You pull you tank question.

[Thurmnmurmn]

Snip

So a few things wrong in how you interpret the TOS.

1)
"・Expressions that compel a playing style"
-its not saying you can't do big pulls. It's saying you can't demand someone they do big pulls if they don't want to. Someone needs to initiate the fact they don't want big pulls before it becomes a TOS violation.

2) ・Obstructing Gameplay Using Combat
-this one is more aimed towards tanks dragging tank buster's or aoes to kill people. Yes you can argue DPS fall in this as well but the thing is wall to wall pulls have been the norm for years and only really fall into this again, after someone needs to be vocal about them not wanting it.

3) ◆Monster Player Kill (MPK)
-you're in a dungeon here. The intent is to go faster, not to kill your fellow tank. Again, if a conversation is had and then they continue, then you can report.

As for
・Aiding the enemy / Uncooperative behavior / Lethargic behavior
-if a tank says YPYT, that's an outright refusal of playing correctly.
Literally the first example it gives is "I don't want to heal because there is a player I don't like in the group."
How is that any different from refusing to tank because you don't like that someone pulled for you?


The big thing in this is that yes, both sides can be reported. However. For the DPS to be reportable, a discussion needs to take place first. For the tank to be reported, they just have to say YPYT.

[VoidsentStatus]

.

1) You just said the same thing that I said. "trying to get someone else to do" something is not the same as doing it on their own willingly. All you did was replace "trying to get someone to do" with "demand", which functionally have the same meaning since persuasion would fall under "trying to get someone to want to do". I don't even know what this clarification is for.

2) Tankbusters and aoe's are not enmity related, those are role-tasked damage. It specifically says "actions" aka job actions that affect enmity and manipulating them to interfere with someone's gameplay. If I see someone fighting low level adds doing an AOE in open world and I drag an S rank to them and force them to take aggro away from me, I have manipulated the enmity they were generating for their adds that could potentially cause them to die or not be able to achieve their initial gameplay goal.

3) The intent doesn't matter for MPK. Square Enix purposely details when intent does matter inside of its guidelines. Stalking violations, it matters. Trade blocking, it matters. Obstructing Gameplay Using Combat, it matters. MPK does not have that language attached, therefore you cannot infer Square Enix would care about that distinction.

"Simply performing the acts listed above will not immediately result in a violation, as they could be caused unintentionally or be due to unintended circumstances."
"despite being asked to stop the behavior."
""Nuisance behavior" is speech or behavior that hurts others or obstructs their gameplay, but which is not classified as harassment. Even if it was not intended, a penalty may be issued if the end result was that another person was hurt, or their gameplay was obstructed."
"If it has been determined that the above behaviors were done intentionally **or repeatedly** to obstruct the other player's gameplay, then a penalty will be issued."

4) That's refusing to play **YOUR** definition of correct. Square is not going to punish a player for their definition of correct as long as they doing bare minimum of still contributing to the instance. Their rotation does not matter, their mitigation does matter. Their positioning past a certain point does not matter. Square Enix does not enforce optimal play, nor do they enforce cooperative play as my original post detailed.