Recent Developments of TOS Actions Taken

[ForteNightshade]

snip

Your analogy only applies to pictures not video. Hence why I referenced the latter. A live stream cannot be doctored since even the recorded playback is housed by Twitch not the streamer themselves. Therefore, the GMs could easily do their own investigation to determine if the report has merit. Simply shadowing someone accused off botting or hacking would be enough. Not like it isn't easy to notice bot movements given how stiff and rigid they are. Saying there may be a chance is little more than an excuse to not actually do anything. Considering even WoW handles bots and cheaters better than FFXIV, it speaks volumes to how apathetic they are.

Most streamers cover/blur the names of their party members/chat/etc, so its been probably overlooked. Again, the point of the "Dont Parse" and "Parse is fine if you keep it yourself" is to address harassment. They probably dont care if you parse or stream parsing so long as its not being used to go after other players.

No, they don't. In fact, almost none of them blur or obscure names of players on ACT. Happy and Sofie are among the only streamers who don't have ACT—names and all—shown directly on the screen.

[Jybril]

Update from Arthars. Nutkin censor for my own sake.

This really isn't rocket science and the guy can't seem to understand.
Literally, just don't be jerk. That's all he has to do.
He can do what he's been doing as long as he isn't blasting people
out the water like he just did. If he can't understand what he did wrong
then have fun eventually getting permabanned.

[InfiniDragon]

I personally feel the GM grossly overstepped their bounds.

It'd be one thing if it was for the use of third party software (ACT), but another thing entirely to ban for trashing the player outside of in-game chat.

They should only police what's happening actually in-game and a stream should be inadmissible IMO, unless of course they're going to apply using outside sources to everything including RMT and not strange case by case situations (they won't).

[QT_Melon]

The other problem with SE not getting bots based off video is that they're basically playing Pest control in this case.

Yeah, SE can get a video for ASDFGJHKL botting, but they're looking for the queen, not the soldiers. Basically, looking for the master owner of the accounts that are botting and finding out where and how they're doing it so they don't IP ban an area that affects players in that zone. They want to also find out the scope, (are they using stolen credit cards). So they can put in a preventative measure that bans the wave.

That said, the report system on botting is HORRIBLY outdated and could use better efficiency in reporting them to begin with. The good step at least was finding away to GAOL nuisance advertising bots based on players reporting them with right click.

Now in terms of the player harassment, all of this reminds me of the webcomic Let's Play, and is a good reminder everyone on all sides are human.

[Alaray]

This really isn't rocket science and the guy can't seem to understand.
Literally, just don't be jerk. That's all he has to do.
He can do what he's been doing as long as he isn't blasting people
out the water like he just did. If he can't understand what he did wrong
then have fun eventually getting permabanned.

It's more of a desire for a defined line. Since, while:

- Maybe he got in SE trouble due to the link he had attached to a lodestone character, placing his content technically within SE's jurisdiction (and they have used this to action people before).

- Maybe he overstepped a limit with how hard he went on the guy, though as he's been doing it for so long at this point, it's sudden for it to be over the line now. Which means, other things that could be seen as fine/innocuous on twitch, could potentially also be actioned on in the future with no hard defined limit as to what constitutes a TOS break on third party platforms, to the point where SE will action it. (Like, if someone's streaming with mods and is reported for using them, would SE choose to come down on that? Or if someone did say an expletive on their stream, or even just called someone "an idiot" in a "that idiot just got me killed on this fight"-level way). And this extends outside of twitch -- if your character can be linked to, for example, your Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr account etc... could things you say on these platforms get you actioned? We do know SE actioned people who lewdly modded their characters, but what about people who use Reshade? What about more wholesome/innocent mods? They haven't been actioned so far, to my knowledge, via these other venues, but who's to say it'll remain consistent? And suddenly something people have an understanding is okay, such as streaming the game with the ACT overlay on as another example, is suddenly not okay?

- Maybe it's only being actioned as someone went through the trouble to actually report it. Which means, what else would be a violation if someone decided to report it? Since, the TOS includes things like: not swearing in-game, but that can extend to third party platforms where the game is featured. Do I think they would action someone saying an expletive in a moment of celebration, or a moment of frustration? Probably not. But that's just it: "Probably".

(My guess is: He went too far, had the link of his content on his lodestone character & was reported through an in-game means. That's what makes the most sense, but even then, it's still a guess. I can't say I know exactly what he did to get himself in hot water, because I don't: The GM does).

It's not about did he deserve to be suspended, and more about: well if the evidence in question is a third party platform where the TOS is being applied to, are there limits to what SE would action from that platform? Does a case need to be extreme, or excessive, or reported by a player in-game with the attached clip? Does it need to be a verified source? Does this only cover excessive cases? Does it cover any case?

And it'd also help situations in-game, too. Where people are dealing with stalkers, harassment of a different nature than a "you suck at this game" nature. Since a lot of those interactions aren't often dealt with, and the things that are actioned and not actioned never feels particularly consistent from the GM's. And wanting a clear-cut limit that's defined is... normal. Not in a "how can I twist it in my favor" normal, but in a "okay, so it is absolutely guaranteed that if I don't do x/y/z I won't get in trouble, so I'm going to adjust what I'm doing around that to avoid problems going forward."

The limits should be more defined, especially when there are people who rely on twitch income for their livelihood built off streaming the game. Because anyone who puts forth a reason for the suspension, who is not a GM, is only able to presume and guesstimate (and maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong: either way, there's still a maybe).




It's already accepted that, yes, he got in trouble for being excessive in ripping into a player. But that's not what the overall focus should be on: it's just wanting clear, defined limits involved in handling cases outside of the game, rather than a nebulous "Everything in the TOS may apply at individual GM discretion" since that... covers a lot of things. Like... why, specifically, this case over a case where someone is being actively harassed/stalked etc... in game? Or why is this case allowed to be used as grounds for punishment, but another player who said far more egregious things, is not? What makes this case different from the other two cases.


I'll add that: sometimes having not-super-clearly-defined rules is a positive thing, since it can circumvent rules-lawyering, people getting out of stuff on technicalities etc... but the way things do get enforced often times feel, and seem, very "well... why did this get actioned, but not this other event that occurred in-game?"

Do I, personally, care? I don't personally care on a level wherein I think I'd ever run amok with things, but at the same time I can understand the side of people who stake their livelihood on the game/supplemental income on the game, desiring a more clear process.

(and, again, I'm not defending a stance of "We should all be allowed to beat on each other/mean to each other" but just a general "some lines of absolute Don'ts would be good for out-of-game interactions that involve the game." Like, maybe it is purely in just being a massive dick to someone, that's fine, but it's not a 100% that's absolutely the only thing that could ever get you in trouble)

[Vnolan]

The other problem with SE not getting bots based off video is that they're basically playing Pest control in this case.

Yeah, SE can get a video for ASDFGJHKL botting, but they're looking for the queen, not the soldiers.

It's not gibberish bots farming sands and mats in ShB areas and I know of several that have been active at cap for years. I've seen one or two bot while advertising RMT sales in PF.

[QT_Melon]

Anyone who uses a parser knows there is a Blur names option anyways.

[Cyreil]

Update from Arthars. Nutkin censor for my own sake.

This is why I will never want SE to show where the line is drawn and why no one will ever get that response from the moderators. If you can't figure out how to be a decent person and need to know how far you can go, chances are you are problem already and are going to use it as a baseline to skirt that said line and intentionally make people as uncomfortable as possible. But when push comes to shove, they will run away and hide, then point to the ToS and say they didn't break any rules while saying it is clearly okay for them to do what they are doing and act the way they act.

The ToS is fine the way it is. Learn some morals and practice common sense.

[Vahlnir]

This is why I will never want SE to show where the line is drawn and why no one will ever get that response from the moderators. If you can't figure out how to be a decent person and need to know how far you can go, chances are you are problem already and are going to use it as a baseline to skirt that said line and intentionally make people as uncomfortable as possible. But when push comes to shove, they will run away and hide, then point to the ToS and say they didn't break any rules while saying it is clearly okay for them to do what they are doing and act the way they act.

The ToS is fine the way it is. Learn some morals and practice common sense.

Hey, if someone deserves to be punished then SE can have at it. They broke the ToS. However, they shouldn't cherry pick who to punish on a 3rd party platform. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions, whether it's naming and shaming, botting, hacking, etc. What they've done here is opened a door that they told us was closed and completely off limits prior to this incident. And that's fine, but they should probably leave the door open now.

[ShanaMia]

...

Arthars is not arguing that the ban was not warranted. Hell, he even admits that he deserves it. He's arguing that if evidence from outside the game is now fair game, it needs to be very clear that is now the case and, if limited to a specific subset, which TOS violations would accept this evidence from outside of the game. Note that they did not accept evidence from outside the game previously. This isn't even a matter of "learning morals and practicing common sense". This is a matter of whether we are being policed on platforms outside of the game and if this to be applied to all TOS violations. People have brought up cases where, if outside evidence had been accepted at the time of their report, a ban would have been given such as Feast win trading, admitting in private conversations to botting on their main account, etc. If they're accepting outside evidence for slander/profanity, surely these cases should be subject to the same scrutiny? It's about fairness. Being a streamer shouldn't hold him to a distinctly higher standard in the eyes of the TOS.