Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Kaedan]

Golden Rule =/= morals in my opinion. Morals are all about concepts that one considers “right” and “wrong”. It’s an extremely poor word choice, because I can guarantee that my morals probably conflict with the morals of at least one person in this thread.

That's precisely what the Golden Rule is, what is considered "right" and "wrong". You can consider what you would not like to have done or said to you as "wrong".

[Senliten]

Any reasonable person would not be offended by being called "friend" (to the point where they report them), so there wouldn't be any punishment. It is not reasonable/rational for said person to be "triggered" by that. Others have also come up with completely unreasonable/irrational situations in this thread that simply would never be upheld as punishable.

The Golden Rule is not meaningless at all. Yes, some irrational people get offended irrationally... but that's why they have the "reasonably offensive" in their policy.

Hell with it, letting the trigger roll on this one just cause the black and white is so goddamn obvious in this:

But, sorry, you are implying your own perceived Bias when thinking with that 'reasonable and logical' mindset. News flash, not everyone is wired the same way as YOU. YOU cannot say that people cannot be offended by the meaning of friend, because you use your own perceived thought process. YOU cannot think that because YOUR own 'mindset' is being used when using terms as friend, that that said term is not going to have a different resonance with others. Especially with this day and age where terms are no longer fully aligned to what they mean in a Merriam Webster.

Oddly enough, to help with that aspect of wiring, calling me a friend would be considered an insult cause frankly:

I don't know you
I don't hang around you
I don't partake in your activities
and I don't deal with you on a basis that would make our relationship seem as such.
All I would know you is from glances on a server or from a random DF.

So to imply your own thought process on why no one would be offended should be considered a differing in opinion, and oh hey look. Broad spectrum of rules, all itil take is the right GM, whom is human mind you, whom at this point in time we do not know what SE's guidelines are going to be changed on the back end to adapt to these new terms, because they can't say anything right now and just point us to the boards, which is corporate speech for 'still being hashed out/trained on/and under NDA on our end till further notice'. To see how its a differing in stance and both of us get warned. Cause you cant simply say how the result will turn out cause your 'reason and logic' can easily be held into a different light when placed under a microscope. This is primarily what everyone here is trying to get across on how broad the terms are, simple as that.


But please, do continue with your perceived personal reasonable and logical thought process to blind you into thinking this can't eeevvveeeerrrr be abused, cause everyone should just see it in your light, and not in any other way. *eyerolls*

[Thatusernameistaken]

And yes, it means making a decision/order without any consultation or consideration. Or in other words, being a dictator.

Since when do you need a person's permission to disagree with them?

[Freyt]

First, the Golden rule is specifically telling you to treat others how you want to be treated. It specifically implies that everyone has different standards, and that is why the Golden rule is not a golden law. I may be fine criticizing your gameplay, quite harshly even, and it can coincide with the Golden rule, because I would be fine if someone did that to me.

Second, anyone who is using logic and reason should be able to understand that conclusions they come up with only matter to themselves, and not to everyone. When you come to a conclusion, you must back it up with proof in order for it to be judged acceptable by everyone else. Determining something even if you feel there's only one conclusion truly means nothing when you can't prove that conclusion, as everyone else rests at understanding there may still be multiple viable conclusions.

Logic and reason doesn't end with finding an answer, but in also proving that answer and conveying it.

[jadan2000]

At the end of the day, we just have to see how this goes. I totally agree that the changes were needed. as i have seen through youtube and twitch videos that some people are just outrageous with the harassment that inflict on people in this game, but as with everything, its all about how its inflicted. As long as the GM's have good moral compass, this shouldn't be an issue. i very rarely in my 6 years of playing this game have ever had an issue with someone that needed to be escalated. I have only had to contact a GM maybe once i think for gill sellers spamming. other then that. ive never even seen one. But you can be sure that there are some people voicing there opinions here that are scared because they know that it means most of the abusive stuff they dont will no longer be tolerated. Oh well.

[Kaedan]

Reason and logic are objective. It is not reasonable to punish someone for saying "hello friends", because it's not offensive in any rational sense. It doesn't matter if you don't know them, it's a common way to greet someone.

Now, if someone said "Hey this is my good friend so-and-so", making up lies about you, then THAT could be offensive.

[MistakeNot]

Reason and logic are objective. It is not reasonable to punish someone for saying "hello friends", because it's not offensive in any rational sense. It doesn't matter if you don't know them, it's a common way to greet someone.

Mostly true - although it could very much vary by culture if being called "friend" by a stranger is considered offensive or not. What is commonplace in one place, can be considered insulting in another place.

But anyway, what you say is not what the new rules say. One thing that is prohibited is "Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive". This is covered by what you said, and is not really problematic.
But another thing that is also prohibited is "Other expressions that are offensive to another person". Note that there isn't a single word about reasonable or rational there, and that this is in addition to the rule about what reasonable persons would find offensive.

[Anger]

The term "reasonable person" is a legal term used in courts by lawyers. It's not as outlandish as some of you are making it seem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. explained the theory behind the reasonable person standard as stemming from the impossibility of "measuring a man's powers and limitations."[17] Individual, personal quirks inadvertently injuring the persons or property of others are no less damaging than intentional acts. For society to function, "a certain average of conduct, a sacrifice of individual peculiarities going beyond a certain point, is necessary to the general welfare."[17] Thus, a reasonable application of the law is sought, compatible with planning, working, or getting along with others. As such, "his neighbors accordingly require him, at his proper peril, to come up to their standard, and the courts which they establish decline to take his personal equation into account."[17] He heralded the reasonable person as a legal fiction whose care conduct under any common set of facts, is chosen—or "learned" permitting there is a compelling consensus of public opinion—by the courts.[4][5]

The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable.[18] The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:

the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;
the extent of the risk so created;
the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

I am not a lawyer nor am I giving legal advice.

[Jellybums]

The point of contention here is that some of us are okay with these rules because we can determine "this is what they meant".

The rest are made up of people who legitimately cannot find reason within the rules IN ADDITION to those who can determine "this is what they meant". People are on this side because of what is potentially exploitable through these rules, not what a good person would do with them.

The added rules are fine. What's missing are implementation guidelines that should probably be written separately from ToS. Laws do not have the same details people ask about either, but that doesn't make them poorly written laws. Agencies (US EPA, other federal agencies, etc.) are tasked to write the details on how they're to be implemented (coz they're the ones implementing them). So in this case the GMs could probably do that. Can't imagine SE making changes to ToS so often.

[HyoMinPark]

That's precisely what the Golden Rule is, what is considered "right" and "wrong". You can consider what you would not like to have done or said to you as "wrong".

And the Golden Rule applies differently to different people.

I, for one, would prefer if someone tells me that I’m doing things incorrectly. I don’t mind people correcting my mistakes, just as I will correct mistakes that I see. However, there are people out there who will not correct others and see any attempts at correcting them as personal affronts. See how this no longer works? Whose definition of the Golden Rule are we going by?

Different cultures have different ways of treating individuals; they have different standards. They may coincide with your own, or they may not. So, whose culture are we following here? Mine? Yours? Japan’s? America’s? England’s?


It’s narrow-sighted of you to try and apply your logical skills, your reasoning skills, and your version of “the Golden Rule” to other people because we all don’t think the way you do. Just like they don’t think the way I do. Or the way another poster does. The irony of this is, is that you are all for others not “dictating” their opinions on other people when you are trying to “dictate” your mindset and way of thinking onto others.

This rule is unenforceable. You cannot just apply a blanket to people of different backgrounds, upbringings, cultures, and traditions and call it a day.

Morals and morality go so far beyond “play nice, kids”. If you don’t understand that, then I don’t know what to say to you.