Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[whiskeybravo]

I'll probably get banned from the forums for "impersonating SE staff".

I've been loosely following this thread since the changes were announced. If anything it is a slight relief that the thread is still active and hasn't been shut down, so there might be a sliver of hope that SE is inclined to lean on the side of civil discourse being an important function of any society. This is their platform, and of course as such it is within their right to regulate as they see fit, but there should be a clear line between what is considered harassment and genuine public discourse.

[Nedkel]

Whole thread feels like "omg I cannot continue to play borderline with by bad behavior and walk away with it fine anymore, this must be fixed!".

You were never allowed to be that way against someone, im just saying.

If the sky is falling now, it was falling before too. They could do any of this in the old system if they so desired for the exact same reasons. Except SE isn't in the business of banning their income over trivialities.

Real world politics don't belong in a game either. I wouldn't think twice about reporting it.

Have you even read the new ToS ?

When did you see someone getting banned for this

""Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others or obstructs game play, but which is not classified as harassment. Even if it was not the intention, a penalty may be imposed if the end result was that another person was hurt or obstructed."
Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of nuisance behaviour:
・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person
・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion
・Expressions that compel a playing style

"Expression" it is black on white written they dont mean being aggressive against someone, simple asking someone to use aoe could results in your account being banned, that is in the tos, clear.
Have you seen someone getting banned or warned for leaving the duty or getting dsc?

◆Obstruction of play
"Obstruction of play" means all behaviour in general that obstructs another person's game play. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of obstruction of play:
・Intentional leaving or disconnection
This means obstructing another person's game play by intentionally leaving the game or disconnecting from the server.

・Other obstruction of play
This means all other behaviour that deliberately obstructs another person's game play by some means.

If they were banning for this kind of "behaviour" then i am a politician running for the presidency in the south Samoa.

[Tiraelina]

Have you even read the new ToS ?

When did you see someone getting banned for this

Isn't that the point here in the context of GM's properly enforcing rules? You're the one suggesting the GM's are running unhinged. If they were, they could've been banning for whatever they pleased, or did you miss that your account can be terminated for anything since the game released?

"Expression" it is black on white written they dont mean being aggressive against someone, simple asking someone to use aoe could results in your account being banned, that is in the tos, clear.
Have you seen someone getting banned or warned for leaving the duty or getting dsc?

Except it isn't saying that in the slightest. Compel a playing style is beating someone over the head with self-imposed hunt rules or the Dark Devices situation. Ignorance over your own behaviour isn't an excuse either in majority of online games. If it looks hostile to an outside observer, it's going to be taken as hostile.

Leaving the game is not leaving a duty, it never says duty for one. It's walking away from the game and leaving it open or disconnecting because you don't like the dungeon or whatever else being passive aggressive instead of just leaving the duty and letting everyone else move on. Holding everyone hostage to kick you or leave/abandon the duty entirely. If your internet is constantly getting knocked offline for longer than a few minutes to make it look intentional from the GM's standpoint, you're not in a position to drag everyone down with you and need to fix it.

[Nedkel]

Isn't that the point here in the context of GM's properly enforcing rules? You're the one suggesting the GM's are running unhinged. If they were, they could've been banning for whatever they pleased, or did you miss that your account can be terminated for anything since the game released?



Except it isn't saying that in the slightest. Compel a playing style is beating someone over the head with self-imposed hunt rules or the Dark Devices situation. Ignorance over your own behaviour isn't an excuse either in majority of online games. If it looks hostile to an outside observer, it's going to be taken as hostile.

Leaving the game is not leaving a duty, it never says duty for one. It's walking away from the game and leaving it open or disconnecting because you don't like the dungeon or whatever else being passive aggressive instead of just leaving the duty and letting everyone else move on. Holding everyone hostage to kick you or leave/abandon the duty entirely. If your internet is constantly getting knocked offline for longer than a few minutes to make it look intentional from the GM's standpoint, you're not in a position to drag everyone down with you and need to fix it.

http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en
Show me the point in which it says a player could be banned or warned for the stuff i have wrote above, because im probably blind.
There is a profanity thing, and the Disruption point, and about harassing which are not the same things.

[Emstidor]

The irony is palpable.

On one side you have everyone simply trying to promote good values and free speech, with clear and succinct rules. I for one wouldn't mind harsher rules and harsher penalties, just as long as it's clear what is and isn't against the rules, and promotes truth and good behavior, rather than emotions and politically correct behavior.

On the other side you have people who make their point by arguing in the exact manner that the new rules say not to do, by rejecting others opinions completely with no reasoning, by accusing the other side of wrongdoing for simply have a different opinion than themselves, and even using aggressive language to try and force their point.

And ironically, the side that is against the new rules are against the rules that state the other side shouldn't behave like this, despite that if it were enforced here and now that it would completely eliminate their side. A few would remain to be sure. There are respectable posters on any side of any disagreement, but their voice would quickly be drowned out without the many disrespectful posters to back them up.

But doesn't the fact that nothing will happen to them even though they're breaking the new rules kinda vindicate their assertion that people are overreacting?

Like here, check this out: I unilaterally reject your opinion that these rule changes are a bad thing, because I don't think they in fact are.

If you believe what I just said violates the new TOS, you can report me if you want, I guess, but I guarantee you nothing is going to come of it, because the mods aren't robots compelled to follow the rules as written without context, nor are they foaming at the mouth to ban people with little provocation.

[linay]

http://support.na.square-enix.com/ru...2&tag=users_en
Show me the point in which it says a player could be banned or warned for the stuff i have wrote above, because im probably blind.
There is a profanity thing, and the Disruption point, and about harassing which are not the same things.

What you wrote above isn't really prohibited in the revised rule either.

Simply asking someone to use aoe abilities is not the same thing as making expressions that compel a play style. Continuously berating someone for not using aoe abilities or threatening to vote kick them if they won't would be such an expression that compels a play style.

And yes, the rule says the intent does not matter if the result is still that the other person gets hurt, but there is a fine line between asking politely to use aoe and even explaining why they should and just complaining about it continuously throughout a run and being a nuisance. That's why SE would still have to make the determination and it is not a guarantee that they would take the side of the reporter.

Similarly, SE would have to make a determination if a player was genuinely disconnected or it was intentional behavior that obstructs other's game. I do hope that SE would be extra careful in making this determination.

That said, leaving a duty is not prohibited. You are already penalized for leaving a duty with certain exceptions, so there is no other action needed from SE.

[Fyce]

Whole thread feels like "omg I cannot continue to play borderline with by bad behavior and walk away with it fine anymore, this must be fixed!".

This is not what's happening in this thread.
It's about people being legitimatly worried that what they think is an appropriate behavior might not be under the new policies, because of a lack of a clear definition in what SE think is acceptable and what they think isn't.

SE is basically asking a worldwide community with different cultures and tolerences to "be nice", without even telling us what does that even mean. There is no worldwide standards about what is "being nice".
If I go to a restaurant, is it acceptable not to leave a tip if the service was good? In my country, yes. In the US, no.
In FFXIV, is it acceptable to tell a Tank "You should use your skills to maintain aggro, because the group is getting attacked"? Before this policy change, yes. After the changes, the rules are so vague that it might very well be no, but we actually don't know for sure. (Edit: Actually, when you think about it, if the way the community acted before was acceptable, Square Enix wouldn't have made this change while saying, in short: "you can't moderate yourself so we are getting involved now".)

And given the precedents regarding how this company enforce their policy in some of their services, or even in the industry as a whole (someone gave the legit example of Heroes of the Storm where you could be banned for picking a hero other people didn't like), it is legitimate to be worried.

It's sad to see people like you interpreting our request as "you just want to troll and get away with it", when we actually want the exact opposite.

Isn't that the point here in the context of GM's properly enforcing rules? You're the one suggesting the GM's are running unhinged.

GMs will run how Square Enix told them to. And we don't know how harsh Square Enix wants to be in order to impose a "friendly environment".

If they were, they could've been banning for whatever they pleased, or did you miss that your account can be terminated for anything since the game released?

What you refer to are legal terms.
An active enforced policy -the thing this thread is about- is not that.

[Vnolan]

Same topic on the Japanese forum

9 replies and 9000 views compared to this thread's 1300+ replies and 87000 views

[NessaWyvern]

Same topic on the Japanese forum

9 replies and 9000 views compared to this thread's 1300+ replies and 87000 views

That being said, western cultures do tend to be less trusting of authority in general, (which in my personal opinion is a good thing) . Everybody here knows of when GMs mess up, like when a GM banned someone off the forums, because the GM thought a Lightning gif was a gif of the player irl.

Many people like to know exactly what they are signing up for, leaving rules vague leaves room for doubt, where we would have to blindly trust that the GMs know what they are doing.
And many of us just can't put our trust in stuff like that. Not when we hear so many horror stories from other people and other games.

I have been playing this game for around 5 years, without any warnings, and the vagueness of the rules leaves me a bit uneasy. Maybe I won't get any warnings, but my friends who talk a bit more roughly might.

[Freyt]

But doesn't the fact that nothing will happen to them even though they're breaking the new rules kinda vindicate their assertion that people are overreacting?

Like here, check this out: I unilaterally reject your opinion that these rule changes are a bad thing, because I don't think they in fact are.

If you believe what I just said violates the new TOS, you can report me if you want, I guess, but I guarantee you nothing is going to come of it, because the mods aren't robots compelled to follow the rules as written without context, nor are they foaming at the mouth to ban people with little provocation.

Literally this whole entire discussion has been about selective moderation being the biggest concern. On the flip side to all of this for a forum mod to NOT moderate this particular thread too heavily no matter the rules would earn them at least some of my respect. Discussion of these rules is a fairly big deal, and no one should want to be seen stifling such a conversation.

I'm not in the habit of reporting people regardless. You'd know that if you understood the point I was trying to make, that many of us on my side of the argument are trying to protect players like you from unfair judgement. ("but if it's unfair you recognize it's not against the rules?" or something like that I'm sure might be your next response, I'm not gonna bother replying to that if it is. Arguments like that aren't clever, they're just tiresome.)

That being said, western cultures do tend to be less trusting of authority in general, (which in my personal opinion is a good thing) . Everybody here knows of when GMs mess up, like when a GM banned someone off the forums, because the GM thought a Lightning gif was a gif of the player irl.

Many people like to know exactly what they are signing up for, leaving rules vague leaves room for doubt, where we would have to blindly trust that the GMs know what they are doing.
And many of us just can't put our trust in stuff like that. Not when we hear so many horror stories from other people and other games.

I have been playing this game for around 5 years, without any warnings, and the vagueness of the rules leaves me a bit uneasy. Maybe I won't get any warnings, but my friends who talk a bit more roughly might.

I have a feeling that Japanese aren't left wanting of ways to express themselves. We can indulge in talking about violence, something 99% of people don't want, while sex is completely off limits, something everybody wants. I'm not about to ask for censorship of violence, but it does feel a bit backwards.