Question about FFLogs

[Vnolan]

Not a pro or negative parse question. But does anyone find it weird you post something on here from in game and you have to blur out all the names. But SE turns a blind eye to people loading measurements of other players on another site and don't bat an eye.

People can be stupid. If someone posts another player's name in a negative light, you'd have people blacklist or attempt to grief the named players, regardless of whether any of the accusations were true. Another reason is everyone would see how easy it is to get away with several blatant ToS violations and SE doesn't want that. Also they have control over the forums and not some random website.

Has the owner of that site ever said why it isn't opt-in?

[HakaseNyan]

No that's not harassment, that's a player not meeting the bar set for that party. That's like saying: someone who is excluded from a party because they only want to play ARC at level 80 with level 1 gear equipped is being harassed.

Make/find a group better suited for the play level you're at.

Actual, real harassment can end up being serious. Turning it into a bad joke does no one any favors.

Nevermind the example of bad parse history; I don't want to get into a series of hypotheticals. However, what about using that string in your profile to hide logs? If the party leader tells you straight out, "you can't play with us because you hide your parses" and proceeds to kick you - is that not harassment? What do you call that?

Here's a hint: If the party leader actually did say anything relating to FFLogs or parsing being the reason you can't play with them, then you could report him or her and they would get a meeting with a GM.

Also, your example is a terrible misrepresentation. A Lv80 ARC with Lv1 gear equipped wouldn't be able to meet actual party-finder criteria to join the party; role slots can be set to require Jobs only and no Classes with the addition of a minimum iLevel. I don't see a "must have FFLogs visible" option though.

[MariaArvana]

Has the owner of that site ever said why it isn't opt-in?

TLR, for it to truly be opt-in would require ACT to also become an opt-in program. (I.E: ACT would have to include a blacklist of player names not to parse in its function)

He mentioned so long as ACT parses everyone in the party, it'd be trivial for someone to create a second website that'd reveal the non-opted in names of people if he ever made FFlogs opt-in since ACT still stores that data on the parse file. He then explained It's even happened when a bunch of Chinese players created a Chinese version of FFlogs, and that exposed every hidden name on FFlogs anyway since ACT still keeps track of that info.

He also humorously noted how in the many years of running WoWlogs, he's never had the request to hide away data, it's only ever been a request from FF14 players.

Nevermind the example of bad parse history; I don't want to get into a series of hypotheticals. However, what about using that string in your profile to hide logs? If the party leader tells you straight out, "you can't play with us because you hide your parses" and proceeds to kick you - is that not harassment? What do you call that?

I'd call it a fair reason to remove someone, so long as they aren't a jerk about it. This game's endgame content relies all around Hard enrages; mathematical equations that are extremely binary if you fail or not. When someone's out to complete Titan for example, I wouldn't fault that person for being hesitant for not wanting to party with someone that has their logs hidden. Bringing someone in who is obfuscated in their performance is a risk, you could get lucky or not. But between the choice of waiting for someone who has the performance AND shows it off vs someone who may or may not have the performance, potentially wasting lots of time if their performance isn't up to snuff, its easy to see why people would choose the former.

I see it as no different than not wanting to play with someone who claims "they've seen enrage, just need a good group." or "This is an alt." In all scenarios you're taking a gamble, and not wanting to take it due to lack of information available to you is not harassment. (Unless they straight up insult you/claim your performance must suck because you're hiding your numbers, etc, then that's harassment.) That being said, if anyone ever mentions parses in-game, they're asking for a report when they could simply say "sorry X, we got a friend coming" as a fib reason to remove a person.

[HakaseNyan]

I'd call it a fair reason to remove someone, so long as they aren't a jerk about it. This game's endgame content relies all around Hard enrages; mathematical equations that are extremely binary if you fail or not. When someone's out to complete Titan for example, I wouldn't fault that person for being hesitant for not wanting to party with someone that has their logs hidden. Bringing someone in who is obfuscated in their performance is a risk, you could get lucky or not. But between the choice of waiting for someone who has the performance AND shows it off vs someone who may or may not have the performance, potentially wasting lots of time if their performance isn't up to snuff, its easy to see why people would choose the former.

I see it as no different than not wanting to play with someone who claims "they've seen enrage, just need a good group." or "This is an alt." In all scenarios you're taking a gamble, and not wanting to take it due to lack of information available to you is not harassment. (Unless they straight up insult you/claim your performance must suck because you're hiding your numbers, etc, then that's harassment.) That being said, if anyone ever mentions parses in-game, they're asking for a report when they could simply say "sorry X, we got a friend coming" as a fib reason to remove a person.

Look, I agree with the reasoning. The party lead has the final say no matter what. However, it's a unique situation where the party lead has 3rd party knowledge to use against the person wishing to join. If the leader brings up this knowledge, he or she gets in trouble for mentioning it and kicking the person. If the leader doesn't bring up this knowledge, he or she gets away with kicking the person. In one situation the person wishing to join can report the leader; the other he or she can't. If the person joining can't prove the reasoning behind their exclusion - are they even being harassed?

Anyway, ACT and FFLogs seem like such handy tools, and I feel I must reiterate that I do not use them or run the content that they are used for. I have a friend that was actually harassed over parsing shenanigans, and I have read plenty of statements from others about it too. Though, I do like to wonder what things would be like without these tools; Having to waste time failing duties with people you don't know a thing about sure sounds awful.

[RoyalBeef]

Are "harassment" and "inconvenience" interchangeable words now? "Omg I wasn't allowed to join a party ingame! Harsassment!" The heck?
Make your own party/static where you can make your own rules instead of trying to find ways of forcing yourself into someone else's party who doesn't want you there, or even worse, ruining the game for them out ofs pite by reporting because you are unable to cope with being told "no".

[Granyala]

Are "harassment" and "inconvenience" interchangeable words now? "Omg I wasn't allowed to join a party ingame! Harsassment!" The heck?

"Harassment" is just a buzzword around here that has lost it's original meaning long ago.

But does anyone find it weird you post something on here from in game and you have to blur out all the names. But SE turns a blind eye to people loading measurements of other players on another site and don't bat an eye.

I see no need to obfuscate FF-Logs character data. Contrary to putting people in a certain light by posting chat screen shots etc (often telling an incomplete and one sides story), FF-Logs data is neutral and objective. Peoples interpretation of said data might not be, mind you, but the data itself is. That's why SE requires you to censor names in chat screenshots but doesn't care about FF-Logs.

Neither should any player btw. Play like the first human, you get the logs to show for it. Instead of raging on about "privacy" and "harassment" said player should just put in a tiny modicum of effort. Then the logs would be okay and there would be no fear of being viewed in a negative way.
People blow it out of the water anyway. I have some HORRIBLE parses up there. Wipe runs of evenings I was super tired after work, chaotic random groups, me being more busy with chatting in TS than paying attention to the boss, me herp-a-derping it as SMN w/o much of a clue about what I amdoing, you name it. Not once did s/o confront me about it. Oo

[Driavna]

Are "harassment" and "inconvenience" interchangeable words now? "Omg I wasn't allowed to join a party ingame! Harsassment!" The heck?
Make your own party/static where you can make your own rules instead of trying to find ways of forcing yourself into someone else's party who doesn't want you there, or even worse, ruining the game for them out ofs pite by reporting because you are unable to cope with being told "no".

For some, words are like magic spells. They will try different ones until the desired results are met. That's why people will kick others without saying a word.

I remember a player not long ago posting that kick without telling the reason should also be bannable too and how tiresome being kicked so often was. I can bet you that this person never though the fault was on him/her.

My point is: people will look for any excuse to enforce "you will carry my no matter what" mentality. After all, people checking logs beforehand for anything that it's not the current hardest content are super rare.

[Alaray]

Nevermind the example of bad parse history; I don't want to get into a series of hypotheticals. However, what about using that string in your profile to hide logs? If the party leader tells you straight out, "you can't play with us because you hide your parses" and proceeds to kick you - is that not harassment? What do you call that?

Here's a hint: If the party leader actually did say anything relating to FFLogs or parsing being the reason you can't play with them, then you could report him or her and they would get a meeting with a GM.

Also, your example is a terrible misrepresentation. A Lv80 ARC with Lv1 gear equipped wouldn't be able to meet actual party-finder criteria to join the party; role slots can be set to require Jobs only and no Classes with the addition of a minimum iLevel. I don't see a "must have FFLogs visible" option though.

You're not playing at their expected level, or they can't gauge whether you're someone who can play at their desired level. Again, that's not harassment. That's: We don't want to potentially carry you. It's not a group that lines up with you. Find a different group.

There's plenty of other groups to join, or you can make your own. You're not being actively excluded from participating in the content as a whole, and have other options, and they aren't sending you tells telling you in detail why they think you suck. Or mocking you in tells and so on.

If someone entered my party and I didn't like them for some reason, I'm free to kick them. Whether they came in and perform so poorly on a fight they're barely a combatant, or started to throw around transphobic stuff, or whatever. There's not spot in the PF options to say "If you are replaceable with a NPC don't join" or "Don't fling around dumb comments" alongside the general description of what the group intends to do -- at least in cases of Savage since that's where people slap in the strat they're using. But I still hold the ability to kick those players from my party, be it for their own mouths, or for, as your posted examples falls under: Gameplay differences.

Sure, they can't tell you precisely why as a different rule covers mentioning ACT. But if you can infer why, why on earth do you want to play with them? And instead of hyperfixating on this 1 group who doesn't want you, why not find a different group from the multitudes that likely exist?

I am fairly convinced you don't know what harassment is. (ie: continual, aggressive, pressure aimed specifically at you -- like, if they started to send you a ton of /tells about why they hate you or the like, or if the sent /tells mocking you repeatedly, etc... -- but even a single case of that is reportable).

[RoyalBeef]

That entitlement that others should not be allowed topick who they want to group with is baffling xD That's like wanting to hang out and have fun with your friends, then your little sister whine's to your mom until she forces you to take her along, ruining everyone's day.

[Driavna]

Baldesion Arsenal was the perfect example of how the entitled casuals in this game will attack anything that stands in their way of a carry. By that time a recurrent complaint, spiced with fake toxic stories mind you, about discord started to pop up.

To me, the peak entitlement was certain players asking for "toxic" healers to be banned because they refuse to rez them.

Edit: in Baldesion Arsenal you can't use the regular rez. In order to rez someone, the healer has to sacrifice itself. Paired with another spell there was a chance for the healer to come back to life.