Housing Ownership System Abuse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

it's high time the multiple house owners admit they're in the wrong.

---

Multiple house owners aren't wrong. They're collecting things, in an MMO where the whole point is to collect things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k99

snip

---

I have kept my stance constant, and I will still say that while it isn't a violation of the rules, it is absolutely taking advantage of the system and shouldn't be allowed, but as you say SE and GMs have the final say.

While I may be disagreeing wholeheartedly and consistently with the GM's decision on this situation, nowhere have I said that they cannot be trusted as a blanket statement. Please explain to me though, how buying up an entire ward's worth of houses is not inconveniencing other players when we have all at least managed to agree that there is not enough housing in the game overall? Because it certainly looks like it's an inconvenience.

I will agree that I appear to be waving a pitchfork at one person in particular and concede that I should have put in the first post that this is not the only instance of it I disagree with, as I've stated in my replies to Erys. I will also concede that this was written while I was particularly irate with the entire situation of people buying up wards, even under the new system that is supposed to somewhat limit it. Partially because it is on a relatively new world that was made for new characters and players to be able to enjoy, and had its timers extended on housing to make sure people on that server had an equal chance to earn enough gil to buy it, and partially because I will still say that the community is shooting itself in the foot by defending this kind of buying up of wards yet shouting for more. And the post was not exactly written well or very clearly.

And I will reiterate, I do not condone or encourage the death threats or doxxing that people have been aiming at this particular person on other social platforms nor was it ever my intention to do so. I was initially under the impression that this was a huge fc that had split itself. The fact that this is a single player, though, still annoys me more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

Multiple house owners aren't wrong. They're collecting things, in an MMO where the whole point is to collect things.

---

It is when you've exceeded more than one personal house per account, and more than one FC per account as per the restrictions SE had laid out at https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ .

My exact stance is that anyone that doesn't have a subscription to cover those excess houses is exploiting the system. For example, there should be 59 subscriptions to cover the houses in the OP for that to be considered acceptable.

As an extra note, I haven't been knowingly manipulating any information presented to me - disagreeing with it is a whole different matter as is arguing against it. Replying with an opinion is also not manipulating information.

Could someone suggest a few items to go with my Namazu Basement https://i.imgur.com/bZuHe5k.jpg

Maybe a lamp or a chair, don't want it to be too crowded.

Wrong thread for this, but a stove for cooking them.

Don't eat them while they're still alive and talking, btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

It is when

---

Nope. SE grandfathered people into ownership of multiple houses. It's perfectly allowable. You not liking it doesn't make it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

Nope. SE grandfathered people into ownership of multiple houses. It's perfectly allowable. You not liking it doesn't make it wrong.

---

Allowing it doesn't make it "right" either, particularly on this scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvastreak

Allowing it doesn't make it "right" either, particularly on this scale.

---

Then it's morally grey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvastreak

Allowing it doesn't make it "right" either, particularly on this scale.

---

In general, "right" encompasses all things that are not wrong, and are allowable.

Quote:

---

knowingly circumventing the system like this

---

Its still neither against the rules, nor circumventing anything.

The game flat-out lets you do this. There is absolutely no restriction on the number of FC houses you can own outside the cap of characters per server. You can try this yourself to see.

The change to 1 fc house per character was specifically and deliberately reverted within a couple weeks of the change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramsesh

Then it's morally grey.

---

Bingo.

Grey areas shouldn't exist with rules... because if it exists someone will abuse it.

Aka "this is why we can't have anything nice"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

Bingo.

Grey areas shouldn't exist with rules... because if it exists someone will abuse it.

Aka "this is why we can't have anything nice"

---

Then the whole game shouldn't exist.
Because everything in the ToS is technically grey area. Rules are not enforced 100% as written. If they were, you'd have already been banned by now for something. SE will have a tough time building a player base if they banned everyone like a totalitarian regime, holding everyone exactly to what is written in the ToS leaving no room for softer interpretation. What you are crying about it a first world problem.

So let's entertain your idea. One person owning all the plots makes you absolutely crazy and you are on a crusade to purge this kind of behavior. Okay.

What do you do when it's an FC with 30 people, everyone using their 1 house 1 fc house rights to own 2 houses and they all coordinate to buy all 60 houses in the ward? Is this also a problem with morals? Is this also grey area? Even though every individual person is a person and they have purchased according to the rules? You going to be mad now because they flawlessly coordinated an effort you are incapable of doing, therefore you need to call foul now? You will never be satisfied because someone will always be ahead of you.

If one person didn't acquire the plots, then 59 other people will have acquired them and you still wouldn't be one of them because there are 59 other more competent people than you who are willing to pull all the stops to get those houses. What's your next complaint then? I'm sure you'll say "Well I'm happy if 59 other people get a house instead of 1 person" to sound like you are taking the high road with your 'morals', but the truth is you still have no house, and you're still going to be bitter.

You will never be satisfied, and now you going so far as to call not just the system wrong, but everything wrong. Look at you making a full interpretation of the rules without consulting GMs while at the same time telling people who are showing you those rules and chat logs that they are wrong. So they are wrong and you are right. Nonsense.

No one on the forums asking for more housing will ever be satisfied either if anytime housing is added, someone ends up with an entire ward and locks up 60 plots for themselves - whatever DC they're on. But do carry on defending them, at this point I'm really tired of people who claim to not care about other players yelling at me for caring about other players but not caring about this one player's feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PewPewPewPewPew

What do you do when it's an FC with 30 people, everyone using their 1 house 1 fc house rights to own 2 houses and they all coordinate to buy all 60 houses in the ward?

---

I already addressed this earlier, and I'm going to ignore the rest of your hyperbolic nonsense that's a total misrepresentation of my position.

Here's the quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

As long as each account is compliant with the restrictions linked above ( https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/ ), I'm fine with that. That means operating a ward is going to take 15 accounts, which is going to work out to be like $2250/year for the entire ward. FYI I'm using my sub cost which is roughly $75/six months or $150/year to estimate this. If someone wants to be a whale and waste their money that way - it's funding FFXIV regardless so we might as well let them.

---

So in other words, each account reduces down to one personal house and one FC house per account and I'm fine with it.

I'm even willing to compromise on that with the following:

• Throw out the asinine FC per account restriction and have a sane demolish timer if the FC drops below four members (which follows the purchase restriction linked above)
• Give everyone a grace period to either divest the houses or spin up additional accounts
• Give people divesting a 100% refund on the house
• Unbind decorations that would normally be sellable on the market

The really big problem with is SE's inability to pick a set of rules, stick with it, and enforce it equally to everyone. SE should normalize housing and stop making exceptions like grandfathering in people because it's only making a scarce resource even scarcer.

Edit:
And if that assumed person was actually following the restrictions, they'd be spending $8,850/year for the 59 subscriptions needed to own that entire ward. That's a huge chunk of change and if this is something you can't afford to do that's not my problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ErysNight

But your point was on whether our in game actions have moral and ethical merit.

---

No it was not. You'll find I made no mention of this at all. I was merely trying to dispel the notion that: being permitted = cannot selfish and greedy.

Permission to do something doesn't automatically mean doing that thing is incapable of being a selfish or greedy act, or that continuing to cannot be even when the situation changes.

There are a multitude of examples in the real world of selfish acts that are permitted by law. Such as underpaying your employees for the work that they do, outsourcing labour to countries where people can legally get paid pennies and work incredibly long hours that are illegal elsewhere, keeping employees under a contract system so they're technically not employed by you so you do not have to spend extra money to give them access to health insurance and some other employee rights...I could go on for a long while.

Again I say permission and restriction are not automatically indicative of moral standing. Some rules and laws are intended to be, but the harsh truth is that a lot of things that have very negative effects are permitted. This happens everywhere, even in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ErysNight

could be seen as selfish in an environment that doesn't have real world consequences.

---

So just because there are no real world consequences an act cannot be selfish? Experiencing or the risk of consequences as a result of certain types of behaviour is not the definition of selfish.

Taken directly from google: Selfish: (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

There is nothing about the definition that says an act cannot be selfish if there are no real world consequences. The definition doesn't even make any mention of consequences. In fact a lot of people engage in certain types of selfish acts because they know they will not get any truly harsh negative consequences for it.

Engaging in your right to do something doesn't mean that the act of doing so cannot be selfish. It only means you're permitted to do certain things. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvastreak

No one on the forums asking for more housing will ever be satisfied either if anytime housing is added, someone ends up with an entire ward and locks up 60 plots for themselves - whatever DC they're on. But do carry on defending them, at this point I'm really tired of people who claim to not care about other players yelling at me for caring about other players but not caring about this one player's feelings.

---

The long and the short of it is: SE allows 1 personal house, 8 FC houses per account (or up to 8 personal, 8 FC houses for grandfathered characters.) No one acting within those limits, or purchasing multiple accounts to expand those limits is doing anything wrong.

You can certainly protest that a single account can hold 8 FC houses, but it would seem that is the way SE wants their game to be. I could see the merit of leading multiple FCs on an RP server where each FC has more of a unique 'feel' and 'purpose' rather than just being a gaggle of buddies who want a chat window and a workshop. You don't seem to agree, but unless we get instanced housing for every character and FC, more wards is the best solution.

Might enterprising players who have multiple accounts buy all 60 in one ward like people have done? Maybe, but for that to happen, the entire ward would have to go unclaimed for weeks on end. So show the newly opened wards some love and fill them up organically, rather than letting them rot for a month or three until someone gets inspired to make something out of the empty space by themselves.

If someone calls you selfish own up to it, it is not inherently wrong being selfish. If you have time and money that you wish to use on your hobby go for it. Do not ever feel bad enjoying your hobby if it is within the rules never let someone try to put you down.

Being selfish is not inherently a bad thing. it js your time and money use it as you see fit just operate with the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

unless we get instanced housing for every character and FC

---

Ah there it is, the instanced housing.

You've already made it clear that your stance on this is extremely black and white when you said "In general, "right" encompasses all things that are not wrong, and are allowable."
Just because a single account can hold up to 8 FC houses doesn't mean that's necessarily what SE want people to do. Giving you the possibility to do something doesn't mean "hey go do it!" Nor does it mean it's right and fair.

And as for being on an rp server? Spriggan is in no way an rp server. If it was, you could probably easily co-ordinate between several people in an FC to move their personals to the same area and transform them into a mini neighbourhood without the need for multiple accounts or dummy FCs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

If someone calls you selfish own up to it, it is not inherently wrong being selfish. If you have time and money that you wish to use on your hobby go for it. Do not ever feel bad enjoying your hobby if it is within the rules never let someone try to put you down.

Being selfish is not inherently a bad thing. it js your time and money use it as you see fit just operate with the rules.

---

It is true that selfishness is not inherently a bad thing. It really depends on what you do with the selfishness and your motives. Everyone needs to be a bit selfish at times for the preservation of their own well-being. Whether that's things like making sure you have enough food to eat, or cutting someone out of your life who is a source of stress.

But going too far one way or the other is bad. Being too selfless can mean denying your own well-being, and being too selfish can mean denying the well-being of others. It is especially damaging when neither end of the spectrum is even necessary.

However this is a philosophical debate that is going into the realms of being off-topic.

There is a supply and demand issue, and those hoarding plots are making a bad situation worse. They are most definitely not the core of the issue, but it is clear SE are not willing to take very decisive action on the core issue...so then people look at other issues, and one of those is players who are hoarding a large number of plots. So then threads like this happen over and over again.

And these threads will never stop being made unless SE meet the demands of the playerbase so that no one could ever be unable to buy a house due to availability issues, or unless SE decide to revoke hoarded plots so they can be more evenly distributed among players.

As long as nothing changes, neither will threads like these or the debates in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvastreak

And as for being on an rp server? Spriggan is in no way an rp server.

---

No one said it was. I was explaining my opinion that the "one FC house per account" rule likely was discontinued chiefly to benefit roleplaying players on roleplaying servers. I didn't mean to confuse you, I do apologize.

SE wants people to play their game within the rules. Why would they allow 8 FCs houses per account if they didn't want you to do it?

Is it fair? Yes, because anyone can do it if they invest the money and time. Is it what's best for the community? No, it's rather skewed towards the player - that said, it's only possible on servers without much of a community (read: Spriggan). Nothing that is within the rules can accurately be described as "not right."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

Is it fair? Yes, because anyone can do it if they invest the money and time.

---

You realize you're assuming everyone has the money or time to drop upwards of £100 on a sub every month, which is inherently unfair and also incredibly incorrect and blinkered.
Some people are also on the basic rather than full sub wherein they can only have one character per server because they can't afford to pay any more than that per month, but still want to play and own housing.

So no, it is still not fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvastreak

...you're assuming everyone has the money or time... which is inherently unfair and also incredibly incorrect...
Some people... can't afford... to play

So no, it is still not fair.

---

More money and more time being dedicated gets you further faster in absolutely everything in life. If you work out for six hours on six days of the week, you'll gain faster than someone working out for 15 minutes every other day. If you spend 60 thousand dollars on a car, it's going to be a better driving experience than one I bought out of my neighbors driveway for 2,000.

Saying "Getting more for your time invested isn't fair, because not everyone chooses to dedicate the same amount of time" is clueless. Of course not everyone has the same dedication. Some people put more into the game, and those people who are more dedicated and more resourceful will enjoy more rewards. And that is indeed fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catstab

So show the newly opened wards some love and fill them up organically, rather than letting them rot for a month or three until someone gets inspired to make something out of the empty space by themselves.

---

You and I both know this isn't going to happen, or rather, it will happen on Cactuar in a matter of hours (if that) but the smaller worlds are going to have some land baron buy a ward shafting the rest of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Being selfish is not inherently a bad thing. it js your time and money use it as you see fit just operate with the rules.

---

But it becomes a bad thing when being selfish starts to negatively impact others. We don't live in a bubble, you have to think about those around you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

You and I both know this isn't going to happen, or rather, it will happen on Cactuar in a matter of hours (if that) but the smaller worlds are going to have some land baron buy a ward shafting the rest of the population.

But it becomes a bad thing when being selfish starts to negatively impact others. We don't live in a bubble, you have to think about those around you.

---

Someone is always gonna get burned when someone else tries harder. You will never avoid this, its impossible. There are people who care more about certain things in life than you do and are willing to do more for it than you are. You should be happy there are outlets like this existing for people to throw more money at. More money translates into more game development budget. Boohoo that it's not being used on HOUSING, but that money is going in and benefiting the game no matter how much you want to argue that it's at the expense of players suffering in housing. Selfish? Sure okay its selfish. What are you going to say now? More about morals? You are literally just here screaming out loud with the hopes of attracting a crowd large enough to have the upper hand in this discussion. But there will be no resolution for you. Resolution isn't achieved by attacking users. Resolution is only achieved by going after the source, so the people who make this game. Why don't you try contact a GM or something? Why don't you sit down and talk with them and post your chat log to show that you're right, have this argument with them and see what they say. But you'll probably still be dissatisfied with the outcome anyways.

What you people are arguing is to literally stop people from enjoying the game the way they want. You want an enjoyment cap because other people's enjoyment absolutely disgusts you and the only way to fix it is to tell everyone what is the 'right amount of fun' by your personal standards. Since you cannot dedicate X amount of time and X amount of dollars, nobody else should be allowed to do more than what you can because that would be abuse of the system. Pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sylvastreak

You realize you're assuming everyone has the money or time to drop upwards of £100 on a sub every month, which is inherently unfair and also incredibly incorrect and blinkered.
Some people are also on the basic rather than full sub wherein they can only have one character per server because they can't afford to pay any more than that per month, but still want to play and own housing.

So no, it is still not fair.

---

That is not the communities problem though. It is fair since anyone can do it if they have the time and money. It is a hobby since people have money they can freely spend. This reminds me of when I started war hammer 40k days as a kid I would cry and whine to my dad and the shop owner it was not fun and unfair how my basic army was at a disadvantage.

They explained to me that it will not always be fair and how some people with money and time will go further for their hobby and that I should not be envious or have a desire to police their fun.

B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

You and I both know this isn't going to happen, or rather, it will happen on Cactuar in a matter of hours (if that) but the smaller worlds are going to have some land baron buy a ward shafting the rest of the population.



But it becomes a bad thing when being selfish starts to negatively impact others. We don't live in a bubble, you have to think about those around you.

---

Not really if we are operating within the scope and rules of the game we have no obligation to think of those around us. In a world of finite resources there will always be those that have and those that do not. One can be known disagreement with the status quo and can try to change the system but they should not vilify like some have because they do not share the same value system. Problem is some do not understand the difference between disagreement and Witch hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Not really if we are operating within the scope and rules of the game we have no obligation to think of those around us. In a world of finite resources there will always be those that have and those that do not. One can be known disagreement with the status quo and can try to change the system but they should not vilify like some have because they do not share the same value system. Problem is some do not understand the difference between disagreement and Witch hunting.

---

But what am I supposed to do with my pitchfork and my angry feelings about something inconsequential?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramsesh

But what am I supposed to do with my pitchfork and my angry feelings about something inconsequential?

---

pick up knitting or something idk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arielen

pick up knitting or something idk

---

ok but can't u see my main class, I don't WEAVE, it's beneath me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramsesh

ok but can't u see my main class, I don't WEAVE, it's beneath me

---

do drugs about it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arielen

do drugs about it

---

Wait did I show skooma somewhere? Oh nO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PewPewPewPewPew

Someone is always gonna get burned when someone else tries harder. You will never avoid this, its impossible. There are people who care more about certain things in life than you do and are willing to do more for it than you are. You should be happy there are outlets like this existing for people to throw more money at. More money translates into more game development budget. Boohoo that it's not being used on HOUSING, but that money is going in and benefiting the game no matter how much you want to argue that it's at the expense of players suffering in housing. Selfish? Sure okay its selfish. What are you going to say now? More about morals? You are literally just here screaming out loud with the hopes of attracting a crowd large enough to have the upper hand in this discussion. But there will be no resolution for you. Resolution isn't achieved by attacking users. Resolution is only achieved by going after the source, so the people who make this game. Why don't you try contact a GM or something? Why don't you sit down and talk with them and post your chat log to show that you're right, have this argument with them and see what they say. But you'll probably still be dissatisfied with the outcome anyways.

What you people are arguing is to literally stop people from enjoying the game the way they want. You want an enjoyment cap because other people's enjoyment absolutely disgusts you and the only way to fix it is to tell everyone what is the 'right amount of fun' by your personal standards. Since you cannot dedicate X amount of time and X amount of dollars, nobody else should be allowed to do more than what you can because that would be abuse of the system. Pathetic.

---

Let's look at this from a purely money point of view:

If we look at award of 60 houses, going by the restrictions, that means it's somewhere between 30-60 subs for that ward... in other words SE is expecting that a ward will require enough subscriptions to generate between $4.5-9k/year (assuming that an annual subscription costs $150). If a player wants to own a ward IMO they should pay for the ward. Why should you get a discount?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Not really if we are operating within the scope and rules of the game we have no obligation to think of those around us.

---

And that is the exact selfish behavior that has caused this entire debacle. Anyone that shares that line of thinking is part of the problem and they should at least be honest about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

... $4.5-9k/year (assuming that an annual subscription costs $150). If a player wants to own a ward IMO they should pay for the ward. Why should you get a discount?

---

But what if I told you I can easily shoulder this kind of pocket change spending for hobbies?

Are you going to tell me how much of a scumbag I am now? How I'm so morally unjust and such a terrible person? Let me guess, I have 'no life' and that the only thing I have are just houses and how I must be like this in real life too? Or that I should go look in a mirror now in disgust because I bought up a bunch of pixel space in a game?

You really think your diatribes about flimsy morals are going to stop someone like me from guilt? No. They aren't. And it wont stop others alike because we don't live to satisfy people online. There are many players like me out there, not just in this game but every game. People who have the money to easily invest in the hobbies they enjoy. What may be expensive and outrageous spending for you and others, is justified and manageable by just as many others. There will always be people like me who can and will pay more for more things. You can cry to SE and your internet crowd of forum posse as much as you want to change whatever, but it ain't going to satisfy you. People who are determined to have more houses for whatever reason are gonna get those houses within the rules and limitations of the TOS and you'll still be in last place both in game and out of game.

And so what of it? Ok, so I'm selfish for wanting what I want out of my money spent. Sorry I'm selfish for expecting to get what I want from what I put in. It is the amount of entitlement that people like you put on display every other thread which is simply abhorrent. That for putting in 1/100th of the work, you expect to have 100x of what you put in. Insane. And then when there are people putting in 100x of the work you do, it's WRONG, it's IMMORAL, it's SELFISH, it's GREEDY. What's next, you're going to demand the govt put controls on corporate salaries so we can't get too rich to buy pixel houses in mass? Mind blowing.

People this matter has to be solved by going straight to the source and not complaining about and demonizing players. Several among us house people have already gone to the GM on your behalf, turned ourselves in and got told that nothing we did was wrong.

But you don't believe it, you don't buy it. OK, then how about instead of coming to the forums every few days and opening the same thread about nothing and going to the same dead end, go talk to the GMs and have a debate with them. If this matter is truly important to you, don't you think an increased # of people complaining to the GMs and engaging in conversation with them will raise awareness? If you don't think so, then give up and accept that this is how things are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

Let's look at this from a purely money point of view:

If we look at award of 60 houses, going by the restrictions, that means it's somewhere between 30-60 subs for that ward... in other words SE is expecting that a ward will require enough subscriptions to generate between $4.5-9k/year (assuming that an annual subscription costs $150). If a player wants to own a ward IMO they should pay for the ward. Why should you get a discount?



And that is the exact selfish behavior that has caused this entire debacle. Anyone that shares that line of thinking is part of the problem and they should at least be honest about it.

---

Nothing wrong with putting your own enjoyment above others. It is okay to be selfish, so what exactly is the problem since I fail to see it? Or let me rephrase how exactly is it the problem of the player base that does have?

Thing is you have not pointed out why the player base that is operating within the rules has any obligation to alter their behavior. By what metric can we say their actions are bad, or even. the cause of the current housing system.

Reality is you have grounds to vilify the players. Your beef is with SE but instead of only taking it out with SE you also feel the need to go after the players that are just playing within the scope of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PewPewPewPewPew

But what if I told you I can easily shoulder this kind of pocket change spending for hobbies?

---

Then what's your problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Nothing wrong with putting your own enjoyment above others. It is okay to be selfish, so what exactly is the problem since I fail to see it?

---

And this is the entire disconnect right here. It's not OK to be selfish, but this is a point we're not likely going to agree over - so since we're not going to find common ground from this, we're not likely to agree on much else relating this housing cluster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

And this is the entire disconnect right here. It's not OK to be selfish, but this is a point we're not likely going to agree over - so since we're not going to find common ground from this, we're not likely to agree on much else relating this housing cluster.

---

By who's definition is it not OK to be selfish? Yours? And who made you the police of whether that's ok or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almagnus1

And this is the entire disconnect right here. It's not OK to be selfish, but this is a point we're not likely going to agree over - so since we're not going to find common ground from this, we're not likely to agree on much else relating this housing cluster.

---

Why not? it's not like he is killing anybody or breaking any rule and law, it's a game and he win the throphy fair and square by raising the money to bought the land, not every olympic athellete got gold medal.

and this point shaming him and trying to make him lose the house he work hard for is the selfish one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Nothing wrong with putting your own enjoyment above others. It is okay to be selfish, so what exactly is the problem since I fail to see it?

---

This really depends on the degree at which you put your enjoyment above others.

I personally do not think that hoarding a limited resource is okay. Especially when that resource is designed to and does work perfectly fine when you have only one of each type. It's not as if you need two or more fc or private houses to make a certain type of mechanic to work correctly. One of each is enough to do everything housing has to offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Reality is you have grounds to vilify the players. Your beef is with SE but instead of only taking it out with SE you also feel the need to go after the players that are just playing within the scope of the game.

---

You could say this about a multitude of thread topics where heated debates happen.

Even if a person does not use names or locations to point out exactly who is hoarding and where, hoarders very often voluntarily reveal themselves. I don't think anyone should be surprised when the focus is put on them when they enter a thread and tell people, entirely out of their own choice, that they engage in this behaviour. And because SE never enter these conversations the debates between players stay between players.

It is especially not surprising that very heated debates happen when a certain someone we all know actively trolls and laughs at players who do not have a house. They are a very vocal individual so they make the entire hoarding group look very bad. Really bad.

So yea it's all well and good to say "your beef is with SE" but when hoarders reveal themselves they are making themselves a target. They of course have the right to reveal themselves, but they should not be shocked that people have something against them when they enter a thread that specifically criticises their behaviour.

I've seen this sort of thing happen with so many topics. Player complains about a thing, player who does that thing enters the thread, what they say makes it clear they do the thing, people who agree with OP argue with them, people who agree with those who do the thing argue back...it's constant back and forth until the thread inevitably unravels itself into a mess, people get tired of the thread, it dies...and the whole process happens again when someone makes a new thread with the same topic.

I've seen the above happen with housing, parsers, tanking, healing, dps, party finder, raiding, hunts, msq roulette...anything that criticises how people play, act, or the ability/inability to do something very often become an argumentative mess.

I have seen this happen in literally every gaming forum I have been in. These threads about house hoarders are not particularly special. It's just players being players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Hrmm...just because something doesn't go against rules doesn't automatically mean that doing that thing cannot be selfish or greedy. A rule or lack of one doesn't make an action bad or good. It simply makes it permitted or not allowed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

It is true that selfishness is not inherently a bad thing. It really depends on what you do with the selfishness and your motives. Everyone needs to be a bit selfish at times for the preservation of their own well-being. Whether that's things like making sure you have enough food to eat, or cutting someone out of your life who is a source of stress.

But going too far one way or the other is bad. Being too selfless can mean denying your own well-being, and being too selfish can mean denying the well-being of others. It is especially damaging when neither end of the spectrum is even necessary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

This really depends on the degree at which you put your enjoyment above others.

---

Would you stop already with these "It's selfish but not if .... " interjections? Who made you the righteous king to determine what degree of 'selfishness' is allowed and not allowed? We get it. You think it's bad. Selfish is bad for certain things by whatever your personal standard is. And you want to be on the "good" side like the others against multi house ownership so you don't have to face the mob either. You want to stick to your 'morals' and preach to people what the RIGHT WAY is. You are literally that guy every thread, trying to stay 'neutral' but it's painfully obvious what your intent is. You spend all your posts trying to tell US to accept and admit what we are and that what we are doing is harming others. Yet you continue to try and put on the face of a saint so you can stand above both parties. Every time you come on here and type out this "It's selfish but" yadda yadda, you continue to push the negative image on people that wanting more is bad. So we're selfish, OK get over it. Keep it to yourself. We all kept to ourselves with our selfishness. None of us ran out there to rub it in your face. People on the forum are the ones who dug us up out of the ground and try to make examples of us. Why do you have to keep going out there and bring it back up and constantly raising the "Selfishness is bad" discussion over and over again to reinforce that negative image attached to it? You tell us that selfish actions affect other players, well don't you think your constant echoing of SELFISH BAD SELFISH BAD is also damaging to people? And then you always cop out with a half-assed answer because you don't want to have a target on your back.

Like what I said to the other insane entitled player, why don't you go ask a GM if selfish is bad and ask why SE doesn't conform to your views of enforcing selfishness so you can post it out there and say "LOOK SE SAYS BAD MORALS ARE BAD". You aren't contributing everything in your hundreds of cop out posts.