Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[brasteir]

I'm gonna be an ice mage and there's nothing you can do about it. <<cackle>>

[NanaWiloh]

I'm gonna be an ice mage and there's nothing you can do about it. <<cackle>>

I am fire mage with a fireball for you bring it on <<laughs>>

[HyoMinPark]

Correction. It is only dividing the American playerbase. The Japanese playerbase, from what others have said, don't seem to give a crap.

Shocking that Americans are freaking out that they can't be dicks to others now. Whatever will they do?!

Incorrect. The JP thread has posters asking for clarification about the new guidelines because they seem intentionally vague, and one even comments about how the wording seems sly and weasel-like.

Also, in response to someone who posted that the rules need to be exact and much more focused, they actually need to be subtle so that individual context can be considered. If they were exact, people would carefully scrutinize them to find the best way to get around them using the 'letter of the law' rather then intent. Being vague allows the GMs more leeway to truly examine each situation and apply the rules as needed.

On the flip-side, vague guidelines with no examples or concise rules lead to people questioning what exactly is “okay” and what is “not okay”. People keep going on and on about “common sense” and “common courtesy” and “decency” and “manners”, but all of these vary between individuals, as do levels of tolerance for things that may conflict with a person’s personal values/common sense/courtesy/decency/manners/etc..

Considering one of these guidelines literally says “other expressions that offend another person”, it gives the connotation that “anything goes”. Especially nowadays where there’s those out there who are offended by anything and everything. Others are downright difficult to enforce—enforcing statements that go against/offend someone’s “morals”? There are so many morals out there that it will be difficult to even apply this guideline to such a diverse community. “Unilaterally rejecting a person’s opinion”? What do they even mean by this? Because it carries the connotation that we have to be careful even telling someone that we disagree with something they say in the event they lose their mind over it (and this does happen).

Providing more concise guidelines/examples and then adding an addendum of “anything else that GMs consider against conduct policies given the context of the report” is much better than what we have now. Even the JP thread is asking for examples and clarification.

[Nedkel]

Having figures doesn't tell us how bad the hate crimes were to begin with, they are just numbers. Roughly 1600 arrested for a population of 50+ mil is not a lot to begin with anyway. My gripe was you say it happens all the time, how often is all the time to you, every day? every week? Regardless it's just not correct to say it's all the time, it's false information to spread it like that, scaremongering for no reason. Already said it was going off topic though, let's leave it be.

I give up, this island is lost, have fun in USSR 2.0 xD

I'm gonna be an ice mage and there's nothing you can do about it. <<cackle>>

I will pull 1 group of mobs at time, hehehe.

[Sigma-Astra]

Honestly, some of the over-the-top hyperbole reactions from others is a bit...well, grossly dramatic towards very vague definitions. Most people who already don't break the rules shouldn't have anything to worry about essentially because if you don't spark the drama yourself then you already have the good graces of the rules on your side. Let the other side get triggered enough to act obscenely and belittling. I know though, sometimes it's hard to control oneself from prior experiences.

It seems like the people throwing fits might be ones who have trigger happy mouths already, and thus, would be more affected by these rubix cube ToS definitions more so than anyone else usually. I've had my moments of being foul sometimes, but never got a GM punishment for it. At the same time, I don't throw really immature banter in-game similar to things like "I hope you all get cancer" either.

Self-control and picking your battles wisely.

[Stereomix]

To whom it may concern,

I love this game and hope to keep playing and having fun with random people from everywhere.

I can only say that I feel blindsided by the resent announcement and only hope that any action that I may/may not have take did not contribute to the new rules. Playing off and on since beta of 2.0, I only really have overall good things to say about the social interactions of people in Final Fantasy XIV. There may be a bad apple here and there but the overall experience is the best by far when compared to other mmo's. That I can only really attribute to the previous code of conduct and a great community that it has already built.

The wording of the announcement to what the code of conduct actually states seams to be in conflict. While I don't doubt that a great deal of time has been spent on how to describe what constitutes as a violation of the . The vague nature of some terms used leaves too much room for personal interpretation, as such these rules are not clearly defined nor are they concise enough to distinguish between someone who is following the law and someone who is in violation of it.

As I write this I find myself questioning where these changes are coming from...are they from the publisher, the gms, a parent/partner company or Yoshida-san himself? I find this question counter productive, none the less, I find myself plagued with doubt the more I see consisted language follow across codes of conducts that have proven to be divisive to their respective communities.

The common concern of this thread seems to be that this new system could/will be used maliciously against them. The only thing I can say to this is "If something can go wrong, it will." While the common counter argument is that if you are an upstanding member of the community you shouldn't worry about something that won't affect you. Both of these points seem to be made across multiple games and/or platforms with no visible change to the course of action from the developer/company.

I love final fantasy xiv and only hope the best in its development and continued growth (beat wow's sub count in the new expansion/now!). I merely hope that Final Fantasy XIV does not follow a similar path. "If it isn't broken don't fix it."
-Thanks for your time

[Shibi]

Incorrect. The JP thread has posters asking for clarification about the new guidelines because they seem intentionally vague, and one even comments about how the wording seems sly and weasel-like.

Are you referring to this post by kig?

ゲーム運営に限った事では無いのですが、かっちり書いてしまうと、書いてないからOKと拡大解釈する輩が出てくるのと、色んな事例に柔軟に対応出来るようにだと思いますよ。
こういうのはイタチごっこなので、新しい手法が出てくるたびに追記するよりは、運営側で判断するので怪しい事はやめてねと濁した方がやりやすい事もあるのではないでしょうか。

If so, that's not "weasel words". I think it's more... "cat and mouse game". I read this more as (I am very heavily paraphrasing this) "If the rules are to the letter it becomes a cat and mouse game with new rules needed each time a new bad behavior appears".

So the opposite to what some on the American forums seem to be wanting - all the i's dotted and t's crossed.


If it's not that post, do you have a link please so i can read it? I ask as the JP forums DO seem to be very accepting on this, as I would expect due to culture. I only see 5 posts in their thread and none of them are dissenting. (2 of those 5 ask... "what's changed", one asks for some examples if possible, and one asks "what are the devs doing about hacks")



Edit: I would classify the code of conduct quite simply as "Be awesome to one another". The play style one is really weird, but all the rest seem to be quite in line with "Be awesome". IMHO the more precise the rules, the more often they need to be revised. Keep them vague and on broad principles without going into precise detail, then give the GMs the ability to move depending on the severity of the infraction.

[Fyce]

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."

Getting back on this to avoid the confusion some people may have: what was quoted was put in the ToS for legal reasons. Just like countless other companies who also have this thing, they do not plan on using this arbitrarily.
The policy change we are talking about in this thread is different from that kind of text. The policy is actually enforced and will be the guidelines for GMs to take actual decisions, which isn't the case for the ToS text above. These changes are made so people actually follow them on a daily basis.

In short, the ToS text above has no repercussion on our daily routine and on how we are supposed to play the game. The new policy is almost the opposite of that, as it does impact greatly our actual interaction with the game. This change in the policy isn't simply SE covering themselves legally. It's actually the very direction they want to drive their actions regarding how we interact with each other and what happens when we don't.
To be even more clear, the ToS text above is very much a passive and harmless thing, while the new policy is actively enforced ingame.

This is the reason why they used the terms "major changes", "fundamental policy", and "very important". They don't say that when they simply update the ToS for legal shenanigans.

[HyoMinPark]

If so, that's not "weasel words". I think it's more... "cat and mouse game". I read this more as (I am very heavily paraphrasing this) "If the rules are to the letter it becomes a cat and mouse game with new rules needed each time a new bad behavior appears".

So the opposite to what some on the American forums seem to be wanting - all the i's dotted and t's crossed.

You’re interpreting this far different from myself. “Cat and mouse game”, in my interpretation, is literally a stalemate where neither side ends up winning. Both parties arrive at an impasse, and that’s a problem.

Take the following scenario: You have a random matched party in an Expert dungeon. The tank decides to do large pulls, and the healer dissents, saying that large pulls are “stressful to them” and that the tank is “being inconsiderate by trying to force the large pulls on them”. This would fall under “emotional distress” caused by “compelling a playstyle”. Conversely, the tank becomes frustrated because the healer now wants to dictate that they do small pulls over large ones, thereby “compelling a playstyle” on the tank. So, who wins here? Under these current guidelines, both can be spun into “emotionally distressing” situations of “compelling a playstyle”, but who gets punished? The one who does a better job of wording their argument? The one who reports first? How do we know? How can we determine it? It’s a stalemate.


There is very little clarity with these statements, and that is what the NA forums (not “American forums”) want. As well as players that are from other regions (e.g., EU) that post here (the guidelines were not posted in either the French or German subforums, from what I saw).

Even with only a handful of posts on the JP side, them asking for examples comes off as synonymous with asking for clarification, in my opinion. I never said they were outright dissenting the implementation (I’m already well aware that Japanese tend to not outright disagree with things even if they do disagree with them), but that they were asking for clarifications. The poster I responded to said that they “don’t give a crap”, but I don’t think they’d be asking for clarifications/examples if they “didn’t give a crap”.

Edit: I would classify the code of conduct quite simply as "Be awesome to one another". The play style one is really weird, but all the rest seem to be quite in line with "Be awesome". IMHO the more precise the rules, the more often they need to be revised. Keep them vague and on broad principles without going into precise detail, then give the GMs the ability to move depending on the severity of the infraction.

“Be awesome to one another” means different things to different people.

These guidelines give full autonomy, but that can lead to inconsistencies in moderation because now the GMs don’t have exact guidelines to follow. It seems like it will fall more upon the whims of whatever the particular GM that gets your ticket has. As I said before, some of the guidelines posted are downright unenforceable in a game that has so many different cultures, each with differing values and “morals”.

[Freyt]

Under these current guidelines, both can be spun into “emotionally distressing” situations of “compelling a playstyle”, but who gets punished?

Easy. Which player does the GM moderating the situation favor less? They're the ones that get the punishment.