Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Thatusernameistaken]

If the government changes its laws we simply abide by them. Why? Because we aren't intending to break the rules.

Just be your nice self and nothing has changed. The new rules are pretty basic.

"Don't insult people, don't stalk people, don't be toxic"

Someone didn't read the part of the rules that state we can still get punished even if we didn't intend to break the rules.

[Anger]

Someone didn't read the part of the rules that state we can still get punished even if we didn't intend to break the rules.

Isn't that no different than saying "Ignorance of the law is not a defense"? In essence, "I didn't know what I was doing" won't fly.

[MistakeNot]

Isn't that no different than saying "Ignorance of the law is not a defense"? In essence, "I didn't know what I was doing" won't fly.

No, it is not the same thing, because the way these new rules are written it is impossible to know in advance if a particular action will break the rules.

For example, one of the things that are prohibited are "Other expressions that are offensive to another person". One cannot know in advance what another person will find offensive and be hurt by.
Oh, and it doesn't matter that you had no idea that whatever it was could possibly be seen as offensive because: "Even if it was not the intention, a penalty may be imposed if the end result was that another person was hurt or obstructed."

[Thatusernameistaken]

Isn't that no different than saying "Ignorance of the law is not a defense"? In essence, "I didn't know what I was doing" won't fly.

You're right. But societal laws require this stipulation because societal laws, for the most part, are designed to protect human life and property, and breaking a societal law typically means you've actually damaged (or endangered the well-being of) another person or their property. So when the stakes are that high, it makes perfect sense for that stipulation to exist for societal laws. Also, societal laws are very clear and almost everything is very clearly defined and pretty much everyone knows exactly how to avoid breaking a societal law. So ignorance is no excuse.

These new rules, on the other hand, are not well defined at all and players honestly have no way of knowing whether or not they are breaking the rules because they designed to be completely subjective on a person-to-person basis. Even if you conduct yourself the exact same way every single time you are in a group, one group might view your conduct as fine, and another might view it as offensive. There is absolutely no way to know how each person you play with is going to interpret your actions. So it's actually completely reasonable and even expected that people are going to have no idea how to properly follow these rules, making the "ignorance is not an excuse" clause completely irrelevant. It's impossible to know how to follow the rule, so all you have is ignorance of the rule.

EDIT: To put this another way, the difference between societal laws and these new rules is that if I always use my turn signal when turning, I will never break that law. Ever. But if I always DPS as a healer, sometimes nobody will be offended, and sometimes they will, and I have absolutely no way of knowing who will and won't be upset by that. I have no control over whether I'm in violation of the rules or not because they aren't based on my actions. They are based on other people's INTERPRETATION of my actions.

[Alael]

You're right. But societal laws require this stipulation because societal laws, for the most part, are designed to protect human life and property, and breaking a societal law typically means you've actually damaged (or endangered the well-being of) another person or their property. So when the stakes are that high, it makes perfect sense for that stipulation to exist for societal laws. Also, societal laws are very clear and almost everything is very clearly defined and pretty much everyone knows exactly how to avoid breaking a societal law. So ignorance is no excuse.

These new rules, on the other hand, are not well defined at all and players honestly have no way of knowing whether or not they are breaking the rules because they designed to be completely subjective on a person-to-person basis. Even if you conduct yourself the exact same way every single time you are in a group, one group might view your conduct as fine, and another might view it as offensive. There is absolutely no way to know how each person you play with is going to interpret your actions. So it's actually completely reasonable and even expected that people are going to have no idea how to properly follow these rules, making the "ignorance is not an excuse" clause completely irrelevant. It's impossible to know how to follow the rule, so all you have is ignorance of the rule.

EDIT: To put this another way, the difference between societal laws and these new rules is that if I always use my turn signal when turning, I will never break that law. Ever. But if I always DPS as a healer, sometimes nobody will be offended, and sometimes they will, and I have absolutely no way of knowing who will and won't be upset by that. I have no control over whether I'm in violation of the rules or not because they aren't based on my actions. They are based on other people's INTERPRETATION of my actions.

Or that those rules are so loose that could be applied to a vast majority of cases and situation depending on the person view, To me they did put those there just to say ''If you do something we considerate negative we now have the tools to punish you''

Those are very loose rule that only work if one person (in this case a GM) interpenetrate them himself and probably follow some internal guideline, There no way to knowing when you are crossing the line because as said they are way too loose.

An simple example is like law that state you can't assault / beat a person (physically) this is very easy to understand and require no interpenetration, Meanwhile the rule they posted yesterday have no clear vision of where those ''border'' start and where they end.

[Kaedan]

Or that those rules are so loose that could be applied to a vast majority of cases and situation depending on the person view, To me they did put those there just to say ''If you do something we considerate negative we now have the tools to punish you''

Those are very loose rule that only work if one person (in this case a GM) interpenetrate them himself and probably follow some internal guideline, There no way to knowing when you are crossing the line because as said they are way too loose.

An simple example is like law that state you can't assault / beat a person (physically) this is very easy to understand and require no interpenetration, Meanwhile the rule they posted yesterday have no clear vision of where those ''border'' start and where they end.

If you'd like, I can show you that they are pretty specific and easy to understand:

・Aggressive expressions such as violent language/slander/insult/threat. - Specific and self-explanatory
・Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule - Specific and self-explanatory
・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person - While no examples are given, this is common sense.
・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion - Some people don't understand what "unilateral" means. It means to decide/order yourself without any consultation. In other words, being a dictator.
・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive - Again, common sense. Golden rule applies here (if you wouldn't want something said you to, don't say it to someone else)
・Expressions that compel a playing style - Here, many people don't understand the word "compel". It means "to force". You can still suggests ways for someone to improve their playstyle. You just can't FORCE them to.
・Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc.
(Except when in accordance with rules set by an administrator such as a Free Company Master) - Pretty specific and self-explanatory
・Expressions that contravene public order and morals - Again, common sense.
・Other expressions that are offensive to another person - This is the only somewhat vague listing, but still far from confusing. Again, Golden Rule applies.

[Millybonk]

If you'd like, I can show you that they are pretty specific and easy to understand:

・Aggressive expressions such as violent language/slander/insult/threat. - Specific and self-explanatory
・Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule - Specific and self-explanatory
・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person - While no examples are given, this is common sense.
・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion - Some people don't understand what "unilateral" means. It means to decide/order yourself without any consultation. In other words, being a dictator.
・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive - Again, common sense. Golden rule applies here (if you wouldn't want something said you to, don't say it to someone else)
・Expressions that compel a playing style - Here, many people don't understand the word "compel". It means "to force". You can still suggests ways for someone to improve their playstyle. You just can't FORCE them to.
・Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc.
(Except when in accordance with rules set by an administrator such as a Free Company Master) - Pretty specific and self-explanatory
・Expressions that contravene public order and morals - Again, common sense.
・Other expressions that are offensive to another person - This is the only somewhat vague listing, but still far from confusing. Again, Golden Rule applies.

Amazing how you can't even come up with specific examples and only parrot alongside the terms.

How come excessive criticism is self-explanatory?
How come lack of consideration for another person is common sense?
How come expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive is common sense and you use the gold rule? I tolerate everything, so that means the term doesn't apply to me, right?

I'm honestly amazed how you consider "expressions that are offensive to another person" only slightly vague.

[Kaedan]

I'm honestly amazed how you consider "expressions that are offensive to another person" only slightly vague.

See my answer to you above. I believe it's because you don't understand what "act civilly" and "the Golden Rule" are.

[HyoMinPark]

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion - Some people don't understand what "unilateral" means. It means to decide/order yourself without any consultation. In other words, being a dictator.

I don’t think it’s easy to apply “dictator” to opinions. Actions, sure. But opinions are less concrete. I can’t force my opinions on other people, nor can they on me. But you also cannot force me to agree with an opinion or not share my own. The wording suggests that it leans towards one person rejecting an opinion—e.g., not accepting it as valid. You can’t make humans accept an opinion as valid.

Who am I supposed to “consult” for my own opinions?

・Expressions that compel a playing style - Here, many people don't understand the word "compel". It means "to force". You can still suggests ways for someone to improve their playstyle. You just can't FORCE them to.

That doesn’t matter if the person claims they “feel” forced. You can tell someone to AOE, but you cannot physically move their fingers to the AOE buttons—that would be “forcing them”. But anyone can claim “they were trying to force me to adhere to this when they told me to do it”. They already do that.

・Expressions that attempt to unilaterally exclude someone from the game or content/community, etc.
(Except when in accordance with rules set by an administrator such as a Free Company Master) - Pretty specific and self-explanatory

As long as this doesn’t apply to Party Finders, I don’t have objections really. I should be allowed to exclude from my PFs based on criteria I set forth in the description.

・Expressions that contravene public order and morals - Again, common sense.

I don’t think this one is so cut-and-dry that “common sense” covers it entirely. What are the “morals” we are all set to follow? Each culture has its own subset of morals, so whose are we adhering to?

I use reason and logic, so I know what is reasonable and logical.

I don’t think that your personal definition of how you are “reasonable and logical” can apply to everyone else. That’s narrow-sighted to think that everyone will use the same reason and logic that you do. There can be de facto things that are considered reasonable, but there are other things that I would consider “reasonable” that other players may not.

[Kaedan]

I don’t think it’s easy to apply “dictator” to opinions. Actions, sure. But opinions are less concrete. I can’t force my opinions on other people, nor can they on me. But you also cannot force me to agree with an opinion or not share my own. The wording suggests that it leans towards one person rejecting an opinion—e.g., not accepting it as valid. You can’t make humans accept an opinion as valid.

Who am I supposed to “consult” for my own opinions?

Unilaterally reject. That's what people continue to not understand. Disagreeing with someone is perfectly fine. Not finding their opinion valid is also perfectly fine. Rejecting them unilaterally (without any communication or attempt at consultation) is what it's referring to.

That doesn’t matter if the person claims they “feel” forced. You can tell someone to AOE, but you cannot physically move their fingers to the AOE buttons—that would be “forcing them”. But anyone can claim “they were trying to force me to adhere to this when they told me to do it”. They already do that.

"Feeling forced" is not the offense. It doesn't matter if the person feels forced into a playstyle. It's whether they are actually forced through threat of being kicked from the party, etc.

I don’t think this one is so cut-and-dry that “common sense” covers it entirely. What are the “morals” we are all set to follow? Each culture has its own subset of morals, so whose are we adhering to?

Golden Rule. Every culture has it.