Abusing the Trade feature to interrupt, etc

[Tupsi]

I don't want anyone to be banned undeservedly just to send a message to a few bad apples. That's disgusting.

Ah, but if you're harassing someone you're not undeserving - You've broken ToS/EULA by harassing another player. It's more like:

Player: "Ah, think I'll log on and play some XIV."
SE: "Why hello there player, I see you're playing FFXIV today - BANNED!"

^ That is undeserving and simply "to send a message we will ban you."


Compared to:

Player: "Ah, think I'll trade spam people and people I think are bots, I know this counts as harassment but who cares!"
SE: "I see you're harassing people..carry on!"

^ Not punishing.

SE: "I see you're harassing people, you're breaking the terms by doing so as it is also a bannable offense, you will be temporarily suspended or permanently banned depending on prior infractions." This would be punishing someone for breaking the terms you agreed on. I get what you mean, but simply doing nothing at all means you're free to harass and bot and so on and nothing will befall you. Sometimes they need to send a message if they truly ever want to fix certain situations. As exampled with the Salvage Bans, people sure as heck thought twice about openly exploiting and cheating any flaws found in a content system SE released in XI, since entire linkshells were broken and/or banned. It may be seen as bad taste, but it could be worse, they could be scanning our computers constantly and ban us if they see any program interact with the client even if it's harmless.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

Ah, but if you're harassing someone you're not undeserving - You've broken ToS/EULA by harassing another player.

My judgment isn't dictated by the ToS/EULA. Also, SE is far from infallible. No authority is immune to criticism.

I don't automatically think people deserved to be banned just because they broke the ToS/EULA. I prefer to think for myself.

EDIT: I don't think this "issue" is anywhere near the magnitude of cheating/exploiting through content, so the course of action you're referencing would be highly inappropriate for this situation (low-impact griefing).

[Ghishlain]

EDIT: I don't think this "issue" is anywhere near the magnitude of cheating/exploiting through content, so the course of action you're referencing would be highly inappropriate for this situation (low-impact griefing).

Then I recommend advocating a lesser sentence =p As it stands right now, the point of your posts indicate you believe these people have done nothing significantly bad and thus should get off scoot free and everyone else is over reacting, hence all the hostility towards you.

In essence, this type of griefing / harrassment will probably result in a warning / suspension and not an outright ban unless the player continues this behavior even after being warned / suspended.

[Tupsi]

My judgment isn't dictated by the ToS/EULA.

This is why it's not your 'say so' - Businesses follow ToS/EULA, which is why they're often the 'bad guys'.

[HeroSamson]

Argyle that's not your place to say, if a person is being a douche, I seen my fair share in FFXI who have been banned for stupid things like this.

Even banned for spamming examining on people also spamming checking their bazaar over and over on purpose.

I believe they had something similar to the trade thing on FFXI also, they patched it cause it was getting in the way of their game play.

If a person tells you to stop and you don't on the first time he asked, its clearly he won't listen and if he gets punished that's on his head, should of stopped when asked the first time.

Just like sexual harassment, if a woman is touched by you and she says stop, do you believe you should be fired from your job if you did it a second time?

[Argyle_Darkheart]

Then I recommend advocating a lesser sentence =p As it stands right now, the point of your posts indicate you believe these people have done nothing significantly bad and thus should get off scoot free and everyone else is over reacting, hence all the hostility towards you.

In essence, this type of griefing / harrassment will probably result in a warning / suspension and not an outright ban unless the player continues this behavior even after being warned / suspended.

I appreciate what you're saying, but, no, my main point has always been that people need to calm down and think before they consult a GM.

I do NOT trust GMs to mete out fair punishment. Whether they do or do not is beside the point, as far as I'm concerned; this issue just isn't big enough.

This is why it's not your 'say so' - Businesses follow ToS/EULA, which is why they're often the 'bad guys'.

Huh? My point was that what "deserves punishment" does not equal "what is against ToS/EULA," necessarily. Not in a moral sense, anyway.

Argyle that's not your place to say, if a person is being a douche, I seen my fair share in FFXI who have been banned for stupid things like this.

If a person tells you to stop and you don't on the first time he asked, its clearly he won't listen and if he gets punished that's on his head, should of stopped when asked the first time.

Just like sexual harassment, if a woman is touched by you and she says stop, do you believe you should be fired from your job if you did it a second time?

I already said, multiple times, that extended harassment is a different issue.

[Airal]

My judgment isn't dictated by the ToS/EULA. Also, SE is far from infallible. No authority is immune to criticism.

I agree on the infallible part as people can and will make mistakes. However, I doubt they'd make an error on banning someone who is abusing this mechanic for a laugh or two compared to someone who is doing it with malicious intent. The ToS/EULA is basically the equivalent of law. If people choose to ignore it, no harm, no foul, move on. If it gets elevated to someone with power to make a decision, then it should be followed as the rule states, not based on what the person feels like doing as a result.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

If it gets elevated to someone with power to make a decision, then it should be followed as the rule states, not based on what the person feels like doing as a result.

I agree, but that doesn't mean it's fair. My point is: why even elevate this issue to such a degree, when you can manage it yourself? Is that not preferable? Should players be so quick to cry for GMs?

I'll reiterate that extended harassment may require GM intercession.

[Devils_Lawyer]

This issue can easily be fixed by changing so when people initiate trade it pops up a window in bottom right corner that u must open and accept before the trade can begin.

[Surian]

This issue can easily be fixed by changing so when people initiate trade it pops up a window in bottom right corner that u must open and accept before the trade can begin.

Could be fixed even quicker by simply not allowing people to trade when you are teleporting. Give them a big fat red error with "You cannot currently do that" or something. It's well within SE's power to do this, and it's a meaninglessly simple change.

What i dont get is why people are AGAINST changing it so that trading no longer interrupts teleports? There is no possible legitimate reason you can give for this :/