[Mhurron]

There has been a revision to the following part of the Online Manners section of Rules & Policies for FINAL FANTASY XI. This change was applied on Mar. 25, 2009. We ask for your understanding in this matter.

- [Disruptive Behavior] under the Rules section.

The Online Manners are a part of the FINAL FANTASY XI Rules & Policies and are equal in force to the FINAL FANTASY User Agreement. Please be sure to read and understand all these rules and agreements in order to help you have a pleasant experience in the world of FINAL FANTASY XI.

Specifically the section that changed:
Disruptive Behavior

• Any action that deliberately causes a monster to attack another player character, or MPK-related action.
• Holding a Notorious Monster without attacking it while other players are waiting.
• Deliberately interrupting a conversation or chat session by spamming the log window or other such actions.
• Sending unwanted items to another player through the delivery box.
• Group actions that block access and impede other players' movements within the game.
• Any action that keeps another player from completing a quest or mission.
• Examining other players continuously to disrupt their gameplay.
• Actions that excessively deprive others of the ability to experience various gameplay features.
• Any other action that is determined by a GM to cause a disruption in gameplay.

The Internet Archive has the same section most recently from December 2007 as follows:

Disruptive Behavior

• Any action that deliberately causes a monster to attack another player character, or MPK-related action.
• Holding a Notorious Monster without attacking it while other players are waiting.
• Deliberately interrupting a conversation or chat session by spamming the log window or other such actions.
• Sending unwanted items to another player through the delivery box.
• Group actions that block access and impede other players' movements within the game.
• Any action that keeps another player from completing a quest or mission.
• Examining other players continuously to disrupt their gameplay.
• Consistently depriving other players of the chance to enjoy combat over an extended period of time.
• Any other action that is determined by a GM to cause a disruption in gameplay.

Looks like what they've done is change the consistently depriving chance to enjoy combat to excessively depriving enjoyment of gameplay. Sort of just semantics, but the difference between being an asshole constantly and being a big asshole once.

[Durahansolo]

Originally Posted by Mhurron

Sending unwanted items to another player through the delivery box.

LMAO, Now I've never even thought about that. I can just imagine somebody sending multiple rusty sublingars to somebody in the delivery box.

[Andrinor]

It also applies the term to activities other than combat. Very interesting. I wonder if there has been some consistent complaint that has spawned this change?

[fallenintoshadows]

They can update it all they like but it still won't stop players from being complete idiots and doing all of this.

[Firewind]

Originally Posted by Durahansolo

LMAO, Now I've never even thought about that. I can just imagine somebody sending multiple rusty sublingars to somebody in the delivery box.

I have a friend who used to send me every subligar he fished up or found to annoy me.

So I started putting them on my Elvaan mule just to annoy him. He stopped giving them to me very quickly after that

[Mhurron]

Originally Posted by fallenintoshadows

They can update it all they like but it still won't stop players from being complete idiots and doing all of this.

Nope, but a GM taking action may no longer require a lengthy period of gathering evidence.

[LyonheartLakshmi]

I like how they changed it to "Actions that excessively deprive others." I guess if you only deprive other players moderately, that's ok.

[fallenintoshadows]

Originally Posted by LyonheartLakshmi

I like how they changed it to "Actions that excessively deprive others." I guess if you only deprive other players moderately, that's ok.

Yeah but I bet if it was moderately they'd always get players complaining when they have competition when farming or camping an NM.

[Balfree]

Originally Posted by Durahansolo

LMAO, Now I've never even thought about that. I can just imagine somebody sending multiple rusty sublingars to somebody in the delivery box.

You know rusty subligars are kinda hard to get rite. XD

send em to me

[Omniblast]

Some GM's have certain levels of moderate to excessive.
GM A thinks that 10 subgliar is moderate to send, but 11 is excessive.
GM B thinks that 5 subligar is is moderate to send, but 6 is excessive.

Where do we draw the line? Now it's up to the GM to decide what is moderate and excessive.

Personally, any more than 2 = excessive, and deserves 24 hours in mordion gaol.

[Raydeus]

Elvaan males or Galka in a subligar should get instant perma-ban if you ask me.

Humes could get a 72 hour suspension warning followed by perma-ban if they do it again.

[Sekighara]

No love for the Nappa gear huh?

The checking thing kinda bothers me. Sometimes I randomly check people because I have been out of the game for so long to see what gear is new. If this on check pisses that person off and they call a GM and I have to explain my self, that would kinda piss me off.

But I guess the shout offs across Jeuno and White gate won't be so often. I saw a your mom match the other day, I forgot to have my tell tone ring up and i missed a party invite, that pissed me off but I wouldnt get some one banned for that but other people would.

[Marnault]

Originally Posted by Sekighara

The checking thing kinda bothers me. Sometimes I randomly check people because I have been out of the game for so long to see what gear is new. If this on check pisses that person off and they call a GM and I have to explain my self, that would kinda piss me off.

It says excessive checking that disrupts gameplay. So I would assume they are only talking about spamming the check button on a player repeatedly, if checking players was to be discouraged I really doubt the feature would be in the game.

[Feba]

yeah, it's not a matter of 'it's ok to moderate deprive others', they're meaning excessive as in "more than regular gameplay". Claiming a mob deprives others, but it's not excessive. Intentionally sending a single piece of crap to someone's DB is excessive, though.

[Sabaron]

Originally Posted by Mhurron

Actions that excessively deprive others of the ability to experience various gameplay features.

What does that even mean?

What exactly is considered to be a "game play feature"?

One could state that the Auction House is a "gameplay feature" and that in order to "experience" it fully one must be able to sell items on it. Therefore, if I keep undercutting you... then I am depriving you of its use. If you can't sell your item for over a month, I have deprived you of both gil (in the form of listing fees), and of use of that particular "gameplay feature". Therefore, I should be punished because I've excessively deprived you of the use of the AH Sell gameplay feature....

That statement is so generic that it doesn't warrant a spot on a list like that since it is roughly equivalent to the last statement:

Originally Posted by Mhurron

Any other action that is determined by a GM to cause a disruption in gameplay.

This statement is already a catch-all... adding this statement is analogous to this:

Bozo: Congratulations, L'il Billy, you've gotten ping pong balls into the first 9 buckets! Now, for this last one you can toss your last ping pong bill into either bucket 10 or bucket 11 to get that Schwinn Bicycle!

L'il Billy: Where's bucket 11?

Bozo: Oh, it's the same bucket as bucket 10.

L'il Billy: WTF?