Updates to the Prohibited Activities in FINAL FANTASY XIV and Account Penalty Policy

[Kolaina]

Okay so I took a look at the actual new rules. There is some good and some bad. But I'm very concerned with the "Nuisance behavior" section.

Here are a few examples of things that are called out as prohibited:


Statements such as "you're bad at [something]," or "you're not getting [something] at all"
blaming and attacking others, such as "It's [player name]'s fault that we wiped" or "You really make a lot of mistakes,"
"your glamour is terrible, you should quit the game," or "the way you talk disgusts me."
Statements such as "people like you will never get better"
it is prohibited to make statements such as "why aren't you doing [specific thing]? Everyone knows that's how you do this!"
"There is nothing wrong with providing suggestions that the player community typically follows, but this can only be presented in the form of a "suggestion" and cannot be in the form of a demand"
Statements such as "how can you screw up on something so simple that no one else messes up?" are prohibited.
Statements such as "you're bad at [something]," or "you're not getting [something] at all" are prohibited



Player A: B, you're doing this part wrong.
Player B: I understand, I'll try harder.
Player A: You understand the mechanics? Want me to teach you?
Player B: I do understand, I'm OK. Thank you.
Player A: You sure you understand? You keep on screwing up. You should do [something] on [something].
Player B: I understand, I'm sorry.
Player A: You sure? If you don't know let me know, ok? B, you're screwing up so many times, you're really dragging this out for us.
Player B: I'm sorry.

This is apparently a reportable offense by Player A.

So instead of trying to help a player by pointing out what isn’t great vs what is comparatively better, I should avoid the ban risk by just kicking them from party. Got it

[Imora]

So instead of trying to help a player by pointing out what isn’t great vs what is comparatively better, I should avoid the ban risk by just kicking them from party. Got it

Oh but you can get banned for unjustly removing them from the group, too.

-_-

[KDSilver]

I'll never queue up for mentor roulette ever again.

[jameseoakes]

Some very, very interesting things buried in their examples. I'll be interested to see how enforcement actually measures up to these policies, as they've often proved to be more lax than their wording in the past.

The sections about leaving a duty that isn't progressing well, or being unable to even indirectly assign blame for mistakes are both particularly interesting. Hopefully, as in previous cases, these don't really end up getting enforced in PF settings.

As has been said before that is about leaving the game, so that seems to be more about disconnecting your internet connection to fake a DC rather than leaving the instance and taking the 30 min penalty

[Kolaina]

Oh but you can get banned for unjustly removing them from the group, too.

-_-

Difference of play style. It’d be allowed as it always has been

[Misutoraru]

You're not wrong-I believe the game needs to be much more strict about iLVL, but I also think it's not the player's fault if they can meet the requirements. Especially for a total newbie who wouldn't know any better. This is a fault of the game/game design.

I though we can set min il in PF
some raid/trial need min il for DF though and also job soul crystal

[Kolaina]

So when I pull during cutscene everyone who singles me out is bannable. Interesting

[Xaruko_Nexume]

I have only read the first page at this point but it was enough for me to realize that due to all the outrage, there is truth to the stereotype of games being completely inept at how to talk to another human being properly and respectfully. After reading about these changes and watching some videos on them, I came into this thread expecting there to be outrage about not being able to sell clears. Instead, people are genuinely more upset about having to behave like a decent human being. Talk to people in game the way you would a strange in real life. Its that simple.

[Saraide]

You're not wrong-I believe the game needs to be much more strict about iLVL, but I also think it's not the player's fault if they can meet the requirements. Especially for a total newbie who wouldn't know any better. This is a fault of the game/game design.

I agree that the game design is at fault here. There is no reason to allow someone without job stone into duty finder past duties accessible after getting your jobstone. Similarly I wish the game would not count HQ and vendor gear as the same ilvl.

[SturmChurro]

...

Hilarious. I'd actually say these always have been bannable, they are just putting more examples now to give context. Good on SE. I'm sure more people will be emboldened to report with these examples though.

Doesn't impact me but I never found this fair having to live on egg shells if you said a bad thing years ago.

Good news on that penalty change. Since this game has so silly rules sometimes

Just don't say bad things in-game! I have no warnings either.

Yeah, doesn't make much sense. So they're not against people buying clears for gil...but they're against people offering help for gil? Very weird stance.

An attempt to cut down on all the permanent ad spam in the PF, with what should be - in theory - players using the PF for it's intended function, and requesting help, just for gil. We'll have to see how this goes.

Wait, you can't even leave without getting a report


Imagine being stuck in a duty for 90-120 minutes because you can't do absolutely nothing to change the outcome

"Leave repeatedly". Then just don't leave repeatedly. This should help a little bit with the mentor issue in that roulette, at the very least. Good change.

On the other hand, "you pull it you tank it" is now forbidden.

It always has been, you just had to prove it. Again, I do like the added context to nuisance behaviours that SE is giving however.

Over half the rules that pertain to interacting with other players have nothing to do with "don't be a [..] about it" with they way they are worded. Did you even read it? Oh [..], "Did you even read it" is a reportable offence now. guess I'm getting punished.

Always has been, there's just more context now. People can finally now take my advice and not use the chat at all! Less leaving though!

Repeatedly. I think this is directly targetting Mentors leaving EX trials in Mentor roulette for instance. I don't think it will be an offense if I queue for Anima in 6.0, wipe 4 times, leave because it doesnt work and without insulting players, queue again and clear it with another team.

Bless SE for trying.

To me, this seems more like "Using Shirk to let people die", more than not provoking something because a DPS pulled before you.

Also griefing, and always been bannable if proven. Through chat previously.

(..)
This isn't even new... these have always been the rules, they just clarified what was already being enforced.

Too true.

This. The examples are clear, the language is clear. Don’t be rude about stuff - and it’s no longer “ambiguous” what being rude entails considering they’ve now set out worded examples.

Good on them.

That sounds more like not shirking someone so they get aggro, from the way I'm reading the wording it wouldn't cover not picking up the mob someone else pulled, that might fall under the Uncooperative behaviour section but then I would say that intentionally picking up extra mobs would count as that as well so it's still a messy area.

It's because one cannot prove if it was a bad tank or not. While shirking like that is much more easily proven.

Because player A is targeting someone. If you simply state what is being failed without specifying whose fault it is, no problem.


you are not allowed to single out one person as the problem. ... I have no problem with this (no I am not usually the reason things fail).

Always has been, and I have literally always suggested this. Still very funny, to see this being discussed as a new thing.

If a dps pulls a group of mob and leads it to the tank and the tank stops doing its 1-2 aoe rotation or turns off its tank stance, I'd say that'd be reportable given how the example is worded.

It'd have to be blatant for sure, without proof of admission in chat.

I suspect a lot of the concern is coming from the unfortunate trend of many corporations refusing to acknowledge that, quite often in the modern day, there are individuals and groups who deliberately claim to be upset by something due to a gleeful desire to see how many people they can see punished for slights that are arguably unworthy of punishment in the first place.

That's how it is, and that's how many in this community unfortunately act. I'm sure with these examples, it will simply be easier to get a clean report in.