Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 136
  1. #101
    Player
    Rueby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2022
    Location
    Zenos' Pockets
    Posts
    838
    Character
    Vera Nova
    World
    Spriggan
    Main Class
    Gunbreaker Lv 90
    Quote Originally Posted by Merrigan View Post
    Snip
    I was talking in general and not really related specifically to this topic. And not really, I was using it as I think it is for people who worship the ground that the devs walk on and that they're infallable and can do nothing wrong. (They do exist) I think putting someone/a group on a pedestal is harmful both ways, they have unrealistic expectations to live up to and people who get disappointed when the expectations aren't met get upset. If even constructive criticism gets stiffled, they won't be able to improve.

    I was quoting them in specific because it truly felt that they had the impression that everything is sunshine and rainbows in FFXIV, that somehow they've been tricked. I'm trying not invalidate their experiences, I know I found them so wildly different than my own, perhaps it's NA thing. I don't know what happened to them or what led them to be like that. I certainly don't agree with the way some of their takes are worded. (abit instigatory possibly due to their bad experiences? I don't know)

    I never said it's a bad thing. I just presented it how it is, a thing to be aware of.

    Like I said, anyone can sub to this, good person, bad person, unhinged psycho stalker/serial killer. There's nothing at the gate. Pay for a product, follow rules, get service, it doesn't discriminate. (I hope)

    When I was a sprout I was told you'd get banned for giving advice, was I fear mongered? Hmm maybe? I still give people advice occasionally if things reach a point where I feel advice might be needed. It made me go reference the ToS to see what's acceptable and what isn't and how to give better advice in general. I've spent hours after dungeons helping others if they're interested.

    But I've also seen willful griefing actually be a thing and people do nothing about it. People more likely to disband or leave rather than give advice or confront it. (Maybe net positive as less conflict?)

    Another thing you'll notice is that people are more inclined to be upset than trying to be rational. I'm guilty of it too- being upset (I try to educate myself and consider the dev's perspective but it's hard because I'm not a coder,dev,etc), but at some point you have to temper your expectations so you're not disappointed. I'd like to think everyone eventually reaches this point or leaves. People are far more likely to instigate/be incidiary and/or rile people up just to see the outrage or feel good that others are upset with them.

    I can see why someone in general might be radicalized by their bad experiences, if you don't encounter anything positive to counter your beliefs that is. I don't think I was making unfair/sweeping generalizations? I see it on reddit and the like but I can't help but feel like this is my experience/opinion on it based on what I saw and what I also used to think. Well, I'll reflect on it regardless.

    At the end of the day, SE is a business and I'm paying for their product, I think everyone is allowed to criticize the game like I said without popping off the deep end. I think any rational/reasonable person can come to this conclusion. I don't believe people who are enjoying the game end up on this forum. I know I certainly never came here until PLD cover in Onsal was a thing.

    Perhaps I didn't word/structure my response well. I apologize for that, but I'm not sure how this is the only thing you took away from my response?
    (0)
    Last edited by Rueby; 01-14-2025 at 08:31 PM.
    Eyestrain thread - https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/501914-Dawntrail-Graphics-Update-Eye-Strain

  2. #102
    Player
    Merrigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    553
    Character
    Merrigan Gilgard
    World
    Spriggan
    Main Class
    Samurai Lv 90
    I apologize for that, but I'm not sure how this is the only thing you took away from my response?
    Don't apologize, it was actually more of a side remark due to the use of that expression and the thread's turn of phrase (in this case, the fact that several people are falling all over CidHeral like three tons of bricks).
    (0)

  3. #103
    Player
    Yshnal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ul'dah
    Posts
    711
    Character
    Nera Mistdancer
    World
    Omega
    Main Class
    Paladin Lv 100
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikey_R View Post
    It does not and, ironically, you are being unreasonable in your interpretation of the rules. These rules have originally been put in place to protect their employees from harassment, which does have a specific legal definition, which is the one that would be employed in the policy. So, with the fact these policies are designed to protect the employees, I will go back and look at some of the claims you have made.

    Starting with this post: Post 1

    1. "For example, what qualifies as intimidating, a personal attack, or discriminatory can depend on the person."

    If you do not attack a person specifically, you cannot, by definition, intimidate, personally attack or discriminate someone. This is the same as walking into a store, going up to a member of staff and start shouting in their face, calling them stupid and discriminating against them. n this example, the store has every right to not serve you at all and can kick you out. SO why would it be any different here? Harass the staff, be denied service and yes, this includes cases where you have either paid for a service or are paying a subscription. Just because you have paid does not give you the right to harass the staff.

    2. " In other words, they can terminate your service just because they decided that you made too many posts asking for viera hats, or complaining about the English localization, or asking for more content, or asking for a previous worker to come back instead of some new one, etc"

    Asking for Viera hats is fine, that is a reasonable criticism, other races can wear all hats after all. However, spamming the forum every day with the same topic over and over could be considered harassment, you already have a topic, keep it to that.

    English localisation, as long as it is criticism, it is fine. If you then went and attacked the localisation team, calling them stupid or something, we then tread into harassment. You can criticise the localisation without attacking the team.

    Asking for more content is fine. I can make a topic asking for relic weapons to start earlier in the expansion, as long as I don't attack the team for it.

    I can ask for a previous member of staff to come back, no problems, as long as I explain why and don't harass the current one.

    You can leave criticism/feedback as much as you like, just do not attack the employees over it.

    Which is where we get into 'unreasonable', legally speaking, something is reasonable if it is accepted by the general population that it is considered publicly acceptable to do. I would guess in the vast majority of the world it is acceptable to leave criticism and feedback, however, it is not acceptable to attack employees. Going back to the store analogy I made earlier, you can, 100%, go to a member of staff, ideally one at customer services so it goes to the right place, and say, there is something I do not like, here is why, can you please look into it. This can be taken away and looked into and decided on whether to address it or not. Perfectly fine so far. Again, start shouting and screaming at them etc. it then become harassment, and you can be denied service.

    Which brings me to the comment about content creators. As long as they review the game and criticise it without attacking anyone, that is perfectly fine. If you make a bad choice in a game, and everyone is saying X and Y is bad because of this, it is all just feedback the devs can use to, potentially, improve the game. If you, however, add into it how the devs are incompetent and stupid and that is the main theme of your video, then you get into harassment territory.

    As you have likely noticed, there is a clear line. Do not attack the employees.

    In one of your later posts you then ask the question: "In regards to nobody getting banned for just complaining and criticising, would you put your neck on the line over it?" My answer, yes. Nowhere in the policy does it say you cannot criticise/leave feedback for the game. It is all about protecting the employees. Be respectful when leaving the feedback, you have nothing to worry about.
    It's important to clarify that my concerns about the policy are not focused on the legal definitions of harassment but rather on the subjective and discretionary nature of how Square-Enix can interpret and enforce these rules. While protecting employees is a commendable goal, the policy's phrasing leaves ample room for varying interpretations by the company itself, which is a concern I have raised repeatedly.

    The store analogy you presented is an exaggerated and overly simplistic scenario. To use a more fitting example: imagine a customer politely requesting assistance multiple times because their issue hasn’t been resolved. Depending on who reviews this, it could be seen as persistence or harassment. This ambiguity in interpretation is what makes the policy problematic. My point is that terms like “persistent inquiries” and “excessive pursuit” lack clear limits and are left to Square-Enix’s judgment, which could lead to inconsistencies.

    Regarding the Viera hats example, I never argued against criticism but referred to "persistent insistence," which the policy explicitly mentions. While I agree spamming the forums would be unacceptable, how many posts constitute "persistence"? Is it two? Five? Ten? The policy doesn’t specify, which is why this remains subjective.

    As for content creators, while you argue there is a clear line between constructive criticism and harassment, in practice, lines blur. A critique of development choices phrased strongly could easily be interpreted as a personal attack, depending on tone and perspective. This could deter valid feedback, which ultimately harms the community and the game itself.

    Lastly, your assertion that the policy unequivocally allows for criticism misses the nuances I've outlined. The concern isn’t that criticism is outright banned but that vague language could allow for overly broad enforcement, chilling legitimate feedback. A clear delineation of what constitutes "unreasonable" or "excessive" would alleviate this issue.

    I hope this better clarifies my position and the concerns I’ve raised.
    (5)

  4. #104
    Player AllenThyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2024
    Posts
    300
    Character
    Allen Thyl
    World
    Cerberus
    Main Class
    Samurai Lv 100
    Quote Originally Posted by Yshnal View Post
    It's important to clarify that my concerns about the policy are not focused on the legal definitions of harassment but rather on the subjective and discretionary nature of how Square-Enix can interpret and enforce these rules. While protecting employees is a commendable goal, the policy's phrasing leaves ample room for varying interpretations by the company itself, which is a concern I have raised repeatedly.
    Concern for WHAT? This dog whistle is getting way out of hand. SE is a corporate entity in the business of creating and selling video games. They are neither the judiciary, nor executive, nor legislative of any state. If you think that corporations in today's capitalistic society wield too much influence, then that's a political problem that needs to be solved. They already had every right to cancel business relationships for a myriad of reasons, and I can assure you that "harassment of company employees" is always a justified reason for ending service agreements.

    One of the main issues that plagued the DT story was the obvious lack of knowledge how a political apparatus works, that's why we got a story that is more "Highschool drama to elect the next cheerleader squad captain" instead of "political struggle for power in a major economic and military powerhouse that spans a whole content". And quite frankly, you also seem to have no idea how political / legal life works, judging by how naively you think about business interactions. If you think a business is illegally denying you service, then you do what SE has announced to do, and that is take them to court. Either for damages, or to force them into compliance.
    (2)

  5. #105
    Player
    Yshnal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ul'dah
    Posts
    711
    Character
    Nera Mistdancer
    World
    Omega
    Main Class
    Paladin Lv 100
    Quote Originally Posted by AllenThyl View Post
    Concern for WHAT? This dog whistle is getting way out of hand. SE is a corporate entity in the business of creating and selling video games. They are neither the judiciary, nor executive, nor legislative of any state. If you think that corporations in today's capitalistic society wield too much influence, then that's a political problem that needs to be solved. They already had every right to cancel business relationships for a myriad of reasons, and I can assure you that "harassment of company employees" is always a justified reason for ending service agreements.

    One of the main issues that plagued the DT story was the obvious lack of knowledge how a political apparatus works, that's why we got a story that is more "Highschool drama to elect the next cheerleader squad captain" instead of "political struggle for power in a major economic and military powerhouse that spans a whole content". And quite frankly, you also seem to have no idea how political / legal life works, judging by how naively you think about business interactions. If you think a business is illegally denying you service, then you do what SE has announced to do, and that is take them to court. Either for damages, or to force them into compliance.
    The concerns raised by this policy go far beyond just "harassment justifying service termination." When we examine the full scope of the rules, we see a broad range of behaviors that are described in vague, subjective terms—many of which can easily be interpreted to cover actions that most would consider normal consumer behavior.

    Take, for instance, the term “abusive language.” It’s unclear whether a heated disagreement or a strongly-worded critique could fall under this definition, especially when it's framed as an expression of dissatisfaction. Similarly, “excessive pursuit or reprimand” is open to interpretation, as what one employee or company representative might consider “excessive” could simply be a customer trying to resolve an issue. Terms like “persistent inquiries” could also penalize a consumer simply following up on unresolved matters, a perfectly legitimate action.

    The section on "undue demand" is equally concerning. While asking for product exchanges or compensation is a standard consumer right, the policy could frame this as an unreasonable demand, especially if the company feels a request is disproportionate. “Excessive requests for services” is also notably subjective, and a legitimate concern, such as a request for clarification or additional support, could be interpreted as crossing a line.

    The real concern lies in the broad, subjective power granted to Square-Enix by this policy. The terms are vague, leaving room for interpretation that could penalize consumers for behaviors that are otherwise considered legitimate, like asking follow-up questions or expressing dissatisfaction.

    Additionally, the policy's reach extends beyond Square-Enix’s platforms and games—it applies to external spaces like YouTube, expanding their control over discussions that aren't directly within their domain. This opens the door to subjective enforcement and potential misuse of the policy, penalizing valid consumer feedback or criticism.

    While you correctly point out that Square-Enix has the right to terminate relationships with customers for valid reasons, this doesn't address the main concern, which is how these broad policies could be enforced inconsistently. The vague rules don’t just affect "harassment," but also things like “excessive pursuit” and “undue demand,” which are dangerously open to interpretation. These policies could stifle legitimate consumer concerns if applied too broadly.

    You also assert that businesses have the right to enforce such policies and that consumers should simply take legal action if they feel wronged. However, most consumers cannot afford to engage in lengthy legal battles with a multi-billion-dollar corporation. This situation isn't about whether the legal system can address these issues; it's about ensuring that policies like this are clear, reasonable, and fair before they can do harm.

    Finally, your assertion that discussing these policies reflects a lack of understanding of legal or political systems misses the point. Advocating for clearer and more balanced policies is part of consumer advocacy. Corporations like Square-Enix thrive on public trust, and it is our duty to ensure that their policies are fair, transparent, and reasonable—especially when they carry the potential for unjust consequences.
    (4)

  6. #106
    Player AllenThyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2024
    Posts
    300
    Character
    Allen Thyl
    World
    Cerberus
    Main Class
    Samurai Lv 100
    Quote Originally Posted by Yshnal View Post
    The real concern lies in the broad, subjective power granted to Square-Enix by this policy.
    That's not how it works. A company releasing a policy statement does not grant them some kind of legal power. SE didn't elevate themselves to God Emporer. This is what CidHeiral meant when they said that you have no argument. You don't understand what a policy statement is, instead, you are literally creating a boogeyman right in front of everyone to see, digging yourself deeper into unbelievable conspiratory territory with every post you make. Every "concern" you could have is meaningless if it isn't grounded in observable reality. All your "arguments" so far have been at best some dog whistle, at worst, they reveal severe knowledge deficiencies with regards to basic civics.
    (5)

  7. #107
    Player
    Yshnal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Ul'dah
    Posts
    711
    Character
    Nera Mistdancer
    World
    Omega
    Main Class
    Paladin Lv 100
    Quote Originally Posted by AllenThyl View Post
    That's not how it works. A company releasing a policy statement does not grant them some kind of legal power. SE didn't elevate themselves to God Emporer. This is what CidHeiral meant when they said that you have no argument. You don't understand what a policy statement is, instead, you are literally creating a boogeyman right in front of everyone to see, digging yourself deeper into unbelievable conspiratory territory with every post you make. Every "concern" you could have is meaningless if it isn't grounded in observable reality. All your "arguments" so far have been at best some dog whistle, at worst, they reveal severe knowledge deficiencies with regards to basic civics.
    It's clear that I’ve never mentioned anything about the legal system or Square-Enix acquiring judicial power. My concern is about the subjective application of their policies, not about some legal power grab. If you're misunderstanding my argument, it’s likely due to your own reading comprehension. The issue remains that these policies give Square-Enix dangerous discretionary power, which is far removed from the points you're making. You're the one who's not understanding what I'm saying.

    Furthermore, Square-Enix doesn't need to resort to the legal system to deny service. According to their policy, they can stop providing support or services if they determine a customer has engaged in harmful behavior, even without involving legal proceedings. Legal action is mentioned only for egregious cases, but the policy grants them significant discretion to act independently, which is the concern here.
    (3)

  8. #108
    Player
    Exmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2024
    Posts
    803
    Character
    Exterior Motive
    World
    Raiden
    Main Class
    Dancer Lv 100
    (...) if a post includes any of the following violations, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to, editing/deleting/locking/moving the content without notice, restricting your forum usage, temporarily suspending either your FINAL FANTASY XIV Account or Square Enix Account, or permanently banning either your FINAL FANTASY XIV Account or Square Enix Account.

    (...)

    Taking any other actions that are deemed inappropriate by Square Enix in our sole discretion.
    Forum guidelines : https://support.na.square-enix.com/r...la=1&tag=forum

    SQUARE ENIX MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNTS, CHARACTERS, VIRTUAL GOODS, OR THE SERVICE ALTOGETHER, AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY TO YOU.
    FFXIV game user agreement : https://support.na.square-enix.com/r...1&tag=users_en

    You've lived this long in this precarious world of ours, I don't think you need to start worrying about this now
    (3)

  9. #109
    Player AllenThyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2024
    Posts
    300
    Character
    Allen Thyl
    World
    Cerberus
    Main Class
    Samurai Lv 100
    Quote Originally Posted by Yshnal View Post
    It's clear that I’ve never mentioned anything about the legal system or Square-Enix acquiring judicial power.
    Words have meaning, and your rhetoric so far has been incredibly crass when considering that this is merely a policy statement a publicly traded company put out. A piece of text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yshnal View Post
    My concern is about the subjective application of their policies, not about some legal power grab. If you're misunderstanding my argument, it’s likely due to your own reading comprehension.
    Understanding a position is not the same as having that position. I "understand" what you are saying, it's borderline paranoia. It reveals that you have little understanding about the legal system or corporate governance. If the release of some policy statement could have as much wide reaching consequences as you have so far made up, the world would be a much different place than it is. That's what YOU don't understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yshnal View Post
    The issue remains that these policies give Square-Enix dangerous discretionary power, which is far removed from the points you're making. You're the one who's not understanding what I'm saying.
    So, which is it, does it, or does it not give SE "power"? You literally contradict yourself in a single paragraph. That's how little you understand your own words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yshnal View Post
    Furthermore, Square-Enix doesn't need to resort to the legal system to deny service. According to their policy, they can stop providing support or services if they determine a customer has engaged in harmful behavior, even without involving legal proceedings. Legal action is mentioned only for egregious cases, but the policy grants them significant discretion to act independently, which is the concern here.
    No, they don't have to engage the legal system, and never did for terminating a business relationship. So literally, nothing has changed with that regard. They always could have ended business relationships with people that badmouth them on other platforms, they just chose not to. Or maybe they indeed did some times, who even knows? They also could always have pursued legal action against people that harassed their employees, with or without the policy statement. The whole point of the statement was to show publicly, that they now intend to use the legal means they always had!
    (6)

  10. #110
    Player
    Vrankyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Gridania
    Posts
    567
    Character
    Tsenno Se'senovoto
    World
    Mateus
    Main Class
    Gunbreaker Lv 100
    On a normal day, I probably wouldn't have even blinked at this. I probably would have shrugged and moved on. But considering what we've learned of the Blacklist debacle, this isn't exactly a normal day. This being publicized at the same time that the fact that it has been discovered that the new Blacklist feature stores the unencrypted unique identifying account ID of other people on your local computer is bad to say the least. Especially as one has to wonder how that even got greenlit in the first place. Even if third party tools weren't a worry, storing that information on someone's PC rather than the server in a format that is not properly encrypted is a Cyber Security nightmare.
    (3)

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread