Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Millybonk]

Being a bad player isn't a bannable offense.

Indeed, but calling a bad player bad is now a bannable offense, judged solely by an employee of SE based on vague terms.

[Kaedan]

Indeed, but calling a bad player bad is now a bannable offense, judged solely by an employee of SE based on vague terms.

True, you can be reported for "calling someone bad", depending on how you communicate that to them (but there's no "vague terms"). But you won't be permabanned outright for it. You'll be warned multiple times and then temp banned first. You'll only be permabanned if you continue to do it despite warnings.

And yes, if someone is that kind of person where they can't act civilly and perhaps even offer help/advice instead of being a jerk, they deserve to get banned.

[Mansion]

Indeed, but calling a bad player bad is now a bannable offense, judged solely by an employee of SE based on vague terms.

Well there's a gap between "You're pathetic" and "Can you please make an effort and avoid AOEs?"
Or is it just me...

[Millybonk]

True, you can be reported for "calling someone bad", depending on how you communicate that to them (but there's no "vague terms"). But you won't be permabanned outright for it. You'll be warned multiple times and then temp banned first. You'll only be permabanned if you continue to do it despite warnings.

And yes, if someone is that kind of person where they can't act civilly and perhaps even offer help/advice instead of being a jerk, they deserve to get banned.

No vague terms? You can't be serious. Have you even bothered to read the new terms?

"Harassment" means speech and/or behaviour that inflicts deep emotional distress on another person.
"Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others
"Offensive expression" means an expression in general that inflicts emotional distress by being offensive to another person

What is "deep emotional distress"?
What is "speech that hurts others"?
What is "expression that inflicts emotional distress by being offensive to another person"?

You talking back to me clearly violates "speech that hurts others" and I should report you.

And while you're at it: what is "act civilly"?