Roleplay Party Finder Account Suspensions

[Packetdancer]

However when it comes to social issues it should be paramount that the user is informed over what is wrong such as potentially unintended harassment, so that the user doesn't accidentally repeat the offence.

While I agree in essence, having spent time on the other side of the player/developer divide, I can also note that it's not always a great idea to do so; sometimes giving details on the infraction can unintentionally also give details on who reported the person in the first place, which can then lead to vendettas from the disciplined towards the reporter. So it comes down to "do you err on the side of giving information to the one being disciplined, even if it means they can then whip up people to harass the one who reported them, or do you err on the side of not giving them any ammunition to go harass others?"

But no matter which one you choose, generally you need to pick one and stick with it (rather than relying on individual CS folks to make a judgment call on "do I tell this person info or not", and potentially making them personally responsible for any ensuing harassment). And for good or ill, Square-Enix seems to have fallen on the "let's not give anyone ammunition" side of that divide.

[Hyla_Featherfoot]

I lurked the last time this happened, but didn't that end up being one single GM on some weird crusade? I can't help but wonder if the same thing is happening again. Whatever the case, this action needs to be corrected ASAP and whoever submitted the reports in the first place should probably be investigated for abusing the function. As others have quoted in the thread already, this sort of usage of the Party Finder's Other tab is explicitly allowed according to the recent TOS update. It also looks like people were suspended who did not use "18+" or similar terms in their PF listings, so that strawman is out the window.

[Atreyu]

I lurked the last time this happened, but didn't that end up being one single GM on some weird crusade?

It's the same GM as last time, yes. Which is why a lot of people are (understandably) frustrated.
EDIT: And yes, last time it had nothing to do with 18+ anything.
The venues in question in the past (as well as at least one banned last night) were not 18+ venues at all.
I still think this is a personal vendetta or grudge that this GM has and I hope that he's pulled aside by his supervisor.
I'm echoing the statement made earlier that, if this has happened to you, then appeal it.
RPers are a part of this game, he can get over it.

[Hyla_Featherfoot]

It's the same GM as last time, yes. Which is why a lot of people are (understandably) frustrated.
EDIT: And yes, last time it had nothing to do with 18+ anything.
The venues in question in the past (as well as at least one banned last night) were not 18+ venues at all.
I still think this is a personal vendetta or grudge that this GM has and I hope that he's pulled aside by his supervisor.
I'm echoing the statement made earlier that, if this has happened to you, then appeal it.
RPers are a part of this game, he can get over it.

Assuming this is true (after all this is the internet), perhaps SE should review whether this GM should remain employed after doing this again. I know that if I caused my company to feel it necessary to issue a public statement to address my indiscretions, and then later repeated my actions, I would almost certainly be fired.

I do wonder how that poor fisherman looking for a friend is doing these days.

[van_arn]

Assuming this is true (after all this is the internet), perhaps SE should review whether this GM should remain employed after doing this again. I know that if I caused my company to feel it necessary to issue a public statement to address my indiscretions, and then later repeated my actions, I would almost certainly be fired.

I do wonder how that poor fisherman looking for a friend is doing these days.

Didn’t we just go over not baying for developer’s heads when we disagree with them?

[Atreyu]

Didn’t we just go over not baying for developer’s heads when we disagree with them?

They're not a developer. They're employed specifically to enforce the TOS that developers have made.
Nor is it 'baying for their heads' to say 'if they cannot do their job both fairly and effectively, then perhaps they should not be doing that particular job'.
This GM is clearly a repeat offender.
Nobody has a problem with the TOS. Everyone thus far has said this.
All anyone is expecting is clarification and transparency. In some cases, perhaps it is the third-party website that is linked.
That is fair, if so.
In other cases, however, it seems to be totally random and with those banned still left asking what they did wrong. That's setting people up for failure and for another infraction.

[Hyla_Featherfoot]

Didn’t we just go over not baying for developer’s heads when we disagree with them?

The developers have spoken on this topic and given good explanations and guidance which I believe the player base supported almost universally. I absolutely agree with the developers on this topic, and was quite happy with the clarifications they gave as part of the announcement in October. However, developers and GMs are not the same people. This GM is operating in direct contradiction to the developers' guidance, and that needs to be addressed in one way or another.

[Driavna]

I have to say it will be extremely interesting to see a full disclosure of all of this, will never happen of course but still...

[Caurcas]

This GM is doing good work. Keep on booting them where it hurts.

[freyjabun]

This GM is doing good work. Keep on booting them where it hurts.

Oh, hey, bait