Square Enix Does not care about Stalking/Harassment In Game

[LianaThorne]

irrelevant. They were asked to leave private property and they didn't.

Thinking neighborhood style housing where people purposefully keep their doors unlocked to allow for people to enter their homes is private is a choice.

If the OP locked their doors and the person still refused to leave, that would be more in line with your logic of thinking. It's not private unless you make it private.

[hagare]

If the OP locked their doors and the person still refused to leave, that would be more in line with your logic of thinking. It's not private unless you make it private.

They did.
And they asked her to leave. Which she refused.
Anything else?

[LianaThorne]

They did.
And they asked her to leave. Which she refused.
Anything else?

They stated multiple times they don't want to lock their doors because it prevents their FC members inviting people over and something about static members not being able to be inside.
Where are you getting that they did?

Also, still doesn't change the fact that unless the person is pushed to actually violate the ToS, they're not going to do anything. Being in someone's FC house and not doing anything other than existing there isn't enough. They have to either resort to spamming something or verbally insulting someone. My person simply following me from zone to zone was not enough for the GMs, it was only at the point of her resorting to spamming slap emotes and sending messages in whisper to myself and friends that they stepped in. They expect us to handle issues that arise unless it gets to the point of someone actually being threatened or someone committing harmful acts.

[Raoabolic]

Remember when you could just leave your doors unlocked in the neighborhood? Those were the days. :/

[hagare]

They stated multiple times they don't want to lock their doors because it prevents their FC members inviting people over and something about static members not being able to be inside.
Where are you getting that they did?

Also, still doesn't change the fact that unless the person is pushed to actually violate the ToS, they're not going to do anything. Being in someone's FC house and not doing anything other than existing there isn't enough. They have to either resort to spamming something or verbally insulting someone. My person simply following me from zone to zone was not enough for the GMs, it was only at the point of her resorting to spamming slap emotes and sending messages in whisper to myself and friends that they stepped in. They expect us to handle issues that arise unless it gets to the point of someone actually being threatened or someone committing harmful acts.

lemme try this another way, not locking your house does not turn your house into public property.

[Driavna]

Having more options like a white list for individual players or a full FC will help. This current choice of everyone can't enter or no one is bad.

[kpxmanifesto]

But they won't do that for any rule to avoid getting called out for their inaction. Although i'm sure you know this, the rules are vague and up for interpretation by design.

This. If SE explicitly says that something is against the rules, then the onus is on them to enforce the rules, but if they purposely keep the rules vague then they don't have to enforce them. Enforcing rules requires manpower/money, so from a monetary standpoint its beneficial to SE to leave these issues unresolved.

[DPZ2]

lemme try this another way, not locking your house does not turn your house into public property.

Technically, in a game, not locking your house turns it into "anyone can get in, no one gets kept out, being in your house is not a violation of the Terms of Service". The privacy setting is binary - either you lock everyone who doesn't belong out, or you let everyone in.

[Jojoya]

lemme try this another way, not locking your house does not turn your house into public property.

Not public property per se but for game purposes it does grant public access to anyone that wishes to enter.

I think a lot of FCs could stand to review their rank settings if they're worried about unwanted visitors to their FC house but want their members to be able to invite friends in. Just assign trusted members Guest Access/Estate Tag Settings in the rank hierarchy settings. That way the door can be kept locked most of the time but if someone's friend is visiting, a member can briefly unlock the door to let them in.

If that one FC would stop reacting to their unwanted visitor and giving them the attention they crave, they'd probably get bored with their little game and find something else to do. People who do things like that are attention seekers who only know how to play stupid games to get it.

[hagare]

Not public property per se but for game purposes it does grant public access to anyone that wishes to enter.

I think a lot of FCs could stand to review their rank settings if they're worried about unwanted visitors to their FC house but want their members to be able to invite friends in. Just assign trusted members Guest Access/Estate Tag Settings in the rank hierarchy settings. That way the door can be kept locked most of the time but if someone's friend is visiting, a member can briefly unlock the door to let them in.

If that one FC would stop reacting to their unwanted visitor and giving them the attention they crave, they'd probably get bored with their little game and find something else to do. People who do things like that are attention seekers who only know how to play stupid games to get it.

Technically, in a game, not locking your house turns it into "anyone can get in, no one gets kept out, being in your house is not a violation of the Terms of Service". The privacy setting is binary - either you lock everyone who doesn't belong out, or you let everyone in.

it's kind of amazing how people are defending stalking and harassing because they didn't lock the door.
That is as dumb as people saying. "You can't scan the item, it must be free"