Quote Originally Posted by HyoMinPark View Post
Take the following scenario: You have a random matched party in an Expert dungeon. The tank decides to do large pulls, and the healer dissents, saying that large pulls are “stressful to them” and that the tank is “being inconsiderate by trying to force the large pulls on them”. This would fall under “emotional distress” caused by “compelling a playstyle”. Conversely, the tank becomes frustrated because the healer now wants to dictate that they do small pulls over large ones, thereby “compelling a playstyle” on the tank. So, who wins here? Under these current guidelines, both can be spun into “emotionally distressing” situations of “compelling a playstyle”, but who gets punished? The one who does a better job of wording their argument? The one who reports first? How do we know? How can we determine it? It’s a stalemate.

It isn’t a stalemate. If neither side can compromise and both sides remain polite, then it falls to which player’s gameplay is disrupting the run. If it’s causing wipes to pull too many, then the tank is being disruptive. If, somehow, smaller pulls are causing the run to be disrupted with wipes, then the healer needs to adjust.

If no solution is agreed upon, there is a perfectly reasonable option available. Whichever of the two just can’t tolerate the other playstyle can just leave the party. You’re not going to get banned for using a function the game provides for its intended purpose.

Sorry to say that in an equal situation where nobody is breaking the “don’t be a jerk” rules and neither wants to leave, the healer wins here because the tank’s playstyle literally causes the run to fail. The healer’s does not.