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

[Kusanoha_Kirigakure]

In all of these cases it will be the chat (and to a lesser extent the action log) that will determine guilt. If you gave someone advice but called them a dumbass first or yelled mechanics at them during a rant or used some demeaning macro then there could be consequences even though in the barest sense, they were 'helped.' In a perfect world people would be accountable for their own actions and that would be all that was needed but often the system itself is used to hide or misdirect where the real problem lies. Online MMO continue to be carte blanche for some people's bad behavior. Since SE can't change hearts or minds, they change rules. I can't say I mind a heavier hand on the ban-hammer even as I know these new expanded criteria also could bite me in the ass as well. I'll take that gamble because of all the things that are outside my control, myself isn't one of them.

That last bit "of all the things that are outside of my control, myself isn't one of them."

The problem is these policy changes take your INTENT out of the equation. So no, you won't be in control of even yourself when it comes to guilt or innocence. This is a badly written rules change. As you said in your second sentence, "called them a dumbass first OR yelled mechanics at them during a rant" could be interpreted in any way by a GM at this point. Yelling could be interpreted differently by any GM, and so could "mechanics." The GM is now able to interpret your intent and what context your words were given in, not you. Evidence or chat logs are useless with this policy change; it is entirely left up to the interpretation of the GM, how convincing a "victim" is, and adherence to a (likely deliberately) vaguely described set of rules.

Having a heavier hand isn't hard to do without writing rules like this; just hire more GMs and crack down on people who are reported (and legitimately do bad things) more often. You don't need sweeping changes to the definition of "harassment" in order to crack down on actual harassment. You only need that if your intent is to "improve" your customers rather than improve your game.

[Lucerna]

That last bit "of all the things that are outside of my control, myself isn't one of them."

The problem is these policy changes take your INTENT out of the equation. So no, you won't be in control of even yourself when it comes to guilt or innocence. This is a badly written rules change. As you said in your second sentence, "called them a dumbass first OR yelled mechanics at them during a rant" could be interpreted in any way by a GM at this point. Yelling could be interpreted differently by any GM, and so could "mechanics." The GM is now able to interpret your intent and what context your words were given in, not you. Evidence or chat logs are useless with this policy change; it is entirely left up to the interpretation of the GM, how convincing a "victim" is, and adherence to a (likely deliberately) vaguely described set of rules.

Having a heavier hand isn't hard to do without writing rules like this; just hire more GMs and crack down on people who are reported (and legitimately do bad things) more often. You don't need sweeping changes to the definition of "harassment" in order to crack down on actual harassment. You only need that if your intent is to "improve" your customers rather than improve your game.

Except that isn't the case. Intent isn't taken out of the equation. In fact, it's now more of a factor. If some one is running a community event and a griefer follows them on a whale mount to block their character, it's clearly meant to be disruptive but was not "technically" against the ToS before. Now GMs have the ability to look at context to determine intent, rather than relying on more strict technical definitions.

[Lambdafish]

Except that isn't the case. Intent isn't taken out of the equation. In fact, it's now more of a factor.

""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."

In other words, you can be banned regardless of intent.

[Lucerna]

""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."

In other words, you can be banned regardless of intent.

Not quite. Nuisance behavior is not listed as harassment, and is not a banning offense by itself. Also- please note that the wording you quoted says that behavior “may” be punishable. A GM is under no obligation to punish anyone in grey area cases. This just looks like a cover-all against griefers who keep trying new ways to skirt the rules of common social decency.

[HyoMinPark]

Not quite. Nuisance behavior is not listed as harassment, and is not a banning offense by itself. Also- please note that the wording you quoted says that behavior “may” be punishable. A GM is under no obligation to punish anyone in grey area cases. This just looks like a cover-all against griefers who keep trying new ways to skirt the rules of common social decency.

Except it’s still saying that you can earn penalties on your account for “nuisance behavior”, which do add up over time. Especially since these strikes never go away. Get enough strikes and you are eventually banned for them.


Several of the new guidelines are grey areas in and of themselves. What is meant by “unilaterally rejecting another player’s opinion”? What about “compelling a playstyle”? What are these “morals” that we aren’t allowed to contravene? There’s no definition for what these mean. There’s nothing that explains what actually falls under them.

[AeroXaia]

By now when I see terms like "offensive" and "harassment" thrown around (especially without clarification), and phrases like "it's not hard to act respectfully toward people", it's become painfully clear it has nothing to do with actually being a good person, but rather imposing one's beliefs on others.

Whether it's on purpose or not, a phrase like that is completely sidestepping, trivializing, and ignoring the actual issues being raised, and disingenuously paints the other person as somebody who just wants to cause trouble and harm. It's a way to shut down other peoples' opinions and make them look illegitimate and not worth listening to.

It's become way too often that things are mislabeled "offensive" or "harmful" as a way of forcing people to fall in line with their political beliefs.


Seeing people smile only because they have to doesn't really make me happy. A smile that's forced is not genuine...

[negiman4]

This thread needs to blow up. Seriously not a fan of the new Prohibited Activities and Penalties.

Square, you've already given us the tools to deal with a lot of these things by ourselves. It's not YOUR responsibility to play mommy and make sure nobody's feelings get hurt. That's their problem, not yours. I believe this sets a pretty dangerous precedent for the community. The fact that you even thought of going this route cost you a lot of my respect.

If I ever get sent to a GM for "harassment" because someone took offense to something benign I said, I will not play this game anymore. That's a promise. And no, I don't trust you to be objective. The GMs' hands-off approach to dealing with issues concerning harassment, unlike other MMORPGs, is one of the primary reasons I play this game. I don't have to worry about watching what I say in fear of offending someone and getting punished for it. I play this game because we live in a victimhood society now where everyone wants to be a victim, and I liked that FFXIV didn't cave into that social pressure. It was refreshing. But if you decide to police people's opinions in fear of those opinions hurting peoples' feelings (let's be honest, that's exactly what you're doing, you even stated it in the ToS), you become no different from any other corporation out there who believe its their duty to push an agenda "for the greater good".

Do yourself a favor, Square. Stay out of it, and revert the ToS.