Handling Cheaters Gracefully vs Hardline ToS + Questionable legality of bans

[StealthPaladin]

I've followed discussion on mods/addons/bots for a long time. As a dev, I keep hoping (no matter how often it's shot down) for an official SDK.

Many have that friend who has GShade going and many little tricks to make their experience more immersive. We hear people like that on Discord all the time

Others seem go further and might have features that edge on unfair -- tho really just more efficient at tasks that annoy. Arguably these tools are lifting burden off dev team. For example UI allowing better hotbars or inventory

Sorry but FFXIV inventory system has always been atrocious + the team doesn't look like they are keen to fix it. Can you really blame them? I don't

I've a huge list of things I'ld make if SDK ever does drop. Would currently LOVE to make some using the Universalis API; sadly am too scared of getting banned for tool making. That's grossly unfair no matter what reasoning you put behind it

Watching Zepla's take on recent cheating observed in Crystalline Conflict. Now concerned that dev team is already taking some very hard stances in the ToS. It's somewhat suffocating and frankly the community needs to shift our thinking a bit -- there has to be a line where terms switch from restrictive to permissive or the game will lose the winning streak we now enjoy

We've gone slightly too far restrictive, but make a big push like this -- it will have far worse impact on the players than anything you're trying to solve. Ideally we should hope to make the terms slightly more permissive while much simpler & justified to enforce


Having mods bannable in the ToS of a service like FFXIV is not actually legal, at least in the US. Of course, doesn't stop Steam and others, but it's rarely challenged in court -- and usually results in a settlement out of court when attempted. There is a huge difference for an MMO tho

It would be like buying a smart phone that only works with one service, then banning you from getting service based on things you did with your own property. Really you already have a sticky situation with free speech, but that takes it to the level of a monopoly. The SEC can get all up in their grill. Even the claim in the ToS that you receive no property rights toward your character has already been struck down multiple times in court for other games and holds no legal weight

I bring this up contentiously because if SE starts enforcing hard - people will fight for what they spent years working on. We don't want to see huge chunks of content budget, which we ALL contribute, going to legal fees and settlements. SE is precariously in a grey area already. It would simply be more reasonable and ethical to back off just a tiny smidge

Meanwhile, the community is dangerously close to pushing them in the opposite direction as a reflex to support team headaches. So dangerous long term

-- 1/2

[StealthPaladin]

One solution: impose month/season/year bans on PVP & High-end raids for mods that truly cheat. Let them access base content and account, they have no claim at that point. SE is simply preserving value for other customers and minimizing impact on offending customers. Great

Zepla's video brought up the idea of Discord being a tool, said that it was a stretch. Well, no not really. Who wins Frontline if everyone is vanilla but 8 players in Discord? That's why you can't join CC ranked in a group

Discord places overlays in-game. Discord bots help find scheduled parties and duties, simplify housing search and all sorts things. Heck even Radeon's browser overlay with fishing timers loaded -- as much a tool as other invasive 3rd party addons. May seem a stretch from a user perspective but in how it interacts with the game display process and offers a different experience than the game alone, it absolutely counts in current ToS

Since Discord interact also with process and data, it too qualifies as far as the ToS goes. And she's right to call that a stretch, because the ToS is in the wrong

It is already too restrictive

I rarely have any big gripes with the dev team or YoshiP.. outside of some of my dreams they crushed and many hours of work stolen unceremoniously when phasing out the 1.0 job system. Fact is they are now trying too hard to force the community to be nice

Sounds like a reasonable goal, but ends up making things worse. The community was nice with a little bit of edge BEFORE any rules were this strict. At some point the rules should swap and say, hey are you really hurt? is someone bleeding? OK then don't waste a GM's time we need the budget for content.

Content-only mods and snarky words in passing should not be actionable, it is more unethical to come down on a player you sold this product to, than whatever rude or lewd thing they produced at worst. At best an addon could be useful to the team. This should be the key takeaway. No matter how we personally feel, this is important to make this whole multiverse sustainable

Then it becomes easy to set the rule: When it comes to using mods that actually break competition, THOSE actions are making a lasting material difference in OTHER PLAYERS gameplay who ALSO PAID for the product and service.

If the effect is limited to less than 10 minutes of chat or something that happens purely on the accused's own screen -- it should not matter at all and SE really has no right to take a stance that it does. That's immoral to invade the player's agency and to disrespect all the money they've given you in this way.

Now if someone goes beyond that, it isn't too hard to police.

If someone is abusing /shout -- suspend them from /shout.
If someone is abusing Crystalline Conflict, suspend them from Crystalline Conflict.

That would take a little bit of engineering -- but it is the sort of task entry level developers can work on and the kind of resolutions that can be handled fairly with less investigation

[redheadturk]

Yes, thank you! All of this. The thing I fear most is them coming down more heavy handed and getting banned for using the tools that make playing this game possible and feasible for me. I have put upwards of $2000+ into this game between expansions, sub fees, and mogstation purchases. I do not deserve to be treated like some horrible cheating witch for using accessibility tools and texture mods.

[KageTokage]

I find it a little silly that people think the devs are actually going to take a heavy-handed stance about this when they've done virtually nothing about all but the most blatant and obvious cheaters since the start of the game's life on top of it being virtually impossible them to actually block mods without installing intrusive software (Which they've specifically said they will never do).

They need to just develop better methods of screening for cheaters because some guy instantly and consistently CCing anyone who tries to use specific actions in their vicinity should be reasonably detectable via server data logs or some such.

[Krotoan]

Having mods bannable in the ToS of a service like FFXIV is not actually legal, at least in the US. Of course, doesn't stop Steam and others, but it's rarely challenged in court -- and usually results in a settlement out of court when attempted. There is a huge difference for an MMO tho

What is illegal about restricting how users use a service?

It would be like buying a smart phone that only works with one service, then banning you from getting service based on things you did with your own property. Really you already have a sticky situation with free speech, but that takes it to the level of a monopoly. The SEC can get all up in their grill. Even the claim in the ToS that you receive no property rights toward your character has already been struck down multiple times in court for other games and holds no legal weight

You have no "free speech" rights implied in the ToS for something like an MMO. "Free speech" insofar as the U.S constitution is concerned, is only in regards to the governments action upon someone based on their speech, not what a corporate entity does with users of their service or platform.

Smartphones notoriously do have warranties voided and guarantees of service invalidated by doing anything like rootkitting or jailbreaking. It might still work, but if the service finds out you've done that and you have a problem.. then that is now YOUR problem.

[Broken_Wind]

Content-only mods and snarky words in passing should not be actionable, it is more unethical to come down on a player you sold this product to

Intentionally being a flat out butthole to someone should be an easy suspension. Of course, its easier said then done and sometimes people take things the wrong way.

I couldn't care less about add-ons that are cosmetic/UI related. People should be free to do this unless its, um, altering appearances of others characters without their consent.

[Insertusernamehere]

I think we are already signed up for this:

YOU ACQUIRE NO OWNERSHIP OR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ANY CHARACTER OR OTHER IN-GAME VIRTUAL GOOD, AND ARE ONLY LICENSED TO USE SUCH CHARACTERS AND ASSETS ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENTS. YOU AGREE THAT YOUR FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNT AND ANY VIRTUAL GOODS AND CHARACTERS DO NOT HAVE ANY MONETARY VALUE. SQUARE ENIX MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNTS, CHARACTERS, VIRTUAL GOODS, OR THE SERVICE ALTOGETHER, AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY TO YOU.

Technically we own nothing, and service we are receiving can be terminated with no reason.
I see no reason to argue about it while we have this user agreement.

[StealthPaladin]

You have no "free speech" rights implied in the ToS for something like an MMO.

No on said you did.

"Free speech" insofar as the U.S constitution is concerned, is only in regards to the governments action upon someone based on their speech, not what a corporate entity does with users of their service or platform.

As I said this is a legal grey area. It gets into a very involved conversation about Section 230 regulations and civil rights cases. However because SE is on both the client and server side of this equation as the provider they are in a much worse position than, for example, social media platforms when it comes to banning based on user content. That's just how case precedent has gone

What is illegal about restricting how users use a service? [/QUOTE=Krotoan;5923928]
Smartphones notoriously do have warranties voided and guarantees of service invalidated by doing anything like rootkitting or jailbreaking. It might still work, but if the service finds out you've done that and you have a problem.. then that is now YOUR problem.

You can only sell networked locked phones specifically BECAUSE there are other networks in the market. The legislation around that is actually very supportive of what I'm referencing. At the same time, SE is fully in its right to void a warranty, but denial of service to a paid customer is different. Because they sold a client that works only with one server, and because they disjointed the IP of the client and server AND because they do not allow competition on either side -- that is a monopoly by definition. Gets into all the same issues as the Apple App Store cases

[StealthPaladin]

I think we are already signed up for this:

YOU ACQUIRE NO OWNERSHIP OR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ANY CHARACTER OR OTHER IN-GAME VIRTUAL GOOD, AND ARE ONLY LICENSED TO USE SUCH CHARACTERS AND ASSETS ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENTS. YOU AGREE THAT YOUR FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNT AND ANY VIRTUAL GOODS AND CHARACTERS DO NOT HAVE ANY MONETARY VALUE. SQUARE ENIX MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNTS, CHARACTERS, VIRTUAL GOODS, OR THE SERVICE ALTOGETHER, AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY TO YOU.

Technically we own nothing, and service we are receiving can be terminated with no reason.
I see no reason to argue about it while we have this user agreement.

I directly addressed this in one of the posts, however what I'm talking about (except for 2 sentences) applies to SE selling you the CLIENT software, it is not reliant on the ownership of characters. When I did mention characters, it was to note that specifically those lines of the ToS have already been ruled illegal in many US court cases where games tried similar wording. I am not implying that SE is malicious here, they are trying to protect themselves.

However the only reason they get away with this up to now is because they aren't that hard on enforcement and not that many people exist to file class actions. If that changes, this will become a headache for them in a way that can seriously effect the survival of this game.

[Krotoan]

No on said you did.

You implied SOME sort of link to "free speech" problems. There are none. Free speech applies to nothing here. This isn't even something like twitter where a platform is potentially the only substantial platform available. Don't mention it if it doesn't apply.

As I said this is a legal grey area. It gets into a very involved conversation about Section 230 regulations and civil rights cases. However because SE is on both the client and server side of this equation as the provider they are in a much worse position than, for example, social media platforms when it comes to banning based on user content. That's just how case precedent has gone

But has nothing to do with "Free speech".

You can only sell networked locked phones specifically BECAUSE there are other networks in the market. The legislation around that is actually very supportive of what I'm referencing. At the same time, SE is fully in its right to void a warranty, but denial of service to a paid customer is different. Because they sold a client that works only with one server, and because they disjointed the IP of the client and server AND because they do not allow competition on either side -- that is a monopoly by definition. Gets into all the same issues as the Apple App Store cases

There are other MMO's on the market. There is no reason that access to someones unique service could be considered a "monopoly" as is concerned by regulation laws. People have no "right" to diversity of access to an individual game.