The new treatment of ''harassment'' in the ToS.

[TybaltJustAnotherMiqote]

I will keep it brief, as brighter minds in better words can be found explaining the problem on Youtube, like HeelvsBabyface.

The main reason I am writing this is to have my voice be ''heard'', even if I end up to be but a single tally on the list of people concerned about the new method of handling ''Harassment'', to me it will be worth it.

In short, I feel the new policy is dangerous and destructive to the (mostly) amazing ff14 community. I have met many different people over the course of my years playing this game. In fact, in the droughts of content that inevitably occurred between the releases of patches, it was the community that kept me here, and on a practical level, that kept me paying my sub and retainers - and that is not to speak of the mogstation items.

But the truth is that not all of the people I have met have been fantastic, and when one such thing occurred, and truly after many attempts to come to an understanding with one another, if it could not be reached, the blacklist served to almost extinguish this person from my gameplay experience. And that was all I needed, and all that ever should be needed. The new system behind the policy - if executed perfectly, which no system is - would reach the same goal as the current one. The only difference is that one person is bereft of all they worked on, all they cared for. In addition to the dangerous and -in my own opinion vile- joy that the person that requested the ban might get from seeing someone's work be ripped from them.

This is why i feel the new system is innately set up to be abused. That no matter how much the GM's -of which I have yet to meet any that treated me with anything but respect- do their best to judge accordingly, I have met manipulative people in this game that would no doubt be able to get many a player banned.

The right to censor of what enters one's ears (or chat box) has always been in place, the community should not fear to speak, or risk engaging in ''risky'' dialogue to grow as people, to connect to others, and to learn of others because one might find themselves banned over nothing but a misunderstanding. ''Intentional or not.''

The new ToS contains the ground works of a system that rules by fear, and not common sense. There is no respect when it comes to fear, no ability for growth or betterment of oneself. It could be the death of learning, and would only serve the ones that mean to abuse it.

Finally, the fact that I have to add the following is telling that I already feel like I have to cover my bases: I have many friends from all walks of life. Be they open about their real lives or closed. They count among the entire list of groups protected, and not one of them is happy about this ''protection'' from ''harassment'' being forced on them.

In short, I sincerely would like to request you [square enix] to reconsider the new ToS related to ''harassment''.
Yours Truly,
Tybalt

[Lucerna]

Just because the issues you have encountered have been solved by the blacklist does not mean all issues can be. I am cautiously optimistic that the GM team will use their best judgement in enforcing these policies. Just because something can be bannable, does not mean the GMs will ban anyone who could possibly be counted as doing that infraction.

In my time in the XIV community, I've encountered people parking large mounts on other players trying to run community events. I've encountered stalkers using the player search to follow their victims when they're in the open world. I've encountered MANY bots who use the same pathing to go to nodes and regularly pull 24+ hour gathering sprees, but who could not be detected by the Special Task Force tooling. I've encountered griefers approaching housing plots that have the timer on and spamming flashy abilities or dissonant bard performances to disrupt the people trying for the plot. Blacklisting these players would not prevent their harassment. But with the policy changes, the GMs would be able to use their best judgement to enforce consequences in these cases.

While the wording has potential for abuse by corrupt authorities, I have trust in the FFXIV GM team that they will act appropriately and continue to improve.

[VLX11387]

I agree with OP on this. I feel all that needs to be said under that section is "Offense is taken, not given." Anyone anywhere can "feel offended" over anything and with how broad of a stroke they're going with it, it's bound to be abused and lead to skyrocketing false reports and unjust bans.

Let's be real here, the vast majority of players in this game are adults therefore they should treat problem players like adults. Either put up or shut up. Talk it out and if you can't, there's tools to deal with that too. Hell they even included discriminatory thoughts in the updated terms. How much more Orwellian can you get???

[TybaltJustAnotherMiqote]

@Lucerna
If I somehow made it seem that the blacklist was a cure-all for all the ways people get harassed, then I suppose that has been a miscommunication. Beyond that my post was specifically meant to be about the new wording that is rather up to personal preference to when it is applied.
A player standing on top of an NPC, there-for limiting other players ability to select the NPC is easily proven. These are not the things that concern me. Stalking is horrible, but from past experiences luckily not my own but of dear friends I have seen the GM's being more then capable of handling the issue in side the games boundaries. Yes this particular case ended in the same result as the new method would -namely a ban- so i trust in the GM's ability to handle it without leaving open the opportunity for someone to abuse it.
The main issue comes with putting it black on white. A GM is bound by the ToS to indicate what they can and need to intervene with, several cases have gone from ''can'' to ''must''.
Example: A player reports that they have been targeted by harassment from another player, and claims now to feel dreadful about themselves.
- Previously a GM could investigate, decide or not if there really was harassment, and if so can punish the player.
- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.
I don't lack fate in the GM's, i just dislike the notion of the Terms being abused to force a GM's hand. Regardless if this would occur, the principle to not have the rules set up like that alone, is important enough for me.

[Lucerna]

@Lucerna
If I somehow made it seem that the blacklist was a cure-all for all the ways people get harassed, then I suppose that has been a miscommunication. Beyond that my post was specifically meant to be about the new wording that is rather up to personal preference to when it is applied.
A player standing on top of an NPC, there-for limiting other players ability to select the NPC is easily proven. These are not the things that concern me. Stalking is horrible, but from past experiences luckily not my own but of dear friends I have seen the GM's being more then capable of handling the issue in side the games boundaries. Yes this particular case ended in the same result as the new method would -namely a ban- so i trust in the GM's ability to handle it without leaving open the opportunity for someone to abuse it.
The main issue comes with putting it black on white. A GM is bound by the ToS to indicate what they can and need to intervene with, several cases have gone from ''can'' to ''must''.
Example: A player reports that they have been targeted by harassment from another player, and claims now to feel dreadful about themselves.
- Previously a GM could investigate, decide or not if there really was harassment, and if so can punish the player.
- The new terms of service the specific wording seems to force the hand of the GM. The GM cannot disprove that the first player feels ''emotionally distressed'' so therefor -because intent isn't deemed as important anymore.- is forced to move onto punishing the player, regardless if the player was hurt, or the second meant to hurt the other player. And with the minimum punishment set at ''temporary ban'' the GM is forced to use it -which i can hope can be just a 24 hour one if the second player had no intention of hurting the first.
I don't lack fate in the GM's, i just dislike the notion of the Terms being abused to force a GM's hand. Regardless if this would occur, the principle to not have the rules set up like that alone, is important enough for me.

Where do you see that they must? Reading the wording, I saw that:

"Square Enix reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to (i) determine which activities are prohibited or violate Square Enix’s policies or terms of use, (ii) enforce such policies and terms of use, and (iii) revise this list."

Which means that they have the right to determine that an activity also isn't prohibited. It's possible I misread another part. Could you please quote the wording of the lines you were referring to?

[Bran3677]

I think there are a fair few things that were added that I'm honestly surprised weren't against the rules before. Maybe they were, and I just never read them. It's not hard to act respectfully toward people.

Things like

・Expressions that any reasonable person would find offensive
・Expressions that contravene public order and morals

Or basically anything under harassment and not nuisance behavior

・Discriminatory expressions based on race/nationality/thinking/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity
・Discriminatory expressions about a state/religion/occupation/organisation, etc.
・Obscene/indecent expressions
・Actions that inflict emotional distress using content related to historical events or crimes
・Stalking
・Disclosing or indicating personal information such as contact details with the aim of meeting up in the real world
・Disclosing or indicating another person's real world personal information without permission


These things are no-brainers. These things are perfectly fine. However, I draw the line on a few points under nuisance behavior:

・Expressions that unilaterally reject another person's opinion

This basically means that telling someone they're wrong when they don't want to be told that is a reportable and bannable offense.

・Expressions that compel a playing style

If the healer is bad and you tell them they suck, it's now reportable. Even if you tell them how to improve. Even if you are constructive. This is now reportable and bannable under the new terms.

・Other expressions that are offensive to another person

This is a no-brainer. This could mean anything. Literally anything. Someone got offended over my alt's name once. Their name was Bubba Gunch. "I don't know what a gunch is but I don't like it."

Obviously I wouldn't have gotten banned for it. Gunch doesn't mean anything. But it would have resulted in a report which would have taken up valuable GM time to investigate when they could have been doing something that was worthwhile.

These terms i've laid out are incredibly vague and could, and probably will, lead to all sorts of fun and interesting situations like the kind we've seen in other games where saying "GG" automatically mutes you. Even with all these new changes in place, I could at least accept them if they only resulted in a chat ban and not a full account suspension. But they don't.


In conclusion I think a lot of the rule changes are fine. I think most of the things (like stalking and obstruction of play) are things that can't be solved with a blacklist, and are perfectly fine as bannable offenses. They do cause real emotional distress to people, or really do hamper their enjoyment of the game.
If you don't like the way someone is speaking to you, or if you don't appreciate that the tank says that you are a bad healer, then blacklist them and never speak to them again. There's a good chance that you'll never see them again, and in the event that you do, you can report them for stalking you.

[Ursa_Vonfiebryd]

In all of these cases it will be the chat (and to a lesser extent the action log) that will determine guilt. If you gave someone advice but called them a dumbass first or yelled mechanics at them during a rant or used some demeaning macro then there could be consequences even though in the barest sense, they were 'helped.' In a perfect world people would be accountable for their own actions and that would be all that was needed but often the system itself is used to hide or misdirect where the real problem lies. Online MMO continue to be carte blanche for some people's bad behavior. Since SE can't change hearts or minds, they change rules. I can't say I mind a heavier hand on the ban-hammer even as I know these new expanded criteria also could bite me in the ass as well. I'll take that gamble because of all the things that are outside my control, myself isn't one of them.

[Kusanoha_Kirigakure]

Just because the issues you have encountered have been solved by the blacklist does not mean all issues can be. I am cautiously optimistic that the GM team will use their best judgement in enforcing these policies. Just because something can be bannable, does not mean the GMs will ban anyone who could possibly be counted as doing that infraction.

In my time in the XIV community, I've encountered people parking large mounts on other players trying to run community events. I've encountered stalkers using the player search to follow their victims when they're in the open world. I've encountered MANY bots who use the same pathing to go to nodes and regularly pull 24+ hour gathering sprees, but who could not be detected by the Special Task Force tooling. I've encountered griefers approaching housing plots that have the timer on and spamming flashy abilities or dissonant bard performances to disrupt the people trying for the plot. Blacklisting these players would not prevent their harassment. But with the policy changes, the GMs would be able to use their best judgement to enforce consequences in these cases.

While the wording has potential for abuse by corrupt authorities, I have trust in the FFXIV GM team that they will act appropriately and continue to improve.

The wording is vague, and that is bad all by itself. It means either it is lazy (and badly written, and thus not considered fully) or it has been well-thought-out and the INTENT is to be vague.

If the intention is to save time, it fails at that; more GMs will be combing through MORE reports because more things are now an "offense."

If the intent was to be vague on purpose, that is also terrible. It means the intent is for the players not to understand the rules or be able to defend themselves when they have not broken the rules at all.

The policy change (in specific about harassment) isn't good either way.

[Kusanoha_Kirigakure]

In all of these cases it will be the chat (and to a lesser extent the action log) that will determine guilt. If you gave someone advice but called them a dumbass first or yelled mechanics at them during a rant or used some demeaning macro then there could be consequences even though in the barest sense, they were 'helped.' In a perfect world people would be accountable for their own actions and that would be all that was needed but often the system itself is used to hide or misdirect where the real problem lies. Online MMO continue to be carte blanche for some people's bad behavior. Since SE can't change hearts or minds, they change rules. I can't say I mind a heavier hand on the ban-hammer even as I know these new expanded criteria also could bite me in the ass as well. I'll take that gamble because of all the things that are outside my control, myself isn't one of them.

That last bit "of all the things that are outside of my control, myself isn't one of them."

The problem is these policy changes take your INTENT out of the equation. So no, you won't be in control of even yourself when it comes to guilt or innocence. This is a badly written rules change. As you said in your second sentence, "called them a dumbass first OR yelled mechanics at them during a rant" could be interpreted in any way by a GM at this point. Yelling could be interpreted differently by any GM, and so could "mechanics." The GM is now able to interpret your intent and what context your words were given in, not you. Evidence or chat logs are useless with this policy change; it is entirely left up to the interpretation of the GM, how convincing a "victim" is, and adherence to a (likely deliberately) vaguely described set of rules.

Having a heavier hand isn't hard to do without writing rules like this; just hire more GMs and crack down on people who are reported (and legitimately do bad things) more often. You don't need sweeping changes to the definition of "harassment" in order to crack down on actual harassment. You only need that if your intent is to "improve" your customers rather than improve your game.

[Lucerna]

That last bit "of all the things that are outside of my control, myself isn't one of them."

The problem is these policy changes take your INTENT out of the equation. So no, you won't be in control of even yourself when it comes to guilt or innocence. This is a badly written rules change. As you said in your second sentence, "called them a dumbass first OR yelled mechanics at them during a rant" could be interpreted in any way by a GM at this point. Yelling could be interpreted differently by any GM, and so could "mechanics." The GM is now able to interpret your intent and what context your words were given in, not you. Evidence or chat logs are useless with this policy change; it is entirely left up to the interpretation of the GM, how convincing a "victim" is, and adherence to a (likely deliberately) vaguely described set of rules.

Having a heavier hand isn't hard to do without writing rules like this; just hire more GMs and crack down on people who are reported (and legitimately do bad things) more often. You don't need sweeping changes to the definition of "harassment" in order to crack down on actual harassment. You only need that if your intent is to "improve" your customers rather than improve your game.

Except that isn't the case. Intent isn't taken out of the equation. In fact, it's now more of a factor. If some one is running a community event and a griefer follows them on a whale mount to block their character, it's clearly meant to be disruptive but was not "technically" against the ToS before. Now GMs have the ability to look at context to determine intent, rather than relying on more strict technical definitions.