Roleplay/Partyfinder Discrepancies & Policy Enforcement by GM's

[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.