flyff-money.com

Home » Games News » Interpertation of the anti-flaming rules

Suppose there is a guild that is so universally atrocious in its conduct, that they completely deserve any negative attention thrown at them. A guild so bad that there is universal agreement among the general population that the game would be much better off without the awful behavior of the members of that guild. Would it be a violation of the terms of service to out the guild on the forums, describing the precise kind of terrible acts perpetrated by the members (while being careful not to mention any specific names)?

The quote leads me to conclude that in order to be considered flaming, the insults must be directed at a player, moderator, gm, or other forum user. Supposing zero individual players were mentioned, depending on precisely how the word "player" is interpreted, groups of players (i.e. guilds) could be argued to be exempt from the definition as written. This is clearly not a clear cut case where an unequivocal answer can be given, and if given this case to argue before a jury, I might not be able to get a full acquittal, but I could probably hang the jury, and almost certainly avoid a unanimous conviction on such an ambiguous rule.

I am of the opinion that the wording is such that there is zero protection afforded to groups of players, since the intention of the rule was to prevent people from insulting one another, however, as groups of people are amorphous and membership in any given group is completely voluntary, the protections that prevent direct flaming against specific users does not apply to groups.

Let us consider a slightly different situation. Suppose I make a post that says something to the effect of, "the flyff community is so immature..." and proceed to post evidence to support that claim. I do not believe this hypothetical post would be in violation of the terms of service, because it indicts no specific individual by name. If we accept this argument, then the step to replace "all flyff players" with "some flyff players who voluntarily associate with one particular guild" is not a drastic one.

Seeing as I would prefer to avoid a courtroom drama, I would first like to pose this question in a purely academic sense to all users out there. I am particularly interested in comments from people affiliated with Gala who may be able to offer clarity as to how this rule should be interpreted. If people would like to argue that the anti-flaming policy also offers protection to guilds, please be clear as to precisely how the wording directly implies that guilds, as well as individual players, are protected from flaming. If there is some fundamental flaw in my logic, please be clear when pointing out precisely how I was supposed to directly derive the alternative interpretation directly from the posted text.