Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Mansion]

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.

So you cannot understand a vague formulation like "deep emotional distress", but you can use one like "can clearly cause emotional distress" or "doesn't want to hear how bad he's doing".
Yet I'm not buying any point you are trying to make. Because from what I read from you, I get an accurate representation of the situation. And I'm not a GM.

That's the exact same thing that will happen in game. It is obvious when either one of the parties is pushing too far off.
If you want to be safe, don't say anything. Shout out loud in front of your screen if you want. But don't write if you can't control the extent of your words.

[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.

[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.

[Thoosa]

Personally I don’t mind being objectively told that I am messing up and how I can improve.

It does annoy me if people just type insults, be it name calling, or any other type of insult, which isn’t helpful to me improving in the game, plus it makes me uncomfortable and results in a bad time in that particular moment.

I’m sure anyone objective (like a GM) can analyse these situations and decide the appropriate response to take?

[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.

[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.

[HyoMinPark]

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.

So now every time we have a disagreement, we also have to talk it out? On a forum I can understand. In game? Not always feasible, espeically if its in the middle of combat. That being said, discourse is not always required. If someone gets on my case in-game about how “healers should only heal”, I don’t tend to engage with them because I don’t want to mess with it.

"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.

That would fall under the “expressions that threaten” rule. That being said, if you are in a Party Finder for a piece of content and you continuously tell someone to please do/please do not do something, I don’t necessarily see them being removed as a bad thing (e.g., you tell the tank to use cooldowns for tankbusters and they continuously don’t do it, get OHKO’d, and lead to wipes as the boss tears through the rest of the party).

Golden Rule. Every culture has it.

Golden Rule =/= morals in my opinion. Morals are all about concepts that one considers “right” and “wrong”. It’s an extremely poor word choice, because I can guarantee that my morals probably conflict with the morals of at least one person in this thread.

[Hamada]

Not if I report you first for offending me about you not having a gender. (Which I wouldn't do at all, but the rules state I can).

Which brings up a point, "whoever reports first, wins."

Example: party in a dungeon, fully pugged. PLD tank asks if it is ok to do big pulls and gives his opinion on why they should. The healer and one DPS say yes. The other DPS says no and gives their own opinion. The group states they will pull big anyway, rejecting the non-big pull DPS's opnion. The healer feels belittled by the opinion of the rejecting DPS. Both the healer and the rejecting DPS will report. The rejecting DPS will report for not having their opinion considered and it causing some exclusion. The healer will report the rejecting DPS for belittlement.

Who gets disciplined can be based on who is reports first. If the rejected DPS gets reported first by the healer, the GM could take action against the DPS but not the rest of the group for their "infraction." If the DPS reports first, the GM could discipline the whole group, but not address the belittlement by the rejecting DPS.

Well I am going to assume they keep this part way it is handled now (I am not sure if they amended this anywhere) but what the gms would do would not be take action who reports first, but on both. I think this is part of the reason they may have "private policy" in being very strict of not giving you hints who reported you, since it leads to revenge reporting and if you got a date, they will investigate past conversations.

Also it is not clear to me, what happens if a person got 6 petty warnings? These things stay on your account forever. Like you could of got a 1 day back in ARR, because of that, you mess up in HW somehow, get a week just because you got a 1 day in the long past, then this comes along to ban you over the most petty thing because someone makes a good argument to a GM.

Is this the kind of rule enforcement we should be supporting? You have to remember these warnings never go away be it 1 year, 10 years, etc.

So now every time we have a disagreement, we also have to talk it out? On a forum I can understand. In game? Not always feasible, espeically if its in the middle of combat. That being said, discourse is not always required. If someone gets on my case in-game about how “healers should only heal”, I don’t tend to engage with them because I don’t want to mess with it.
.

Ask a healer to dps, get told healers heal only, explain to them how the game works, get reported for hurting their feelings of being a "pure healer" then get banned cuz you got a week in HW.

10/10