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

[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.