Suspended for Otter Nonsense

[SturmChurro]

I just figured that if a moderator had to give a reply for every post they deleted then they'd take more notice of what they were actually deleting and determine if that post was reeeeeaaally worth deleting in the first place. It just seems like they're deleting the posts to avoid directly addressing the problem and if the post was flagged by someone out of spite then that wouldn't be fair to the one who posted it. There's been at least one post deleted from here that I know of and I have no idea why. Everyone on here has been polite and on topic the whole time.

In a perfect world, giving a manual reason for a post's deletion would be a great thing. I do not disagree with that, but considering the carpet-bombings that happen, I just do not think it is feasible. In a perfect world, I would like to see deletions lessened, and edits happen instead. Using a swear word as an example means an automatic deletion (and ban), even if you included 6 paragraphs of a quality post.

Keep this in mind:
Posting content with the intention of criticizing either Square Enix staff or specific individuals.

[Joven]

In a perfect world, giving a manual reason for a post's deletion would be a great thing. I do not disagree with that, but considering the carpet-bombings that happen, I just do not think it is feasible. In a perfect world, I would like to see deletions lessened, and edits happen instead. Using a swear word as an example means an automatic deletion, even if you included 6 paragraphs of a quality post.

Keep this in mind:
Posting content with the intention of criticizing either Square Enix staff or specific individuals.

Sorry, I haven't had much sleep today and I tend to get a little too serious about things when I'm tired. Thanks for keeping me in check .

[SaberMaxwell]

Keep this in mind:
Posting content with the intention of criticizing either Square Enix staff or specific individuals.

Note: I'm not arguing whether that's in the ToS or not or anything, just sort of venting incredulity with the fact it is in the ToS.

I personally think that's the biggest joke on the ToS. Why have official forums if critique is bannable?

Sure, "critique the game not the individual" and I can see why they'd have a notion like that.

I should be able to defend myself by saying "I'm not criticizing the moderating team or anyone on it, just the policies that the moderation team follows." but there is no real appeal process (they tell you there's one, but more often than not your appeal is directed to the person who banned you, and ofc they're gonna say the punishment is correct. That's if they don't just hit you with a boilerplate response, which of the people I mentioned above, I've seen three of them get boilerplates) so I know that defending myself like that would fall on deaf ears.

[SturmChurro]

Note: I'm not arguing whether that's in the ToS or not or anything, just sort of venting incredulity with the fact it is in the ToS.

I personally think that's the biggest joke on the ToS. Why have official forums if critique is bannable?

Sure, "critique the game not the individual" and I can see why they'd have a notion like that.

I should be able to defend myself by saying "I'm not criticizing the moderating team or anyone on it, just the policies that the moderation team follows." but there is no real appeal process (they tell you there's one, but more often than not your appeal is directed to the person who banned you, and ofc they're gonna say the punishment is correct. That's if they don't just hit you with a boilerplate response, which of the people I mentioned above, I've seen three of them get boilerplates) so I know that defending myself like that would fall on deaf ears.

I've been banned twice, trust me I know what you mean. I have studied the ToS several times, and have come to the conclusion that anything not positive is literally bannable, at the sole discretion of the mod, in my opinion. At the very end the ToS includes:

Taking any other actions that are deemed inappropriate by Square Enix in our sole discretion.

In so many words, my interpretation of this line is, anything is bannable. What do you consider "inappropriate", and what does the next person consider equally "inappropriate"?

These are the lines of the ToS that I think can (and is) broadly interpreted, and leads to bans. Considering the context of my last ban for reference:

Posting that constitutes discrimination against another forum member or group (also including forming groups for the purpose of discrimination), insults, slander, libel, harassment of a group or individual.

You can be banned for simply making a claim against another user, it doesn't matter how severe said claim is. My suggestion is, to make sure you don't get misinterpreted, include "in my opinion", "I think".

Use of inappropriate or aggressive language.

You don't actually have to swear, aggressive can mean a lot of things, stay positive!

Posting aimed to create a negative impact on the community or its members.

How broad of an interpretation can you take for that you think?

Posting seeking to damage or disparage Square Enix, the forum, FINAL FANTASY XIV, or others.

Again, in other words, anything negative can apply here.

Posting content with the intention of criticizing either Square Enix staff or specific individuals.

MUST criticize only the idea.

And to finish this off, I assume this is what the otter posters were hit by:

Posting content that does not follow the theme of the category or thread.
Posting content that deviates from topics concerning FINAL FANTASY XIV.

[SaberMaxwell]

Use of inappropriate or aggressive language.

You don't actually have to swear, aggressive can mean a lot of things, stay positive!

Posting aimed to create a negative impact on the community or its members.

How broad of an interpretation can you take for that you think?

Congrats on surviving two bans. Dual says he's jealous.

These two are the ToS guidelines Dualgunner was permabanned for. Literally for a three letter word that refers to either a donkey, or the human posterior.

You're right, nobody has to swear. Dual certainly could have avoided doing so and probably wouldn't have been banned. That said, a permanent ban for an instance of swearing, especially when the only other infraction was two years ago for something entirely different? Seems like absolute overkill to me.

EDIT: not saying you'd disagree, and I'll admit bias. Dual is a very close friend of mine.

[SturmChurro]

EDIT: not saying you'd disagree, and I'll admit bias. Dual is a very close friend of mine.

I do not disagree. I disagree with the way I think the ToS can be interpreted, I disagree with what I think is a seeming lack of moderator interaction (silent mass deletions one-minute, straight up bans the next), I disagree with how I think some users may or may not weaponize reports, I disagree with the severity a ToS violation may be handled.

With the way the ToS can (and is, in my opinion) interpreted it completely removes the option of discourse, and certainly makes many users nervous to post here. If one side feels like it they can claim any one of the ToS lines I posted above, I think they can get you banned. You might feel confident, but trust me, if it is negative it is breaking the ToS. There is no consistency, because in my opinion, it is so broadly interpreted. That is why, in my opinion, a "review" of any ToS violation may be a farce, because it can be interpreted as a true violation, and in the end, a justified ban.