Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Anger]

It is only applied to that one sentence. Nowhere else in the Prohibited Activities. It’s not even used to define “deep emotional distress” (i.e., “what a reasonable person would consider deep emotional distress”).



Which was my entire point: they cannot regulate “actions that contravene morals” because morals vary between people—there is no standard “this is always right” and “this is always wrong” outside of extreme examples like murder (but why would they be applying said examples to a video game?). Again, you are failing to pay mind to the context of my posts.

If human interaction was this cut and dry we wouldn't have "reasonable person" law theory.

In almost every MMORPG, including this one, there is no set defined rule for how a party will be actioned. It's on a case-by-case basis.

Even Blizzard uses reasonable law theory.

This is from the Blizzard EULA:

"Harassment, “griefing,” abusive behavior or chat, conduct intended to unreasonably undermine or disrupt the Game experiences of others, deliberate inactivity or disconnecting, and/or any other activity which violates Blizzard’s Code of Conduct or In-Game Policies."


In that example, one could argue that it's too vague or requires cultural distinction when in fact it does not. It only requires the game master to use "reasonable person" law theory when examining a situation which is pretty easy to do.