Roleplay/Partyfinder Discrepancies & Policy Enforcement by GM's

[Kaurhz]

That's like saying it's ok to help out someone by crafting and giving them gears for free, but it's not ok to sell those gears to them. If it's ok to help people run content for free, it's also ok to help them run content for a fee. Or are you saying it's not ok to help someone clear content at all?

I would agree to that as well. With that said, housing is its own issue due to real scarcity that is caused by the devs' mismanagement. Sometimes, certain special rules are needed to address special issues.

At any case, that is beyond the topic of PF and what it is intended for and the implication that I was pointing out from the GM's wording.

I'm not entirely sure where this first sentence came from, didn't even imply that, so don't try and misrepresent the argument. Helping someone clear content, and piloting them through content, or putting them in a position where they are not required to learn/execute any mechanics or put any effort in at all are 2 entirely different things. I'm saying it's not ok to sell content.

[Sophia-Mooncat]

I am very upset about this action that Square Enix has taken against many players in the roleplaying community. I want to say first of all that the players were not jailed and warned (and at least in one case suspended) because they were engaging in erotic roleplaying or subjecting minors to adult themes or content. The GM stated in these confrontations that the players were receiving disciplinary action for misusing the party finder: they weren't using it to run "content."

This makes absolutely no sense and is contradictory. What constitutes "content?" Is it just the things listed in the other tabs of the Party Finder? In that case, why have an "Other" section? Will I get jailed if I put up a recruitment message asking players to gather to gpose with me? Will I get jailed if I make a recruitment message to invite people to come enjoy a performance concert? Will I get jailed if I put up a recruitment message asking people to come check out my house that I just decorated? What if my FC wants to have a seasonal event for Halloween or Valentine's? Am I not allowed to post a message inviting the community to come partake?

A large part of the game is based around furnishing and housing. Even the high-end raids give rewards that allow us to craft special furnishing items to put in our houses. We were recently given the ability to tag our houses as venues, and we even got exterior housing designs that allow us to make our houses look like shops and other types of themed locations. How is that not "content?"

What irks me the most is that the people getting jailed are people who put a ton of their own personal time and care into creating roleplaying "content" that could never be otherwise available. It takes so much coordination to put together a staff and set up an immersive experience for people to enjoy in what is clearly advertised as a "roleplaying game."

Just look at the main FFXIV page that is designed to sell the game to new players:







A big draw is that people can create a virtual character and roleplay as that character. A large portion of the game--from glamour to housing to emotes--is geared towards facilitating that.

I sincerely hope that Square Enix makes an apology to the roleplaying community and takes some steps to clarify what is and is not breaking the terms of service so that we can play the game without worrying about whether we will be jailed, suspended, or permanently banned. There shouldn't be room to interpret these things loosely, especially when the people who are being targeted clearly put a lot of love and care into this game.

[linayar]

I'm not entirely sure where this first sentence came from, didn't even imply that, so don't try and misrepresent the argument.

That first sentence comes from the implication of what you are saying.

Let's clarify it:

Helping someone clear content, and piloting them through content, or putting them in a position where they are not required to learn/execute any mechanics or put any effort in at all are 2 entirely different things. I'm saying it's not ok to sell content.

So is it ok if they do the same thing but for free?

Do you think SE will do anything if 7 people are willing to let 1 person jump off the edge the moment they can and clear the content like that for them?

And let's not forget that we're talking about PF advertisement here. So they can make it vague enough that you can't say just from the ad what exactly they are doing.

Also the content being sold through PF is 1) RMT 2) giving the seller access to the buyer's account which are both against the ToS.

If you read my first post, I think you would know that I'm not talking about that.

[Kaurhz]

That first sentence comes from the implication of what you are saying.

Let's clarify it:

So is it ok if they do the same thing but for free?

Do you think SE will do anything if 7 people is willing to let 1 person jump off the edge the moment they can and clear the content like that for them?

And let's not forget that we're talking about PF advertisement here. So they can make it vague enough that you can't say just from the ad what exactly they are doing.

Jesus Christ, we're here again.

Doing something for free and being charitable about it still devalues the content for a vast majority of people, especially if it essentially results in the person being to 'declare' non-participation whilst still getting rewards. Not against the ToS however. But the topic here is not about people doing things for free, it is about people Selling. Again, don't misrepresent the argument. Giving something away, and selling it are 2 entirely different things, especially with anyone giving it any modicum of thought should be able to deduce the latter is likely to include RMT, and the former more than likely account sharing. Not even sure why you're defending it tbh

[linayar]

Jesus Christ, we're here again.

Doing something for free and being charitable about it still devalues the content for a vast majority of people, especially if it essentially results in the person being to 'declare' non-participation whilst still getting rewards. Not against the ToS however.

Ok, so if it's not against the ToS, what about doing it in exchange for in-game gil? Is that against the ToS?

But the topic here is not about people doing things for free, it is about people Selling. Again, don't misrepresent the argument. Giving something away, and selling it are 2 entirely different things, especially with anyone giving it any modicum of thought should be able to deduce the latter is likely to include RMT, and the former more than likely account sharing. Not even sure why you're defending it tbh

Again, I'm not talking about RMT/account sharing, I'm only talking about what the PF advertisement displays. What you are able to deduce from those entries is irrelevant since GMs are not (and should not be) taking actions based on mere deductions.

I'm not defending anything. I'm looking at what a GM allegedly stated and, if they're correct, what it means for PF listings that do not explicitly say there is RMT/account sharing going on. (And on that note, does letting someone else play your character for one fight counts as account sharing?)

[Kaurhz]

Ok, so if it's not against the ToS, what about doing it in exchange for in-game gil? Is that against the ToS?

Again, I'm not talking about RMT/account sharing, I'm only talking about what the PF advertisement displays. What you are able to deduce from those entries is irrelevant since GMs are not (and should not be) taking actions based on mere deductions.

I'm not defending anything. I'm looking at what a GM allegedly stated and, if they're correct, what it means for PF listings that do not explicitly says there is RMT/account sharing going on. (And on that note, does letting someone else play your character for one fight counts as account sharing?)

If I see several ads for the selfsame 'commerce' group then it is considered as spam, and arguably the use of spam to send unsolicited advertisements could be interpreted as being against the terms of service clause for harassment. That is just how vaguely written the clauses are. That being said, selling the services in exchange for Gil wouldn't be. Although you could still make the argument that it still does under clauses 2.3, 2.8, and 3.9 anyway, again, just by how vaguely written they are.

Yes having someone play your character for 1 fight would constitute account sharing because to feasibly do such you are required to provide them with your account details so that they may log in to your character.

That being said, what you've said does highlight quite a glaring issue surround this, and that is, they are very limited in what sources can be cited, and used as a reference when banning someone. As the whole activity surrounding runs is generally done entirely outside of the game so you'd be largely impeded on your ability to investigate which is an utter shame considering how a lot of people view the whole situation of selling and buying content.

[linayar]

That being said, what you've said does highlight quite a glaring issue surround this, and that is, they are very limited in what sources can be cited, and used as a reference when banning someone. As the whole activity surrounding runs is generally done entirely outside of the game so you'd be largely impeded on your ability to investigate which is an utter shame considering how a lot of people view the whole situation of selling and buying content.

Exactly. If what the GM says is correct, and there is no actual violation in selling such a service (presumably for in-game gil regardless of what may be the case, but I'll have to look at those mentioned clauses), then it might start to make sense for me why they allow these advertisements, well, outside of the false categories, which I think should not be allowed either.