Level 80s who single target groups of mobs

[Hycinthus]

Just by current ToS if three out of four members want to play in a certain way and the other don't adapt could be considered "imposing your playstyle" and is a violation of said ToS. At the same time, if before initiating a vote kick I asked/requested "Use your AoE rotation please." the kicked player can report me for the same violation.

It's the problem with such a vague ToS, at the end is about who bother to report or report first.

Anyway, on topic: after SB changes there is zero reason to not use your AoE rotation, in most cases is even simplier than the single target one.

Hmm agree it is vague but let’s take a look at the definition of “impose”

Impose:
1. To force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.
a. put (a restriction) in place.
b. require (a duty, charge, or penalty) to be undertaken or paid. "a fine may be imposed"
c. exert firm control over.

2. take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment.

I think the keywords here are "an unwelcome decision", "exert firm control", and "take advantage of someone".
Ok so for the scenario if a tank that doesn't pull wall-to-wall. Does he fulfill the keywords above? Is he exerting firm control and taking advantage of someone? Or maybe he's just playing the game?

For the scenario, if we say “use your AoE”, and the person did it, then it’s not imposing. But if he resisted, and documented via chat, “No i dont play that way”, then it’s an unwelcome decision already.

But if he doesn't reply, then can we really conclude anything? Could be the person does not even read chat, or does not know that the blue chat there is directed towards him, could be that he thought you guys were NPC instead of real players (yes, this is a common misunderstanding for new MMO players, young ones especially, they cannot tell who's NPC who's not). Did any part of the game teach him that the blue chat is party chat and it's directed towards him? Things like this comes into play.

I guess every case will be on a case-by-case basis.

[Vahlnir]

It is vague but let’s take a look at the definition of “impose”

Impose:
1. To force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.

So perhaps, if we say “use your AoE”, and the person did it, then it’s not imposing. But if he resisted, and documented via chat, “No i dont play that way”, then it’s an unwelcome decision already.

And the same could be said in reverse about imposing a playstyle, since the person not wanting to AoE is imposing their playstyle on 3 other people. There's a lot of room open for interpretation, really. Context is everything though.

[Absurdity]

It is vague but let’s take a look at the definition of “impose”

Impose:
1. To force (an unwelcome decision or ruling) on someone.

So perhaps, if we say “use your AoE”, and the person did it, then it’s not imposing. But if he resisted, and documented via chat, “No i dont play that way”, then it’s an unwelcome decision already.

That would be the assumption but then you can also kick someone for "difference of playstyle" which throws a wrench into the whole thing because I would consider "refusing to use aoes" as a "difference in playstyle". This is the issue with such a vague ToS, which of the two takes priority here? Do both apply? And what would be the GM judgement if you were reported for it?

[Hycinthus]

That would be the assumption but then you can also kick someone for "difference of playstyle" which throws a wrench into the whole thing because I would consider "refusing to use aoes" as a "difference in playstyle". This is the issue with such a vague ToS, which of the two takes priority here? Do both apply? And what would be the GM judgement if you were reported for it?

Sorry I edited my comment before your reply, I added more definition of imposing:

c. exert firm control over.

2. take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment.

Does it also exerting firm control over and taking advantage of someone?

Anyway yes, not here to argue about ToS. Totally agree about the gray area, but I think the gray area might be there so SE can just take a look on a case-by-case basis and have leverage on what should be covered.

I think the "spirit" of the policy is to prevent harassment.