Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Kaedan]

"Expressions that unilaterally reject another's opinion."
If that's not insinuating you cannot disagree, then what is it saying?

Unilaterally rejecting someone's opinion. That's what it means. It does not mean "to disagree". You're free to disagree as much as you want. That's not against policy (unless you disagree in an insulting way). It's when you "unilaterally reject another's opinion" that it might be grounds for a warning.

I think a big problem people are having is that SE is using poor choices of words for their translation. It's not that the translation is incorrect, but they are using words that some either don't know or mistake for other meanings. There was this exact same problem with the "compel a playstyle" point. Someone mistakenly thought "to compel" means "to convince", which is not the case at all. It means "to force".

I think if SE went back and chose better words for their translation, that would clear a lot of this up.

[NanaWiloh]

Unilaterally rejecting someone's opinion. That's what it means. It does not mean "to disagree". You're free to disagree as much as you want. That's not against policy (unless you disagree in an insulting way). It's when you "unilaterally reject another's opinion" that it might be grounds for a warning.

I think a big problem people are having is that SE is using poor choices of words for their translation. It's not that the translation is incorrect, but they are using words that some either don't know or mistake for other meanings. There was this exact same problem with the "compel a playstyle" point. Someone mistakenly thought "to compel" means "to convince", which is not the case at all. It means "to force".

I think if SE went back and chose better words for their translation, that would clear a lot of this up.

People not understanding what words like unilateral means is part of the problem here. Just makes the policy more confusing and unclear, whole reason I posted the definitions for unilateral and expression.

Unilaterally reject an opinion or Dont be telling others they are not allowed to have an opinion. simplest way to put for those who dont get it.

[HyoMinPark]

Unilaterally rejecting someone's opinion. That's what it means. It does not mean "to disagree". You're free to disagree as much as you want. That's not against policy (unless you disagree in an insulting way). It's when you "unilaterally reject another's opinion" that it might be grounds for a warning.

I think a big problem people are having is that SE is using poor choices of words for their translation. It's not that the translation is incorrect, but they are using words that some either don't know or mistake for other meanings. There was this exact same problem with the "compel a playstyle" point. Someone mistakenly thought "to compel" means "to convince", which is not the case at all. It means "to force".

I think if SE went back and chose better words for their translation, that would clear a lot of this up.

Very nice at just repeating the words back to me instead of trying to actually define them. The fact that players cannot figure out an adequate definition is exactly the problem here. It's not from a lack of understanding of the terms in a definition sense-- it's from us having no idea where SE is even coming from with these "rules". They could very well mean we aren't allowed to reject opinions period; the parameters are not clearly defined. And, really, why does a rule like this even matter? Because people "feel bad" if someone else doesn't agree with their opinion? It's one thing to berate someone for having it; it's another to just say, "You can't say anything to make me see things your way, sorry".

There's still literally no reason for a rule like this. No other MMO policy that I looked at has anything like it (as well as the playstyle rule), so it's far from a standard thing. Probably because anyone could claim they "felt unilaterally rejected in their opinion" or "forced to play a certain way" and there would be no way to prove otherwise since it would be based off of "feelings". And since we've established it doesn't matter whether the intention was there or not...


EDIT: Judging from a document I found discussing unilateral changes in the workplace, it's referring to making said changes without any sort of bargaining on behalf of the decision, and basically a higher-up deciding "this is so because I deem it to be so". Why does this need to be applied to opinions of all things, though? Opinions can vary between individuals; are they attempting to try and force acceptance of opinions that differ from one's own? Because you can't force every person to just accept differing opinions. Some people simply don't want to, and while that can be frustrating, I don't think it requires a rule saying "you aren't allowed to do this".

Wish I could know if that was where SE was coming from or not.

[Kaedan]

Very nice at just repeating the words back to me instead of trying to actually define them. The fact that players cannot figure out an adequate definition is exactly the problem here. It's not from a lack of understanding of the terms in a definition sense-- it's from us having no idea where SE is even coming from with these "rules". They could very well mean we aren't allowed to reject opinions period; the parameters are not clearly defined. And, really, why does a rule like this even matter? Because people "feel bad" if someone else doesn't agree with their opinion? It's one thing to berate someone for having it; it's another to just say, "You can't say anything to make me see things your way, sorry".

There's still literally no reason for a rule like this. No other MMO policy that I looked at has anything like it (as well as the playstyle rule), so it's far from a standard thing. Probably because anyone could claim they "felt unilaterally rejected in their opinion" or "forced to play a certain way" and there would be no way to prove otherwise since it would be based off of "feelings". And since we've established it doesn't matter whether the intention was there or not...


EDIT: Judging from a document I found discussing unilateral changes in the workplace, it's referring to making said changes without any sort of bargaining on behalf of the decision, and basically a higher-up deciding "this is so because I deem it to be so". Why does this need to be applied to opinions of all things, though? Opinions can vary between individuals; are they attempting to try and force acceptance of opinions that differ from one's own? Because you can't force every person to just accept differing opinions. Some people simply don't want to, and while that can be frustrating, I don't think it requires a rule saying "you aren't allowed to do this".

Wish I could know if that was where SE was coming from or not.

To be frank, I assumed after I made that post that if you didn't understand what "unilaterally rejecting someone's opinion" means, then you would look it up so I didn't need to explain. It seems you did later, which is exactly what people in this thread should be doing rather than knee-jerk raging about things they don't even understand.

Kudos on looking it up, I mean that.

And yes, it means making a decision/order without any consultation or consideration. Or in other words, being a dictator. No one likes a dictator, which is likely why they included it in the "what you shouldn't do" policies.

As for your concern, no, punishment will not completely hinge on someone's "feelings". They can report and claim they felt wronged in some way, but GMs will look at the logs and judge if their claim is reasonable. If it's not, then either no action will be taken, or if the reporter has a history of false claims, likely they will be punished instead.


And yes, they worded their policy changes poorly, as I said. A lot of this could be cleared up if they had a better translator/editor.

[Millybonk]

To be frank, I assumed after I made that post that if you didn't understand what "unilaterally rejecting someone's opinion" means, then you would look it up so I didn't need to explain. It seems you did later, which is exactly what people in this thread should be doing rather than knee-jerk raging about things they don't even understand.

Kudos on looking it up, I mean that.

And yes, it means making a decision/order without any consultation or consideration. Or in other words, being a dictator. No one likes a dictator, which is likely why they included it in the "what you shouldn't do" policies.

As for your concern, no, punishment will not completely hinge on someone's "feelings". They can report and claim they felt wronged in some way, but GMs will look at the logs and judge if their claim is reasonable. If it's not, then either no action will be taken, or if the reporter has a history of false claims, likely they will be punished instead.


And yes, they worded their policy changes poorly, as I said. A lot of this could be cleared up if they had a better translator/editor.

Are you really that naive to think SE's GMs will judge based on facts, and not in favor of SE in any given situation?

The terms are ambiguous and unspecific by design to enable them to judge every situation in their favor.

An easy example: I call a lvl 70 player pathetic for getting hit by every single AoE possible in a dungeon. He reports me. What does SE do: will the GM look at combat logs and notice that this particular player is eating way too much damage, or does he simply follow through on the report because "I was being too honest with my opinion which might harm a potential customer".

[Kaedan]

Are you really that naive to think SE's GMs will judge based on facts, and not in favor of SE in any given situation?

The terms are ambiguous and unspecific by design to enable them to judge every situation in their favor.

You're not making any sense. SE doesn't have a ball in this game, so to speak. This is about players reporting other players. There's no "in SE's favor" involved. So yes, they will review logs and take action based on facts. Yoshida even said as much in Live Letter if you doubt as much for no reason.

Furthermore, there's nothing really ambiguous about the policy changes. They can all be summed up to "don't be a jerk". If that is somehow unclear or threatening to you...

[Millybonk]

You're not making any sense. SE doesn't have a ball in this game, so to speak. This is about players reporting other players. There's no "in SE's favor" involved. So yes, they will review logs and take action based on facts. Yoshida even said as much in Live Letter if you doubt as much for no reason.

SE doesn't? If everyone would call out bad players at every turn how long do you think SE "doesn't have a ball in the game" until they step in to prevent people from saying their opinion about other players performance when people start to drop their sub, as they can't face criticism of any kind?

[Kaedan]

SE doesn't? If everyone would call out bad players at every turn how long do you think SE "doesn't have a ball in the game" until they step in to prevent people from saying their opinion about other players performance when people start to drop their sub?

Being a bad player isn't a bannable offense. They aren't going to be banning people for being bad players.

Jerk players, maybe, depending on severity.

[Thatusernameistaken]

And yes, it means making a decision/order without any consultation or consideration. Or in other words, being a dictator.

Since when do you need a person's permission to disagree with them?