Square Enix now threatens to send players to jail for criticizing their employees

[Lilapop]

I mean, the only discussion is: harassment is not criticism. Giving constructive criticism is easy. Just don't include insults, make dangerous threats, question someone's identity, intelligence, etc and you're fine. I've not been banned for giving other players advice in-game, so clearly I'm doing something right (I bring this point up because some people love to fearmonger by saying you can be reported/banned for giving advice).

And also that OP lied in the title.

People will take anything they disagree with as harassment, sadly. On the forums anyways.

[Yshnal]

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.



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.



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.



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!

It’s becoming increasingly evident that you're misinterpreting or misrepresenting my argument. Let me clarify:

1. I’ve consistently highlighted that my concern is about how Square-Enix’s discretionary power could be applied, not about any newfound "legal power." There is no contradiction here. They’ve always had the right to terminate service relationships; what’s new is their public articulation of subjective criteria that could lead to unfair enforcement.

2. Yes, words have meaning. When Square-Enix describes "actions that exceed socially acceptable behavior" or "undue demands," they leave room for subjective interpretation, which is what I’m addressing. This vagueness could stifle legitimate consumer feedback, regardless of legal implications.

3. Your assertion that "nothing has changed" overlooks the significance of formalizing such policies publicly. By stating their intention to act on vague standards, Square-Enix risks deterring consumers from expressing valid criticisms for fear of being penalized under broad, undefined terms.

Finally, dismissing valid concerns as "paranoia" or "ignorance" doesn’t engage with the points I’ve made—it merely shifts the conversation away from a reasoned discussion. If you understand my position, then address it directly instead of resorting to strawman arguments.

[Lilapop]

snip

Allen is going to argue just to argue, just throwing that out there. The privacy policy is a binding policy. Their "nuh uhhhh" (which is what their posts thus far have been) won't change that.

[AllenThyl]

1. I’ve consistently highlighted that my concern is about how Square-Enix’s discretionary power could be applied, not about any newfound "legal power." There is no contradiction here. They’ve always had the right to terminate service relationships; what’s new is their public articulation of subjective criteria that could lead to unfair enforcement.

Yes, they always had all the avenues available to them. Absolutely nothing has changed in that regard. Any talk about how there is now a different status with regards to what SE can or cannot do as a legal entity, is simply an untrue statement. How can you not understand this? And that's precisely what you have been doing, having "concern" about how "far reaching" this policy is.

2. Yes, words have meaning. When Square-Enix describes "actions that exceed socially acceptable behavior" or "undue demands," they leave room for subjective interpretation, which is what I’m addressing. This vagueness could stifle legitimate consumer feedback, regardless of legal implications.

Who gives two bananas about how SE interprets things, when they always could basically do whatever they wanted anyway in the first place? Again, if you feel unjustly denied a service, go and take the matter to court! That's how it works in the real world! "Stifle legitimate consumer feedback", sweet baby Thaliak! It's a video game company! They sell video games! They can do whatever the hell they want with regards to "legitimate consumer feedback".

3. Your assertion that "nothing has changed" overlooks the significance of formalizing such policies publicly. By stating their intention to act on vague standards, Square-Enix risks deterring consumers from expressing valid criticisms for fear of being penalized under broad, undefined terms.

Then take your business elsewhere. Unbelievable, just unbelievable! This is a video game company!! We aren't dealing with infrastructure, healthcare, food production, key industries. Video games. Dude, with all empathy, get your priorities in life straight! Dying on the hill of "customers should be able to harass employees of a video game company" is not the noble hill to die on that you think it is.

Finally, dismissing valid concerns as "paranoia" or "ignorance" doesn’t engage with the points I’ve made—it merely shifts the conversation away from a reasoned discussion. If you understand my position, then address it directly instead of resorting to strawman arguments.

Laughable. Unbelievably laughable. Your "concerns" are meaningless, because they aren't based in reality. That's the end of the thread. This is like arguing that people should "reasonably discuss the fear of zombies". You might honestly and earnestly fear zombies, but that would be your own personal shortcoming, because zombies are not real. Just as it is your own personal shortcoming to think that the released policy gives SE some "new power", when it doesn't.
Allow me to be frank here, there is no hope for you. Your posts are pure conspiracy theory. They reveal a fundamental lack of understanding how legal entities work and operate, and how the legal framework they operate in works. There can be no "reasonable discussion" with someone whose version of "reality" is incongruent with the observable universe. Someone who believes the moon is made of cheese, is fundamentally ill suited for a discussion about space travel. And their "concerns" about how it would be "difficult to land on giant cheddar" would warrant intervention, not discussion.

[tsuchii]

criticism =/= harassment

[Yshnal]

Yes, they always had all the avenues available to them. Absolutely nothing has changed in that regard. Any talk about how there is now a different status with regards to what SE can or cannot do as a legal entity, is simply an untrue statement. How can you not understand this? And that's precisely what you have been doing, having "concern" about how "far reaching" this policy is.

While Square-Enix may have had these capabilities before, the formalization of vague criteria like "socially unacceptable behavior" in a public policy creates the perception of greater subjectivity. This isn't just about legal avenues (as I stated several times) but about how explicitly stating such terms might influence enforcement. Ignoring this distinction oversimplifies the concern. Formalizing these policies sends a message to consumers and can shape how the company applies its discretion in future scenarios.

Who gives two bananas about how SE interprets things, when they always could basically do whatever they wanted anyway in the first place? Again, if you feel unjustly denied a service, go and take the matter to court! That's how it works in the real world! "Stifle legitimate consumer feedback", sweet baby Thaliak! It's a video game company! They sell video games! They can do whatever the hell they want with regards to "legitimate consumer feedback".

The public communication of subjective terms like "socially acceptable behavior" or "undue demands" has real implications for the gaming community. While Square-Enix always had this capacity, the policy now explicitly signals an intent to use vague standards, deterring valid feedback for fear of misinterpretation or reprisal. Games may be entertainment, but they’re also products, and we’re consumers entitled to fair treatment. And not everyone has the resources to initiate legal disputes against a company of this size, making transparent policies essential for maintaining trust and fostering fairness.

Then take your business elsewhere. Unbelievable, just unbelievable! This is a video game company!! We aren't dealing with infrastructure, healthcare, food production, key industries. Video games. Dude, with all empathy, get your priorities in life straight! Dying on the hill of "customers should be able to harass employees of a video game company" is not the noble hill to die on that you think it is.

Caring about a product or service and discussing any arising issues doesn’t mean a person prioritizes it over every other aspect of life. Constructive criticism shows engagement and concern for its quality. Ironically, by engaging in this discussion, you’re displaying equal, if not greater, investment in the topic than I am. Your tone implies far more emotional involvement, contradicting your argument.

Additionally, your claim that I support harassment of employees is false and heavily misrepresents my position. Stop manipulating the conversation. This is far more important to me personally than the issue at hand, and I won’t let it go. It’s ironic that you, the perfect example of how written feedback can be misinterpreted or distorted, are defending the very ambiguity in these policies that makes such misinterpretation possible.

Laughable. Unbelievably laughable. Your "concerns" are meaningless, because they aren't based in reality. That's the end of the thread. This is like arguing that people should "reasonably discuss the fear of zombies". You might honestly and earnestly fear zombies, but that would be your own personal shortcoming, because zombies are not real. Just as it is your own personal shortcoming to think that the released policy gives SE some "new power", when it doesn't.
Allow me to be frank here, there is no hope for you. Your posts are pure conspiracy theory. They reveal a fundamental lack of understanding how legal entities work and operate, and how the legal framework they operate in works. There can be no "reasonable discussion" with someone whose version of "reality" is incongruent with the observable universe. Someone who believes the moon is made of cheese, is fundamentally ill suited for a discussion about space travel. And their "concerns" about how it would be "difficult to land on giant cheddar" would warrant intervention, not discussion.

Mischaracterizing my concerns as paranoia or conspiracy theories undermines meaningful discussion. My argument is based on the clear change in Square-Enix’s approach, as explicitly outlined in their published policy. This isn’t about believing in absurdities—it’s a critique of how vague, subjective criteria could result in inconsistent enforcement. Constructive criticism is crucial for improvement, and personal attacks only distract from the real issue. This is the last time I’ll tolerate such misrepresentation.

Allen is going to argue just to argue, just throwing that out there.

Thanks for pointing that out, you’re right. If Allen keeps arguing in the same way that he has beein doing it until now, ignoring him will probably be the best option. My goal is to have a productive discussion, but if that's not possible, there's no point in wasting time. I'd rather avoid engaging in meaningless back-and-forths. He seems to be giving way too much personal importance to all of this, something he blames on others instead of acknowledging it himself. He also tends to treat others as if they’re inferior or ignorant, all while acting like he holds the higher ground. On top of that, his continuous manipulations of what I say make it even more difficult to have a real conversation. It's honestly useless.

[AllenThyl]

While Square-Enix may have had these capabilities before, the formalization of vague criteria like "socially unacceptable behavior" in a public policy creates the perception of greater subjectivity.

Sweet baby Thaliak, grow up! "Perception of greater subjectivity", that's meaningless word salad! SE was always 100% at their own discretion with whom they wanted to have a business relationship. Just because you can initiate that relationship as well, doesn't mean SE as a business entity forfeited that fundamental freedom of contract. If your "perception" was something different before, that was simply your inexperience and naivety!

This isn't just about legal avenues (as I stated several times) but about how explicitly stating such terms might influence enforcement. Ignoring this distinction oversimplifies the concern. Formalizing these policies sends a message to consumers and can shape how the company applies its discretion in future scenarios.

Enforced by WHOM? And yes, that statement is indeed meant to send a message to their customers. Also, "can shape how the company applies its discretion". You just don't understand what such a policy announcement means, do you? The decision how SE will apply its discretion in the future has already been made. The course is set. The announcement is just that, an announcement. Top level management has already decided on the course.

The public communication of subjective terms like "socially acceptable behavior" or "undue demands" has real implications for the gaming community.

And bloody hell does the "gaming community" need some lessons in how to behave as a decent human being in the 21st century, given the vile comments people have dropped in this forum and elsewhere about WL's voice actress. Or you know, all the threats and harassment against employees of a video game company, which is what prompted SE to actually adopt this new policy in the first place.

While Square-Enix always had this capacity, the policy now explicitly signals an intent to use vague standards, deterring valid feedback for fear of misinterpretation or reprisal. Games may be entertainment, but they’re also products, and we’re consumers entitled to fair treatment. And not everyone has the resources to initiate legal disputes against a company of this size, making transparent policies essential for maintaining trust and fostering fairness.

Again, meaningless word salad. No business has to have a business relationship with a customer they don't want to. You portray yourself like some resistance fighter, fighting some "good fight", instead it just shows how naive and inexperienced you are in how the world works. Consumers aren't entitled to "fair treatment", they are entitled to whatever the local law says they are entitled to. Stifling the fundamental right to freedom of contract as it's implemented by basically every developed nation in the world is something that has to be done with the utmost care.

Caring about a product or service and discussing any arising issues doesn’t mean a person prioritizes it over every other aspect of life. Constructive criticism shows engagement and concern for its quality. Ironically, by engaging in this discussion, you’re displaying equal, if not greater, investment in the topic than I am. Your tone implies far more emotional involvement, contradicting your argument.

My god, SE is a business. How they decide to deal with customer feedback is entirely within their own prerogative. And my "emotional investment" is about how you state untruths about the implications of that policy. You employ rhetoric like SE has gained new "powers of enforcement", which they simply haven't. This isn't about "opinion", it's about reality.

Additionally, your claim that I support harassment of employees is false and heavily misrepresents my position. Stop manipulating the conversation.

In other words, like way too many people on this forum, you have no idea what the words you write even mean. You cannot not communicate. Someone a few posts before quoted the ToS which YOU AGREED TO, in which it literally states that SE reserves the right to terminate a business relationship "AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON". You don't have any leg to stand on in the first place, because you already agreed to this kind of contractual clause when joining.

It’s ironic that you, the perfect example of how written feedback can be misinterpreted or distorted, are defending the very ambiguity in these policies that makes such misinterpretation possible.

Because I know the difference between a state and a company. I don't need to "defend" anything, my main problem is the untruths that you write in here.

Mischaracterizing my concerns as paranoia or conspiracy theories undermines meaningful discussion. My argument is based on the clear change in Square-Enix’s approach, as explicitly outlined in their published policy. This isn’t about believing in absurdities—it’s a critique of how vague, subjective criteria could result in inconsistent enforcement. Constructive criticism is crucial for improvement, and personal attacks only distract from the real issue. This is the last time I’ll tolerate such misrepresentation.

You are literally believing absurdities.
All your "concerns" and "arguments" have been nothing but meaningless word salad. Your "conclusions" are based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about how the world works. If SE's new business approach proves itself fundamentally detrimental, then that is their own business. The only allegiance a publicly traded company has, is to their shareholders. You are just a customer, nothing more, nothing less. The ToS have always been "vague" on the same level to moderate ingame behavior. If you don't agree with that, don't enter into a business relationship with SE. Or you know, leave the business relationship now that SE has changed some of their policies. I do it all the time with companies that have policies and business behavior I don't agree with.

My goal is to have a productive discussion, but if that's not possible, there's no point in wasting time. I'd rather avoid engaging in meaningless back-and-forths.

A "productive discussion" doesn't just fall out of the sky by just writing some words. Your assumptions about the situation are fundamentally flawed. Your conclusions are equally egregious. If you want to have any kind of "productive discussion", you will need to start with a proper approach on what is and isn't real, otherwise, you will have no way to discern fact from fiction. And the truth of the matter is, that the new policy is just as much of a nothingburger as the previous outrage about the ToS changes that prohibited stuff like "taunting behavior" in PvP and people lost their 3 neuron minds about it. As if "not being a douchebag to enemies in PvP" is such a hard bar to reach. The same goes for harassing employees.

[Yshnal]

Snip

I understand that Square-Enix has the right to decide who they do business with, and I’ve never argued otherwise. However, players (as customers) also have the right to express their opinions about the company’s actions, whether they continue to pay for their products or not. If you had taken the time to read instead of reacting emotionally, you’d know that I’ve already mentioned earlier in this thread that I’ve decided to stop supporting them financially. This policy change wasn’t the sole reason, as I also stated, but it was the final straw that tipped the balance for me, at least for the time being.

“Voting with your wallet” doesn’t mean a customer can’t voice their thoughts beforehand. That’s the whole point of feedback, which can be applied to anything that the company in question does. Ignoring this perspective misses the fact that companies, regardless of the industry they’re in, should listen to their customers. Whether it’s a video game company or not doesn’t matter—it’s about a business and its consumers.

Now, regarding the policies themselves: as I said, the way they’re written leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Words like “socially unacceptable behavior” or “undue demands” are vague. For example, if someone criticizes a game feature strongly but doesn’t use offensive language or harass anyone, could that be seen as “undue demands”? It’s unclear, and that’s precisely the issue we’re discussing. This lack of clarity might make people afraid to speak their minds because they don’t know how their feedback will be interpreted. Not every criticism is harassment, but vague policies can blur that line and discourage even constructive criticism.

I’ve also already responded to the argument about the Terms of Service (ToS), which you would have noticed if you had read more carefully. Comparing the ToS to this new policy doesn’t make sense. Legally, the ToS are an agreement between the customer and the company, specifically tied to the use of the forums or the game itself. This is why you are required to read and explicitly accept them before accessing these services. They act as a contract, outlining rights and responsibilities for both parties. The new policy, however, applies broadly to behavior “everywhere,” not just on Square-Enix’s platforms. You’re not required to agree to it beforehand, and it isn’t presented to you directly. Instead, you have to go to their website to even be aware of its existence. This means that while the ToS are a clear and binding agreement for specific services, the new policy introduces ambiguous rules with potentially far-reaching consequences that are not as clearly communicated or consented to.

A key concern with the new policy is the vague use of terms like “socially unacceptable behavior” and “undue demands.” These terms are highly subjective, and their interpretation can vary based on culture, language, and individual perspective. What one person considers “unacceptable behavior” might be seen as reasonable by someone else. In a multicultural and global environment like online gaming, these differences are even more pronounced. Additionally, language barriers can cause misunderstandings, as a comment poorly expressed could unintentionally be flagged as inappropriate. The real issue arises when people could be penalized for actions that weren’t actually harmful, simply because they were misinterpreted or because they fell within the boundaries of a broad, subjective policy.

Moreover, there’s the concern that these policies aren’t confined to Square-Enix’s platforms. They apply “everywhere,” meaning behavior on external sites, social media, or other spaces could be scrutinized and sanctioned by Square-Enix. This raises the question of whether users are being held accountable for behavior they didn’t know could be regulated, especially when these policies aren’t directly presented to users, and require them to go out of their way to find them on the company’s website.

Finally, I want to make it clear (again) that I’ve never defended harassment of employees. That’s not what this is about. Criticism of a product doesn’t require crossing that line, and it’s disappointing that some people twist valid concerns about a policy that tries to stop actual harassment into something they’re not.

It’s clear that we’re not going to reach any sort of meaningful understanding here, especially given the tone of your responses. I’ve addressed the points I wanted to make, and I don’t feel the need to continue this discussion further. If you’re going to keep approaching this conversation with aggression and condescension, there’s no point in continuing. I’m done here.

[Mikey_R]

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 reason I bring up the legal definitions is that this policy would have been put together with the help from their legal team. These words have specific definitions and should be treated as such in this context.

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.

If we are going to go down and make this a more complex analogy, that is fine. if a customer walks into a store and requests assistance and customer support helps, then I think we can agree there is no issue. If you were to go into a store, request assistance and, as the assistant is helping you, you keep badgering them for help, I would say most people would class that as harassment. If you go into a store and you ask for assistance, the customer support tries to help, but they are not able to help for one reason or another, but the customer continues to ask for assistance for the same thing, we get into harassment territory again. If a customer comes in and leaves some feedback, doesn't hear anything so contacts the store for an update, that is fine. If they were to instead just put in the same feedback week after week after week, that could then be classed as harassment.

Now, there are many many different scenarios that could be covered and I am fully aware I have only scratched the surface, however, this only illustrates the point that it is impossible to use clear, unambiguous language to set boundaries. The reason why they use 'unreasonable' is to basically ask the question, how would the general public see this? Not how you see it, not how I see it, but as a collective that is the general public. Which is going to include non gamers for example. You can give extremes and say, this could be something they could get you on, but ask yourself, is it reasonable to assume they will enact the policy based on this scenario.

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 I eluded to above, you generally do not want to put a definitive line as to what is or is not harassment or persistent insistence. Plus, how would you manage it? If I had 100 different people all asking for Viera hats, is that different to 2 people making 50 posts? 100 different people making 50 posts? Is making posts different to making new topics? etc. I would say, in this case, keeping it to 1 topic and, as long as you are respectful to the dev team, there shouldn't be an issue.

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.

The word here is 'Personal attack'. If you are criticising the game and only the game, it is not a personal attack. Personal attacks have to be directed at a specific person and it has to be something that directly attacks their character. I could make a long post starting with how I think the job team haven't handled job changes in recent expansions and how they might have run out of ideas, then go on to explain why. At no point have I directed the feedback at anyone in particular and I have given my own feedback as to why I think what I do. As opposed me saying the job team are just incompetent and useless at their job (and, to avoid any doubt, I am using this as an example and do not reflect my views) with no form of feedback. One is feedback, the other is attacking. Also, in general, when saying things about a team of people, it is usually handled by the team lead. So, whilst I mentioned a specific person initially, then talked about teams, it is generally assumed these things are directed at that specific person of the team.

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.

I'm hoping that what I have described helps to give an understanding of why more vague words are used. Mainly it is because it is just impossible to pin point a specific line to draw, especially with so many different scenarios, I can guarantee that if you think of everything, someone will give you more you hadn't thought of. Whilst I also have not mentioned it before, there is also the case that having rigid, defined lines, paradoxically, could allow more harassment. People like the challenge of getting close to that line without crossing it and this isn't uncommon. Think back to when you were a kid and you parent told you to not jump in puddles. You see a little puddle, does that count as a puddle? You jump in and look back to your parent to see their reaction....nothing, oh, that one is a bit bigger, does that count? etc. Another, don't go outside, you put a foot out, you put a hand out, half your body is out, at what point does your parent class as 'outside'.

This behaviour doesn't stop in adulthood either. You see that red button? Do not push it.......pst, I really want to push the red button. Maybe I could get away with touching it?, what if I press hard enough that I can feel the force back on my finger, but it doesn't actually 'press' the button.

there is also the fact the going that hard on the consumer base is going to drive people away and that will ultimately kill their business. It would be an absolutely stupid thing to do and, whilst they have made some...questionable decisions in recent years, this would top them all with a massive neon sign and fireworks as the stupidest thing they have done. I hope the have far far more sense than that.

[Nestama]

People will take anything they disagree with as harassment, sadly. On the forums anyways.

And if they report for harassment, nothing will happen because the mods will be the ones to judge whether what was said is or isn't harassment. Much like how GM's will act accordingly in-game toward harassment reports.

Basically, there's nothing to be worried about.