Recent Developments of TOS Actions Taken

[Vahlnir]

They won't accept video or screen shots that can be doctored. A live stream of a person logged in to their character who is a public and well known figure is not the same.

It's still a video. A stream can also be doctored.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

It's still a video. A stream can also be doctored.

While live? And on the person's account which is linked on his lodestone profile attaching his stream to his SE account and character?

Please explain how one can doctor a live stream that is in progress.

[Driavna]

While live? And on the person's account which is linked on his lodestone profile attaching his stream to his SE account and character?

Please explain how one can doctor a live stream that is in progress.

The GM did not watch the rant live. A time stamp of the recordad video was linked.

[Vahlnir]

While live? And on the person's account which is linked on his lodestone profile attaching his stream to his SE account and character?

Please explain how one can doctor a live stream that is in progress.

Err, perhaps I should have rephrased. Some live streams are recorded, and those can be edited. Still though, it's an outside source and SE has said on multiple occasions that they won't accept such sources as evidence. Yet, here they are enforcing something they should have been all along using those sources. So...they need to make up their minds. Because if they allow this then bots and such can be reported the way they should be.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Err, perhaps I should have rephrased. Some live streams are recorded, and those can be edited. Still though, it's an outside source and SE has said on multiple occasions that they won't accept such sources as evidence. Yet, here they are enforcing something they should have been all along. So...they need to make up their minds. Because if they allow this then bots and such can be reported they way they should be.

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

[Vahlnir]

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

Not sure where you got that from, but okay. I don't even know the guy, nor do I really care about them or their account. I just want some consistency. That isn't unreasonable.

[Driavna]

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

That's not the problem. Some here seems to use that a focal point but it's not. We care about how inconsistent SE is with bans, here and in-game. I know, I know... "don't be a jerk".

Anyway, if you really believe that this person should get punished (and he should) you are letting it go easily. FFXIV is right now in a content lul and he can go and stream anything else because the company that should be given the disciplinary action was not involved.

[ForteNightshade]

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

I wager the majority are mad at the lack of consistency. Arthars is merely the catalyst for that argument. If he can be banned based off a twitch vod. All players should be subjected to that same criteria; i.e. people can stream botters, speed hacks and etc to show evidence of those players cheating.

If this is merely a one off, then it shows a blatant double standard. They'll punish someone for being a jerk but not someone for cheating. Why? Because the guy being a jerk is more popular on a third party platform.

[Melichoir]

I wager the majority are mad at the lack of consistency. Arthars is merely the catalyst for that argument. If he can be banned based off a twitch vod. All players should be subjected to that same criteria; i.e. people can stream botters, speed hacks and etc to show evidence of those players cheating.

If this is merely a one off, then it shows a blatant double standard. They'll punish someone for being a jerk but not someone for cheating. Why? Because the guy being a jerk is more popular on a third party platform.

They punished him not cause hes popular, but because his actions have a direct impact on another player and he was (IMO) trying to be cute and clever by doing this in a live stream and not in game with the impression that he would not get punished for it cause 'its not in game'. He was completely ignoring the fact that the point of anti parser ToS is to stop harassment but still did it thinking he would use the literal rules to be safe. If you want to argue he did get made an example of, thats fine, but lets not try and be cute and say "WELL SE SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS CAUSE NO RULES WERE VIOLATED!" Because if we want to really have a system where everything is clearly labeled and spelled out with no room for interpretation, thats gonna create inflexibility for SE and their response to that will be to create very harsh and draconian ToS.

For all the "SE has to be clear about the rules" shtick, it typically overlooks that Parsing is against the ToS but SE turns a blind eye to it for our sake. Being too specific is just as bad as being overly vague. At the end of the day, he used his parser and streaming power to go after a specific player publicly. We dont live in the 90s. He knew that this would rile up some of his viewers and cause trouble for that player. Frankly, if he was a real boss about things, hed just have the anatomy to talk that smack in game and deal with it. But he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

[Seddrinth]

They punished him not cause hes popular, but because his actions have a direct impact on another player and he was (IMO) trying to be cute and clever by doing this in a live stream and not in game with the impression that he would not get punished for it cause 'its not in game'. He was completely ignoring the fact that the point of anti parser ToS is to stop harassment but still did it thinking he would use the literal rules to be safe. If you want to argue he did get made an example of, thats fine, but lets not try and be cute and say "WELL SE SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS CAUSE NO RULES WERE VIOLATED!" Because if we want to really have a system where everything is clearly labeled and spelled out with no room for interpretation, thats gonna create inflexibility for SE and their response to that will be to create very harsh and draconian ToS.

For all the "SE has to be clear about the rules" shtick, its typically overlooks that Parsing is against the ToS but they turn a blind eye to it for our sake. Being to specific is just as bad as being overly vague.

Follow the money. Bottom line is SE cares about subscription and revenue, as any company should. Arthars suspension was inconsistent on SE's part but was probably done to protect FF14's image of being welcoming to casual players. Casual players pay the majority of the bill. The same thing with Parsers- if SE started banning everyone who used parsers, so many people would stop playing. The "use it but don't harrass people with it" rule was to keep parsing players paying the sub, and to keep casual players playing as well who might be turned off if people give them a hard time about their dps numbers. So of course SE hasn't been consistent in enforcing their ToS/rules, but from a revenue perspective, SE is always consistent in doing what they can to protect their brand. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just how it is.