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

[FedoraTheExplorer]

No, you can't. You're singling someone out in those examples, which is against ToS. You also can't say something isn't good, as you cure 2 example. And third, you can't tell someone they don't have efficient gear. All of that is against the ToS and CoC, as seen by the examples they gave because it may cause "humiliation".

I'll believe that when I get banned for it.

Chances are I won't.

[LittleImp]

I'll believe that when I get banned for it.

Chances are I won't.

Many people don't want to leave things to chance or vague interpretation on a game where it can take 7-10 years for an account strike to fall off of your account, particularly when users will pour thousands of hours into the progression of a single character over a span of years.

I think most people would agree that it's unlikely someone might be actioned for things like that under these new policies, but are still uncomfortable with the new examples that still paint it within the realm of possibility.

[FedoraTheExplorer]

Many people don't want to leave things to chance or vague interpretation on a game where it can take 7-10 years for an account strike to fall off of your account, particularly when users will pour thousands of hours into the progression of a single character over a span of years.

I think most people would agree that it's unlikely someone might be actioned for things like that under these new policies, but are still uncomfortable with the new examples that still paint it within the realm of possibility.

That's a problem with the "many people" then. Literally, don't be rude and you're good.

[LittleImp]

That's a problem with the "many people" then. Literally, don't be rude and you're good.

It would be great if it were really that simple, but a literal reading of the ToS unfortunately diverges from that interpretation. Here are some examples:

- "There's no way we can clear this with [suggestion]." (Telling someone a suggested strategy isn't viable)
- "Don't join if your equipment is that bad/such a low item level." (Excluding someone from a group based on their item level being unviable for the content)
- "We can only beat [duty/content] by using [something]. You can't do it any other way, so stop doing that." (Explaining an absolute mechanical requirement to someone)

Even if you consider the wording itself above to be kind of abrasive or rude, the ToS specifically refers to the core concepts being expressed, rather than the exact phrasing.

There is content in the game where alternative strategies and playstyles absolutely do not work and will prevent everyone from clearing, and it is explicitly prohibited to explain the absolute nature of that situation to someone if you interpret the ToS literally, regardless of how nicely you manage to phrase it. Again, I agree with you that it's unlikely to actually be enforced in that way, but even having that kind of room for interpretation is a bad thing. This issue just isn't as simple as 'don't be rude'.

[FedoraTheExplorer]

It would be great if it were really that simple, but a literal reading of the ToS unfortunately diverges from that interpretation. Here are some examples:

- "There's no way we can clear this with [suggestion]." (Telling someone a suggested strategy isn't viable)
- "Don't join if your equipment is that bad/such a low item level." (Excluding someone from a group based on their item level being unviable for the content)
- "We can only beat [duty/content] by using [something]. You can't do it any other way, so stop doing that." (Explaining an absolute mechanical requirement to someone)

Even if you consider the wording itself above to be kind of abrasive or rude, the ToS specifically refers to the core concepts being expressed, rather than the exact phrasing.

There is content in the game where alternative strategies and playstyles absolutely do not work and will prevent everyone from clearing, and it is explicitly prohibited to explain the absolute nature of that situation to someone if you interpret the ToS literally, regardless of how nicely you manage to phrase it. Again, I agree with you that it's unlikely to actually be enforced in that way, but even having that kind of room for interpretation is a bad thing. This issue just isn't as simple as 'don't be rude'.

So about that update...

Turns out I was right all along.

[LittleImp]

So about that update...

Turns out I was right all along.

About the thing I stated I agreed with you on, multiple times. Hence,

I agree with you that it's unlikely to actually be enforced in that way, but even having that kind of room for interpretation is a bad thing

being the central point that I had stated.

External clarification doesn't make the actual construction and examples within the ToS any less bad, which is only further underscored by the necessity to make an additional public statement that effectively boils down to "Our enforcement policies aren't actually consistent with our explicitly stated examples".

Foxclons blogpost won't be permanently pinned at the top of the ToS to keep things clarified, and future users will continue to read the ToS on its own and assume it should be taken at face value. If anything this was a significant localization challenge that they failed to meet, as it's been pointed out that the bizarre nature of many of the examples was due to the way they were translated almost directly from Japanese without care for the nuance that was lost along the way.