ToS Update - Clarification needed

FluffyDoom

Honestly, banning PvP streaming actually might be a great idea!

VERY few of the PvP streamers actually do anything good for the game or promote the game in ANY positive way and I no longer watch them - several seem to like to promote the very toxicity that the new rules were needed for !! They also regularly make derogatory statements against the game, against ZOS, against other players....just to get that follow, like, subscribe....it's sickening!

I'm totally disgusted that I decided to quit playing tonight in IC rather than risk losing my account because a certain protected streamer happened to be in IC at the same time I was. It's simply not worth risking a ban because he just can't stand it if he can't kill 20 people with his small man group or divines forbid, he gets killed/ganked.

So I guess my new strategy has to be to check twitch, check you tube, check facebook first to see if any one is streaming PvP before I can PvP now? Sadness...

Hopefully the one streamer that does the majority of the whining and has gotten players banned before will move on soon like he says he will....it will be a great day for ESO when that happens!

Signed -

A non-streamer nobody!

16BitForestCat

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

16BitForestCat wrote: »

So... what does a player have to gain by harassing someone out of game?

The experience of harassing others. It's not a PvP or PvE thing. It's everywhere people can find a way to harass/grief and argue that it's not a TOS violation.

I think someone may have deleted the wrong quote username--I'm not the one who posted "So... what does a player have to gain by harassing someone out of game?" I was really confused for a few minutes as to why this was showing up as a reply to me. XD

WastedJoker

If humiliation is bannable does this mean we should avoid playing as a frost-themed warden?

Salvas_Aren

Lord-Otto wrote: »

Sephyr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Is it just me, or do some of the Crown Store emotes seem a little inconsistent with the new TOS?
"Flip the Bird"


Or the mistletoe posterior one


I mean, I understand that everything that can be, will be misused eventually. But we've had enough griefing issues over the years with mudballs at outfit stations that I'm both glad that ZOS put in specific language to cover those situations AND ought to put more thought into what mixed messages they send with emotes added to the game.

There's also that Sad Violin one as well. I agree, though. Pretty inconsistent and it's sending mixed messages on what their expectations of acceptable behaviors are (aside from the given). I don't think just doing one emote every once in a while would be considered harassment, but given how vague wording is--people handling the ticket will act on how ever they interpret the wording. While I'm glad they're trying to do something about it, I'm worried about the folks that do /sweep when someone turns into a pile of ash.

Emotes are excluded from punishment. They are indeed now the only "legal" way to humiliate other players. So get yourself those emotes!
BUY CROWNS!

yeah, monetized griefing

Salvas_Aren

Btw, is threatening others with reports in whisper chat considered a violation of the ToS?

Because during the IC event noobs with no clue of PvP see cheaters everywhere, who totally violate the ToS by using detection pots.

VaranisArano

Salvas_Aren wrote: »

Btw, is threatening others with reports in whisper chat considered a violation of the ToS?

Because during the IC event noobs with no clue of PvP see cheaters everywhere, who totally violate the ToS by using detection pots.

No, but knowingly making false reports is against the Code of Conduct.

2.11 Deliberately contravening a request or action by a member of the ZeniMax staff is not permitted at any time. Additionally, improper use of the in-game support or complaint buttons or making false reports to ZeniMax staff members is forbidden. You may not intentionally submit misinformation or abuse the help system in any ZeniMax Service.

Of course, if the player genuinely doesn't know how detect pots work, they aren't knowingly making a false report...

newtinmpls

Liam12548 wrote: »

"Updated the ZeniMax Media Code of Conduct, with the most noteworthy change being that we added doxing, stream sniping, and intentional acts of griefing or humiliation to behavior we do not tolerate."

What exactly entails "intentional acts of griefing or humiliation"? If I'm in imperial city and I kill the same quester 20 times in a row, does zenimax consider that "griefing"?

I think that the phrasing here is pretty clear:

"If I kill the same quester 20 times in a row" is quite a different thing than "if I kill somebody in PvP 20 times in a row"

In the former, they are clearly attempting to do a specific thing,

AND you are

1-Aware that they are trying to do a specific thing

AND

2-deliberately making it not possible for them to do this thing.

Yes, that would be greifing, and my compliments on your use of phraseology that clarifies the difference.

VaranisArano

newtinmpls wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

"Updated the ZeniMax Media Code of Conduct, with the most noteworthy change being that we added doxing, stream sniping, and intentional acts of griefing or humiliation to behavior we do not tolerate."

What exactly entails "intentional acts of griefing or humiliation"? If I'm in imperial city and I kill the same quester 20 times in a row, does zenimax consider that "griefing"?

I think that the phrasing here is pretty clear:

"If I kill the same quester 20 times in a row" is quite a different thing than "if I kill somebody in PvP 20 times in a row"

In the former, they are clearly attempting to do a specific thing,

AND you are

1-Aware that they are trying to do a specific thing

AND

2-deliberately making it not possible for them to do this thing.

Yes, that would be greifing, and my compliments on your use of phraseology that clarifies the difference.

Um...not necessarily?
PVP-enabled zones are all about preventing players from doing specific things.

So I'd consider hunting down a player twenty times in a row to be griefing along the lines of harassment, but if that same player is throwing themselves at me or the location I'm camping/farming in, I'm under no obligation to let them pass. Does roadblocking someone count as griefing? Well, in this case you've got five other dailies plus two other dungeons to do in the event, so I'm not even meaningfully roadblocking that player.


Or to give a personal example, those DC players who kept killing me in the Arboretum this morning were under no obligation to let me finish the Arboretum quest. I could, and did, head over to the Nobles district and that daily instead.

Cryptical

VaranisArano wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

"Updated the ZeniMax Media Code of Conduct, with the most noteworthy change being that we added doxing, stream sniping, and intentional acts of griefing or humiliation to behavior we do not tolerate."

What exactly entails "intentional acts of griefing or humiliation"? If I'm in imperial city and I kill the same quester 20 times in a row, does zenimax consider that "griefing"?

I think that the phrasing here is pretty clear:

"If I kill the same quester 20 times in a row" is quite a different thing than "if I kill somebody in PvP 20 times in a row"

In the former, they are clearly attempting to do a specific thing,

AND you are

1-Aware that they are trying to do a specific thing

AND

2-deliberately making it not possible for them to do this thing.

Yes, that would be greifing, and my compliments on your use of phraseology that clarifies the difference.

Um...not necessarily?
PVP-enabled zones are all about preventing players from doing specific things.

So I'd consider hunting down a player twenty times in a row to be griefing along the lines of harassment, but if that same player is throwing themselves at me or the location I'm camping/farming in, I'm under no obligation to let them pass. Does roadblocking someone count as griefing? Well, in this case you've got five other dailies plus two other dungeons to do in the event, so I'm not even meaningfully roadblocking that player.


Or to give a personal example, those DC players who kept killing me in the Arboretum this morning were under no obligation to let me finish the Arboretum quest. I could, and did, head over to the Nobles district and that daily instead.

You assume that the player you are roadblocking still has other pve quests to do elsewhere.

That’s a bad assumption on your part. And it’s irrelevant whether there’s another option open to the quester - you’re responsible for your actions and if you intentionally perform an action of griefing then You have to answer for that.

VaranisArano

Cryptical wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

newtinmpls wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

"Updated the ZeniMax Media Code of Conduct, with the most noteworthy change being that we added doxing, stream sniping, and intentional acts of griefing or humiliation to behavior we do not tolerate."

What exactly entails "intentional acts of griefing or humiliation"? If I'm in imperial city and I kill the same quester 20 times in a row, does zenimax consider that "griefing"?

I think that the phrasing here is pretty clear:

"If I kill the same quester 20 times in a row" is quite a different thing than "if I kill somebody in PvP 20 times in a row"

In the former, they are clearly attempting to do a specific thing,

AND you are

1-Aware that they are trying to do a specific thing

AND

2-deliberately making it not possible for them to do this thing.

Yes, that would be greifing, and my compliments on your use of phraseology that clarifies the difference.

Um...not necessarily?
PVP-enabled zones are all about preventing players from doing specific things.

So I'd consider hunting down a player twenty times in a row to be griefing along the lines of harassment, but if that same player is throwing themselves at me or the location I'm camping/farming in, I'm under no obligation to let them pass. Does roadblocking someone count as griefing? Well, in this case you've got five other dailies plus two other dungeons to do in the event, so I'm not even meaningfully roadblocking that player.


Or to give a personal example, those DC players who kept killing me in the Arboretum this morning were under no obligation to let me finish the Arboretum quest. I could, and did, head over to the Nobles district and that daily instead.

You assume that the player you are roadblocking still has other pve quests to do elsewhere.

That’s a bad assumption on your part. And it’s irrelevant whether there’s another option open to the quester - you’re responsible for your actions and if you intentionally perform an action of griefing then You have to answer for that.

In PVP, I am allowed to block other players from their objective. No one has an obligation to allow me to capture a specific resource or specific keep, even if those are the only quests I have. No one is obligated to make way for me to complete a District quest, even if its the only quest I have, which they have no way of knowing.

For example: Questing players must complete a challenging boss fight in the IC arena for the main quest. Killing them must be griefing, yeah? Haha, no, ZOS made an achievement for killing 100 players in the Arena. ZOS explicitly rewards that.

Somebody's camping the quest point and I refuse to do the dungeons or another district? I've still got options. Group up to kill that person. Ask a PVPer or my faction-mates to kill the guy - lots of us would love a shot at his Tel Var. Queue up for a different IC campaign and do the quest in that district away from the camping dude.

Don't act like "its my only quest" entitles anyone to a free pass in PVP. It doesn't. There are numerous routes around the "roadblock" once I stop running headlong into the same guy expecting I'm entitled to do my quest without any interference.

At best, I can temporarily roadblock one quest in a single campaign. None of that prevents anyone from getting their event rewards or even from completing the quest at all.

MornaBaine

So my question is...are they going to apply these new politeness standards to PvE zones when if you are found roleplaying or holding a roleplaying event entire gangs of players will show up and spam spells and flashy emotes just in order to disrupt the roleplay and force people to give up and leave? Because I've seen countless instances of this and in the early days of the game a GM would actually show up if they got a flurry of reports and deal with the situation. But then that stopped and they stopped taking any action against such players. So I'm curious to see if these new standards for behavior actually apply across the board.

React

newtinmpls wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

"Updated the ZeniMax Media Code of Conduct, with the most noteworthy change being that we added doxing, stream sniping, and intentional acts of griefing or humiliation to behavior we do not tolerate."

What exactly entails "intentional acts of griefing or humiliation"? If I'm in imperial city and I kill the same quester 20 times in a row, does zenimax consider that "griefing"?

I think that the phrasing here is pretty clear:

"If I kill the same quester 20 times in a row" is quite a different thing than "if I kill somebody in PvP 20 times in a row"

In the former, they are clearly attempting to do a specific thing,

AND you are

1-Aware that they are trying to do a specific thing

AND

2-deliberately making it not possible for them to do this thing.

Yes, that would be greifing, and my compliments on your use of phraseology that clarifies the difference.

Of course I used the "quester" example here, because I'm genuinely curious how they intend to handle scenarios like this.

You mistook "kill the same quester 20 times in a row", for "target the same quester specifically to prevent him from doing the quest 20 times in a row". If I'm pvping in Nobles district within IC, and I kill a player I see repetitively whose intentions within IC are unbeknownst to me, would you identify that as griefing?

The thing is, there is no way you can safely and accurately categorize these pvp scenarios as one thing or the other. If I'm in a PVP zone, I have the right to kill whomever I encounter, as many times as I want. If zenimax wants to identify "teabagging" and "stream sniping" as bannable offenses/griefing, that is fine. But you simply cannot identify standard pvp activities within a PVP zone as griefing.

That's the clarification I want here. I want them to explicitly identify scenarios that they would categorize as one thing or another, so we know what their intentions are moving forward.

DMuehlhausen

Liam12548 wrote: »

"Updated the ZeniMax Media Code of Conduct, with the most noteworthy change being that we added doxing, stream sniping, and intentional acts of griefing or humiliation to behavior we do not tolerate."

What exactly entails "intentional acts of griefing or humiliation"? If I'm in imperial city and I kill the same quester 20 times in a row, does zenimax consider that "griefing"?

If I kill a player and play emotes or crouch on their body, is that considered "humiliation"?

It's unfortunate that we now have to ask for clarification on what is "acceptable" in pvp and what isn't, but it seems we have somehow gotten to this point.

To answer you, you have to answer something.

Are you purposefully hunting this person over and over? Or do they keep coming back to the same area willing. If you answered the first you're griefing, the second they are dumb enough to keep coming back.

Obviously it goes a littler deeper, but that is a general way to think about it.

VaranisArano

MornaBaine wrote: »

So my question is...are they going to apply these new politeness standards to PvE zones when if you are found roleplaying or holding a roleplaying event entire gangs of players will show up and spam spells and flashy emotes just in order to disrupt the roleplay and force people to give up and leave? Because I've seen countless instances of this and in the early days of the game a GM would actually show up if they got a flurry of reports and deal with the situation. But then that stopped and they stopped taking any action against such players. So I'm curious to see if these new standards for behavior actually apply across the board.

I should hope so. Mind you, ZOS always could deal with that type of stuff under the old TOS for harassment, but generally either didn't, didn't discipline immediately, or did discipline later but didn't tell anyone about it (the likeliest answer).

If it helps, ZOS has disciplined people for using flashy spells to disrupt gameplay before (2014 bug with combat prayer breaking dye stations) and has warned people for repeated or wanton mudballing. So its certainly worth a try reporting such behavior on the PVE side.

But I wouldn't expect immediate gamemaster attention anymore. ZOS seems to lean more towards "we'll review it later and discipline privately" these days.

Giraffon

I didn't read any of that TOS crap. I just scrolled down and hit accept. They should let me write those out for them. People would read them because they'd be short:

1. We don't want to get in trouble for something you do.
2. We will do what is necessary to avoid lawsuits.