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]

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

There is, but using the terms as a basis even your "Can you please make an effort and avoid AOEs?" can clearly cause emotional distress in someone who doesn't want to hear how bad he's doing.

[Kaedan]

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

Not understanding that is apparently your problem.

Are you familiar with "the Golden Rule"? If not, look it up. That answers all your questions.

[Kaedan]

There is, but using the terms as a basis even your "Can you please make an effort and avoid AOEs?" can clearly cause emotional distress in someone who doesn't want to hear how bad he's doing.

And if someone reported another player because they said "Can you please make an effort and avoid AoEs", they would never be warned or punished, because it's not "something a reasonable person would find offensive" (see policy). They asked politely and didn't use any negativity, and thus they wouldn't be punished.

If anything, the person reporting would be punished if they have a history of false reporting such as that.

[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]

And if someone reported another player because they said "Can you please make an effort and avoid AoEs", they would never be warned or punished, because it's not "something a reasonable person would find offensive" (see policy). They asked politely and didn't use any negativity, and thus they wouldn't be punished.

If anything, the person reporting would be punished if they have a history of false reporting such as that.

How do you know? You don't get to define who a reasonable person is.

They clearly did use negativity: pointing out how someone is incapable of moving out of AoEs.

[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]

How do you know? You don't get to define who a reasonable person is.

They clearly did use negativity: pointing out how someone is incapable of moving out of AoEs.

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

And no, there's no negativity. Stating a fact in a polite manner is not negative.

[Tiraelina]

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.

Linking "Unilaterally rejecting" to disagreeing and feelings is fundamentally not getting its definition. If you are going to wipe a group over and over because you know better and trash/shut down anyone suggesting otherwise, you just hit one of the reasons.

Compel a play style is in there because of hunts and situations like Dark Devices. SE isn't going to enforce player made rules contrary to the games design. This is why early pulls don't exist. They are going to enforce not beating others over the head with self-imposed rules.

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

Except it always was.