I was issued a warning no info given. Thought our party finder issues were resolved?

[Merrnryn]

They most likely won't chase customers away with keeping a more strict approach to what is not allowed.

Honestly, it will. People will not stay in a place or a game where the authority refuses to state what exactly was done, this is easily done without breaking any privacy policy. Nor will people stay because that anyone can report anyone for the tiniest slight, and that person then gets a warning or worse. This very efficiently mutes the rest of the population, disrupts good people's gameplay, and drives people away because they want to have fun in a game, (appropriate ofc) not be terrified to play the game in one of the ways it was intended. People *are* scared, and good people and players will leave and have.

[iVolke]

Every private company I have worked for tells employees and customers why they are being issued a warning or punishment. Every single one. Why? It is the only way to correct the behavior that caused the issue.

I'm not disagreeing that players should be told why they are banned. I'm just pointing out that your example is a poor one.

[Cerver]

Imagine justifying oppressive punishment tactics just because theyre against a group of people you dont like.

[RavenEbonclaw]

Given the screenshots with GM conversations provided within this thread. They've stated that RP, ERP, GIL FOR ERP, are all OK, if kept within private chats. The venue advert did not have "18+ on it" the carrd "rules section" however does. Is FFXIV governing non FFXIV sites and links now? If so? Let's focus that on RMT and those with party finders up selling paid content instead of a group of people that aren't really HURTING the community. This entire discussion is revolving around a fear of reprimand and not being given any way, shape, or form of further preventing it, or correcting it.

[RavenEbonclaw]

It's about wanting OFFICIAL and formal clarity, and holding people to that accountability ACROSS the board as players, AND customer service representatives in an effort to dispute false claims, trolling, prosperity and cohesion across a community.

[Cerver]

Im genuinely surprised anyone (aside from the obvious troll) is on the side of punishing people without telling them what they did

[Zfz]

One common situation is that player A reports player B for something, GM punishes B, but telling B what caused the punishment would let B know it was A who did the reporting, hence to protect the "privacy" of A, the GM refuses to tell B the details of the infraction.

I've heard this happen in other games as well.

It's a dilemma. You can't expect someone who wants to comply in good faith to actually change anything if you don't say what is wrong, and you can't reveal someone who made the report in good faith. So when the situation only allows one and not the other, a GM probably has to choose to side with the reporter.

[Penthea]

Im genuinely surprised anyone (aside from the obvious troll) is on the side of punishing people without telling them what they did

Some people lack the ability to understand how something can be a problem if they're not directly affected by it.

Some assume that if someone else is experiencing a problem then it's due to a character flaw in that person, and not because of unfair treatment.

And for some it's the lovely combo of both.

[Cerver]

One common situation is that player A reports player B for something, GM punishes B, but telling B what caused the punishment would let B know it was A who did the reporting, hence to protect the "privacy" of A, the GM refuses to tell B the details of the infraction.

I've heard this happen in other games as well.

It's a dilemma. You can't expect someone who wants to comply in good faith to actually change anything if you don't say what is wrong, and you can't reveal someone who made the report in good faith. So when the situation only allows one and not the other, a GM probably has to choose to side with the reporter.

But then what if person B does the same thing again, and its again by a single player.

"Sorry your account is suspended, we cant tell you why though, come back when your punishment is up."

Another report.

"Youre permabanned, sorry. Next time dont do that thing we never told you about, and still wont."

[Nothv13]

One common situation is that player A reports player B for something, GM punishes B, but telling B what caused the punishment would let B know it was A who did the reporting, hence to protect the "privacy" of A, the GM refuses to tell B the details of the infraction.

I've heard this happen in other games as well.

It's a dilemma. You can't expect someone who wants to comply in good faith to actually change anything if you don't say what is wrong, and you can't reveal someone who made the report in good faith. So when the situation only allows one and not the other, a GM probably has to choose to side with the reporter.

This is called harrassment and is also against the ToS. With the strikes never going away, getting 2 strikes instead of one can be a pretty big deal.