Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Lium]

That is generalizing.

Yes, it is. Read the word in between the hyphens very carefully.

[Canadane]

Then, with all due respect to you, you shouldn't have a problem with this policy because it's essentially only changing the way you approach this. Since the launch of the game in 2013 it has always, and always will be, possible to ask for a 'basic level of contribution' from another player. What ISN'T acceptable is the oft-seen-on-reddit, in-game (and in the tales from the duty finder thread) approach to asking for this basic level of contribution which essentially boils down to someone in the party saying a variant of "omg learn to play/dodge/dps/your rotation" followed by an expletive insult or something such as "douche".

If you can't ask someone to pull their weight or to look up a stat/rotation without using a derogatory term or an insult then it says more about you than it does about the player who allegedly 'sucks'. No one can, or will have an issue with constructive advice and/or politeness, and those on the receiving end do not have to take your advice either. That is, essentially, how it has always been in this game.

I have never used a derogatory term or any insult when asking people to improve. Asking a WHM to use Cure II instead as Cure III is an AOE and not what they’d want for our dungeon run ended up with me getting half an hour of tells about how I shouldn’t tell them what to do, they don’t need help, and how they don’t want help. Mentioning to a new tank that pulling the wolfsbane mobs will stop them from spitting poison pools on the ground ended up with me being “an elitist”. Asking a tank to flash as he’s losing mobs. Or asking a healer to throw a few dps skills instead of standing and waiting for the next time a cure is needed.

It’s not about the way I offer help. I wish it was, that way I could fix it.
People just don’t want unsolicited advice, even when they could really use it.

[AelisDuNochd]

So many people taking these rules to the EXTREME Worst possible scenario's. *facepalm*

People said the same thing about Bill C16 in Canadian codes a couple of years ago. Then someone was fired, thrown before a committee and threatened with arrest for showing a video of someone she disagreed with for the purposes of debating his points.
People said the same thing about Communism, and now there are 100 million corpses at the feet of the ideology in the last century alone.
People said the same thing about the National Socialist party, then the Holocaust happened.
People said the same thing about how Christians kept talking about the 'slippery slope' twenty years ago, now people are being sued for not putting a figure on top of a cake.

So now that that's out of the way, let's tackle each section individually.

Harrassment:
General statement:

"Harassment" means speech and/or behaviour that inflicts deep emotional distress on another person. It is an extremely serious violation. Where Square Enix determines that harassment has occurred, a penalty equal to or higher than "Temporary Service Account Suspension" may be imposed.

There are two issues with this, first is that it is incredibly vague. Anything that 'inflicts deep emotional distress on another person' is an incredibly wide range of coverage, and doesn't account for each individual person's level of neuroticism. People low in neuroticism can handle basically anything and shrug it off, people extremely high in neuroticism think that if you log off abruptly it must mean you're a terrible person that doesn't deserve a 'good night'. The second is that who gets to decide what is harassment or not? There is only one guarantee, that it's not going to be the kind of person you want deciding it, because the kind of person you want making that kind of decision is not looking to be judge and jury over another person, but someone that wants to exercise power over another individual will be attracted to such a role. Who are our modern day authoritarians? Are they the people that want to have an open debate, speak freely, and are open to other points of view? Or are they the people that call you a racist, bigot, sexist, nazi, fascist, hate-speech? Are they the people that want evidence when someone accuses someone of something? Or the people that accuse someone of something just to ruin their lives? These are real issues that just a decade ago people that voiced these concerns were told, "You're just taking this to the worst possible scenario."

[AelisDuNochd]

Below is a non-exhaustive list of behaviour that could constitute harassment in Final Fantasy XIV:

Non-Exhaustive, I.E. "Includes but not-limited to." That means that you can't even guarantee that you aren't violating the terms of service if you are extremely careful at following the guidelines listed here. It's an example of exactly the kinds of policies that the Ontario Human-Rights Committee has and uses with the powers granted to them by bill C16. It's a statement of, "We want to solve the problem, but we'll figure out how to do that later." But that doesn't work, because that just means that people will use it against people they don't like. People will use it to gain power for themselves. We have all of human history as evidence for this. The United States was created to throw off authoritarianism.

・Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity

This is chock full of language that, I wish this wasn't the case, ideologies of the post-modern neo-marxists whose policies have turned San Fransisco into a place filled with homelessness, drugs, and filthy streets. Then once again we have to deal with the vagueness of it, what counts as 'discriminatory expressions'? If you go on Twitter, right now, Someone was banned for stating 'Men are not Women'. It was considered 'Discriminatory'. Once again, this becomes, "Who gets to decide? It's not going to be who you want to decide it."

・Discriminatory expressions about a state/religion/occupation/organisation, etc.

Very similar issues to the above, though I have an example of policies like this being abused recently as well. Someone was banned from twitter for stating that Sharia Law discriminates against Homosexuals and abuses women. This is a factual element of Sharia law, but was considered 'discriminatory expressions about religion'.

・Obscene/indecent expressions

Obscenity laws in the United States are already absurdly convoluted. But once again, "Who gets to decide? It's not going to be who you want deciding."

・Actions that inflict emotional distress using content related to historical events or crimes

The way this is worded, if anyone is emotionally distressed for any reason by the historical examples I stated above about people letting authoritarianism slip past them unnoticed, I've violated this one simply by discussing my concerns.

[AelisDuNochd]

・Stalking

I actually don't have much to say about this other than. Stalking is already socially taboo, though I do actually understand a desire to limit such behavior in an online setting.

・Disclosing or indicating personal information such as contact details with the aim of meeting up in the real world

Uhmmm? Why? To protect people from catfishing? I mean I get the reason, but this also means that if I send someone I know IRL my cell number in a private message without thinking about it and a GM or some kind of bot sees it I get banned? Any time you make a rule, you trod on someone elses freedom. Rules to protect people in place of good parenting only cause issues.

・Disclosing or indicating another person's real world personal information without permission

This one is actually understandable, as Doxxing is a problem today in all directions, but, how do you decide? No really? How does Square know that I didn't text someone and tell them it's okay to tell someone else my information?

・Other actions that are generally regarded as actions that inflict deep emotional distress on another person

Massively vague, open-ended, and absurdly subjective, plus with the quick work of banning without any sort of trial means that this will be abused like the #metoo movement was.

These are prohibited in all places where expressions can be made, including chat (including Quick Chat and Emote), markers, comments and names. With regard to character names, if a phrase equating to harassment is formed within the full name, this is also regarded as harassment. In the case of a group action, all of the members involved will be subject to penalties.

This is just a clause to prevent people from working around the chat system, so all of the above and below still apply to this section.

There may be other types of harassment that do not fit into any of the categories described above. Square Enix may determine that conduct constitutes harassment, even if such conduct is not expressly prohibited herein.

Much like the 'non-exhaustive' comment above, this just means that someone, that isn't the person you want making these decisions, gets to decide to add on any form of 'harassment' that they want, or decide that 'this person said it's harassment, therefore it is' on a whim.

[AelisDuNochd]

■Nuisance behaviour
"Nuisance behaviour" means speech or behaviour that hurts others or obstructs game play, but which is not classified as harassment. Even if it was not the intention, a penalty may be imposed if the end result was that another person was hurt or obstructed.

This flat out states that your intention doesn't matter, only someone elses feelings. This means that someone can just accuse someone of being hurt by their words for any reasons and get them banned.

Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of nuisance behaviour:

"Includes but is not limited to." Therefore impossible to follow these rules as you don't have a comprehensive list available.

◆Offensive expression
"Offensive expression" means an expression in general that inflicts emotional distress by being offensive to another person. Offensive expression may include:

Once again, people will be banned simply for being accused of offending someone.

・Aggressive expressions such as violent language/slander/insult/threat.

The game itself is filled with violence, slander, insults, threats... But once again, more importantly, "Who gets to decide? It's not going to be who you want to decide."

・Expressions that provoke or belittle another person, such as excessive criticism, negation/ridicule

Who gets to decide?

・Expressions that significantly lack consideration for another person

If you speak before ten people, there's a certain chance that one person will find what you say is inconsiderate.
If you speak before on hundred people, there is a large chance that you will say something one person finds inconsiderate.
If you speak before one thousand people, there is an extremely large chance that one person will find you lacking consideration for them.
If you speak before ten thousand people, it's almost guaranteed that someone will find your speech inconsiderate.
It is inevitable that you will be inconsiderate of others.

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion

If you TL;DR this post, you are unilaterally rejecting much of my opinions in this post.

・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive

Who gets to decide who is reasonable? There are super far right people that don't consider Centrists reasonable, super far left people don't consider even left wing people reasonable. It's not going to be the person you want deciding.

・Expressions that compel a playing style

There are people that play this game that take any advice like this, I've met them. Even saying, "You should probably use Grit." Gets me a, "STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY."

[AelisDuNochd]

・Expressions that contravene public order and morals

Who gets to decide? What Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez deems moral is completely different than what Candace Owens considers moral.

・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

Vague and subjective, like much of these policies, someone is going to be offended by something you say. Given an infinite number of trials, everything possible will happen.

Offensive expressions are prohibited in all places where expressions can be made in Final Fantasy XIV, including chat (including Quick Chat and Emote), markers, comments and names. Use of an offensive expression in the form of a character name is also regarded as nuisance behaviour.

Once again this is just to prevent workarounds.

The thing that upsets me isn't that there are rules, it's that the rules are vague, and filled with the same language that fills the policies of political idealogues that are once again trying to cram their politics down my throat when I just want to play my video game.

[NanaWiloh]

I think all the people who aren't skeptical of these changes are not properly applying the veil of ignorance on these rules. They operate under the assumption "I won't ever fall afoul of them because (In their own opinion) I'm a nice, respectful person."
The problem is it doesn't matter who you are. It only matters who the offended party is and the person deciding if you need to be punished. The rules as they are, are too vague and too easily weaponized.
Vagueness doesn't make rules better, it just makes them more powerful.

One thing read out of proper context and you are now hit with a caution or a warning. This then makes further action taken against you easier if it's malicious in nature or even if you're just unlucky enough to meet a few people who think what you're
saying is worthy of reporting and a few GMs who agree with them, either just because lack of context, or time or energy to properly investigate. This is assuming you're innocent ofc. If you think all the GMs can apply 100% attention and energy to every report that will be made...it's just not going to happen.

I'd like to believe that the people in charge of enforcing these rules are decent people with a fair sense of right and wrong, unfortunately we don't know that.
We also don't know what actually IS an offense or an infraction because they are so subjective, doubly so, the subjective interpretation of whoever puts in the report and then the GM who has to deal with it.
I'd also like to fall back on common sense and general courtesy being enough, but honestly the way the world is today...common sense is vanishingly rare and courtesy is subjective.

Here is the line that will make it all clear why some people dont worry.
"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."

[Derio]

Technically the entire mentor system is dead now with this new policy. Anything you say, tips, hints could be taken the wrong way and you could end up getting your account infracted because someone felt hurt that you recommended them to do an AOE attack.

All we can do now is have faith in the community.

[Aeleion54]

This is meant to be a good thing, I get that. but there is issues in the wording that will get innocent people punished. it upset's a lot of people do to one of the corner stones of morality and law systems has been Blackstone's Ratio. the idea that: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Not that what I said matters much. Laws and TOS rules are not the same.