Quote Originally Posted by Gemina View Post
...Again though, know and learn when to just walk away.
I think the issue is the overly broad and vague nature of the rules blurs the line of "when to walk away". You may mention something or say something in a fashion that you believe or is a personal viewpoint you have and that in of itself may be to far, even if no real discussion happened. As a point:

Person A: Hey, were not getting enough DPS to meet the enrage. Healer, you need to be DPSing as well.
Person B: Im the healer, not DPS. You guys figure this out.
Person A: You can do both. Stop being lazy here, as you need to put more effort in rather than just spamming a regen or cure every now and then so we can clear this.
Person B proceeds to report person A under "Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion" or "Expressions that compel a playing style"

This is an in-game example that can now occur depending how a GM interprets it. They can say theyll be 'objective' but we know that most people arent. Even if no real punishment comes of this issue (like no suspension), it still can be a hassle for Person A. You can argue person A didnt need to say "Dont be Lazy", but that is an opinion formed by Person B's rejection of doing something they should be doing. And anyone who has paid attention to tis game KNOWs there are people who absolutely refuse to do certain things because of their own personal perception of how the play should be. This would be tanks who just spam their aggro generator and stay in tank stance, healers who dont do any dps but overheal, or DPS who are more focused on doing their thing rather then team synergy. Under the current rules, pointing out how these ways of playing are extremely suboptimal can fall under the auspices of a GM intervention.

This gets more muddy when talking about things that arent pertinent to the game itself.

For example somenoe in party chat joking or satirically makes a MAGA statement, but another player finds that offensive by assuming the worst and reports. If the GM has a bias, that can be chalked up under one of the rules as well. While I am not trying to steer the conversation to discuss politics or peoples ideologies, its worth noting that that CAN be an issue that will crop up and probably will eventually. A GM may side with the offended if they hold certain views themselves and may deem a suspension appropriate. The overbroad nature of the new language of the rules allows for this to occur as well, where previously the GMs resposne wouldve been "Are they actively harassing you? No? Mute them and move on." The new language of the rules now says "Did they offend you? Well we should investigate that now and possibly punish them for you being offended."

All of this is under the purview of ambiguous and overly broad rules, which has me personally hesitant to think of these changes as a positive. As I mentioned before, there is a possible silver lining to the changes, but that also opens the door for the system to be abused by players and GMs alike on the basis of being offended, rather than objectivity and frankly having people learn to adapt and deal with conflict themselves. And in regards to that last sentiment, I think that its a touch patronizing because some of the logic behind these changes is we need Teacher here all the time to make sure we play right and safely so no one has hurt feelings about someone saying naughty words or mean things. But that last bit si more a personal world view on this than anything.