Recent Developments of TOS Actions Taken

[KalinOrthos]

Theres give an take. The give is that people shouldnt be a jerk, but the take is that there has to be a line. You cant set a line, have someone toe it, and then punish them arbitrarily with the caveat of there being an exception as to why. For example, if the rules say you cant harass or disparage someone in a racist way, you can call someone a jerk and be done with it but you cant call them a racist word. Both are technically being mean to the person, but there is a line to what goes to far.

Or if were gonna consider extreme exceptions like Arthars case - He wouldve been fine talking about someone without giving a description or name or any pertinent information to identify that person, but crossed the line when he made sure to make the name known. The line is identifying the person and then going to town on them verbally. It gets more damning cause personally I think he knew the rules but went to do it on Twitch specifically to get around the exact wording or precedent of the rules, while fully understanding the rules were intended to stop the very thing he was doing. the spirit of the rules was anti harassment/naming-and-shaming, so he tried to be clever by doing it on twitch. In the full literal sense, he didnt violate any ToS or precedent directly, but it was clear he was using a loophole to do exactly what the rules were meant to prevent.

When I imply a clear cut line, I mean the company saying "These are the exact circumstances that will warrant a ban" in their ToS, which is what Angus was implying. What we have now of the general "Don't be a jerk to others" works because it's broad and nondescript enough to encompass most forms of assholery, and most people are aware enough to know when they're about to be an asshole. I don't think the onus is on SE to specifically outline what it means to be a jerk to others; the vast majority of us know how to be civil, even if we have the occasional arguments, and if you don't, SE sitting you down and saying "If you keep this up, we don't want you in our game" by banning you is enough of a punishment and a wake-up call to weed out the people who can't act like a person, and I can't believe I'm saying this unironically, in a society.

[QT_Melon]

I don't understand how people still argue confusion and need "more clear definitions" over and over again. People seem to understand pretty damn well why Arthars got banned.

What's with this "But, BUT BUT!!!"

Obviously we see why he got banned. Maybe we shouldn't be not censoring names, shaming them on verified accounts that are easily identified.

When we get an actual murky situation involving a ban, let's talk about that then?

[Yshtola]

Daily reminder that SE can terminate your account at any moment and for any reason.

[Melichoir]

snippity snap.

I think to be more clear, the point is that there has to be some level of exactness to what is a bannable offense, while giving flexibility to address new or different issues that may not be outlined in the ToS. It shouldnt be to exact or too open ended. As a point, the blanket "Dont be a jerk" is fairly subjective and what defines civility is no different. For some, the mere act of berating someone for being incompetent (regardless of how polite its done) is uncivil. For others, incivility is only a thing when you venture into racial slurs or other like commentary and everything up to that line is fair game. This is why simply saying "Everyone knows how to be civil and and not be a jerk" is not great because everyone has different thresh holds. This gets more complicated because the argument that you need know how to act in a society is misleading - societal norms are not inherently the best. Itd be better to let people behave the way they want, broadly, and give other players the tools and means to choose whom they interact with. It's an understanding that not only are you responsible for what you say, but also in sticking up for yourself. But I digress.

In broader terms, yes SE should more or less outline the exacts of what gets a ban and enforce generally along those lines but also build in flexibility for people not being banned for breaking the ToS but also giving them the ability to ban people for doing things that dont explicitly break the ToS. An example would be using the n-word. Among some people and friends, its used as more of a friendly term. Doesnt matter who agrees if it should be or not, but it is what it is. It would be stupid for SE to straight up ban someone for using the n-word towards a friend theyre hyper familiar with just because the ToS says you cant say it. Even in public chat, a warning or suspension might be necessary but not a straight up ban. For the latter, Arthars situation outlines that. He didnt break any rules directly, but his actions were done as a means to get around the rules and were not innocuous. He wanted to name and shame a particular player and make their life hard but not get in trouble for it, so he went after them off platform to his fan base. SE needs the flexibility to address that issue and were (IMO) in the right to do so.

[KalinOrthos]

In broader terms, yes SE should more or less outline the exacts of what gets a ban and enforce generally along those lines but also build in flexibility for people not being banned for breaking the ToS but also giving them the ability to ban people for doing things that dont explicitly break the ToS. An example would be using the n-word. Among some people and friends, its used as more of a friendly term. Doesnt matter who agrees if it should be or not, but it is what it is. It would be stupid for SE to straight up ban someone for using the n-word towards a friend theyre hyper familiar with just because the ToS says you cant say it. Even in public chat, a warning or suspension might be necessary but not a straight up ban. For the latter, Arthars situation outlines that. He didnt break any rules directly, but his actions were done as a means to get around the rules and were not innocuous. He wanted to name and shame a particular player and make their life hard but not get in trouble for it, so he went after them off platform to his fan base. SE needs the flexibility to address that issue and were (IMO) in the right to do so.

But SE already does this. Their User Agreement specifically outlines disrupting or interfering with other players, and most would say that would definitely include harassment and inciting harassment. The community also helps decide what level of negative engagement is acceptable, as more reports about someone doing certain actions will probably warrant more immediate reprisal than just a small number of reports from 2-3 people. Why is it such an issue to tell people "Don't be jerks" to each other? Why do people need to be hand-held towards not being a jerk? Why are we treating bullies and asshats with more care than the people they target? I promise you, it's really not that hard to not be a jerk, and if you are having problems accepting that low bar, then maybe you shouldn't play with the rest of the kids (not you you, Melichior, I mean the general you).

[tdb]

Why is it such an issue to tell people "Don't be jerks" to each other? Why do people need to be hand-held towards not being a jerk? Why are we treating bullies and asshats with more care than the people they target? I promise you, it's really not that hard to not be a jerk, and if you are having problems accepting that low bar, then maybe you shouldn't play with the rest of the kids (not you you, Melichior, I mean the general you).

Because people have very different ideas of what constitutes being a jerk. Which of these do you think are dick moves:
- Telling someone to upgrade their weapon because it's 20 levels (character levels, not item levels) out of date
- Wanting to do small pulls because you're tanking a new dungeon
- Pulling more enemies when you think the tank isn't pulling enough

Personally I think the last one is being a jerk but the first and second are not. But from reading these forums and in some cases also from personal experience I know there are people with opposing views.

[SieyaM]

I don't really want to stir it up very much but I am going to say this piece anyway. People arguing about the terms of service being too vague or unclear has been going on since the beginning of online games, probably even further. And in my experience these people are usually rude, unhelpful, and conceited and really just want to know how much they can get away with before being punished. That is why they want the rules clearly defined to a t, so they know exactly how much they can harass or insult someone before it becomes an offense they can be banned for. Treating other players with respect is not difficult and is not too vague for people to understand, millions upon millions of people do it everyday without issues.

[QT_Melon]

Why is it such an issue to tell people "Don't be jerks" to each other? Why do people need to be hand-held towards not being a jerk?

Which encompasses the entire irony of this situation. ITT people wanting to protect "free speech and thinking" can't figure it out using free thinking.

[Melichoir]

But SE already does this. Their User Agreement specifically outlines disrupting or interfering with other players, and most would say that would definitely include harassment and inciting harassment. The community also helps decide what level of negative engagement is acceptable, as more reports about someone doing certain actions will probably warrant more immediate reprisal than just a small number of reports from 2-3 people. Why is it such an issue to tell people "Don't be jerks" to each other? Why do people need to be hand-held towards not being a jerk? Why are we treating bullies and asshats with more care than the people they target? I promise you, it's really not that hard to not be a jerk, and if you are having problems accepting that low bar, then maybe you shouldn't play with the rest of the kids (not you you, Melichior, I mean the general you).

Because as others point out, its a matter of perspective. To me, its better to err on the side of being to loose with things and letting jerks get away with being a bit jerkish than to tighten down and enforce a kind of morality code in efforts to stamp out "unwanted interactions". At the end of the day your view of what is and isnt acceptable and how to respond to it isnt universal. Im not suggesting its more right or less right, but that not everyone agrees regarding what should be acted upon by GMs. It's this difference in opinion which causes a problem, and is frankly easily solved by having more self control and responsibility to protect yourself instead of relying on GMs or societal norms to do it for you. If you think someone is a jerk, tell them off, block them and go do you.

[jameseoakes]

Because as others point out, its a matter of perspective. To me, its better to err on the side of being to loose with things and letting jerks get away with being a bit jerkish than to tighten down and enforce a kind of morality code in efforts to stamp out "unwanted interactions". At the end of the day your view of what is and isnt acceptable and how to respond to it isnt universal. Im not suggesting its more right or less right, but that not everyone agrees regarding what should be acted upon by GMs. It's this difference in opinion which causes a problem, and is frankly easily solved by having more self control and responsibility to protect yourself instead of relying on GMs or societal norms to do it for you. If you think someone is a jerk, tell them off, block them and go do you.

This just like victim blaming to me, your basically saying that you can be as unpleasant as you like to people as it's their fault they got offended just honestly is a pretty abhorrent view point. Just learn some self control and don't be a vile unpleasant person