They Should Add An Official Damage Meter With One Condition

[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.

[Bobby66]

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.

Come on we all know Yoshi-P will not come out and say we cannot have parsers because our community is riddled with snowflakes. Taking the stance that parsing is bad due to potential harassment is far easier. Granted it does not help that under the watch of Yoshi-P during some online event a japanese host was harassed for poor performance. I forgot the name of the event but Yoshi-P was not not pleased. Yoshi-P is one of the people that live in the bubble world where parsing is inherently bad.

[Semirhage]

Come on we all know Yoshi-P will not come out and say we cannot have parsers because our community is riddled with snowflakes. Taking the stance that parsing is bad due to potential harassment is far easier. Granted it does not help that under the watch of Yoshi-P during some online event a japanese host was harassed for poor performance. I forgot the name of the event but Yoshi-P was not not pleased. Yoshi-P is one of the people that live in the bubble world where parsing is inherently bad.

It leaves a sour taste in my mouth that YoshiP has watched world first streams with parser overlays blatantly in front of his face, and hasn't objected to them or punished them at all. But THIS time, the snowflakes on 5chan pitched a fit about it, and bans rolled out.

So clearly enforcement is based on whether the casuals decide to get pissed over something that doesn't concern them. I'd rather Square not foster the kind of community where the TOS gets wielded as a cudgel by the least-knowledgeable, most easily offended portion of the playerbase.