The reason why our ToS needs to change

Talking in terms of abuse or sexual harassment directly to an individual over discord warrants a deep investigation and a ban if proven guilty. This type of this thing happened LONG before 3.3.3 was implemented. People have been banned before over discord messaged before the implementation of 3.3.3 in extreme cases like you mentioned. Perfect example is my good friend Dephy. She was being abused by her ex boyfriend to extreme proportions. In the investigation, discord messages were used as evidence. This situation happened LONG before the implementation of 3.3.3 and yet discord messages were used as evidence.

We are not discussing 1 on 1 harassment over discord messages... Since everyone is discussing Skarmory's ban I'll use him as an example. In regards to his last ban, he did not message anyone directly to harass them. He was talking amongst his friends about his and everyone else's displeasure about a certain individual. We are discussing talking bad about an individual amongst a group of people.. not messaging them directly.

Thank you Dephyfl for allowing me to use your story as an example.

 

So if Discord messages were used as evidence before 3.3.3, then isn't it a good thing that it's officially part of the ToS now and is now officially covered instead of being considered "unofficial" evidence?
We can all agree that ToS-breaking stuff in Discord messages should be covered according to ToS. I think it's clear we all agree on that, which is good.
That being said, you don't get banned in-game for venting in guild chat unless you're saying some mean shit. So why do you think people would get banned for doing the same thing on Discord? I don't think the bar for harassment is lower on Discord messages than it is in in-game messages. I don't think that you would get banned from Discord messages for stuff that wouldn't get you banned in-game either.

 

Whether a 4-strike system or a simplified set of rules with a supreme judge is better depends on the specific context and goals of the community. Here are some considerations for each approach:

4-Strike System:

• Pros:
  1. Clear Consequences: The progressive nature of a 4-strike system provides clarity about the consequences of rule-breaking.
  2. Opportunities for Improvement: It allows individuals to learn from their mistakes and rectify their behavior before facing permanent bans.
  3. Objective and Transparent: The system operates based on a predetermined set of rules, reducing subjective judgment and promoting transparency.
• Cons:
  1. Potential Exploitation: Some individuals may exploit the system by engaging in misconduct until they reach the final strike.
  2. Limited Flexibility: A rigid strike-based system might not account for unique circumstances or allow for more nuanced judgment.
  3. Continuous Disruptions: Repeat offenders may continue to disrupt the community until they accumulate enough strikes.

Simplified Set of Rules with Supreme Judge:

• Pros:
  1. Flexibility and Nuance: A supreme judge can consider individual cases and apply judgment based on the specific circumstances, allowing for a more nuanced approach.
  2. Prompt Decision-Making: Having a central authority streamlines the decision-making process and enables faster responses to rule violations.
  3. Tailored Justice: A supreme judge can consider factors such as intent, context, and previous behavior when determining appropriate punishments.
• Cons:
  1. Subjectivity: Reliance on a supreme judge introduces subjectivity and the potential for bias or inconsistent rulings.
  2. Transparency Concerns: The decision-making process may not be as transparent or clearly communicated to the community.
  3. Heavy Burden on the Judge: The responsibility of being the sole judge can be burdensome, especially in larger communities.

Ultimately, the choice between a 4-strike system and a simplified set of rules with a supreme judge depends on the community's size, culture, and specific requirements. Some communities may benefit from the structured approach of a 4-strike system, while others may prefer the flexibility and individualized judgment provided by a supreme judge.

 

Because the issue is not discord messages being used as evidence. Discord messages are used as evidence in things like RWT. The issue is how discord messages are being used as reason to ban someone on specific situations.

Is there a video game out there that has a rule like 3.3.3 , I am genuinely curious because out of every game Ive played I haven't seen a rule as intrusive as this.

 

I actually addressed both of these cases in one of my earlier posts, but it essentially boiled down to: if it’s illegal, then it should be addressed. Both of those are illegal activities.

both of these are also covered in other clauses, 3.1 for doxing and 3.3.2 for sexual harassment

 

To take the first one I looked up, FFXIV.

The relevant clause from Maplelegends rule 3.3.3:

The relevant clause from FFXIV's list of prohibited activity on their FAQ:

And from their ToS:

Notably, in both cases they explicitly spell out "in connection with" the game, rather than solely "in" the game. This is, effectively, the same as 3.3.3. Though I've certainly not looked into the history of whether or not FFXIV has taken action against people violating the ToS outside of the game itself, but still related to the game. Wouldn't surprise me, though.

EDIT: Looked up the ToS for Runescape, and found it properly spelled out in their Section 9:

With user content defined as:

There's that fun "on or in connection" blurb again.

 

Doxxing isn’t illegal though. At least in the USA. Not saying that to excuse what the people in the group chat did, but to make it clear that staff does need to take these outside chats into account even if it’s not a legal issue.

 

and as you can see, none of that has the effect of 3.3.3

 

Hmm, it is where I am (California). Maybe it varies state to state?

 

Probably state-specific. For instance, I recently learned that here (Arizona) actually has specifically a law against revenge porn. I don't think there's anything at the federal level.

Something that is also probably very applicable to the ToS here.

 

You’re right you guys did make a law on it , it’s just your state right now though. I’m learning a lot through this thread

 

TIL here as well, assumed it was illegal everywhere ngl. Either way, doxing is covered in the ToS elsewhere so it’s not something I’m concerned about for the harassment wording.

 

From what I understand from others' grievances as well as my own personal opinions, this is what I'd interpret the harassment section to look like. Notably, it would be short and not overly specific, which gives more leniency towards staff in handling cases on an individual basis and less wriggle room for the accused to try to nitpick and find loopholes, which puts more power in the hands of staff in terms of ability to convict, but would be balanced out by the lack of a permanent ban, taking away power from staff in terms of ban length to avoid the possibilities of potential staff-biased bans or false-positives in terms of permanent bans.

Seeing as how sexual harassment, discrimination, and doxing are all covered by other clauses, I don't see the need to address this for 3.3.3. This is probably how I would draft it, personally

IMO that section is all that's necessary, and any further elaboration just gives people fuel to nitpick. I would personally remove the following section for the public-facing ToS and use it as a guideline for Staff members in determining a harassment case, but since the other clauses have it I'll put the Elements Required section below.

I have issues with the precedent "- Repeatedly creating and spreading false rumors or lies about a particular player intending to damage their reputation or cause harm = IS community harassment" because many players enjoy gossiping and talking about drama, and it's difficult to both ascertain whether a specific individual is the source of rumors as well as prove/disprove the validity of rumors in some cases. It's better if staff does not take a hard stance here and approaches these issues on a case-by-case basis.

 

As someone who plays FF14 and is embedded in it's community they have actioned bans multiple times on players for stuff that has happened out of the game like twitter/twitch related content. As long as whatever evidence is provided has relevance to the game in it's context, such as one player making remarks about another, then it's related enough for them to include it as evidence for a ban or a strike dependant on past warnings.

That being said I won't deny that sometimes bans and strikes are heavy handed in that game as I have been warned for telling a player to stop acting like a child due to being "offended" that someone would dare pull a mob before them, the tank.

 

Should theese strikes not fade away over time aswell?
- I mean if you did something against the ToS in 2018 should you still have a strike 5 years later in 2023? Or does staff keep grudges on their players till the very end of time on this server?

 

I get where you're coming from, but I think making statements like this comes across as in bad faith and staff is probably going to be less receptive to responding in a constructive manner.

 

The intend to being seen by the offended individual is an interesting one. What if a community (ex a guild or group of friends) collectively decides to block someone specific from running content with them in it, but does not directly tell him/her (this includes cases where an individual of said group would requests non-affiliated host to deny the "target"). Imagine finding out that people tell you "no slot" everytime, but noticing there *is* actual space and use for them, perhaps not even getting filled at all or still being R> for after getting a no. And when you ask why theyre not taking you, you dont get an answer. If this repeatedly happens by the same group op people, but there is no direct "we just hate you, go away" to the offended individual, would this not be community bullying?

(Im aware I mightve not worded this very well, but I hope the point gets across regardless)

The gossip happens before and after this ToS change and that is still gonna be treated in a similar way Id imagine. I can imagine staff uses ToS as a default, but still looks at the individual cases to see if there should be leeway, or if it should be punished harsher (hence that famous last line in ToS). Theyve always done case-by-case reviews, and I highly doubt they`ll ever stop doing that.

What seems to be a major issue on this thread is people not being aware at all of how staff works. Or assumes its very black and white, based on having zero interactions with the punishment system to begin with. If you want to know how staff works, either become one of them (if you get through the application) or ask how theyd handle an example case. If you really think the moderators here enjoy banning people, or dealing with petty cases, youre confusing it with Ro-... that other famous server. They can tell the difference between silly chit-chat and serious accusations, and ask for additional context when they cant.

Why? Your criminal record in real life wont fade either. Again, if you need multiple strikes to figure out your doing it wrong, you are doing it wrong. Staff doesnt keep grudges from what I can tell, but players do hold grudges against staff when they ended up on the wrong side of the ToS.

 

This isn't harassment or bullying imo. People are allowed to exclude others from their parties for any reason, and they shouldn't need to justify that. Forced inclusion has no place in a space that we assume to be populated by adults.

That's fine, but the point I was trying to make is that putting a hard line stance like "spreading rumors is always harassment" on a public document is problematic because it assumes every rumor is spread maliciously, when information can easily be spread in the form of "hey this person AFKed during my APQ". This is a natural statement that people share when dealing with other problematic in-game individuals, and not something that is ban worthy. It's better for staff to say nothing in public-facing documents and just handle things accordingly on the backend.

 

I didnt intend to make it sound like forced inclusion, but I blame my crappy wording for that.
What I intended to say is that when people actively try to block someone from content, and involve or force non-related people to block the individual, it ends up in the offended individual having no options to do said content and enjoy the game. This could be severe enough to have the individual quit the game, due to feeling unwanted and unwelcome. The non-related people might not be fully aware of why the individual is requested to be denied, but for sake of keeping the requester in their party/friend group they may just accept and continue to block the individual based on their friends (presumably) abusive motive.

Apologies if its still worded in a bit of a vague manner, not sure how to clarify it better at the time. This example mostly comes from what I experienced myself on a smaller scale. Where someone had a (very petty) argument with me, and decided I had to be barred from any content he`d run, even when he wouldnt be the host. I had long moved on, but that guy is still mad a year later, and undoubtedly continues to block me wherever he can.
I do feel he is sort of bullying me, but I personally dont consider this small scale to be enough to report for. However, if it becomes a larger group effort, as I attempted to explain in the example above, I do think that would have a much more severe effect.

 

I still stand by my stance that people have the right to choose who they play with in any context, even if it’s at the encouragement of someone else. If a player tells other players not to party up with a specific individual, it’s those players’ choice whether to do so or not. If someone feels like they are excluded, they also have the ability to go and create a separate space for themselves.