Roleplay/Partyfinder Discrepancies & Policy Enforcement by GM's

[RickmanUK]

Can a single person claiming it's justified for the reason given by the GM give me an explanation as to what the "Other" tab is for if it it isn't for things other than running content? What form of sanctioned, structured content is there in the game currently that doesn't fall under one of the other tabs?

Only thing I can think of is Blue Mage Dungeon/Raid Parties that are just after "Any/all" Dungeon skills.. so not specifically advertising exact dungeons. But those kinda faded away as the patches go by... that is about the only thing I can think of as being on there that's not an Advert for a Static/FC or RP that would be "Content"

[Aslae]

It is publicly disclosing the possibility of it, which makes it open to those who are considered vulnerable/minors. So I am inclined to say that it could be interpreted as violating 3.3 (Agree to act accordingly. - I hope you don't plan on arguing against this point). Since I didn't make it clear and worded it poorly. Let's say it creates an easily accessible situation whereby a minor would have access to something they otherwise quite arguably shouldn't, which arguably violates clause 3.6. Whether or not it specifies 18+ doesn't matter. There's nothing actually enforcing it.

This is a valid point and would be acceptable if this was the way it was presented to me by the GM, but this isn't the reasoning he gave me, and the violating of 3.3 to me seems like an arbitrary choice given a lack of available, more relevant options to cite me with. No where in my conversation with the GM last night did he mention any of this. I do understand your point, though.

[youne]

Since someone did say the warnings were on multiple DCs, I'd like to know if it was the same mod. A sudden change in policy, without an official announcement beforehand, seems unlikely, especially with how widely used the PF is by RPers.

Now, I can't comment on DCs other than my own, and I'm on Elemental, but the venue ads still comply with the rules as stated by the GM. Generally, someone who runs an rp venue will have it closed when they're offline/don't want to rp, and when they do, they may list it in the pf, indicating they are looking for people to rp (content, rp is content even if it's not an official "duty") with right now. This is different from the Fellowship Finder, which is not a specific "let's do this immediately at this place" but more of a "I like this thing, who else likes this thing, maybe we'll talk sometime."

Of course, I don't know what PF listings got hit, but the way I understand venue listings, this all just seems very odd to me.

[Kaurhz]

This is a valid point and would be acceptable if this was the way it was presented to me by the GM, but this isn't the reasoning he gave me, and the violating of 3.3 to me seems like an arbitrary choice given a lack of available, more relevant options to cite me with. No where in my conversation with the GM last night did he mention any of this. I do understand your point, though.

Of course, my only argument is there's a lack of interpretation of the guidelines and service agreement. With a lot of it being taken as literal face value. I don't blame them as such for the understanding seeing as it comes with understanding possible real-world implications that can occur.

[Nakarumi]

It is publicly disclosing the possibility of it, which makes it open to those who are considered vulnerable/minors. So I am inclined to say that it could be interpreted as violating 3.3 (Agree to act accordingly. - I hope you don't plan on arguing against this point). Since I didn't make it clear and worded it poorly. Let's say it creates an easily accessible situation whereby a minor would have access to something they otherwise quite arguably shouldn't, which arguably violates clause 3.6. Whether or not it specifies 18+ doesn't matter. There's nothing actually enforcing it.



Sure there's nothing against erotica in the real world, or online if you completely ignore the factor of potentially doing it with a minor. There's a reason I emboldened the Ages 13 and up section.

I don't consider them offensive, personally. But there are situations where making it openly and easily accessible is dangerous.

Then this becomes an issue of proper moderation and observation of the child whose parents/caretakers are not monitoring their children's activities. Pornhub is accessible at just a couple clicks of a mouse but it's not the website's fault for a teen that lies and sneaks onto their website.

But there would be a much more comfortable level if there was a designation for more mature content of some sorts as to help childproof it more as we have no way of age verification.

[Aslae]

Of course, my only argument is there's a lack of interpretation of the guidelines and service agreement. With a lot of it being taken as literal face value. I don't blame them as such for the understanding seeing as it comes with understanding possible real-world implications that can occur.

I agree with you, but the problem is this isn't what the GM expressed to me when I was jailed. Like nothing even close to that. So we're extrapolating his intentions from his, again seemingly arbitrary, choice of ToS. Basically, we like we've all been saying in this thread, we need a clear and concise reason this happened, and if it's against ToS, I'd prefer it to be more clearly stated.

[Reinha]

This is ridiculous. They let runsellers spam their ads in the dungeon categories but ban people for using the OTHER category for purposes OTHER than existing content.

[Shuhannazy]

SE gives us bad in-game communication features then gets mad we use the only one that works. Some rp venues are just that, regular venues and places to hang out. Most of the pf's hit on adam all had 18+ in the mentions. I don't have 18+ put on my venue and I haven't been targeted yet. I don't know if that is the trigger or just in general they're going to try to force us into fellowships that don't even work for our purpose and that no one knows about. Some of yall can get mad all you want if you don't rp but like it or not it's a big part of the game and a big selling point for SE even more so than raiding. That's why we got 10 different umbrellas and animal crossing farming but no ult till October. >w> So rp is what a lot of us do in the downtime. Attacking venues will just force them onto discord more and underground like the modding and goose communities. Not to mention if they didn't want us posting they wouldn't allow us to put up party finders blank.

[Aslae]

SE gives us bad in-game communication features then gets mad we use the only one that works. Some rp venues are just that, regular venues and places to hang out. Most of the pf's hit on adam all had 18+ in the mentions. I don't have 18+ put on my venue and I haven't been targeted yet. I don't know if that is the trigger or just in general they're going to try to force us into fellowships that don't even work for our purpose and that no one knows about. Some of yall can get mad all you want if you don't rp but like it or not it's a big part of the game and a big selling point for SE even more so than raiding. That's why we got 10 different umbrellas and animal crossing farming but no ult till October. >w> So rp is what a lot of us do in the downtime. Attacking venues will just force them onto discord more and underground like the modding and goose communities. Not to mention if they didn't want us posting they wouldn't allow us to put up party finders blank.

From what I understand, all of the venues that were taken down were taken down in a certain timeframe, and it did not differentiate between venues with 18+ in them or not. I heard a pf got taken down for a guy who had it up saying "Fisherman looking for friendly company while I fish." It doesn't get more innocent than that. I'd like to see his emailed violation saying that he violated 3.3. Anyways, the point is, it seems to be any and all rp content, not just the 18+ ads.

[Kaurhz]

Then this becomes an issue of proper moderation and observation of the child whose parents/caretakers are not monitoring their children's activities. Pornhub is accessible at just a couple clicks of a mouse but it's not the website's fault for a teen that lies and sneaks onto their website.

But there would be a much more comfortable level if there was a designation for more mature content of some sorts as to help childproof it more as we have no way of age verification.

Granted, I will just summarise by saying irrespective both can have significant, devastating RL implications on all who participated. So it's more about not advertising it to ensure you protect not only yourself but those whom the game was designed for on the minimum age level. That Website is a little more complex, but with ERP it's a direct conversation exchange between 2 individuals both of who are wholly responsible. . But I'd appreciate halting it here since it's quite deep. So I'd appreciate not having any further replies on this specific topic.

I agree with you, but the problem is this isn't what the GM expressed to me when I was jailed. Like nothing even close to that. So we're extrapolating his intentions from his, again seemingly arbitrary, choice of ToS. Basically, we like we've all been saying in this thread, we need a clear and concise reason this happened, and if it's against ToS, I'd prefer it to be more clearly stated.

I do agree, the GMs can be quite arbitrary with their interpretation and punishment of the guidelines. So I feel they could be more.. In-line and consistent with it. Not only that but more transparency. Some people don't even know what they're getting punished for.