Warning for "Grief" Tactics?!

[Risvertasashi]

Small chance of this getting read, I know, but OP, if you're in the EU - file a GDPR request, since the penalty is tied to your account they'd have to give you what information they have on it. Then you can see exactly what SE thinks you did wrong and go from there.

[juicybug]

I see tanks forget their tank stance and it is literally no big deal bc we're human and it happens. But to turn off tank stance in a dungeon, you have to manually do it.
so my guess is maybe you clicked it turning it off accidentally then DC'd, wiped the team, then rage quit when they questioned you about it? I feel there is more to it than what is being told. Maybe a small detail you omitted. A report being filed, and it actually going through and a strike being put on your account happened because there must have been some proof that an offense was committed.

[Xtro99]

I see tanks forget their tank stance and it is literally no big deal bc we're human and it happens. But to turn off tank stance in a dungeon, you have to manually do it.
so my guess is maybe you clicked it turning it off accidentally then DC'd, wiped the team, then rage quit when they questioned you about it? I feel there is more to it than what is being told. Maybe a small detail you omitted. A report being filed, and it actually going through and a strike being put on your account happened because there must have been some proof that an offense was committed.

There's always more to these stories, and the way OP conducts himself is pretty telling. What I do agree with is that GMs should always describe the interactions that prompted the warning/ban. In most MMOs it is common procedure to explain exactly the violation you incurred in. Hell, I've seen players like OP get flat out exposed on the forums by GMs with logs in hand.

[Reality23]

I see tanks forget their tank stance and it is literally no big deal bc we're human and it happens. But to turn off tank stance in a dungeon, you have to manually do it.
so my guess is maybe you clicked it turning it off accidentally then DC'd, wiped the team, then rage quit when they questioned you about it? I feel there is more to it than what is being told. Maybe a small detail you omitted. A report being filed, and it actually going through and a strike being put on your account happened because there must have been some proof that an offense was committed.

I have not gotten far enough with the game to try tanking a raid yet, so I don't know the specifics of the mechanics. I will say that I have played a number of MMOs with "stances" and toggles that generally stay on all the time even through logging in and logging out. Sometimes crap happens and stuff you think is activated is not, I can't see a game company actually taking action based on a toggle being off, regardless of how it works, or a raid being wiped. A lot of people are focusing on how that toggle works, but I have to look back at long years of playing and wonder why the company would notice, care, or intervene. If they considered not running the toggle to be griefing, then they would likely just make it so whatever it does a passive feature of the class that activates alongside going into combat mode.

If I had to make an educated guess I'd look at the attitude the OP has towards leaving groups, and saying "meh, I did my 30 minute leaver penalty". I did not see anything written about it here, but I know in some MMOs despite the penalty they tell you flat out that excessively dropping from instances or groups can get you in trouble. Usually though this is more tied towards people wanting to drop from instances early to speed up specific kinds of farming, leading to the game tracking a lot of partial instances "just in case someone theoretically came back". Corporations being sociopathic by their very nature setting their policy based on mechanical realities, rather than how it affects people at the end of the day. I don't know how this works in FF 14 but in theory if they have such a policy, and she's dropped a lot as the laid back attitude about it implies, it's possible she just finally dropped enough instances for some algorithm to catch her. Of course at the same time given the reason why companies usually care from what I've been told, it wouldn't have been a griefing complaint, it would have been specifically for too many drops.

Seems like whatever the truth is it comes down to a player complaint somewhere, and as they said, they won't violate the privacy policy... which is utterly maddening, and something that should be illegal for exactly these reasons.

[Liam_Harper]

9/10 there's always something more to it when the first course of action is to kick up a fuss on the forums and then go for the "Can't beat em, join em" crusade.

Of course, that means there's 1/10 where it actually was an unreasonable case. After all many players would be rather titled at an unfair account warning out of the blue and while they aren't doing themselves any favors by reacting badly, it's somewhat understandable.

The ToS are a little vague and boil down to GM discretion and GM's are only human. I'm personally skeptical towards either side when it comes to stories like this. There's just no way to know and it's not worth assuming anything. But it is probably a good idea to be cautious in groups with anything that might risk a violation, even if it's not direct harassment.

[Kaurhz]

Of course, that means there's 1/10 where it actually was an unreasonable case. After all many players would be rather titled at an unfair account warning out of the blue and while they aren't doing themselves any favors by reacting badly, it's somewhat understandable.

The ToS are a little vague and boil down to GM discretion and GM's are only human. I'm personally skeptical towards either side when it comes to stories like this. There's just no way to know and it's not worth assuming anything. But it is probably a good idea to be cautious in groups with anything that might risk a violation, even if it's not direct harassment.

Yes an unreasonable case which a reasonable individual would still infer that it is a good idea to dispute the action carried out by the GM - The 1/10 cases are pretty much when it is someone asking for genuine advice relating to a sanction as opposed to trying to play a spiteful crusade, really.. Personally, given how gaming communities are on forums I'm always very disinclined to give benefit of the doubt to the player especially when there's first-hand evidence of their mannerisms beforehand. If it tilts them, then they should focus that energy in such a way that will allow them to get the information they want. In reality it is just people trying to self-victimise.

There's sufficient information in there that if you're able to view something outside of the black and white spectrum and take into account both tone and context then you should have no real issue inferring what examples or situations would and wouldn't constitute as a violation of the Terms of Services. Many players have this irrational anxiety associated with the ToS that they believe they can be reported and banned for absolutely anything. When in reality it stems more from an inability to follow the terms more than anything else, even by a reasonable standard. EDIT: In fact, I would stand to argue that the community wouldn't be happy unless they cite every single example of what would constitute as a violation of a given clause - In which case we would have a thesaurus sized ToS. People barely read it as is, let alone if they would add more clarification to it.

Had this similar thread/discussion before when the whole ToS were initially revised to cover RMT advertisements on PF. Reality of the case then is that they didn't change - People just didn't read them in the first place. Equally so, people felt they weren't asking for a permit to be rude, yet subsequently presenting a rude undertone.

[JadedPurity]

I am at a literal loss for words right now, because I received a warning DAYS ago now... for "grief" tactics. Excuse me? What? When the HECK did I participate in "grief" tactics, in fact I complain about griefers CONSTANTLY, but I am going to be hit with some warning for something I most certainly did NOT DO. I barely even chat in this game, and now my entire account will have this nasty mark on it, warning me for something I didn't know I did in the first place?!

I haven't logged into the game for like 4 days now, this makes absolutely no sense to me. Is this because I leave many dungeons I get into? Because I don't hardcast raise players? Because I try to focus on DPS uptime while juggling heals? Am I going to have to be paranoid about how I play the game now? Why doesn't my own game experience matter?

UNBELIEVABLE. I literally cannot believe this. I cannot think of a single instance of me doing this. I have yet to speak to a GM, or contact support, but I cannot have this nasty mark on my account for something I never did. Ridiculous. I log in to cap tomes and this is what I am greeted with.

I am sick and tired of many in this community whining about anything and everything, just because they don't get coddled or for some other apparent slight. SO sick of it, but I hadn't been hit by some idiotic warning before on my actual game account. If you want to enforce your TOS so strongly, maybe I will start reporting every single player everywhere who dares utter a curse word - can't beat them, then join them!

I find it hard to believe you considering the fact that you yourself has trolled ppl I know well.

[nebby00]

I see tanks forget their tank stance and it is literally no big deal bc we're human and it happens. But to turn off tank stance in a dungeon, you have to manually do it.
so my guess is maybe you clicked it turning it off accidentally then DC'd, wiped the team, then rage quit when they questioned you about it? I feel there is more to it than what is being told. Maybe a small detail you omitted. A report being filed, and it actually going through and a strike being put on your account happened because there must have been some proof that an offense was committed.

That is incorrect regarding tank stance. Tank stance gets turned off when you get dc'd, I had that happen plenty of times to me before since my router is crappy. However when that happens, upon my return I say in party chat regardless if I had been speaking or not beforehand (which I typically don't speak beforehand), "sorry, router dc'd me". And I move on from there. The party in this case from what I had read probably perceived the silence from the OP as passive aggressiveness even if that wasn't the case due to the dc, and the fact that getting dc'd turns off your tank stance, they perceived it as griefing especially due to OP leaving automatically afterward which made it worse due to not explaining what happened.

It sucks though, and it's truly unfortunate. Really hope the warning gets appealed for them since this seems to be unjustified.

[Aurikai]

Small chance of this getting read, I know, but OP, if you're in the EU - file a GDPR request, since the penalty is tied to your account they'd have to give you what information they have on it. Then you can see exactly what SE thinks you did wrong and go from there.

Don't think it works like you think, ToS violations aren't included. Read this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/...for_no_reason/

They already told the OP why he was banned, giving the name of his reporter would violate their privacy and potentially allow him to harass them, defeating the entire point of the reporting system.

[Risvertasashi]

Don't think it works like you think, ToS violations aren't included. Read this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicwow/...for_no_reason/

They already told the OP why he was banned, giving the name of his reporter would violate their privacy and potentially allow him to harass them, defeating the entire point of the reporting system.

They don't necessarily need to give the name of whoever reported the person (If it's in the case notes it might be censorable), but if they don't share information associated with the account, such as penalties issued and any notation they have, they're likely in violation of the GDPR. And law supersedes company policies. That's for lawyers and courts to argue out, however, not us.

Also not applicable if the OP is not an EU citizen; the rest of us just get told to get lost.