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

[Iscah]

Examples of absolutely true things the game asks of you:

"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform."

"Interrupting Ultros when he casts X will stop Y from happening."


Meanwhile it occurs to me that a lot of the auto-translate phrases are fairly direct orders – I get a lot of use out of [Take them down at the same time!] in that one guildhest. I find it hard to believe that you could be faulted for using the same degree of "do this thing" in your own language as long as you aren't critical of anyone as you do it.

If that had happen now I guess I would have woken up to a banned account due to "disconnecting when the duty is not going well"

Only if the "actually pretty cool dudes" had some reason to take offence to you dropping out at that late stage of the run and the GM thought they had a valid point and if it made any sense at all for someone to pull the dropping out trick* at such a late stage in the dungeon.

* funnily enough my autocorrect attempted to rephrase this into "dripping out truck", which apparently is actually what happened in this case...

[Sicno]

"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform."

"Interrupting Ultros when he casts X will stop Y from happening."

"No, I'm pretty sure there must be another way and I mean to find it".

Or:

"I'm here to have fun, stop your elitism."

[kaynide]

"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform."

"Interrupting Ultros when he casts X will stop Y from happening."

I think this is also something people aren't grasping here. There is a very big difference between:

"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform." (which I think will be perfectly fine) and
"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform. You can't do it any other way, so stop doing that!"

People are losing their minds thinking "OMG we can't even offer advice anymore!!!" when all SE is really saying is "Act like a responsible, reasonable and mature adult"

[Vahlnir]

all SE is really saying is "Act like a responsible, reasonable and mature adult"

-The alarmists

[rance-sama]

I think this is also something people aren't grasping here. There is a very big difference between:

"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform." (which I think will be perfectly fine) and
"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform. You can't do it any other way, so stop doing that!"

People are losing their minds thinking "OMG we can't even offer advice anymore!!!" when all SE is really saying is "Act like a responsible, reasonable and mature adult"

Pretty much this.
That's what people can't understand. You can offer friendly advice, but there's people who are either incapable of doing so without being jerks or use the opportunity of giving advice to act with hostility.

[Fawkes]

I think this is also something people aren't grasping here. There is a very big difference between:

"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform." (which I think will be perfectly fine) and
"Use Vril when she casts X to prevent being knocked off the platform. You can't do it any other way, so stop doing that!"

People are losing their minds thinking "OMG we can't even offer advice anymore!!!" when all SE is really saying is "Act like a responsible, reasonable and mature adult"

Because "you can't do it any other way" is just factual information and not offensive to any rational person. And "stop doing that" implies the person is doing something else instead that they need to stop doing. It is not an insult. The only situation this should be a violation is if the person is lying and it isn't actually required, like "You can only clear Zurvan if you skip soar. You can't do it any other way!"



Also, the example of an allowed thing to say is not what you wrote. If it was it wouldn't seem unreasonable. But their example is:

"I think [duty/content] will go more smoothly if we do [something], so I want to try doing it this way, is that okay with everyone?"

which removes all statement of facts and becomes a wishy-washy request that people can say no to, even if the fact of the content itself is that it is a required thing to do. It is beyond absurd that anyone should ever have to ask "Is it okay with you if we do [literally the only thing that will allow us clear the content]?" It should be okay with you by default, otherwise you're trolling by being in the content.

[Iscah]

Because "you can't do it any other way" is just factual information and not offensive to any rational person.

It's unnecessary though. All you need to do is state the thing that you do need to do, and what will happen when you do it.

By explaining the right way to do a thing, and assuming the person reads it and takes it on board, they don't need to be told "stop doing X" because by reading the correct instructions they can deduce that they will have to stop doing X to do different thing Y.

[kaynide]

Because "you can't do it any other way" is just factual information and not offensive to any rational person. And "stop doing that" implies the person is doing something else instead that they need to stop doing. It is not an insult. The only situation this should be a violation is if the person is lying and it isn't actually required, like "You can only clear Zurvan if you skip soar. You can't do it any other way!"



Also, the example of an allowed thing to say is not what you wrote. If it was it wouldn't seem unreasonable. But their example is:

"I think [duty/content] will go more smoothly if we do [something], so I want to try doing it this way, is that okay with everyone?"

which removes all statement of facts and becomes a wishy-washy request that people can say no to, even if the fact of the content itself is that it is a required thing to do. It is beyond absurd that anyone should ever have to ask "Is it okay with you if we do [literally the only thing that will allow us clear the content]?" It should be okay with you by default, otherwise you're trolling by being in the content.

As Iscah just said, it's unnecessary.

The key point is the phrasing. "You can't do it any other way" and "So, stop doing that!", especially in Japanese, is insulting when a simple explanation of what the party should do is enough.
By saying "We need to do X to clear Y", you've already said "So don't do Z" without needing to say it.

To give a really dumb example:
You're eating at a Japanese restaurant and you've never used chopsticks in your life. The waiter says...

A) "Oh, here's how you hold chopsticks correctly. Let me show you"
B) "Oh, here's how you hold chopsticks correctly. Let me show you. You can't hold them any other way, so stop holding them like that!"

In B's case, yes, it's factual information, but it's also incredibly rude. There is no need to talk down to someone just because they don't know the correct way to do something.

The problem SE is trying to address is not a delivery of information, but doing so using basic polite manners. And it's honestly very sad that they have to spell it out so strictly.

[Fawkes]

As Iscah just said, it's unnecessary.

The key point is the phrasing. "You can't do it any other way" and "So, stop doing that!", especially in Japanese, is insulting when a simple explanation of what the party should do is enough.
By saying "We need to do X to clear Y", you've already said "So don't do Z" without needing to say it.

Only if X and Z are mutually exclusive. Also they frame the only acceptable course of action as giving people suggestions, so if you say "why don't we try doing X to clear Y" the other person can still say "nah I'm gonna keep doing Z". It's only redundant to tell them to stop if they actually accept what you're saying and agree to do it.

To give a really dumb example:
You're eating at a Japanese restaurant and you've never used chopsticks in your life. The waiter says...

A) "Oh, here's how you hold chopsticks correctly. Let me show you"
B) "Oh, here's how you hold chopsticks correctly. Let me show you. You can't hold them any other way, so stop holding them like that!"

In B's case, yes, it's factual information, but it's also incredibly rude. There is no need to talk down to someone just because they don't know the correct way to do something.

But it's not factual, that's more like my Zurvan example. He's imposing his preference on you and calling it the only way.

The problem SE is trying to address is not a delivery of information, but doing so using basic polite manners. And it's honestly very sad that they have to spell it out so strictly.

It's not sad at all. The rules should be explicitly stated and enforced. If anything they should spell it out more.

[kaynide]

Only if X and Z are mutually exclusive. Also they frame the only acceptable course of action as giving people suggestions, so if you say "why don't we try doing X to clear Y" the other person can still say "nah I'm gonna keep doing Z". It's only redundant to tell them to stop if they actually accept what you're saying and agree to do it.

I don’t follow you here; why would you need to tell them to stop doing Z at all when your X should make it clear what to do. If Z has nothing to do with X and isn’t causing problems, who cares?

But it's not factual, that's more like my Zurvan example. He's imposing his preference on you and calling it the only way.

I hope this is being sarcastic. In Japanese etiquette there is a singular correct way to hold chopsticks… with my example happening in a Japanese restaurant. My example did not apply to other cultures.

There are numerous incorrect ways, but this is akin to holding a fork and knife in the incorrect hands or using a spoon or not when eating pasta.


—

Putting ALL that aside, the waiter’s option A is still infinitely better and less aggressive than B.

A) "Oh, here's how you hold chopsticks correctly. Let me show you"

B) "Oh, here's how you hold chopsticks correctly. Let me show you. You can't hold them any other way, so stop holding them like that!"

A option allows for discussion, B doesn’t without sparking an argument…