Reasons for Ban

[Jaywalker]

--Snip for length--

Respectfully, I think you and I might have different standards for what constitutes an SJW.

The spots I come from, I've personally seen "SJWs" commit illegal actions like doxing, forming cyber mobs, trying to get people fired from work, forming professional blacklists, swatting, pushing people to the edge of suicide, promotion of segregation, using slurs against anyone (especially members of underrepresented groups) who disagrees, advocating violence, exploiting those suffering mental illness, committing acts of assault, committing acts of vandalism, going on smear campaigns, looking for acceptable targets for aggression, the list goes on. And all of the things I've mentioned? People will do it over fictional stories to innocent people.

I don't say any of these things lightly, in exaggeration, or without having a huge collection of specific examples to back them up. There's not a trick or a catch where the victims were secretly monsters to warrant the abuse they received. I understand very well how these people went from well-intentioned activism and got twisted into bigots and criminals themselves and I know why they think they're morally in the right for their behavior. It's an ongoing issue and has been for several years. Some of the incidents I mentioned are actually going to court thank god. Being here, I'm currently working to recover from being frankly pretty traumatized by what I've witnessed. The number of people participating in this behavior, where I'm coming from, is alarmingly high too.

I know people misuse both words, but for me personally (and I'm both a woman and a less-visible minority, for what it's worth) I seriously put similar weight on the term SJW as I'd put on neo-nazi. I've had situations where I've been walking down the street and had to honestly ask myself which extremist faction would pose a bigger personal threat. Sometimes there are people who use "activist" as interchangeable with SJW, but honestly I have no problem with regular activists. A lot of my stances could be classed as traditionally liberal, and I'm someone who likes to actively seek out new perspectives in media too. But condemning the abuses I listed above, that alone can make you a target with these people.

I have not seen anyone in FFXIV so far who would constitute an honest-to-god SJW as I know them. I've seen people falsely accuse others of being SJWs, and when that happens I try to point out that they're being ridiculous. I have seen a few people here who are honestly bigoted (mainly targeting Koreans, which I seriously wish they wouldn't) and do know what you mean about people targeting the groups you mentioned. Those things are problems too. In my experience though, the right-leaning identitarianism tends to be (usually) more casual/superficial and limited to a few jerks. Left-leaning identitarianism as I've encountered it is more about systematically destroying people en masse while creating social hierarchies based on what group you're born into.

For the record. The fact that we can have this conversation without accusing each other of stuff and without serious walking on eggshells to me says you wouldn't be an SJW in my book. It's possible to be socially critical and think there's room to improve things without being part of that ideology.

This background is why I'm inclined to hear OP out more too. In other communities it would be extremely likely that they did nothing any reasonable person would find objectionable but had been targeted regardless... often with staff endorsement. My saying that I'm inclined to be more sympathetic to the GMs overall is a really big deal for me with all of this. Any time I say stuff in defense of SE and their staff, it's in light of them being unbelievably kind and professional particularly compared to what I've encountered before.

[Jaywalker]

--Snip for length--

Hi Oopsy, just want to let you know I'm planning to get back to you in a bit! Just did a big reply and all, want to put some thought into my answer for you too.

[Iscah]

Respectfully, I think you and I might have different standards for what constitutes an SJW.

I think the problem is that the term has been diluted to the point that people don't hear it and think of the extreme acts that you're describing.

I've only seen it used as a dismissive term that gets thrown at anyone with a concern for social-justice issues, by people who disapprove of them.

It's the sort of label that might then be gladly "reclaimed" by a group - "you want to call us 'warriors'? We'll take that! We're not giving up this fight!" - completely unaware that some people use that term to describe something quite different to what they're doing.


If you're talking about extremists, you'll need to specify that, because I don't think "SJW" carries that connotation to a lot of people.

[Oopsy]

Honestly, any sort of ban involving harassment should require multiple infractions and reports due to the interpretive nature of the violation. The fact that telling a player that they shouldn't be equipping Strength accessories on their Black Mage can be considered "nuisance behavior" and the complete lack of guidelines as to what constitutes "excessive criticism" means telling someone how to do something twice can land you a temporary ban.

I think small infractions this might be reasonable to ask for. Bans do not happen with out any form of investigation. They are not banning people purely because the other person did not agree with their political view on global climate change. They could... but I seriously doubt it. Most bans I've heard of like this one were temp bans more as a warning. When you are a child and you say something offensive to another student is it not reasonable for the teacher to separate you from the other children for a while? Even if its the first time you ever said something offensive? I think it is, gives you a chance to think it over and in the future you will be more cautious.

I work at a call center currently, I get 10-50 calls a day. Most are okay but some customers can really grate on me. The next customer might say something that just adds fuel to the same fire. If I come home and watch my Lalafells dance and start getting harassed by some bloke who wants to stand on my lalas it might just wreck my day. I ask them to leave and they insult me... It might be their first time getting reported, but it might have been a big impact on my day. Mind you It is a little over the top example but still you get the point right? Might not be big for the person reported but it could be the proverbial straw. In cases of much worse forms of harassment including those that are race, politically, or sex driven everyone should have a basic understanding that it is socially unacceptable by now. One time is enough. Plus, if SE has 99999 one time reports and someone gets wind of it and they never acted on it... That does not look good in SE's part especially if you see 3 of the most extreme one time reports that happen to be on a similar topic a soar opinion of SE might be formed.

[Doozer]

If you're talking about extremists, you'll need to specify that, because I don't think "SJW" carries that connotation to a lot of people.

Exactly this. I was there when SJW started getting used, and it definitely started and has continued to be a dismissive knee-jerk term to label someone as overreacting or emotional. If I had a dollar for every time people raved about SJWs because a game developer decided to have a female protagonist in their game, well, I'd be able to buy all those games. Extremists come in all flavors, and it's interesting to me that there isn't a widely used term for the same kind of extremists that are in opposition of SJWs. Funny how that is, isn't it.

For the record. The fact that we can have this conversation without accusing each other of stuff and without serious walking on eggshells to me says you wouldn't be an SJW in my book.

The fact that people can be considered an SJW based on different things and opinions proves to me that it's entirely subjective whether someone is an SJW or not. Sorry, but I'm nonbinary (specifically genderqueer), gay, and a whole bunch of other things that would instantly get me labeled an SJW by like 70% of people. There's no point in fighting it at this point. But I'm no 'extremist', so until the term gets a concrete definition, it's pretty useless. However, it's very easy to spot people who probably go around being verbally abrasive in an online game if they go around complaining about SJWs, though.

I had a longer response typed but the page ate it when I tried to quote a second person. :c

[Jaywalker]

If you're talking about extremists, you'll need to specify that, because I don't think "SJW" carries that connotation to a lot of people.

I get you Iscah, and thanks. I have been shifting the terminology I use in the FFXIV community because like you said, people use it differently. Honestly I'd also much rather have the kinds of extremists I'm referencing unheard of here to the point of being considered strawmen than the alternative, it's just been a sort of weird adapting process. From my perspective you guys seem like you're stuck in 2009 haha.

It's also been sort of surreal because of how common the behavior and label use is elsewhere. I've picked up that there are people here who feel terrified to the point of near paranoia that the persecution going on elsewhere could spread to FFXIV, but I've also noticed areas where if extremists did enter they could get an easy hold and cause a lot of damage. I think you guys have some natural deterrents here, like conventionally beautiful body types in-game and using mostly equal-opportunity fanservice instead of none. Part of me is waiting for the other shoe to drop though, because I've seen that happen before. Makes it trickier to tell who's just trying to shut up social criticism and who might have a legitimate issue going on.

I'll keep trying to substitute extremist for SJW or SJ stuff here, but I do want to let you know--in non-videogame and anime communities, SJ will commonly mean left-wing identitarianism. Intersectionality is the way that identitarianism usually gets phrased by the extremists, and the reason it goes bad is because it erases all individual experiences to assume moral character and quality of life exclusively based on demographic. Demographics get judged in ways that are inflexible, absolute, and generalized according to limited parts of the US. It's prevalent to the point that if say, a college course says it uses a social justice lens it can be accurately understood most of the time to promote identitarianism. Extremists who subscribe to that mentality are generally proud of themselves and truly believe what they're doing will help underrepresented groups (even as they beat a pair of Latino marines while calling them racial slurs and accusing the Latino marines of white supremacy, for example) so you might find similar pride in the label with them. I mention this because the extremists are seriously dangerous and I don't want an FFXIV player to run into problems elsewhere because there's a different connotation!

[Jaywalker]

The fact that people can be considered an SJW based on different things and opinions proves to me that it's entirely subjective whether someone is an SJW or not. Sorry, but I'm nonbinary (specifically genderqueer), gay, and a whole bunch of other things that would instantly get me labeled an SJW by like 70% of people. There's no point in fighting it at this point. But I'm no 'extremist', so until the term gets a concrete definition, it's pretty useless. However, it's very easy to spot people who probably go around being verbally abrasive in an online game if they go around complaining about SJWs, though.

I had a longer response typed but the page ate it when I tried to quote a second person. :c

No worries! And yeah I get you on this stuff. It's a pretty messy situation and imo more clarity would be better, but with people in general folks are still trying to figure out how to categorize and communicate these things. That plus there's some social reluctance to admit that sort of extremist is possible. So for the time being we have a lot of use with the too-vague slang and are left to puzzle out what the connotation is there. It's a shame because I think that feeds a divide between folks like you and people in my camp where there's no issue with normal activism or diversity, but the extremism has been causing hell. Sometimes the people I've found who get really angry and upset about far-left discrimination will drop insults like soy-boy for example... while ranting and raging because the far-left was really dehumanizing against their best friend, who is black. I've also seen people do stuff like what Gula described who were just obnoxious and bothering people needlessly. It's a really weird situation, and the way I've been trying to navigate at least is just case-by-case.

I can tell you there's a term for people who are doing the stuff like what Gula described, but it's just as (if not more) useless. "Anti-SJW" usually gets used in my experience, and I actually had some confusion for a bit because for a while I thought it just referred to not liking the extremist stuff. Turns out it's more for petulant people who just don't want anyone else to have nice things.

With OP's situation, that's why I think it's important to still hear 'em out. Sometimes people speak in ways that are more abrasive or less, but there can be any number of reasons and being fair is important I figure.

[DamianTenbe]

They should make a seperate thread discussion in which players can ask out in a public why and what for. They don't have to include names, just the the harassment or against policy part. Soon players will be scared to interact with each other if aggressive enforcing tos will be in place like this.

[Doozer]

I can tell you there's a term for people who are doing the stuff like what Gula described, but it's just as (if not more) useless. "Anti-SJW" usually gets used in my experience, and I actually had some confusion for a bit because for a while I thought it just referred to not liking the extremist stuff. Turns out it's more for petulant people who just don't want anyone else to have nice things.

Yes I'm familiar with "anti-SJW", though it's not very widely used, hence what I said. It's funny though, because it initially started as 'anti-SJ' to -- I guess -- oppose the changes that 'SJWs' want, but then it evolved to be 'anti-SJW' to oppose the people themselves. It's easy to see how off the mark they are with 'SJW cringe' videos, because they just pick the ones previously mentioned, the loudest and most extreme ones. You'd never find someone like me in there; not because I'm not an 'SJW', but because I don't fit the narrative of the most cringey and embarrassing actions that they want to showcase as representative of the entire belief system. It's hard for people to accept that entire groups aren't a monolith or hivemind, and have their own morals and ways of communicating and taking action.

But as a piece of advice to OP: If you must openly disagree with someone, consider the language you use. Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but I always say please and other pleasantries when I'm asking for someone to do something differently. Or if I get spammed with a macro or something I'm like, "Can you not do that, please?" and if they got mad and reported me for disagreeing with them, the GM would clearly see I was being polite. It's very important to consider how you speak to others. People might say that's walking on eggshells or people are too sensitive, but there's literally zero reason to be abrasive or rude. Even if you're irritated, lashing out won't fix the problem. And you don't have to show everyone how mad you are when you interact with them. Something about if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. When it comes to general interactions with people, I feel like it's important to consider that.

[Jaywalker]

--Snip for length--

Hi Oopsy,

Sorry for the delay! Like I said, wanted to think about this carefully.

I don't think zero action is the answer, but I also think that it's important not to overreact with heavy subjectivity or insufficient evidence because that can go bad really fast too. I also think it's important not to give SE more responsibility than they should have. That both unfairly punishes them if bad situations come up and risks inappropriate action being taken according to what they think will serve the business best. We can see that kind of thing too often with universities already. Criminal acts might get a spank on the wrist while innocent people can be expelled without any kind of hearing.

Looking over your points, my impression is you made a lot of assumptions about the honesty, sincere intentions, and social understanding of certain parties that in practice don't always pan out. When people lie, misunderstand, and/or manipulate they can hurt innocent people. Those innocent people still deserve to be heard and protected. When someone is falsely accused and punished by authority figures, that would be bullying too in my book and it can get deadly serious.

Here's another spin for you. In your first situation, if A and B don't value you enough as a friend to hear you out and stand up for you being bullied, they were not true friends to begin with. Sometimes that does happen, and it sucks a lot. But I think there's a certain level of suck that is just part of life, where you feel really sad about it for a while but ultimately need to pick yourself up, learn what kind of people make good or bad friends, and keep on going with more knowledge for the encounter. People are allowed to not be friends and not like each other, but there's a huge line between that or even some bullying versus extreme, illegal behavior.

I saw someone recently talk about being stalked in-game by an ex-friend. It happened anytime they logged in, made it so they couldn't use the chat function, and displayed their in-game location to the ex-friend. The ex-friend tracks down and identifies their alts and sends inappropriate messages through moogle mail regularly. Apparently (IIRC) the GMs don't know what to do. I would personally say that the accused is crossing a line and should be banned, first for a limited period and then for longer if the behavior continues. I also think this is why block functions are needed. The inappropriate messages might actually get the person in legal trouble, and while in-game stalking I'm unsure I know if it was real life that would be grounds for a restraining order. This situation would be a completely different tier compared to say, someone being a little bit of a jerk in chat one time. I think someone being a little bit of a jerk once should be classed differently from someone being a lot of a jerk, and both should be viewed differently from someone being a serial harasser and/or criminal.

I don't think you get what I mean with innocent until proven guilty thing. To me, "until proven guilty" matters a lot in that phrase and "innocent" would be applied to everyone in the situation. An authority's actions should be, ideally, guided with the goal of protecting the innocent. The innocent might have been the mother calling in an attack but it also could have been the child she was abusing. Presuming the child was guilty purely based on the say-so of the mother would be going against the innocent until proven guilty principle by automatically condemning them. However, if the mother was honestly being abused she would deserve protection. It's important to make sure everyone is safe then examine the evidence to uncover the truth as best we can.

I mentioned in this thread the situation where it sounds very much like someone was banned under false accusations of transphobia. I'm going to try and frame that two ways. First, assuming the ban was justified. Lets say that the accuser admitted to being trans, being comforted by trans representation, or personally considering Omega trans. Someone in the chat starts insulting them, using transphobic slurs, telling them there's no place for them. Really gross, next level stuff. The accuser is upset, reports the person, the person is justifiably banned.

Now consider the alternative. The accuser is an angry, bitter person who doesn't feel a lot of control in their life. This person doesn't engage fiction to connect with others like friends, but because they want to see a character who can stand in for them. Have the adventures and experiences the accuser feels they lack. The accuser doesn't define themself mainly by personality, choices, or interests but by demographic. The accuser is telling a bunch of people in chat about how Omega, for having split into male and female bodies, is trans.

The accused has no problem with trans representation in media, but sees Omega as being a robot conducting an experiment. The accused simply says "Idk, I don't see Omega that way". This incenses the accuser, who feels like by not agreeing the accused is taking representation and agency away from them. The accused is reported for transphobia and wrongfully banned.

But wouldn't the GM have investigated and put a stop to any false accusations, you might wonder? Except there lies the problem. GMs are people with their own biases. In other communities, most people filling the role of GM happen to be filled with individuals in the same line of thinking as the accuser for situation #2. And even if they aren't, transphobia is such a serious accusation that a GM might very well punish an innocent person purely out of fear of enabling transphobia or being called transphobic themself.

If innocent people are falsely accused and banned en-masse, it will kill FFXIV. It has happened in other franchises and properties. Injustice does not benefit SE from a purely practical standpoint and would in fact hurt them financially, because instead of having a fun game environment it creates an atmosphere of terror and mistrust. No one would be able to talk to each other out of fear of offending someone oversensitive. And honestly, an offensive example to show what would not be allowed would be better imo than the alternative. I don't think it needs to be exactly in line with that though, it might be enough to say "slurs are not allowed" for example or "continuing to message, follow, or otherwise stalk another user when requested to stop either directly or by a GM is against the rules".

Will check the prohibited activity info again in a bit, thank you. I think I saw it before and had concerns about some language being imprecise. The mute/friend-only options, and just generally taking steps to just help users avoid people they dislike I think would go a long way to addressing most issues though. Tbh could even have a function that prevents certain users from getting placed in parties together in Duty Finder or Roulette if one party has instated a block.