Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Aulainn]

World would be a better place if more people grasp this idea.

But you see, that just doesn't work with these ToS. It literally says they can punish you whether you intended to be rude or not. I'll repost this example from just few hours ago. It doesn't take much to make someone feel like they might be "attacked." (The context of this image had nothing to do with him, it was just a casual reaction to something the healer did instead.)

[Anger]

LOL! And your true colors are here. Watch out now! Anger might report us all for telling him his paladin isn't using enough cds. Which btw, as sch I find highly offensive. Guess this will be a quick draw in which of us get to a GM first.

Can we please observe polite discussion and try to get along? This should be constructive and instead you're laughing at me.

[Melichoir]

Politely teaching people that are receptive to your teaching is perfectly fine. But making someone feel bad or inflicting emotional distress on someone because you're making them feel bad for not AOEing enough, standing around(being lazy), or not using enough cool downs is not right. It's all about the way you present your self to them.

Appropriate method for assistance: Hey, would you mind if I made some suggestions regarding your Job? (if they agree then proceed)

Inappropriate method of assistance: You're just standing around 80% of the time and not doing anything. (This is derogatory and offensive - it also inflicts emotional distress)

So what if its offensive?

Why is this a black and white issue? Such as You either have to be really polite and suger coat everything to be acceptable. Youre not allowed to snap at another player a little bit cause its wrong and offensive. I will bet you that most players would say your innappropriate method of assistance, while rude, is not in any way in needs of a GM intervention. Given more context (belligerent or players not actively engaging in content), that statement would most likely get player support. People dont like dealing with bad players who refuse to get better.

So, going back, so what if that offends a player. Calling out people for when their clearly slacking or not even trying to play better should be allowed. Like I said, there is a line we can mostly agree on. You dont need to use slurs or abusive language, ad hominems, and things like that. You dont need to belittle and berate and tear them down completely and make efforts to humiliate them. There is such a thing as excess that most people can agree with. But we also should be able to call people out AND have the maturity to distinguish between calling someone out and tearing someone down. Going for the everything has got to be polite and rosey otherwise its offensive is silly.

[Final-Fantasy]

Let this serve as example that what is offensive to one person is not offensive to another. Yes there are people who find this offensive should this guy Banned for his Glam choice!!! SE knows things like this will get reported so goes without saying they have a line drawn its just not specified. The change is aimed at things that are seen as offensive by most people, such as personal attacks and verbal abuse.

Before anyone ask no I ddint report him. I have no issue with how people choose to glam, find his glam rather amusing to be honest lol

STOP!


You're under addressed, I mean... Arrest!

[Lium]

But you see, that just doesn't work with these ToS. It literally says they can punish you whether you intended to be rude or not. I'll repost this example from just few hours ago. It doesn't take much to make someone feel like they might be "attacked." (The context of this image had nothing to do with him, it was just a casual reaction to something the healer did instead.)

And even if you were reported for that exchange, you wouldn't be cautioned, warned or banned. The GM can see the chat log, the scenario and the full context of what's going on here.

[Dragoonfyre]

Inappropriate method of assistance: You're just standing around 80% of the time and not doing anything. (This is derogatory and offensive - it also inflicts emotional distress)

It could also be argued that someone "not doing their job" in such a way that they are just standing around is preventing others from moving forward in the game or not rolling on items they need to leave is prohibiting play of a person. I think in general if you don't want to hurt people, politeness should include letting someone know you need a few minutes to deal with IRL instead of letting your party die.

But other than that, everyone is blowing it way out of proportion. Just be friendly and use lots of ^.^ faces and no one will ever be offended.

[Melichoir]

Thats an assumption on your part, not a statement of fact. An assumption many of us are skeptical of.

[Aulainn]

And even if you were reported for that exchange, you wouldn't be cautioned, warned or banned. The GM can see the chat log, the scenario and the full context of what's going on here.

What? That is all the context there is to that, literally nothing else was said in that dungeon run. The GM won't see what was actually happening in the dungeon beyond the chat logs. And yes, I won't be warned or banned for this, but it is an example of how easily someone might feel uncomfortable from someone saying ANYTHING.

[Senliten]

Anyone with a legal background wanna chime in on those added terms? Hell, was this policy change even sent to legal to make sure verbage can't be misconstrued? Cause it sure as hell lookin like it didn't with how long this is going.

[NanaWiloh]

But you see, that just doesn't work with these ToS. It literally says they can punish you whether you intended to be rude or not. I'll repost this example from just few hours ago. It doesn't take much to make someone feel like they might be "attacked." (The context of this image had nothing to do with him, it was just a casual reaction to something the healer did instead.)

ToS also says they can ban you for any reason or no reason. There is always a bigger fish in the sea and the policy is the smaller fish.