They Should Add An Official Damage Meter With One Condition

[Saraide]

Aye, yeah the point of the all these threads are to have a civil discussion about how certain features should be added to the game as a baseline. Hardly any of them are about how silly it is to be punished for breaking a rule regarding 3rd party tools.

The point is that certain "rule breaks" are not worth to go after because they dont go against the underlying idea of why those rules were put in place. SE instead of that appears to go by what malicous no-life forum dwellers on 5chan tell them to do. The approach of going by whatever the mob on that forum decides will always lead to people who havent harmed anyone will get hit. There is nothing stopping these people from just making up evidence either. They have done so in the past.

[Ivtrix]

The point is that certain "rule breaks" are not worth to go after because they dont go against the underlying idea of why those rules were put in place. SE instead of that appears to go by what malicous no-life forum dwellers on 5chan tell them to do. The approach of going by whatever the mob on that forum decides will always lead to people who havent harmed anyone will get hit. There is nothing stopping these people from just making up evidence either. They have done so in the past.

The dingo story comes to mind. 5chan faked images of him using 3rd party addons. He was banned, his abuser was not. Clown world ������

[Bobby66]

The point is that certain "rule breaks" are not worth to go after because they dont go against the underlying idea of why those rules were put in place. SE instead of that appears to go by what malicous no-life forum dwellers on 5chan tell them to do. The approach of going by whatever the mob on that forum decides will always lead to people who havent harmed anyone will get hit. There is nothing stopping these people from just making up evidence either. They have done so in the past.

Who is the one that defines what rule breaks are worth going after? I agree the rules should better reflect what is allowed and what is not allowed. This whole gray area of don't talk about it, and one will not get punished has always been a dangerous one in my opinion. I agree it is not easy to come up with an exhausted list of approved addons and I get it will have to be monitored and changing the ToS to reflect such adjustments would be annoying and most likely not even worth the effort.

Also we cannot say for certain it is done with malicious intent across the board by an objective metric. Sure based around common sense it is that way, but one thing I do say about GM's here at SE they hardly ever punish based around circumstantial evidence, which for better or worse does allow for such acts like this and many others to go unpunished or punished unjustly. Sure no system is perfect and some GM's do not do their due diligence. In these case we cannot say that to be, the person that was banned did have 3rd party tools clearly visible.

The rules should be changed, but those who broke the rules are not victims here. Even if an army of no lifers made it their mission to ruin their fun. SE is not selectively targeting them. I do hope SE does add many plugin features as a baseline, but I also do feel that we should inform those that do openly use 3rd party tools the inherent risks that come with doing such. MrHappy, is a good example man streams without using 3rd party tools. It is possible, want to stream and not get punished do not use 3rd party tools until a change is made.

[Saraide]

Who is the one that defines what rule breaks are worth going after?

Well what constitutes a rule break worth going after is the central question of this entire thing, isnt it? For that it could not be less helpful and constructive than to point at the exact letters of the ToS.

[Bobby66]

Well what constitutes a rule break worth going after is the central question of this entire thing, isnt it? For that it could not be less helpful and constructive than to point at the exact letters of the ToS.

If we go based off the current ToS then isn't going after those that use any 3rd party tool a rule break worth going after? What information would be more helpful and constructive to use to determine what is a rule break worth punishing?

If a petty thief, a shoplifter, gets run over by a car... is he a victim?

I'd say yes. You can be a criminal ANd a victim. The people have broken a fairly minor rule with very minimal harm to others. So yes, the punishment from SE is justified. But the targeted harassment of the community was not justified. And thus I'd say yes, they qualify both as rulebreaker and victim. And while their punishment should hold... as I said earlier in this thread, the people who orchestrated the harassment campaign for no reason? They should be banned too. Because they're far worse for the community and harassment is DEFINITELY also against the ToS. Including using 'reporting' as a form of harassment.

I would not say those are the same, the shoplifer is a victim of being hit by the car. The case regarding the 3rd party tools they are victims of targeted harassment, they broke a rule and got reported. The targeted harassment is a byproduct of their rule break. I mean maybe if the shoplifer was hit by the car trying to avoid the police and did not look both ways and ran into ongoing traffic then yeah I would also say they lose all rights to being a victim in that regard also.

Yes it is against the rules but the problem with the report as a form of harassment is one of those things you cannot objectively prove and I doubt anyone wants GM's to ban people on feeling or subjective takes. I agree on a personal level it is harassment, but I will say best way to protect oneself from that form of harassment is to just not give such people ammo.

[Saraide]

If we go based off the current ToS then isn't going after those that use any 3rd party tool a rule break worth going after? What information would be more helpful and constructive to use to determine what is a rule break worth punishing?

Obviously going by wether these people are causing harm to other players should be the central thing to care about.

[Bobby66]

Obviously going by wether these people are causing harm to other players should be the central thing to care about.

So if someone reports saying x behavior causes them harm it is a valid report? Who determines if an action does cause harm or not? That is the problem with enforcing rules based around a spectrum instead of was x rule broken. Not was x rule broken under y circumstance. I do agree it would be nice if SE just came out and said x mods are approved y mods are not though.

[Semirhage]

So if someone reports saying x behavior causes them harm it is a valid report? Who determines if an action does cause harm or not? That is the problem with enforcing rules based around a spectrum instead of was x rule broken. Not was x rule broken under y circumstance. I do agree it would be nice if SE just came out and said x mods are approved y mods are not though.

Enforcement based on a spectrum doesn't work, but creating rules based on harm in the first place works. If Square wants to ban all mods because they don't control them, then fine. If they want to ban parsers because they have a "possibility of harassment", that's a steaming pile of manure. It's clear the toxic casuals don't give a crap about harm, they've shown it over and over and over again that it's because they have a boiling hatred for any person, real or hypothetical or made of straw in their minds, who dares suggest they could improve.

If you're going to ban parsers as a company, just say it's because your overly bubble-wrapped babied playerbase is too immature to handle being shown their own numbers. It's the actual reason for it, after all.

[Elesh]

Who is the one that defines what rule breaks are worth going after? I agree the rules should better reflect what is allowed and what is not allowed. This whole gray area of don't talk about it, and one will not get punished has always been a dangerous one in my opinion. I agree it is not easy to come up with an exhausted list of approved addons and I get it will have to be monitored and changing the ToS to reflect such adjustments would be annoying and most likely not even worth the effort.

Also we cannot say for certain it is done with malicious intent across the board by an objective metric. Sure based around common sense it is that way, but one thing I do say about GM's here at SE they hardly ever punish based around circumstantial evidence, which for better or worse does allow for such acts like this and many others to go unpunished or punished unjustly. Sure no system is perfect and some GM's do not do their due diligence. In these case we cannot say that to be, the person that was banned did have 3rd party tools clearly visible.

The rules should be changed, but those who broke the rules are not victims here. Even if an army of no lifers made it their mission to ruin their fun. SE is not selectively targeting them. I do hope SE does add many plugin features as a baseline, but I also do feel that we should inform those that do openly use 3rd party tools the inherent risks that come with doing such. MrHappy, is a good example man streams without using 3rd party tools. It is possible, want to stream and not get punished do not use 3rd party tools until a change is made.

If a petty thief, a shoplifter, gets run over by a car... is he a victim?

I'd say yes. You can be a criminal ANd a victim. The people have broken a fairly minor rule with very minimal harm to others. So yes, the punishment from SE is justified. But the targeted harassment of the community was not justified. And thus I'd say yes, they qualify both as rulebreaker and victim. And while their punishment should hold... as I said earlier in this thread, the people who orchestrated the harassment campaign for no reason? They should be banned too. Because they're far worse for the community and harassment is DEFINITELY also against the ToS. Including using 'reporting' as a form of harassment.

[Kazimere]

If a petty thief, a shoplifter, gets run over by a car... is he a victim?

I'd say yes. You can be a criminal ANd a victim. The people have broken a fairly minor rule with very minimal harm to others. So yes, the punishment from SE is justified. But the targeted harassment of the community was not justified. And thus I'd say yes, they qualify both as rulebreaker and victim. And while their punishment should hold... as I said earlier in this thread, the people who orchestrated the harassment campaign for no reason? They should be banned too. Because they're far worse for the community and harassment is DEFINITELY also against the ToS. Including using 'reporting' as a form of harassment.

If the scriminal is fleeing the crime and gets run over, they’re not a victim. That’s just karma.