Which rule states that parses can't be posted in chat?

[Vnolan]

It falls under the rules section:

Posting for posterity:

Behaviour that disrupts the game balance
Square Enix strictly prohibits the use of third-party programs or tools – including programs and tools that permit automated or “absentee” play – in Final Fantasy XIV. Accordingly, the following activities are prohibited:

- Modifying, analysing, integrating, and/or reverse engineering game software or data.
- Creating, distributing, using, or promoting utilities that interact with the game.
- Exploiting Square Enix programming bugs or glitches.
- Automating gameplay processes.

The Game Master (GM) may speak to players to investigate and confirm “absentee” play, and if the player continues with this behaviour, contrary to the GM's instructions, this will be treated as “absentee” play and subject to penalties. The following behaviour is also prohibited.

-----

Parsers totally fall into either/or:

- Modifying, analysing, integrating, and/or reverse engineering game software or data.

- Creating, distributing, using, or promoting utilities that interact with the game.

As Parsers, by design, analyze data (logs) and since the read data in real time they are utilities that interact with the game.

Already covered in the opening post. That has to do with the act of parsing/using a parser. Nothing quoted makes any mention of posting parses. Datamining would also fall under what you quoted. Would players put themselves at risk if they discussed datamined info using the game's chat if they themselves didn't datamine?

[HWalsh]

Already covered in the opening post. That has to do with the act of parsing/using a parser. Nothing quoted makes any mention of posting parses. Datamining would also fall under what you quoted. Would players put themselves at risk if they discussed datamined info using the game's chat if they themselves didn't datamine?

I think you're angling for a technicality.

The GMs have to assume if you're getting/posting numbers that you're accessing the data. Technically speaking, getting data from someone else, IE asking for numbers, the person you are asking *is* a third party. So that would still be in violation of the rules.

If someone said, "What is a parser?" And someone else just explained what a parser is, then that would probably be ok.

[Beelhi]

Already covered in the opening post. That has to do with the act of parsing/using a parser. Nothing quoted makes any mention of posting parses. Datamining would also fall under what you quoted. Would players put themselves at risk if they discussed datamined info using the game's chat if they themselves didn't datamine?

- Creating, distributing, using, or promoting utilities that interact with the game.

If you share a parse, whether it be yours or someone elses, it's promoting a parser I'd assume. Also if you share a parse, to a GM that's the same as admitting you're using a software that's against the TOS, they won't care if you weren't the one parsing.

SO instead of looking for "oh but it wasn't specifically mentioned", just don't talk about parses in game.

[Granyala]

Already covered in the opening post. That has to do with the act of parsing/using a parser. Nothing quoted makes any mention of posting parses.

Uuh difficult to post a parse if you don't have a parser.
You're trying to split hairs at this point, searching for some legal loophole that doesn't exist.

You diss people over parses ingame, you risk getting hammered with the banhammer. End of story.

[HWalsh]

Uuh difficult to post a parse if you don't have a parser.
You're trying to split hairs at this point, searching for some legal loophole that doesn't exist.

You diss people over parses ingame, you risk getting hammered with the banhammer. End of story.

This is an extension of the Pro-Parser vs Anti-Parser arguments. People really want to parse, but they're suffering from the fact that the Anti-Parser crowd are, by the facts, violating the rules... IE cheating.

This is largely because other games (*cough*WoW*cough*) allow parsing openly.

The biggest issue (for the devs) is finding out a way to stop parsing.

You can not include a log, but people will build apps that simply read the data in real time. You could make the numbers calculate server-side and not send the player any data from other players, but that increases bandwidth.

It's a major headache to devs who don't want parsing.

Back in the early 2000's I was a content designer for a company making an MMO in Phoenix (that never was released) and we toyed with finding a way to stop it.

[Granyala]

The biggest issue (for the devs) is finding out a way to stop parsing.

Considering that Yoshida watches worldfirsters that openly parse and stream, I seriously doubt the DEVs of FF-XIV even care that we parse as long as we keep it to ourselves and don't diss people.

I believe this is the best solution anyway. Allow the number obsessed elite to be and have fun, while harshly punishing the mis-use of parsers by the wannabe-tryhard crowd.

It's really a win-win.

PS: the solution to the problem doesn't exist, simply because people have your game client on their machines and could bypass any encryption via reverse engineering. Absolutely not worth the effort to try and fight sth like that for so little gain.

Stargate Worlds - Cheyenne Mountain - Phoenix Arizona

Whoot... man a Stargate MMO would have been cool ._.

[Vnolan]

Considering that Yoshida watches worldfirsters that openly parse and stream, I seriously doubt the DEVs of FF-XIV even care that we parse as long as we keep it to ourselves and don't diss people.

I believe this is the best solution anyway. Allow the number obsessed elite to be and have fun, while harshly punishing the mis-use of parsers by the wannabe-tryhard crowd.

You're not allowed to post parses even if there is no ill intent.

By all mean keep going, please remember to let us know if you are banned because someone reports you for using 3 rd party program. By then we will able to know if it is ok to post parser log

What does this even mean? It was stated in the opening post that it wouldn't be allowed. The question was, which rule would be broken?

This. I doubt anyone here will change his stance, so why not let things play out.

What stance? It's a question.

If he's right, great. Keep it going.

Right about what?

Wow, there are a lot of people in here that didn't read the post

It's the official forums, of course they didn't.

The question is basically "if someone asks what their parse looks like in chat, can i get away with telling them?"

No, the question is, which rule would be broken?

The answer is YES. When people get banned or suspended for bringing up parsing, it's for HARASSMENT. That's the specific language of the ban or suspension. Third-party tools are not mentioned. No one got banned for talking about guildworks in shout - no one gets banned just for mentioning parsing or number upon request.

As long as what you say isn't something that can be construed as harassment, you're fine.

Parsing in any manner is not allowed. If harassment had to be involved you would see parses left and right in chat by players who wished to let other players know how they did. This is not the case because posting them in any manner opens you up to account action.

You're not going to get away with posting parse results by saying "there's no rule against posting them" to a GM.

In both examples you would be at risk of receiving a temp ban if someone else in the party decided to report you, but in both cases you wouldn't be parsing, so which rule would be broken?

[Vnolan]

You diss people over parses ingame, you risk getting hammered with the banhammer. End of story.

If you post a parse, regardless of intention, you put yourself at risk. As in, all that needs to happen is someone has to report you. Doesn't matter if both parties are as courteous as can be during the discussion.

Uuh difficult to post a parse if you don't have a parser.

Gave two examples in the opening post.

You're trying to split hairs at this point, searching for some legal loophole that doesn't exist.

Not at all. The examples mentioned couldn't be allowed or open parsing would be okay (would just have to say someone else uploaded/is streaming etc.). We know that through reasoning though, and not a rule.