wording here.

■Nuisance behaviour
"Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others or obstructs game play, but which is not classified as harassment. Even if it was not the intention, a penalty may be imposed if the end result was that another person was hurt or obstructed.

There's an important word in here that a lot of people seem to be missing: "a penalty may be imposed", not "will be imposed".

The rules don't force a GM to punish a person regardless of their intent, it just gives them the option to do so. It's still entirely up to the GM's discretion.

What it does allow - and what I suspect is the actual intent of the wording - is that if someone claims they didn't mean offence but it's clear that they did, then the GM has the discretion to set a punishment regardless of them saying it wasn't their intention.

I remember there have been complaints in the past about GMs not being able to take action against someone who was clearly being a deliberate nuisance, unless that person outright stated they were doing it to inconvenience others. So I think this wording is intended to get around that past issue, and allow GMs to act on those "obvious but not admitted" behaviours.



I also can't see anything saying that a temporary ban is the "minimum punishment" - and the penalty policy seems to say the opposite.

■Types of penalty
There are six levels of penalty in ascending order of severity: "Caution", "Warning", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (3 Days)", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (10 Days)", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (20 Days)", "Service Account Termination".

■Account Penalties Escalation
All actions taken against a service account are recorded permanently. In the event of a player committing multiple violations, the previous violations and service account actions are taken into account.
If a violation is repeated, a heavier penalty may be applied in the second instance of such violation. If the past record includes a Temporary Service Account Suspension, essentially a more severe penalty than the previous Temporary Service Account Suspension will be applied, even if the repeated violation was equivalent to Caution or Warning.

They aren't even required to give you a temporary ban if you've previously received a warning.



The closest thing I could see to saying a ban was the minimum punishment was this:

■Harassment
"Harassment" means speech and/or behaviour that inflicts deep emotional distress on another person. It is an extremely serious violation. Where Square Enix determines that harassment has occurred, a penalty equal to or higher than "Temporary Service Account Suspension" may be imposed.

This doesn't come with the "penalty may be imposed regardless of intent" warning from the Nuisance Behaviour section, but again the word "may" makes an important difference in interpreting the rule. A temporary ban may be imposed - which implies that in some cases you may just get a warning.