Quote Originally Posted by Melichoir View Post
ToS is fairly clear about using Parsers and Harrassment. The question is does it count if he uses does it off platform. Yes, it probably does count cause the point of their ToS regarding it is to stop or mitigate harassment of other players. The debate here seems to conflate what 'outside' evidence constitutes. The argument that "Oh this was an outside stream therefore doesnt count because they dont count outside evidence when it comes to things like bots", but these arent equivalents. The distinction lies in a first person account vs a third person account. Unlike bot cases as evidence where it's one player observing and recording another player doing wrong doing, this is the player himself recording themselves engaging in wrong doing. He records himself doing the very thing the rules are designed to help prevent, and is (IMO) fully aware that doing this same action in game would warrant the ban but sought another way to bypass that ban by being clever and claiming its off game therefore doesnt count.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying "outside stream unga bunga can't be used as evidence unga bunga" like everyone seems to be boiling this down to. It's that it's not clear what now constitutes as proper evidence for a report since this contradicts their previous stance of "if it isn't ingame, we won't take it as evidence". This is not the first case of someone talking smack outside of the game, nor will it be the last. The question here is what is valid evidence and what violations is said evidence applicable for.

Now about your point about bots. What if we're not talking about bots? Let's say someone bragging about paying money for a clear, someone bragging about botting all the time, or buying gold, sky's the limit. I'm not a first-party victim. Does that somehow make this not valid to report? What evidence is valid there? What can I even provide for a report or is the canned "they didn't self-incriminate ingame, so we won't bother to even take a look" response a perfectly valid response from GMs? It's that part that is entirely unclear.