+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Final Fantasy 14 (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=41)
+--- Forum: FFXIV News (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden (/showthread.php?tid=10085)
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - QueenFrejyalen - 02-13-2015
I stand by the forum's decision to prohibit things based on the ToS; I don't want to lose the entire forum because of one slip up with Square Enix about an art commission.
I think a trading board could work nicely to supplement gil commissions. Â I will even start it or help start it. Â
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Cliodhna Eoghan - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 05:42 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Just for the record: I've paid plenty of artists here who just... stopped posting. As it stands right now I've given someone real cash money and they never turned up with art, and there's people in front of me on the list.
I don't want to turn it into a witch hunt or make accusations, but paying someone and having them vanish isn't new. It won't change if things are arranged in PM.
i'd never do you like that warren. x3
but your point is valid; i've seen this happen a fair amout of times with either an in game currency of various persuasions, cash via paypal or even promises of art trades "i'll draw x for you if you draw xy for me"
it sucks but there's not much you can do if that person simply never returns to the place they arranged the order. :/
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Gone. - 02-13-2015
A Terms of Service has never flown in court so I wouldn't even worry about enforcing this totally absurd, likely misinterpreted dialog from a GM of all people.
Edit: Also said GM used the words 'would' and 'may', which doesn't really mean they're actually enforcing it, not unlike how no one at Anet cared about people like me using the Combat Mode mod in GW2.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - OttoVann - 02-13-2015
Make a subreddit for this and its all taken care of
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Haven's Fox - 02-13-2015
So just take donations because you are a nice person and a friend wanted to help you out. Then w/e art is talked about is traded for free.
Don't see why everyone is flipping out. It's just a hard base line interpretation of their ToS so they can keep a consistent tone on their replies.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - QueenFrejyalen - 02-13-2015
Yes, we all know how to do things secretly okay, we're all aware of what that is so why repeat it like you're the first to notice "omg just lie about it lol".
The forums have to publicly take a specific stand to ensure that the forums stay up. Â They're just alerting us of that, and it should be publicly respected if you care about the forums.
a.k.a at least PRETEND that you're going to respect the rules so that the forum doesn't face any consequences.  o.o  Some of you would be terrible accomplices to real crimes, just saying.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Parvacake - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 07:23 PM)QueenFrejyalen Wrote: Yes, we all know how to do things secretly okay, we're all aware of what that is so why repeat it like you're the first to notice "omg just lie about it lol".I agree with Queenie. Chill, folks. If you're going to do backwater dealings then at least be knowledgeable enough to not brainstorm them here for all to see.
The forums have to publicly take a specific stand to ensure that the forums stay up. Â They're just alerting us of that, and it should be publicly respected if you care about the forums.
a.k.a at least PRETEND that you're going to respect the rules so that the forum doesn't face any consequences.  o.o  Some of you would be terrible accomplices to real crimes, just saying.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Aldotsk - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 05:42 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Just for the record: I've paid plenty of artists here who just... stopped posting. As it stands right now I've given someone real cash money and they never turned up with art, and there's people in front of me on the list.
I don't want to turn it into a witch hunt or make accusations, but paying someone and having them vanish isn't new. It won't change if things are arranged in PM.
Another reason why I dont have confidence in  offering commissions because it's likely that I'll break promises that I can't keep due to IRL times.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Enla - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 07:57 PM)Aldotsk Wrote:I'm pretty much the same way. I tend to freeze up when people commission me and it's never finished in a timely manner due to my own insecurities. It could very well be that enough people have complained about lost gil over these sort of transactions and SE decided to cover themselves in the event that someone decides that they are partly liable due to it happening within the game.(02-13-2015, 05:42 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Just for the record: I've paid plenty of artists here who just... stopped posting. As it stands right now I've given someone real cash money and they never turned up with art, and there's people in front of me on the list.
I don't want to turn it into a witch hunt or make accusations, but paying someone and having them vanish isn't new. It won't change if things are arranged in PM.
Another reason why I dont have confidence in  offering commissions because it's likely that I'll break promises that I can't keep due to IRL times.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Harmonixer - 02-13-2015
The thought process behind some of these polices baffles the shit out of me. It's not the first time I've seen something like this, and I doubt it will be the last. Eitherway, it's easily worked around thankfully.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Kellach Woods - 02-13-2015
Why are they going after artists rather than RMT sellers?
They are not going after artists. They're clarifying a position that did not seem immediately clear to prevent having to go after artists. They WANT to go after RMT sellers as much as possible and they'd certainly rather do that than prevent any of the fine artists here making a quick gil making fanart.
No matter what the activity proposed for in-game cash, unless it is performed in-game, goes against the ToS.
At the same time, taking that kind of hard stance also helps them go after RMT customers and providers from a legal standpoint since they're showing that they're enforcing their ToS.
What if we openly discuss the ways we want to circumvent this policy?
That's incredibly dumb and makes life harder for most of us because almost everything on this site uses assets and art from FFXIV which is used under a certain provision that FreelanceWizard posted IIRC.
If it gets up to their legal department that this place's a hotbed for RMT, regardless of how "harmless" it is they'll shut that shit down and for some reason I do not want the magic admin hat to tango with S-E's legal department.
It tends to never end well for anyone, unless you're SNKPlaymore, and even then that case + counter-suit is still pending.
tl;dr :
policy's stupid but needed, don't be as stupid pls.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - FreelanceWizard - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 06:09 PM)Mamushi Wrote: Why not just ban selling services here period? If RPC going to prohibit gil artists from advertising they may as well prohibit cash artists as well. Offering any other kind of outside-the-game service for gil/cash would be frowned upon so why make an exception?
The most obvious statement is about art for gil, but yes, any post that actually (as opposed to purely in jest or in theory discussing the practice) offers a trade of in game consideration for real life consideration will be deleted.
Trades of art (a real life consideration) for cash (a real life consideration) don't seem to run afoul of the LGM's statement regarding TOS, so those are okay.
(02-13-2015, 06:09 PM)Mamushi Wrote: Or, better yet, retract the new policy and let those willing to take the risk to accept gil commissions continue to do so. They're aware of the potential consequences, leave up to them to decide if its worth it.
It's not just those people who are at risk. The license under which much of this site is permitted to exist does not permit us to actively assist in the violation of TOS. That's why posts about server emulators, bot software, and parsers are forbidden as well.
Frankly, the larger risk is to the site, and unless you're planning on paying for a lawyer for me, that's an unacceptable risk. Therefore, the policy stays.
(02-13-2015, 06:51 PM)hauntmedoitagain Wrote: A Terms of Service has never flown in court so I wouldn't even worry about enforcing this totally absurd, likely misinterpreted dialog from a GM of all people.
Edit: Also said GM used the words 'would' and 'may', which doesn't really mean they're actually enforcing it, not unlike how no one at Anet cared about people like me using the Combat Mode mod in GW2.
I mean, except for the WoW bots case, or the Battle.net emulator, or various private settlements of which I'm aware between Oracle and companies over violations of the rather restrictive TOS for certain Oracle online services...
All, please believe when I say that I think SE is doing something heavy-handed and dumb. However, please also believe me that we are subject to a license agreement with them for the very existence of this site. I love you all, and I'll take reasonable steps to fight aggressive legal dickery, but my real life takes precedence over this site. I'm not going to spend incredible amounts of my own money to fight SE's legal department. Is it likely they'd come down here with a hammer over art for gil? Probably not, but there's a lot of instances of them deciding something is a risk to them and unleashing destruction from the heavens. They are capricious.
The only reason I haven't cut the posts talking about "well, you can do X or Y to get around the exact statement by the LGM" is because this is, of course, just a discussion thread, the posts are certainly in jest, and no one is actually going to do any of that -- and if you do, I don't want to know about it.
#magicAdminHat
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Aldotsk - 02-13-2015
Honestly, this company wasn't the first that pulled this joint before.
Ragnarok Online and Gravity pulled this stunt with the artists and tried to hunt down every single artists out there who were selling fan arts/commissions for zeny. They succeeded and banned lot of accounts.Â
So with that said, I do agree that SQEnix made a disappointing decision in this case. But if I had to say that the company is the -worst-, I would disagree with that since I've experienced plenty of other companies that made horrible decisions more than this company.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Austratus - 02-13-2015
I don't mind, but not for any policy reasons (though I understand why and such). To me, the whole art for Gil thing seemed a little bit server-exclusive to me, so I would prefer transactions that don't involve the game.
RE: Policy change: Sales of art for gil forbidden - Kinono - 02-13-2015
(02-13-2015, 08:52 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote: The only reason I haven't cut the posts talking about "well, you can do X or Y to get around the exact statement by the LGM" is because this is, of course, just a discussion thread, the posts are certainly in jest, and no one is actually going to do any of that -- and if you do, I don't want to know about it.
"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I am a scumbag.