Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[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.

[Millybonk]

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

You refer to posts above, in which you couldn't even be bothered to define those 2 terms using detailed and simple language.

So you clearly don't know what they entail and you parrot along.

[Kaedan]

You refer to posts above, in which you couldn't even be bothered to define those 2 terms using detailed and simple language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one's self would wish to be treated.

In other words, if you wouldn't want something said to you, don't say it to someone else. And yes, I defined it already in a recent post.

Act civilly:

in a civil manner : POLITELY

1a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture
b : marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and belles lettres
2a : showing or characterized by correct social usage
b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy
c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities


2 b and c apply here.

[WaterShield]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one's self would wish to be treated.

In other words, if you wouldn't want something said to you, don't say it to someone else. And yes, I defined it already in a recent post.

Act civilly:

in a civil manner : POLITELY

1a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture
b : marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and belles lettres
2a : showing or characterized by correct social usage
b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy
c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities


2 b and c apply here.

So as for the Golden rule. Let's say that someone gets really triggered when someone is overly familiar with them. Someone calling them "friend" just triggers them if they don't know the person well. I however am perfectly ok with someone using familiar terms with me without knowing them well. The golden rule would state that I am ok to do something to offend them... because I myself do not find it offensive.

This is why the golden rule is meaningless. People are... different. People get offended by... different things.

[Mansion]

So as for the Golden rule. Let's say that someone gets really triggered when someone is overly familiar with them. Someone calling them "friend" just triggers them if they don't know the person well. I however am perfectly ok with someone using familiar terms with me without knowing them well. The golden rule would state that I am ok to do something to offend them... because I myself do not find it offensive.

This is why the golden rule is meaningless. People are... different. People get offended by... different things.

There's a lot to individuality indeed, but you have to know yourself too (I'm sorry if that sounds like a soap Opera, but English is not my language so I can't think of another way to say it).
What I mean for instance is that I tend to be relatively ice-cold, and as in your exemple I don't like being called "friend" by random people. Yet I won't report them because I know that's just me and I know people mean no harm. I don't know if I'm being clear enough... haha sorry.
Just like I tend to have a very dark ans cynical sense of humor that might be weird to other people, but I try to keep it tamed in a neutral environment like a duty with people I don't know. I'm mindful of other people to an extent, and I believe everyone is able to do so too.

[Kaedan]

So as for the Golden rule. Let's say that someone gets really triggered when someone is overly familiar with them. Someone calling them "friend" just triggers them if they don't know the person well. I however am perfectly ok with someone using familiar terms with me without knowing them well. The golden rule would state that I am ok to do something to offend them... because I myself do not find it offensive.

This is why the golden rule is meaningless. People are... different. People get offended by... different things.

Any reasonable person would not be offended by being called "friend" (to the point where they report them), so there wouldn't be any punishment. It is not reasonable/rational for said person to be "triggered" by that. Others have also come up with completely unreasonable/irrational situations in this thread that simply would never be upheld as punishable.

The Golden Rule is not meaningless at all. Yes, some irrational people get offended irrationally... but that's why they have the "reasonably offensive" in their policy.

[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.