Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Anger]

And the Golden Rule applies differently to different people.

I, for one, would prefer if someone tells me that I’m doing things incorrectly. I don’t mind people correcting my mistakes, just as I will correct mistakes that I see. However, there are people out there who will not correct others and see any attempts at correcting them as personal affronts. See how this no longer works? Whose definition of the Golden Rule are we going by?

Different cultures have different ways of treating individuals; they have different standards. They may coincide with your own, or they may not. So, whose culture are we following here? Mine? Yours? Japan’s? America’s? England’s?


It’s narrow-sighted of you to try and apply your logical skills, your reasoning skills, and your version of “the Golden Rule” to other people because we all don’t think the way you do. Just like they don’t think the way I do. Or the way another poster does. The irony of this is, is that you are all for others not “dictating” their opinions on other people when you are trying to “dictate” your mindset and way of thinking onto others.

This rule is unenforceable. You cannot just apply a blanket to people of different backgrounds, upbringings, cultures, and traditions and call it a day.

Morals and morality go so far beyond “play nice, kids”. If you don’t understand that, then I don’t know what to say to you.

The way for determining a "reasonable person" is not based on culture. It's commonly used by lawyers. You're interpreting "reasonable person" incorrectly which is why you believe the rules are too vague, need a cultural distinction, or must be expounded upon.

"The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law including: the "right-thinking member of society," the "officious bystander," the "reasonable parent," the "reasonable landlord," the "fair-minded and informed observer," the "person having ordinary skill in the art" in patent law, and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus paterfamilias,[1] all used to define legal standards. While there is a loose consensus in black letter law, there is no accepted technical definition. As with legal fiction in general, it is somewhat susceptible to ad hoc manipulation or transformation, and hence the "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law.[3] The "reasonable person" is used as a tool to standardize, teach law students, or explain the law to a jury.[2]"

[HyoMinPark]

The way for determining a "reasonable person" is not based on culture. It's commonly used by lawyers. You're interpreting "reasonable person" incorrectly which is why you believe the rules are too vague, need a cultural distinction, or must be expounded upon.

"The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law including: the "right-thinking member of society," the "officious bystander," the "reasonable parent," the "reasonable landlord," the "fair-minded and informed observer," the "person having ordinary skill in the art" in patent law, and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus paterfamilias,[1] all used to define legal standards. While there is a loose consensus in black letter law, there is no accepted technical definition. As with legal fiction in general, it is somewhat susceptible to ad hoc manipulation or transformation, and hence the "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law.[3] The "reasonable person" is used as a tool to standardize, teach law students, or explain the law to a jury.[2]"

If you notice the guideline about “contravening public order or morals”, there is no “reasonable person” definition applied there. As that is what is being discussed in my post, your point is completely irrelevant.

This is the only time that terminology is used:

Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive

Nowhere else:

◆Offensive expression
"Offensive expression" means an expression in general that inflicts emotional distress by being offensive to another person. Offensive expression may include:

・Aggressive expressions such as violent language/slander/insult/threat.
・Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule
・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person
・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion
・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive
・Expressions that compel a playing style
・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)
・Expressions that contravene public order and morals
・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

That being said, laws vary by country. I don’t think they’re all written with the same “universal” terminology. For all we know, there may be countries out there that don’t have legal definitions of “reasonable person”. But that definition is completely irrelevant here since it is written to only explicitly apply to that one guideline. Please pay attention to the context of what you are responding to before you formulate a response.

[Kallera]

I'm not sure about trusting the gms with this much authority, given the opinions of forum moderation, unless this is being handled by two different groups.

[Anger]

If you notice the guideline about “contravening public order or morals”, there is no “reasonable person” definition applied there. Your point is irrelevant.

This is the only time that terminology is used:



Nowhere else.

You're right but that is likely the most important line of text in the entire text. That part has been the subject of debate throughout this thread and targeted for its presumed vagueness. When in fact, it isn't vague at all and is showing us that they are following the jurisprudence of "reasonable person". This is the most applicable type of rationale to use in a game where interactions are unreliable, random, and unique. Unlike a single player game your experience varies because the actions of people vary widely. It is because of the uniqueness of human beings that they must weigh every example or action that is reported differently. There cannot be a "standard" to follow when interactions vary so greatly.

It is for this reason that they are relying on the "reasonable person theory law".

That sheds light on how things will be evaluated and if they will be actioned. Whether or not someone intended to hurt people should not be in account just whether or not they did hurt people. There's no personal definitions here or definitions backed by culture. This is being weighed on the rules of public order and "reasonable person theory law".

[HyoMinPark]

You're right but that is likely the most important line of text in the entire text. That part has been the subject of debate throughout this thread and targeted for its presumed vagueness. When in fact, it isn't vague at all and is showing us that they are following the jurisprudence of "reasonable person".

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”).

This is the most applicable type of rationale to use in a game where interactions are unreliable, random, and unique. Unlike a single player game your experience varies because the actions of people vary widely. It is because of the uniqueness of human beings that they must weigh every example or action that is reported differently. There cannot be a "standard" to follow when interactions vary so greatly.

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.

[Jellybums]

Most of the community is completely unaware of the changes and will go about there business as always. If your a player who is a jerk, cant hold their tongue or goes around forcing their opinions and playstyles on others well...your going to find yourself getting nailed more often now.

Which is why there's nothing to worry about, bans still have to be earned. But there's a lot of concern about the what-ifs, what if the rules are exploited because the language is inadequate, which is really short of saying what if the GMs can't do their jobs right. There's definitely a huge trust issue here.

[Thoosa]

But what evidence have we that GMs can’t do their job right? I quite often see threads thanking GMs for their fair and balanced support. I’m sure with these changes they have more checks to go through before it goes to bans.

[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.

[Anger]

But what evidence have we that GMs can’t do their job right? I quite often see threads thanking GMs for their fair and balanced support. I’m sure with these changes they have more checks to go through before it goes to bans.

We have to trust that Square Enix has done its due diligence when selecting Game Masters. From all of the explained interactions players have had with GMs it seems like we have some of the fairest GMs across MMORPGs.

At the end of the day the GM is a human being too and cannot be "reasonably" expected to be perfect. But they seem to be doing a great job!

[HyoMinPark]

Snip

Clearly, you still do not understand what I am talking about here (morals and morality). This is the last thing I have to say to you on this topic.