Recent Developments of TOS Actions Taken

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Err, perhaps I should have rephrased. Some live streams are recorded, and those can be edited. Still though, it's an outside source and SE has said on multiple occasions that they won't accept such sources as evidence. Yet, here they are enforcing something they should have been all along. So...they need to make up their minds. Because if they allow this then bots and such can be reported they way they should be.

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

[Vahlnir]

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

Not sure where you got that from, but okay. I don't even know the guy, nor do I really care about them or their account. I just want some consistency. That isn't unreasonable.

[Driavna]

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

That's not the problem. Some here seems to use that a focal point but it's not. We care about how inconsistent SE is with bans, here and in-game. I know, I know... "don't be a jerk".

Anyway, if you really believe that this person should get punished (and he should) you are letting it go easily. FFXIV is right now in a content lul and he can go and stream anything else because the company that should be given the disciplinary action was not involved.

[ForteNightshade]

So, are we mad they are finally enforcing things they should have been or are we mad that streamer guy we liked who was a complete and utter jerk got banned for it?

I wager the majority are mad at the lack of consistency. Arthars is merely the catalyst for that argument. If he can be banned based off a twitch vod. All players should be subjected to that same criteria; i.e. people can stream botters, speed hacks and etc to show evidence of those players cheating.

If this is merely a one off, then it shows a blatant double standard. They'll punish someone for being a jerk but not someone for cheating. Why? Because the guy being a jerk is more popular on a third party platform.

[Melichoir]

I wager the majority are mad at the lack of consistency. Arthars is merely the catalyst for that argument. If he can be banned based off a twitch vod. All players should be subjected to that same criteria; i.e. people can stream botters, speed hacks and etc to show evidence of those players cheating.

If this is merely a one off, then it shows a blatant double standard. They'll punish someone for being a jerk but not someone for cheating. Why? Because the guy being a jerk is more popular on a third party platform.

They punished him not cause hes popular, but because his actions have a direct impact on another player and he was (IMO) trying to be cute and clever by doing this in a live stream and not in game with the impression that he would not get punished for it cause 'its not in game'. He was completely ignoring the fact that the point of anti parser ToS is to stop harassment but still did it thinking he would use the literal rules to be safe. If you want to argue he did get made an example of, thats fine, but lets not try and be cute and say "WELL SE SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS CAUSE NO RULES WERE VIOLATED!" Because if we want to really have a system where everything is clearly labeled and spelled out with no room for interpretation, thats gonna create inflexibility for SE and their response to that will be to create very harsh and draconian ToS.

For all the "SE has to be clear about the rules" shtick, it typically overlooks that Parsing is against the ToS but SE turns a blind eye to it for our sake. Being too specific is just as bad as being overly vague. At the end of the day, he used his parser and streaming power to go after a specific player publicly. We dont live in the 90s. He knew that this would rile up some of his viewers and cause trouble for that player. Frankly, if he was a real boss about things, hed just have the anatomy to talk that smack in game and deal with it. But he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

[Seddrinth]

They punished him not cause hes popular, but because his actions have a direct impact on another player and he was (IMO) trying to be cute and clever by doing this in a live stream and not in game with the impression that he would not get punished for it cause 'its not in game'. He was completely ignoring the fact that the point of anti parser ToS is to stop harassment but still did it thinking he would use the literal rules to be safe. If you want to argue he did get made an example of, thats fine, but lets not try and be cute and say "WELL SE SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS CAUSE NO RULES WERE VIOLATED!" Because if we want to really have a system where everything is clearly labeled and spelled out with no room for interpretation, thats gonna create inflexibility for SE and their response to that will be to create very harsh and draconian ToS.

For all the "SE has to be clear about the rules" shtick, its typically overlooks that Parsing is against the ToS but they turn a blind eye to it for our sake. Being to specific is just as bad as being overly vague.

Follow the money. Bottom line is SE cares about subscription and revenue, as any company should. Arthars suspension was inconsistent on SE's part but was probably done to protect FF14's image of being welcoming to casual players. Casual players pay the majority of the bill. The same thing with Parsers- if SE started banning everyone who used parsers, so many people would stop playing. The "use it but don't harrass people with it" rule was to keep parsing players paying the sub, and to keep casual players playing as well who might be turned off if people give them a hard time about their dps numbers. So of course SE hasn't been consistent in enforcing their ToS/rules, but from a revenue perspective, SE is always consistent in doing what they can to protect their brand. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just how it is.

[ForteNightshade]

They punished him not cause hes popular, but because his actions have a direct impact on another player and he was (IMO) trying to be cute and clever by doing this in a live stream and not in game with the impression that he would not get punished for it cause 'its not in game'. He was completely ignoring the fact that the point of anti parser ToS is to stop harassment but still did it thinking he would use the literal rules to be safe. If you want to argue he did get made an example of, thats fine, but lets not try and be cute and say "WELL SE SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THIS CAUSE NO RULES WERE VIOLATED!" Because if we want to really have a system where everything is clearly labeled and spelled out with no room for interpretation, thats gonna create inflexibility for SE and their response to that will be to create very harsh and draconian ToS.

For all the "SE has to be clear about the rules" shtick, it typically overlooks that Parsing is against the ToS but SE turns a blind eye to it for our sake. Being too specific is just as bad as being overly vague. At the end of the day, he used his parser and streaming power to go after a specific player publicly. We dont live in the 90s. He knew that this would rile up some of his viewers and cause trouble for that player. Frankly, if he was a real boss about things, hed just have the anatomy to talk that smack in game and deal with it. But he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

That isn't what I said.

I said if they're going to use Twitch videos as evidence now, when they haven't in the past. It should apply to everyone, regardless of their popularity or verification status on Twitch. If I go and record someone botting right now and submit that evidence to a GM, the botter should be dealt with accordingly. If they opt to ignore it or fall back on "we cannot accept outside evidence," it shows a blatant double standard. Put another way, they would be picking and choosing when they want to enforce their ToS outside the game. And in this hypothetical, it'd be when a popular Twitch streamer potentially hurt their image compared to an otherwise unknown botter or speed hacker cheating. Not exactly a good look for their moderation.

As for parses. Lets be honest. They tolerate them out of necessity. If they were to ever ban ACT or FFlogs at this junction, their raid scene will die. And they know it. Not to mention, people would just go underground with that information. ACT and FFlogs essentially give them the same benefits WoW has but none of the responsibility since they can always say "you shouldn't be using it."

[Melichoir]

snips

I oversimplified what you said, so sorry bout that. And yes, you are right. It shouldn't matter how big your channel size is. If youre gonna be a jerk and post names and what not to start crap on public streams to directly impact another player, than that should be addressed; channel size shouldn't be a factor.

As for botting, thats a separate issue. Here's the distinction and why it matters. In this case, we have a specific player (arthars) being an ass to another player and using his parsing and streaming to publicly shame another player. He is the one doing the aggression and recording himself doing it. This isnt like recording a botter or hacker. In that case, you are providing evidence on another player's wrong doing from your perspective and there is some level of possibility that things are being skewed or framed in a bad faith way. Let me try to frame this another way: There is a difference between you recording yourself running a red light and bragging about it, and someone taking a picture of a person crossing an intersection on what appears to be a red light. That red light in the picture could be a broken traffic light blinking red intermittently. The picture in of itself is not inherently indisputable evidence of wrong doing. And thats why SE doesnt typically use player provided evidence on another player because theres a chance of it being tainted evidence. But I also wouldnt be surprised that while they wouldnt ban on it, they may investigate it quietly themselves if there are enough compelling reports.

As for parses, it doesnt matter if its bad for SE, or its for money, or whatever. They have rules and they bend those rules for our sake. Arguing that they should be listing every little thing and only adhering to the specifically listed rules and there should be no 'spirit of the law' flexibility is gonna make things way worse for us. It's like saying "How dare that officer let me off with a warning for that rolling stop! I shouldve been given a ticket cause its clearly illegal!" Dont think anyone is gonna be super in favor of every rule and by law being enforced with teh addition of new rules that address every nuance and its up to US to know all the rules and abide by them.

[Noitems]

Update from Arthars. Nutkin censor for my own sake.

[Jybril]

Update from Arthars. Nutkin censor for my own sake.

This really isn't rocket science and the guy can't seem to understand.
Literally, just don't be jerk. That's all he has to do.
He can do what he's been doing as long as he isn't blasting people
out the water like he just did. If he can't understand what he did wrong
then have fun eventually getting permabanned.