The new treatment of ''harassment'' in the ToS.

[Xeero]

TL;DR:
Your new policies are bad, and you should feel bad, and since your survey system had no proper means to report it I'm leaving this here to explain why I cancelled my sub.

[Anselmet]

I truly think that while it's okay to have harassment rules, there need to be degrees in consequences appropriate to the degrees of offense. Further, I do think having some kind of appeal is essential in the event of dishonest player reports, dishonest GMs, or discrimination based on different views.

I figure most players and most GMs are probably fine, but especially in today's environment there is huge intolerance toward those with different opinions. One player described having an unpleasant experience being reported for not viewing Omega as trans when another player did. My impression from the account was that the reporting player was not ridiculed or shamed for having that interpretation, the penalized player simply didn't see things the same way and said so.

I know for me, I don't think it's a relevant question for Omega because it's a robot lacking feelings on the matter. There are characters in other media where that interpretation makes more sense to me. I also think if someone imagines Omega as trans, it's their right. But no one should be compelled to agree or remain silent for fear of a ban. Given the severity of bigotry accusations, I don't know that every GM or even most would be secure enough to give the accused a fair hearing under such circumstances. When it comes to authoritarians, anyone who disagrees for whatever reason can be accused as well.

Situations like that make me think checks to GM power/protection for players are important. I don't think it's currently an issue, but there's real danger there.

I would like to say I know the person who this happened to in Omega and I read the chat logs. What you said is exactly what happened. When did discussions become a crime? She merely pointed out that Omega is simulating two genders and the people who accused her of being transphobic overreacted. Thought crimes be real!

[Lambdafish]

TL;DR:
Your new policies are bad, and you should feel bad, and since your survey system had no proper means to report it I'm leaving this here to explain why I cancelled my sub.

Considering the policies haven't actually caused anything bad yet, canceling your sub is on you, not SE. The policies are concerning and in need of clarification, but doing what you did is just melodramatic

[Iscah]

- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.

I think you're misunderstanding some parts of the wording here.

■Nuisance behaviour
"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.

There's an important word in here that a lot of people seem to be missing: "a penalty may be imposed", not "will be imposed".

The rules don't force a GM to punish a person regardless of their intent, it just gives them the option to do so. It's still entirely up to the GM's discretion.

What it does allow - and what I suspect is the actual intent of the wording - is that if someone claims they didn't mean offence but it's clear that they did, then the GM has the discretion to set a punishment regardless of them saying it wasn't their intention.

I remember there have been complaints in the past about GMs not being able to take action against someone who was clearly being a deliberate nuisance, unless that person outright stated they were doing it to inconvenience others. So I think this wording is intended to get around that past issue, and allow GMs to act on those "obvious but not admitted" behaviours.



I also can't see anything saying that a temporary ban is the "minimum punishment" - and the penalty policy seems to say the opposite.

■Types of penalty
There are six levels of penalty in ascending order of severity: "Caution", "Warning", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (3 Days)", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (10 Days)", "Temporary Service Account Suspension (20 Days)", "Service Account Termination".

■Account Penalties Escalation
All actions taken against a service account are recorded permanently. In the event of a player committing multiple violations, the previous violations and service account actions are taken into account.
If a violation is repeated, a heavier penalty may be applied in the second instance of such violation. If the past record includes a Temporary Service Account Suspension, essentially a more severe penalty than the previous Temporary Service Account Suspension will be applied, even if the repeated violation was equivalent to Caution or Warning.

They aren't even required to give you a temporary ban if you've previously received a warning.



The closest thing I could see to saying a ban was the minimum punishment was this:

■Harassment
"Harassment" means speech and/or behaviour that inflicts deep emotional distress on another person. It is an extremely serious violation. Where Square Enix determines that harassment has occurred, a penalty equal to or higher than "Temporary Service Account Suspension" may be imposed.

This doesn't come with the "penalty may be imposed regardless of intent" warning from the Nuisance Behaviour section, but again the word "may" makes an important difference in interpreting the rule. A temporary ban may be imposed - which implies that in some cases you may just get a warning.

[Iscah]

Considering the policies haven't actually caused anything bad yet, canceling your sub is on you, not SE. The policies are concerning and in need of clarification, but doing what you did is just melodramatic

I agree. It's one thing to cancel your sub if it becomes clear that these rules are being applied unfairly and having a negative effect on the game, but just on the principle that they could be abused (even if written with good intent) seems like a poor move.

Even for the people saying "right, I'm never saying anything in chat ever again".... why? If you're worried that the changed rules will lead to you getting an unfair ban, test it. Keep talking. If you get that initial three-day ban for something you don't consider reasonable, then you know you should stay quiet, or leave as a protest. But perhaps that will never happen and you can just keep on enjoying the game exactly as you always did, because the new rules aren't actually out to get you.

[Jaywalker]

--------

Things like that creep me out so bad omg. People have gotten very casual with those kinds of thought crime accusations. When there's a big "accusation = guilt" mentality going on plus an allergy to fair hearings... it can get real bad real fast.

Jeez though, did more than one person pile on in that situation? Sounds like a huge mess.

[negiman4]

Everyone, we need to spread awareness about this issue. Copy the URL for this thread and share it with any friends you have in-game. Even if the new ToS isn't abused in the near future, the potential is still there. Rules should be well-defined, objective, and rigid. Not vague, subjective, and nebulous like the new ToS.

I do not trust Square to have good judgment across the board when dealing with issues related to the new ToS, specifically the Harassment and Nuisance Behavior sections. Given that their nature is entirely subjective, literally anything can be harassment or nuisance behavior by SE's logic, and that should definitely worry you. Everyone is different, and everyone finds different things offensive. Also, GM's are humans too, which means they're just as prone to error as the rest of us.

Don't fix what isn't broken; the old ToS was perfectly fine. But if SE won't revert the ToS, then they need to at least remove anything that's subjective in nature. SE is opening Pandora's Box and they don't even realize it yet.

[Dualgunner]

I agree. It's one thing to cancel your sub if it becomes clear that these rules are being applied unfairly and having a negative effect on the game, but just on the principle that they could be abused (even if written with good intent) seems like a poor move.

Even for the people saying "right, I'm never saying anything in chat ever again".... why? If you're worried that the changed rules will lead to you getting an unfair ban, test it. Keep talking. If you get that initial three-day ban for something you don't consider reasonable, then you know you should stay quiet, or leave as a protest. But perhaps that will never happen and you can just keep on enjoying the game exactly as you always did, because the new rules aren't actually out to get you.

While I'm not one of the people who choose to now stop using the chat*, I'm also not somebody who is overly fond of testing the boundaries of rules, so I can understand anybody paranoid enough to believe GMs are looking at the game as Banhammer Whack-A-Mole deciding not to use chat anymore.

I agree it's a bit ridiculous to think that they will; I agree it'd be nice if the rules were worded a bit more tightly. My stance on this whole thing is "I wish they were more specific regarding their rules, but it's not worth dropping the sky over."

*I'm generally not a talkative person anyway outside of my sphere of friends. I tend not to speak in DF no matter what because of this, outside of a friendly greeting and a friendly parting message.