Roleplay/Partyfinder Discrepancies & Policy Enforcement by GM's

[Saefinn]

No, actually I know for a fact they have been banning advertisements and citing profanity. I just can't get into it on the forums. For example, the advertisement in question was labeled "E/RP", and the ToS violation was "profanity" I am not assuming anything. It is actual fact. I am not even referring to that screenshot of someone reporting and speaking to a GM.

They may well be citing profanity. But this doesn't address any of my other points. Heck the citing "profanity" in itself could be in error because "profanity" is about the language used being offensive and not what it is being used to describe. I think "profanity" is being confused with "obscenity". Nothing in the ToS prohibits obscenity.

If the advertisement was:
"18+ ERP lets get down to f***"
Then yes, I say fair enough, that's a profanity.
If the advertisement was
"18+ ERP let's have some fun"
Then no, that's not profanity.

And again, nowhere in the conversations and cases this thread is referencing are they telling people it's over the use of profanity.

And likewise for non-ERP
If you had an advertisement that said
"RP at the bar, come get p******"
That'd be profanity
"RP at the bar, come get drunk"
That's not be.

And I'm not sure why they'd target RP ones for profanity anyway, because I've seen plenty of profanity outside anything RP related.

[SturmChurro]

They may well be citing profanity. But this doesn't address any of my other points. Heck the citing "profanity" in itself could be in error because "profanity" is about the language used being offensive and not what it is being used to describe. I think "profanity" is being confused with "obscenity". Nothing in the ToS prohibits obscenity.

If the advertisement was:
"18+ ERP lets get down to f***"
Then yes, I say fair enough, that's a profanity.
If the advertisement was
"18+ ERP let's have some fun"
Then no, that's not profanity.

And again, nowhere in the conversations and cases this thread is referencing are they telling people it's over the use of profanity.

What I am referring to is firsthand information, from a player who was talked to by a GM. They received a ToS violation for profanity.

One may choose to believe all that is presented in this thread, but it is not necessarily all true. We can argue for hours, but the fact of the matter, many players are getting hit for adult advertisements, the received email after the GM interaction cites "profanity" as the ToS violation. Simple as that. A person may or may not disagree with SE, or the GM's choice of ToS violation, or even how they handled the jail interaction, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Blanket banning RP advertisements, is a good way of making sure, ERP advertisements stay off the PF. The reason I was referring to SE's moderation is because I was trying, and apparently failing, to agree with some users about how SE is handling the situation.

[Saefinn]

What I am referring to is firsthand information, from a player who was talked to by a GM. They received a ToS violation for profanity.

One may choose to believe all that is presented in this thread, but it is not necessarily all true. We can argue for hours, but the fact of the matter, players are getting hit for adult advertisements, the received email after the GM interaction cites "profanity" as the ToS violation. Simple as that. A person may or may not disagree with SE, or the GM's choice of ToS violation, or even how they handled the jail interaction, but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Then that's specific to that interaction and doesn't reflect these other interactions where profanity is not cited but PF use and not indicative of them going scorched earth on any RP PF posts. Evidence of the cases in question point to a GM getting the ruling wrong rather than an SE scorched earch approach on ERPer and general RPers being hit as collateral. This is where I am seeing too many assumptions.

[SturmChurro]

Then that's specific to that interaction and doesn't reflect these other interactions where profanity is not cited but PF use and not indicative of them going scorched earth on any RP PF posts. Evidence of the cases in question point to a GM getting the ruling wrong rather than an SE scorched earch approach on ERPer and general RPers being hit as collateral. This is where I am seeing too many assumptions.

FINE. Whatever, I was trying to speculate, but apparently I have to waste more posts. I'm done with this; tired of this. Believe whatever you want, I'll believe whatever I want.

The "innocent" RPers can go play in the fellowship finder, and stay off the PF, because that seems to be the stance SE is taking. Both ERPers and the RPers (who totally don't erp, and aren't "escorts") can go use the fellowship finder. Frankly, nobody wants to see ERP, and if RPers are collateral damage? So be it. PF is for running content, RP is not content - and that's official. It's social interaction, and should be utilizing social features.

Honestly, I wish SE would crackdown HARDER, on the erpers, that should be kept off all in-game channels. I think they are too lenient.