Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Sneed]

Hello, Global Community Producer Toshio Murouchi here.

As of some of you may already know, we recently announced a revision to our service policies on the Lodestone. We recommend that everyone read the changes, as they are extremely important.

■Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy ( NA / EU )

Revised Policies in Question
●Prohibited Activities in FINAL FANTASY XIV ( NA / EU )
●Account Penalty Policy ( NA / EU )

I understand that some of you may feel like account penalties have become much harsher compared to the previous policies, due to changes like the suspension period being extended for certain penalties.

Under the previous policies, some issues were difficult to address due to them being on the cusp, such as actions that were “Negative, but not severe enough to take action.” Additionally, we felt that the 3-day suspension did not have the desired inhibiting effect for some of the more severe issues. Therefore, we decided that a change was necessary. We held numerous discussions internally and ultimately landed on these changes.

We are striving to create a comfortable environment for our players, so that, if they do experience a negative incident, we are able to assist them as much as possible (and, if necessary, get involved in the situation). Please understand that these changes were necessary in order for us to achieve that goal.

On a side note, we have been noticing an increase in issues involving social media, video sites, and live stream channels. Please take this opportunity to go over the FINAL FANTASY® XIV User Agreement and be more mindful of others.
Overall, these policy changes are some of the largest adjustments we have made since the commencement of service, and we will continue to explore ways to provide a better environment for the community. Feel free to let us know if there are certain topics you would like us to improve upon.

Thank you for your continued support of FINAL FANTASY XIV!

Yeah, this TOTALLY won't be abused by social justice warrior types, whether they be players or game masters, haha.

Also, dubs.

[Belisaire]

This one is concerning to me for a few reasons.

Intentional leaving or disconnection
This means obstructing another person's game play by intentionally leaving the game or disconnecting from the server.

First of all, the game already has a penalty it gives you if you try to leave a dungeon. If leaving the dungeon (possibly because the group can't clear for whatever reason) isn't allowed, you should disable the ability to leave the duty. Which sounds crazy but the wording here is extraordinarily vague and could mean anything.

Does this also apply to PUG groups? I've joined up with some groups before who clearly don't know what they are doing and were advertising themselves as farm parties. I stuck it out a couple runs and then bailed. I think that should be a player's right. I shouldn't have to fear of ducking out over something like this. And this is coming from a perspective of someone who usually forms his own PUGs. I know it sucks when people leave, it is really annoying. At the same time, when they joined, I didn't take it as them making some sort of blood vow to me to see this group through. The wording here suggests leaving at any point for any reason is a violation.

[seraseth]

All this talk of 'banned for x', 'banned for y' is a complete exaggeration. It's clearly stated in the first link, that all those behaviors are listed as 'nuisance' behaviors, minor things that don't qualify as harassment.

In the 2nd link to their penalty policy:
"Caution" is the least severe penalty and is applied when a relatively minor violation is confirmed. Depending on the nature of the violation, Square Enix will provide an “instruction for improvement” providing the player with guidance on how to improve their behaviour to prevent further violations of this type in the future. . Please follow any such instructions.

No one is getting banned for giving advice, or because they 'hugged' a stranger. If you are reported, and if a gm agrees you were in the wrong, the worst you're going to get for those minor nuisance violations is a caution. Not a ban, a caution.

And if you start getting so many repeated caution violations that they escalate it, then you might wanna take a good look at what you're being cautioned for, cause enough people have a problem with your behavior for it to escalate, and I doubt they were all trolls, or oversensitive, or trigger happy gms.

If someone finds themselves with more than one questionable 'caution' against themselves, then you come to forum with facts that the new policy is overreaching. Until then it's mainly just an overreaction to 'what ifs' and 'could happens'.

[Themarvin]

Well either the GM's was not doing enough before... or the people playing not knowing how to behave... not sure which should be or pick a bit of both.

[PharisHanasaki]

First of all, the game already has a penalty it gives you if you try to leave a dungeon. If leaving the dungeon (possibly because the group can't clear for whatever reason) isn't allowed, you should disable the ability to leave the duty. Which sounds crazy but the wording here is extraordinarily vague and could mean anything.

OK so, the issue is not leaving. You can leave = you get a penalty.
The issue is that people do not want that penalty, and DC to get kicked. Kick = you do not get a penalty.

[Belisaire]

And if you start getting so many repeated caution violations that they escalate it, then you might wanna take a good look at what you're being cautioned for, cause enough people have a problem with your behavior for it to escalate, and I doubt they were all trolls, or oversensitive, or trigger happy gms.

The problem is whether it is a ban, or received a 'caution' or a 'warning,' I think what most people here are a worried about is that certain things shouldn't even be considered wrong.

Disagreeing with someone shouldn't be worthy of receiving a cautionary mark. It is neither good or bad. It's a disagreement. Griefing someone is a different matter entirely. But the bottom line is that if these rules are really meant to target only really 'bad' behavior, they should be worded as such. They shouldn't have such vague definitions

[Nedkel]

Developing a bad game isn't anywhere close the same to banning a customer who subscribes to an MMO.

But it is super close to the decision making team.
In every company there is a decision maker, who approve or disapprove of the things.
And this particular one is responsible of the broken game release, as well as many other stuff that goes with the game publishing or terms of service for such game.

They are not good at it, and its a fact, and this decision to change the ToS is one of the many bad decisions they made.

[Ishivas]

So the other day I ran into a player with the name Vignette April (a character from an anime called Gabriel DropOut). I jokingly typed Satania > Vignette in say. Will this result in an account penalty under the new guidelines? Also, can I report ERPers? I find their degeneracy to be offensive.

[Zephera]

and this decision to change the ToS is one of the many bad decisions they made.

Subjective, I don't think anyone will care in 2 weeks.

[Melichoir]

...Again though, know and learn when to just walk away.

I think the issue is the overly broad and vague nature of the rules blurs the line of "when to walk away". You may mention something or say something in a fashion that you believe or is a personal viewpoint you have and that in of itself may be to far, even if no real discussion happened. As a point:

Person A: Hey, were not getting enough DPS to meet the enrage. Healer, you need to be DPSing as well.
Person B: Im the healer, not DPS. You guys figure this out.
Person A: You can do both. Stop being lazy here, as you need to put more effort in rather than just spamming a regen or cure every now and then so we can clear this.
Person B proceeds to report person A under "Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion" or "Expressions that compel a playing style"

This is an in-game example that can now occur depending how a GM interprets it. They can say theyll be 'objective' but we know that most people arent. Even if no real punishment comes of this issue (like no suspension), it still can be a hassle for Person A. You can argue person A didnt need to say "Dont be Lazy", but that is an opinion formed by Person B's rejection of doing something they should be doing. And anyone who has paid attention to tis game KNOWs there are people who absolutely refuse to do certain things because of their own personal perception of how the play should be. This would be tanks who just spam their aggro generator and stay in tank stance, healers who dont do any dps but overheal, or DPS who are more focused on doing their thing rather then team synergy. Under the current rules, pointing out how these ways of playing are extremely suboptimal can fall under the auspices of a GM intervention.

This gets more muddy when talking about things that arent pertinent to the game itself.

For example somenoe in party chat joking or satirically makes a MAGA statement, but another player finds that offensive by assuming the worst and reports. If the GM has a bias, that can be chalked up under one of the rules as well. While I am not trying to steer the conversation to discuss politics or peoples ideologies, its worth noting that that CAN be an issue that will crop up and probably will eventually. A GM may side with the offended if they hold certain views themselves and may deem a suspension appropriate. The overbroad nature of the new language of the rules allows for this to occur as well, where previously the GMs resposne wouldve been "Are they actively harassing you? No? Mute them and move on." The new language of the rules now says "Did they offend you? Well we should investigate that now and possibly punish them for you being offended."

All of this is under the purview of ambiguous and overly broad rules, which has me personally hesitant to think of these changes as a positive. As I mentioned before, there is a possible silver lining to the changes, but that also opens the door for the system to be abused by players and GMs alike on the basis of being offended, rather than objectivity and frankly having people learn to adapt and deal with conflict themselves. And in regards to that last sentiment, I think that its a touch patronizing because some of the logic behind these changes is we need Teacher here all the time to make sure we play right and safely so no one has hurt feelings about someone saying naughty words or mean things. But that last bit si more a personal world view on this than anything.