Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[WaterShield]

And I take issue with how the other person communicated which myself and another found just as rude. If you're going to chide one side of the spectrum, then you can't excuse the other person for their behavior simply because you have shown a bias towards that side. His tone came off as rude and hostile, whether they meant it or not towards me is unsure, and Rosie caught that as well.

I'm not going to feel bad or apologize for stating an unpopular opinion and then getting ganged up on it because a few people dont like hearing it when I didn't use name calling whatsoever or memes to try and make a point.

I never said I was excusing anyone for anything now did I? You were the more prudent person to make the point with given your stance. I'm sorry if you thought that my responses were in some way personal. They were never meant to do anything other than make a point contributing to the discussion at hand.

I never suggested you should feel bad nor asked for an apology. I also do not believe I used any meme's?

I would like to draw specific attention to one thing you stated though. The bold statement. Everyone has a bias of some sort. I and many others are concerned the new rules leave too much room for personal bias to be abused.

[Sigma-Astra]

I never said I was excusing anyone for anything now did I? You were the more prudent person to make the point with given your stance. I'm sorry if you thought that my responses were in some way personal. They were never meant to do anything other than make a point contributing to the discussion at hand.

I never suggested you should feel bad nor asked for an apology. I also do not believe I used any meme's?

No, you never said explicitly that you were taking their side, but you didn't have to. Your wording and tone implied that you saw them as doing nothing wrong because you didn't point out that their tone wasn't any better and after clarifying that you've been following the topic firsthand to the finest detail, you immediately use mine as your only example in claiming that it came off as aggressive while completely never mentioning and ignoring what comment started everything in the first place. It's only natural for someone to take that as the wrong way when your wording doesn't imply that anyone with a strong tone might be wrong. No one likes being singled out and used as the guinea pig. So, what I'm mostly getting at is that you shouldn't single out one person for what you find is rude (I'm still not sure how, perhaps people similar to you or like minded aren't just used to someone being blunt), and then completely ignore the other side either.

As for feeling bad or the need for an apology, again, you didn't have to directly suggest it. Your tone and context implied it since you found most of my general responses rude, aggressive, or hostile in your eyes, to which I added as a clarification, that I wasn't going to feel bad or apologize about it because they weren't. They were just blunt, though, not everyone appreciates someone being honest and blunt. You even went further to say that you found my posts relevant because they were close or were a violation towards the current rules. I'm not sure how else you wanted anyone to take that line other than the viewpoint of someone looking to find offense in something that was never offensive to begin with or a subtle personal attack.

I would deem posts overly aggressive and offensive if there was a lot capslock involved, shouting, name-calling, buzz words, memes, slurs, etc...and since I never used anything like that of the sort, I believe a lot of people are taking bluntness and words not being honeyed as offensive and aggressive for no reason.

Ah, thanks for being patient for a non-smartphone response.

[K3KW4RCHILD]

It's really simple: If you don't get it today, that's because you weren't the victim of toxic behavior or you are the toxic behavior. The rest of us, who knew all along why these changes were coming, aren't slightly concerned because we know how to behave ALREADY and don't need rules or rules clarifications in order to play a game for the fun of it.

Just treat each other excellently and you'll be just fine.

[WaterShield]

It's really simple: If you don't get it today, that's because you weren't the victim of toxic behavior or you are the toxic behavior. The rest of us, who knew all along why these changes were coming, aren't slightly concerned because we know how to behave ALREADY and don't need rules or rules clarifications in order to play a game for the fun of it.

Just treat each other excellently and you'll be just fine.

So, to clarify. You are alleging that if one is not the target of toxic behavior... that one must be toxic them self? Did I understand that correctly?

I've seen several posts state similar thoughts throughout the thread. It appears as though my opinion is being rejected unilaterally, as I am being told more or less that I am only worried about this due to being toxic myself. I do not believe blanket accusations of toxicity are leading to any sort of civil discourse.

excellent
[ek-suh-luhnt]
||
adjective
possessing outstanding quality or superior merit; remarkably good.
Archaic . extraordinary; superior.

good
[good]
|||
adjective, bet·ter, best.
morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
of high quality; excellent.

outstanding
[out-stan-ding]
||
adjective
prominent; conspicuous; striking: an outstanding example of courage.
marked by superiority or distinction; excellent; distinguished: an outstanding student.
continuing in existence; remaining unsettled, unpaid, etc.: outstanding debts.
(of securities and the like) publicly issued and sold or in circulation.
standing out; projecting: a stiff, outstanding fabric.
Archaic . that resists or opposes.

So... what does it mean to treat each other excellently? What is good? I believe that is a subjective answer and needs the offending "bad" behavior to be clearly defined. Only then can we be certain what is and is not allowed. Consequently, this is why having "morals" listed in a rule is also baffling to me. Who's morals? I'm certain that of all the people playing this game, many have differing morals.

[WaterShield]

No, you never said explicitly that you were taking their side, but you didn't have to. Your wording and tone implied that you saw them as doing nothing wrong because you didn't point out that their tone wasn't any better and after clarifying that you've been following the topic firsthand to the finest detail, you immediately use mine as your only example in claiming that it came off as aggressive while completely never mentioning and ignoring what comment started everything in the first place. It's only natural for someone to take that as the wrong way when your wording doesn't imply that anyone with a strong tone might be wrong. No one likes being singled out and used as the guinea pig. So, what I'm mostly getting at is that you shouldn't single out one person for what you find is rude (I'm still not sure how, perhaps people similar to use aren't just used to someone being blunt), and then completely ignore the other side either.

As for feeling bad or the need for an apology, again, you didn't have to directly suggest it. Your tone and context implied it since you found most of my general responses rude, aggressive, or hostile in your eyes, to which I added as a clarification, that I wasn't going to feel bad or apologize about it because they weren't. They were just blunt, though, not everyone appreciates someone being honest and blunt. You even went further to say that you found my posts relevant because they were close or were a violation towards the current rules. I'm not sure how else you wanted anyone to take that line other than the viewpoint of someone looking to find offense in something that was never offensive to begin with or a subtle personal attack.

I would deem posts overly aggressive and offensive if there was a lot capslock involved, shouting, name-calling, buzz words, memes, slurs, etc...and since I never used anything like that of the sort, I believe a lot of people are taking bluntness and words not being honeyed as offensive and aggressive for no reason.

Ah, thanks for being patient for a non-smartphone response.

OK, so I can understand this response completely. I apologize that you felt singled out and or used. It was not my intention to shame you or anything of the sort. As for the inferences you made, I did not intend to imply anything. I was hoping by using your own posts as an example, I could help you to understand my point of view if only a little bit. The overall point I was trying to make, is that you cannot control how someone takes what you say. Only what your intentions are can be fully controlled. Delivery can be a mixed bag, especially when communicating by text.

This is why I am concerned about the new rules and am seeking clarification. I hope we can all see now how things can be misconstrued when people are communicating.


Also to further clarify, while I was mainly looking to break through the wall that seems to be separating both sides of this argument. I did genuinely find the way that you (and the other persons) posts were worded, to be aggressive. If I was exposed to that sort of communication in game it would have made me distinctly uncomfortable. Also, I fully understand that not everyone would find that offensive. Which is why I am trying my best to impress upon Square Enix and everyone else here, why I am unsettled by these rule changes.

Thank you for engaging and talking about this with me. Even if you don't agree with me, it is my hope that we can continue to be ,at a minimum, civil to one another.

[Rowde]

Womp womp.

Looks like Hydatos and BA is going to give us our first test run of these new policies!

Please look forward to it!

[Freyt]

The rest of us, who knew all along why these changes were coming, aren't slightly concerned because we know how to behave ALREADY

[StarRosie]

Looks like Hydatos and BA is going to give us our first test run of these new policies!

Please look forward to it!

I don't know why you are quoting that over here while removing the context. There is even a clarification down the line. It looks like the person going "Womp womp" left out some bits from the reddit thread he snipped that from.

The reddit topic about that doesn't end here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...PL&sh=d0bcf69b

Just to retort and such.

Long story short, entering BA to have fun? Fine. Entering BA for the sole intent to disrupt other people's play? Not fine.

[Fyce]

Nice people won't have anything to worry about if they're actually "nice". Again, spreading this paranoia isn't going to help yourself or anyone else. You're just going to make people more paranoid. If you've never received an in-game ban beforehand from just acting the way that you've been currently, then you're probably going to fine.

There's no reason why everyone has to become chicken little right now.

I'm going to do some quoting, as I'm tired of repeating myself.

we don't care about other people's assumptions that it won't happen.

this is an answer only SE can provide.

We are mostly worried because of this:

GMs would not actively take action against other types of behaviour that were deemed to be “annoying but not crossing the line to the objective eye.” Instead encouraging the players involved to resolve the situation through communication, adding the players to the blacklist or other peaceful methods.

However, times have changed and although FINAL FANTASY XIV is an MMORPG, it is now our belief that it is better for the community as a whole for us to “intervene in situations where a player is subjected to the abusive behaviour of another player”, rather than “worrying about inhibiting communication between players.”

In short: "before, when someone was annoying but not crossing the line, we told people do deal with it. Now we are going to deal with it ourselves". Meaning that they will get in cases that before were deemed to be "annoying but not crossing the line to the objective eye". Which does make "nice people" worry for themselves. The vagueness of the new edited rules only adds to that.
And I hope I won't have to repeat that your views on what they meant here and what you think they want to/will do is irrelevant.

Finally,

It's not hard to act civilized.

Look who's speaking. You've done nothing but belittling people's opinion, brushing off their comments and be borderline insulting simply because it didn't align with your views in the last few pages. Others even pointed at the irony of it.
Don't ask people to be interacting in a civil manner if all you can do is have such a dismissive behavior.

Like it or not, there are objective and legitimate reasons for people to be worried. Nothing you can say will change that.

(Edit: Oh and, before you tell me that I'm dismissive of your opinion... You'd be right, I dismiss it. However, not because I disagree with you, which is what you did, but simply because it's objectively useless. You are not Square Enix. And we want an answer from them, not from you or anyone else.)

[Kaedan]

So... what does it mean to treat each other excellently? What is good? I believe that is a subjective answer and needs the offending "bad" behavior to be clearly defined. Only then can we be certain what is and is not allowed. Consequently, this is why having "morals" listed in a rule is also baffling to me. Who's morals? I'm certain that of all the people playing this game, many have differing morals.

This is purposefully obtuse and antagonistic. You know very well the accepted morals of society and what is considered "good behavior". To pretend you don't is dishonest to say the least. Maybe 30 or 40 years ago there was significant enough of a difference of morals between cultures to warrant clarification, but that's no longer the case. We live in a global society where commonly respectful behavior is well known (at least between peoples with common language and communication).

There may be morally questionable yet culturally acceptable actions taken in some cultures, particularly in cultures that haven't evolved their understanding of women's rights, etc, but that has nothing to do with showing respect to other people (which those cultures are still capable of).