Reasons for Ban

[Jaywalker]

Do want to say that while above points by Oopsy and Doozer seem fair (if either of you read this just wanna say, it was wild to write that with your SNs lol), this seems like a situation where it depends really heavily on the character of parties involved.

If everything OP said is taken at face value, it is a problem. Speaking from personal experience, I have honestly seen people who got falsely accused and penalized before--although not here. That was a big part of why a lot of fans got so alarmed by the updated rules. With too much subjectivity and vagueness, there's room for potential abuse of authority by oversensitive and intolerant people. Sometimes folks twist words to launch serious (but unfounded) accusations against anyone they just don't like, which in turn exploits and weaponizes the good intentions of people who seek to protect victims.

Additionally, with too much subjectivity and vagueness people can't even take preventative measures or stay within bounds effectively because what is considered unacceptable versus acceptable isn't made clear in any consistent way.

If what OP described isn't taken at face value though (like what you two talked about, if OP did actually get nasty and someone was totally justified in reporting) I think you guys have fair points. Idk if having multiple witnesses in a party who are equally possible of having reported might reduce the chances of identifying the offended party?

In general I think having a better block system that's in the hands of players/doesn't require GMs to make so many judgment calls while enabling players to avoid people they don't like would help. It could prevent prospective retaliation better too, although to Oopsy I'd like to raise the point that if someone starts harassing outside of the game that becomes a legal concern and beyond what SE is or should be responsible for. At that stage the person being harassed has responsibility to go to the authorities, because 1) harasser could also be targeting others with illegal/obsessive behavior 2) unfortunately false accusations are a real problem and innocent until proven guilty remains important for this reason. I don't think most players are likely to try out-of-game harassment though, that's super extreme.

Imo it's important to have a clear boundary between someone acting slightly abrasive and a ban-worthy offense. Also more clarity in rules about what would be considered allowed or not. Not how it is currently, but would be nice.

For OP's specific situation the three day ban might be unavoidable, but Royalpain if you sincerely don't know what's going on it's worth raising the point as a concern I think. At the very least it could alert people that this is an issue.

[Oopsy]

Hello Jay,

While SE may not be liable for your action outside of the game it does not mean that they should ignore the possible outcome of their actions. While they may never hear or suffer any repercussions legally it can result in a large PR issue. Some actions taken may not bring up legal or other issue but still servery impact a person. Bullying in schools is a huge issue with very little legal actions taken to correct it. Some retaliation might not be direct, if you are friend with Person A and Person B, they hang out with person C, I meet person C in town and talk but we do not click at all in fact they are like oil and I am water... They touch my reverse scale and say/do something extremely offensive so I report them. This ends up being the straw that breaks the camels back resulting in them getting banned. GM kindly explains the reason to person C and though I am one of many cases they whine about it to Person B and A... Now I have no friends, A lone lalafell is not a happy lalafell. Additionally, I might not report someone if I knew they will know it was me who reported them or maybe I'll think twice about it. If say there is only one time and it was a little harsh of the other person I might forgo reporting them. If they have then do the same in many other cases to other people and none report because they don't want to be known for reporting people, then it is possible many people have a bad experience and new commers to flee from a perceived toxic environment.

As for Innocent till proven guilty, this is a weird concept that is not widely accepted. Even in the US Legal system this may be the case in the court house but until you get to trial most people will treat you as guilty. Even your own lawyer may work under the assumption of guilt. The cops that pick you up make assumptions based off their person experiences and often they respond to a call based off the assumption the callers information was correct. Call first and you get to control the situation. Who started the fight? Well obviously the mother was attacked. She call it in, why would she call in saying she was attacked if that wasn't the case. Though the incident happened after she pushed open the child's door, and placed her hands on their neck... But she has scratch marks on her arms and she did call 911. Certainly she is not lying as we can see obvious evidence of an attack. She even clearly stated the the 3rd child is a liar so why would we believe them or the 2nd child. The 2nd child attacked her after she enter the room obviously lying to not get in trouble. The cops would of course be in the right to tell you that it is wrong to hit a women for any reason, completely ignoring the fact that all you did was pry her arms off your throat and push her out of you room and sit on the door. But innocent till proven guilty right? They wouldn't hold you in a juvenile detention center for 3 month including your birthday.

The US legal system doesn't even apply to in game rules. You agree to Terms of Service. You agree that they will provide you with a service and you will obey certain rules. By violating these rules they can terminate your service. The EUA clearly states the following "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." in Section 1. This game has no assumption of innocence or guilt. It is not that far in, you should more carefully read the terms and agreements you make when signing up for a game most have a similar clause. It is nice to have light punishments and reasons behind the bans, it would not be a fun environment if we had tyrannical dictators running about. A clear social guidelines might be help full for some users but with out offensive examples that can be a little hard... I do think a nice note to what type of prohibited activity and a link the related terms or prohibited activity post might be helpful in some cases. Here's a link to their summary of prohibited activity http://support.na.square-enix.com/fa...6&id=5382&la=1 It would be great to have mute and friend only chat option so you can only talk to certain people as a punishment for lighter infractions.

[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.

[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.