Roleplay/Partyfinder Discrepancies & Policy Enforcement by GM's

[Skyler_Magus]

Honestly, if SE just wrote a cut and dry ToS that couldn't be interpreted in 20 different ways, we wouldn't even need to see the GM policy.

I mean, if the two were different, we’d ABSOLUTELY need to see their policy, still.

“Hey, you’re banned. What you did is against the rules.”
“What? It’s not even mentioned in the rules!”
“It is in the rules that I can see but you can’t.”
“Okay, but why?”
“┐(￣～￣)┌”

[Gojin]

i mean if they made actual fun and engaging content people wouldnt have to roleplay they could just do content.

[KinDranex]

i mean if they made actual fun and engaging content people wouldnt have to roleplay they could just do content.

This is a horrendous take that has nothing to do with the post at hand. People can RP and still enjoy the content.

[Gojin]

This is a horrendous take that has nothing to do with the post at hand. People can RP and still enjoy the content.

not anymore they banning RP

[Taytay]

I mean, if the two were different, we’d ABSOLUTELY need to see their policy, still.

“Hey, you’re banned. What you did is against the rules.”
“What? It’s not even mentioned in the rules!”
“It is in the rules that I can see but you can’t.”
“Okay, but why?”
“┐(￣～￣)┌”

That really defeats the purpose of a cut and dry ToS.

The whole point of a cut and dry ToS is that there is no room for interpretation and the ambiguity is gone. If Section 6, rule 3a of the ToS states "If you are caught using ACT, you face the punishment of being banned" and then a GM catches you for using ACT and lets you know that you were in violation of Section 6, rule 3a, then there is literally nothing ambiguous about that.

A cut and dry ToS gives GMs a handbook on how to operate and leaves out the whole emotional aspect that clearly at least one GM is acting out on.

[Kyrosiris]

That really defeats the purpose of a cut and dry ToS.

The whole point of a cut and dry ToS is that there is no room for interpretation and the ambiguity is gone. If Section 6, rule 3a of the ToS states "If you are caught using ACT, you face the punishment of being banned" and then a GM catches you for using ACT and lets you know that you were in violation of Section 6, rule 3a, then there is literally nothing ambiguous about that.

A cut and dry ToS gives GMs a handbook on how to operate and leaves out the whole emotional aspect that clearly at least one GM is acting out on.

For what it's worth, sometimes you absolutely need a "we can get rid of you for any reason at our sole discretion" rule. I run a fairly large community discord and I recently had to permaban someone who, while not strictly in violation of any of our explicitly cut-and-dry rules, had been reported (with concrete proof) by several community members of harassment off-server, etc. to the point that my mods and I agreed that unilaterally banning them was for the betterment of the community as a whole.

It's something that should not be used flippantly and absolutely NOT relevant for this situation, but I just wanted to gently point of order this as someone who's been on the other side of that screen.

Also, I fully agree that the rules should be transparent to everyone involved. The notion that a GM could have a codified list of infractions that players are not aware of is some seriously WTF-level nonsense.