1 House 1 FC per DC Only

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

words

---

Your first point: It's a guidance. Not a restriction.

Your second point: It is not a bug or an exploit to be able to purchase more than one FC house.

Not against the ToS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

If you have something to offer go for it otherwise the goal post moving is getting pretty trite. But for the sake of posterity I will again post the relevant sections.

---

As always, no answers produced. No evidence produced. No substance produced. Nothing but the same nonsense repeated over and over again. Your answer serves only to mislead passing readers, because that's what you are good at. Let's break this down for the masses shall we?

What you posted:
https://i.imgur.com/c1HIr52.png

The lines you quoted are from two separate documentations.
>> The section you quoted for 2.1 Cheating and Botting is directly pulled from the Terms of Service.

>> The line you quoted about Land Ownership is pulled from Additional Plots and Purchasing Guide. This is a completely different entity from the Terms of Service.

--------

The argument you are pushing about Land Ownership does not reside in the Terms of Service, or even indirectly. Details below:

• Land Ownership guidelines are not included in the Terms of Service.
• Land Ownership that exceeds the amount of 1 FC and 1 House is not detailed, identified, or regarded to as a bug.
• Land Ownership that exceeds the amount of 1 FC and 1 House is not detailed, identified, or regarded to an exploit.
• Land Ownership that exceeds the amount of 1 FC and 1 House does not have a consequence with a violation in the same language or nature as section 2.1 Cheating and Botting or other related sections that have consequences tied to actions in the Terms of Service.
• Owning more than one service account is not detailed, identified, or regarded to as an exploit or bug.
• Circumvention of the suggested plot maximum per the Additional Plots and Purchasing Guide does not fall under the pretense of section 2.1 because it does not fit the criteria of being a bug or an exploit.

You have failed to make a valid connection between bug/exploit and multiple house ownership.

--------

If anything, the content and nature of your posting and the misinformation you continue to feed into this section of the forum repeatedly violates rules detailed in the FFXIV Forum Guidelines.

Enforcement begins with yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

If you have something to offer go for it otherwise the goal post moving is getting pretty trite. But for the sake of posterity I will again post the relevant sections.

---

You haven't shown that owning more than on FC house per world is actually a bug or exploit, despite latching onto this idea and pushing it constantly.

Also, what goalpost shifting? You already posted two threads that were removed, we haven't forgotten they were there. This entire crusade of yours came about because you saw something you didn't like and /you/ have been busy goalpost shifting to justify it this entire time.

I'm guessing you'll just shift those goals again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

That's what a psychopath does.

---

While I've got my own issue with that poster to the point I've stopped engaging with him, calling him a psychopath is going too far. That's not how a psychopath behaves at all.

I think the word you should have used is "fanatic".

If you want to try to keep reasoning with him, that's your option. Most of us have given up because he's beyond reason. He's got his opinion and he will not stray from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

While I've got my own issue with that poster to the point I've stopped engaging with him, calling him a psychopath is going too far. That's not how a psychopath behaves at all.

I think the word you should have used is "fanatic".

If you want to try to keep reasoning with him, that's your option. Most of us have given up because he's beyond reason. He's got his opinion and he will not stray from it.

---

With all do respect Mr. Jojoya but what I'm about to type somewhat contradicts what I am about to ask of you. Being that you are one of the most active posters in this forum I feel you should lead by example and shelve the picky opinions about trivial things like choice of thesaurus use. It would allow this forum to stay on target more often given the climate of this forum section and how easily people's emotion's are piqued by the smallest things.

Now, let me make it very clear.
This is not a reasoning. I am not asking for a compromise or settlement.

I am here to call out someone who is flatly wrong and using people's emotions (such as the example above regarding trivial details) in this forum to mislead and portray what is actually right and wrong and grey area in a way that serves his personal narrative. He is not here to represent people who are for or against housing ownership and it's future state. He simply needs you to fuel his ridiculous crusade by taking advantage of the chaotic situation.

If this part of the forum were to choose one thing to at least agree on, it should be to slam the report button on this guy until this goblin is purged. Full stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

If this part of the forum were to choose one thing to at least agree on, it should be to slam the report button on this guy until this goblin is purged. Full stop.

---

Considering how seriously people don't take him, that's kind of like trying to kill a gnat with a machine gun, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PredatoryCatgirl

Considering how seriously people don't take him, that's kind of like trying to kill a gnat with a machine gun, don't you think?

---

This mental picture made me laugh so hard. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinha

It's not a bug or an exploit if the official housing guide describes the conditions and steps required to buy additional houses.

---

By all means, point to where it explicitly mentions that being the intention; in direct opposition to the listed Requirements. I'll even ignore the fact that what you're referencing is under the Temporary section.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

As always, no answers produced. No evidence produced. No substance produced.

---

Then what are you replying to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

The argument you are pushing about Land Ownership does not reside in the Terms of Service, or even indirectly.

---

Yes. First, it's not an argument it's a statement of fact. Second, and in this context, both must be observed as we are dealing with an exploit, which is, as the TOS puts it "taking advantage game system[s]".

To put it simply, a requirement is laid out in how a game system ought to work; in this case the FC purchase and ownership. Strictly from the Requirements, in plain language it limits 1 Service Account, on 1 World to 1 FC plot. Circumventing this with a temporary stop-gap can and is considered an exploit as it is taking advantage of a loophole for a purpose not intended.

That's it. That's all there is to it. No gratuitous amount forum styling or toxic posting required. I'm not even sure why the majority of your point included a situation I have not touched on (multiple service accounts), other than for the fact you don't actually have anything to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

Enforcement begins with yourself.

---

So true, that's how SE got into this mess in the first place. Too much faith in peoples humanities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

I'm guessing you'll just shift those goals again.

---

By all means illustrate your point, my post history is public here. Otherwise I'm not sure what the point of gaslighting this is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jojoya

While I've got my own issue with that poster to the point I've stopped engaging with him, calling him a psychopath is going too far. That's not how a psychopath behaves at all.

I think the word you should have used is "fanatic".

If you want to try to keep reasoning with him, that's your option. Most of us have given up because he's beyond reason. He's got his opinion and he will not stray from it.

---

"It is what it is" is hardly a 'reason'. At least it does seem you have some modicum of limit to the abuse thrown around by the people you defend. Good for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

If this part of the forum were to choose one thing to at least agree on, it should be to slam the report button on this guy until this goblin is purged. Full stop.

---

Calling for mass reporting on a single user for no legitimate reason? Oh my.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

By all means illustrate your point, my post history is public here. Otherwise I'm not sure what the point of gaslighting this is..

---

Accuses me of gaslighting.

Is actually the one gaslighting the forums.

For those of us who have been here for awhile and observed your argument's evolution and goal post shifting, you're not going to gaslight /us/.

I mean considering the fact that I've not changed in position as Jojoya implied, it would be strange to call it gaslighting. I do wonder what it's called, however, when someone fabricates a narrative. I look forward to the examples you have in store for me, I'm sure you just forgot to include them this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

I mean considering the fact that I've not changed in position as Jojoya implied, it would be strange to call it gaslighting. I do wonder what it's called, however, when someone fabricates a narrative. I look forward to the examples you have in store for me, I'm sure you just forgot to include them this time.

---

Dude, don't be disingenuous. We saw the posts you originally made, complete with links and screenshots. And then they were gone, removed. I guess that works in your favor eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

Dude, don't be disingenuous. We saw the posts you originally made, complete with links and screenshots. And then they were gone, removed. I guess that works in your favor eh?

---

Don't forget about the one that was locked by a mod. He thinks it's a victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themarvin

Suggested as above, 1 house 1 FC ONLY per account per DC.

EDIT as raised questions:

You can only OWN one FC house per DC and 1 Private house on the DC you are on.

It would not restrict your alts being members of other FC's and even the one you own and run.


Also this would be the best time to add in these restrictions RIGHT now, or in the close close future as new servers is just around the corner, and people from other serves will make alts... funnel coin to them... buy more houses and FC's, so enough said.

You can't disagree with this suggestion either, not due to the lack of housing, as it would make no sense at all.

---

Ok to point out this is all what is is about and the post was made before, if I remember correct, Ishgaard housing being an option.

No idea why the fuss about everything else and small private wars @.@

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

I mean considering the fact that I've not changed in position as Jojoya implied, it would be strange to call it gaslighting. I do wonder what it's called, however, when someone fabricates a narrative. I look forward to the examples you have in store for me, I'm sure you just forgot to include them this time.

---

Please make your own thread to troll in or whatever -_-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

I mean considering the fact that I've not changed in position as Jojoya implied, it would be strange to call it gaslighting. I do wonder what it's called, however, when someone fabricates a narrative. I look forward to the examples you have in store for me, I'm sure you just forgot to include them this time.

---

Always a smart mouth, but never a smart reply.

Let's analyze what you did and help add the clarity that gets lost in posts that multi-quote with no actual substance other than to create confusion and attempt to appear sophisticated and confident to passing readers:

What you did:

You took a line from the Additional Plots and Purchasing Guide that states a conditional, not a rule, about a quantity of housing.

https://i.imgur.com/c1HIr52.png
(Image from referenced post.)

You then picked and immediately followed up with a line from the actual FFXIV Terms of Service. Your goal here was to present them in a manner that gives it the appearance and feel of being an official rule in the Terms of Service.

With this you presented your argument saying multi-ownership involves circumvention and violates section 2.1 Cheating and Botting.

This was deliberately to mislead, misrepresent, and deceive people into believing the two excerpts to be of equal impact and to validate your stance on tying multi-ownership to circumvention of rules, therefore making it possible to argue that these actions are susceptible to consequence and enforcement detailed under 2.1 Cheating and Botting in the Terms of Service.

This is the very definition of GASLIGHTING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

No gratuitous amount forum styling or toxic posting required.

---

You are threatened by text styling because it does it's job to show people what kind of fraud you are. It is already a known fact that general users may struggle with reading whether it be the placard, the housing agreement pre-bidding, or even forum posts. You know full well of that fact and intend to take advantage of it to push your misinformation campaign.

Let us point out that up until this point, you have continually failed to produce any justification, connection, or evidence between the nature of how people acquire their plots and how it is justifiably a violation of the Terms of Service or any policy officially stated and detailed as a stance on housing by Square Enix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

Yes. First, it's not an argument it's a statement of fact. Second, and in this context, both must be observed as we are dealing with an exploit, which is, as the TOS puts it "taking advantage game system[s]".

To put it simply, a requirement is laid out in how a game system ought to work; in this case the FC purchase and ownership. Strictly from the Requirements, in plain language it limits 1 Service Account, on 1 World to 1 FC plot. Circumventing this with a temporary stop-gap can and is considered an exploit as it is taking advantage of a loophole for a purpose not intended.

---

So let us turn our attention to this part now.

Language is important.

But for you, it's clearly only about convenience and hot buzzwords.

From the Additional Plots and Housing Guide first:

https://i.imgur.com/tCtzRvu.png

This is a conditional statement notifying players what qualifies them to make their first purchase. Notice it does not say or follow up with "You cannot" or "You should not" or "You must not".

https://i.imgur.com/6TLCKoi.png

This is a follow up statement to the above conditional informing players who exceed this amount before or after 4.2 that no consequences exist. Including "housing above this limit" acknowledes players own more than one. Otherwise a specific quantity of "one" would have been designated in the language. As such, there is clearly no plan to enforce on the quantity.

Lastly and most importantly, these are not noted, referenced to, or connected to the Terms of Service in any way throughout the entire guide.

Now back to language importance. Let's take this section from the Terms of Service you personally seem to love:

https://i.imgur.com/KK9j3gg.png

This is a statement from the Terms of Service. Notice how it specifically states "You may not" and clearly sets a definition for what is considered a violation. Now, let's also note the important blob of text that precedes it, because again language is important.

https://i.imgur.com/ByjcoT0.png

There is proper language that specifically states all things listed in Section 2 and within those criteria are enforceable at the disgression
of Square Enix. However, notice that none of the 8 subsections include housing. It can only mean that Square Enix currently does not acknowledge housing and related activities to fall under actionable violations. This only further reinforces that the Additional Plots and Housing Guide serves as an informative source for players and nothing more.

So to recap, a fact you say? Wrong.

You are wishing so hard for a conditional statement to grow up into the law of the land. Sorry Pinocchio, but that's not how logic and language works when you pay attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

Dude, don't be disingenuous. We saw the posts you originally made, complete with links and screenshots. And then they were gone, removed. I guess that works in your favor eh?

---

How very convenient for you then. The thread was judged to be in violation to the forum rules and it was removed. While I disagree with the reason, I accept that it was against the rules. It's honestly not that hard to do so, I highly recommend it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaalHenrik

Don't forget about the one that was locked by a mod. He thinks it's a victory.

---

I mean, did you not read the title of that thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

You took a line from the Additional Plots and Purchasing Guide that states a conditional, not a rule, about a quantity of housing.

---

It's a requirement, not a conditional. Broadly speaking requirements can be considered rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

Your goal here was to present them in a manner that gives it the appearance and feel of being an official rule in the Terms of Service.

---

The goal was to demonstrate that taking advantages of exploits is against TOS. The connection is that abusing the current loophole is an exploit of the intended requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

You are threatened by text styling because it does it's job to show people what kind of fraud you are.

---

I just think it's gaudy. Like a speaker being loud and bombastic in an attempt to cover a vacuous speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

Let us point out that up until this point, you have continually failed to produce any justification, connection, or evidence between the nature of how people acquire their plots and how it is justifiably a violation of the Terms of Service or any policy officially stated and detailed as a stance on housing by Square Enix.

---

I mean, I have and still do. That this discussion persist is evidence of that. What's that about gaslighting again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

This is a conditional statement notifying players what qualifies them to make their first purchase. Notice it does not say or follow up with "You cannot" or "You should not" or "You must not".

---

Nope, but the heading of that section (which is conveniently omitted) does clearly state "Requirements".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

This is a follow up statement to the above conditional informing players who exceed this amount before or after 4.2 that no consequences exist. Including "housing above this limit" acknowledes players own more than one. Otherwise a specific quantity of "one" would have been designated in the language. As such, there is clearly no plan to enforce on the quantity.

---

That's quite a stretch here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

However, notice that none of the 8 subsections include housing. It can only mean that Square Enix currently does not acknowledge housing and related activities to fall under actionable violations. This only further reinforces that the Additional Plots and Housing Guide serves as an informative source for players and nothing more.

---

I mean, nothing in the TOS include high-level raiding either but _UNAMED were still dinged for it. It neither includes placing exterior housing items in a malicious way but that's still actionable as well. I am honestly at a loss here as to your infatuation with the TOS both being irrelevant and crucial to the discussion. It's not that complicated, the TOS just shows that abusing exploits such as loopholes is not allowed. If you really were genuine in the discussion you would be arguing on whether or not the loophole constitutes as an exploit, as others have in the past.

I will say however the styling does much to pad out the character count which is a bit of an annoyance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

How very convenient for you then. The thread was judged to be in violation to the forum rules and it was removed. While I disagree with the reason, I accept that it was against the rules. It's honestly not that hard to do so, I highly recommend it.

---

I've never had one thread removed for violating the forum rules, let alone two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

I mean, nothing in the TOS include high-level raiding either but _UNAMED were still dinged for it.

---

Please allow me to demonstrate how easy it is to reference to the Terms of Service for the example you have provided regarding UNNNAMED_ group activities in the recent World First incident (Naoki Yoshida's official statement on this incident):

https://i.imgur.com/KK9j3gg.png

As reinforced by the Producer of the game, this incident was achieved through the use of third party tools which are deemed as unauthorized per Section 2.1.

To say that there is nothing in the Terms of Service that covers and explains why members of the World First incident with group UNNAMED_ were met with action and punished accordingly demonstrates that:

• You do not have a clear understanding of the Terms of Service.
• You do not understand the nature of what qualifies as a violation of the Terms of Service.
• You do not understand the difference between an action which is clearly detailed as a violation of the Terms of Service Section 2 and an action which is grey area or not deemed out of the bounds, enforceable only at the sole disgression of Square Enix detailed in the Terms of Service Section 3.
• You have selectively identified and decided upon absolute required parameters of the housing system based on personal interpretation of documentation that resides outside of the Terms of Service. (Refer to previous posts quoting from Additional Plots and Housing Guide)
• You have selectively identified statements related to the housing system as being equal to the level of items listed in the Terms of Service despite the language being clearly different in nature and intent.
  

The result of your actions so far:

• You have had two threads which you have participated in removed by moderators.
• You have not received outgoing support from any of the involved parties in any of these discussions in this part of the forum.
• Your ideas, statements, and opinions have been unanimously rejected both on and outside of this platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

It neither includes placing exterior housing items in a malicious way but that's still actionable as well. I am honestly at a loss here as to your infatuation with the TOS both being irrelevant and crucial to the discussion. It's not that complicated, the TOS just shows that abusing exploits such as loopholes is not allowed. If you really were genuine in the discussion you would be arguing on whether or not the loophole constitutes as an exploit, as others have in the past.

---

You have repeatedly noted "Malicious Glitching" within the housing system.

For this particular thread, you have reference placement of exterior furniture (related to this incident). What you are failing to understand is the nature of the violation in this incident. Glitching furniture can be achieved in-game without the assistance of third party tools to a certain degree. However, this particular incident falls under the Terms of Service Section 3 criteria of:

https://i.imgur.com/Wyn3aXv.png

These objects have been placed in a manner meant to disrupt another player's experience. However, a GM must be able to prove that intent before taking harsher action.

There is a major difference between Section 2 and Section 3 of the Terms of Service.

Section 2 items are notably the felonies of FFXIV.
Very specific criteria that has no room for negotiation. It will be enforced without question when Square Enix can make a clear identification of the infraction and the consequence is usually termination.

Section 3 essentially cover most misdemeanors.
Lower level violations or grey areas within the rules that require further investigation or judgement with a very broad range of enforcement ranging from Account Termination to no action at all.

Let me illustrate it in an easier real world example to help someone challenged like you through it:

Example 1: You approach a stop sign. You stop, but not 100%. You roll through it at 1 mile an hour and continue on with no accident. This is a low level traffic violation which can receive a violation or a straight up fine depending on observation and results.

Example 2: You are driving under the influence and collide with a vehicle which results in the fatal death of the person you hit. This is vehicular manslaughter or a variation of it depending on state and has a very severe consequences.

You are attempting to upgrade Example 1 into the severity of Example 2 and you refuse to settle for anything less.

It is very clear who has a delusional infatuation with the rules around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

I mean, nothing in the TOS include high-level raiding either but _UNAMED were still dinged for it. It neither includes placing exterior housing items in a malicious way but that's still actionable as well. I am honestly at a loss here as to your infatuation with the TOS both being irrelevant and crucial to the discussion. It's not that complicated, the TOS just shows that abusing exploits such as loopholes is not allowed. If you really were genuine in the discussion you would be arguing on whether or not the loophole constitutes as an exploit, as others have in the past.

I will say however the styling does much to pad out the character count which is a bit of an annoyance.

---

You are just taking a section of TOS out of context to and interpret it in a way to fit in your narration.
You are not the first one and certainly will not be the last but one fact remains: it never works.
Your argument right now is as ridiculous as those who attempted to report me for Obstructing Gameplay Using Combat over the PvP Frontline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

I've never had one thread removed for violating the forum rules, let alone two.

---

It was more about abiding by rules as stated. Wasn't specifically referencing you, it was just a general jab at exploiting loopholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

Please allow me to demonstrate how easy it is to reference to the Terms of Service for the example you have provided regarding UNNNAMED_ group activities in the recent World First incident (Naoki Yoshida's official statement on this incident):

https://i.imgur.com/KK9j3gg.png

---

Right, but you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

However, notice that none of the 8 subsections include housing.

---

This implied that there was no explicit mention of housing. Likewise, your examples do not explicitly mention raiding nor furniture placement. Again this is your argument here, not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

You have had two threads which you have participated in removed by moderators.

---

One was removed, the other was locked with notice that the thread would be forwarded to relevant parties. If you really want to find credibility maybe start being honest at some point?

Because you certainly understand in what way I reference the TOS:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

However, this particular incident falls under the Terms of Service Section 3 criteria of:

https://i.imgur.com/Wyn3aXv.png

---

Like I mentioned earlier, this section also does not explicitly mention furniture placement in the same manner that Section 2.1 does not mention housing. And again, this is your mole hill not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

There is a major difference between Section 2 and Section 3 of the Terms of Service.

Section 2 items are notably the felonies of FFXIV.
Very specific criteria that has no room for negotiation. It will be enforced without question when Square Enix can make a clear identification of the infraction and the consequence is usually termination.

Section 3 essentially cover most misdemeanors.
Lower level violations or grey areas within the rules that require further investigation or judgement with a very broad range of enforcement ranging from Account Termination to no action at all.

---

And I have a delusional infatuation with the rules? Sheesh.

Quote:

---

Violating these License Limitations may result in the suspension or permanent banning of your account, or such other lesser measures described in Section 3 which Square Enix may take in its sole discretion, or an action for copyright infringement or other legal claims, all of which are reserved.

---

You really need to relax and take a breather here. This black and white distinction you just made up isn't even supported by the TOS itself.

I mean, are you seriously arguing that one player hoarding an entire ward is not a disruption to other player's experience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

You are just taking a section of TOS out of context to and interpret it in a way to fit in your narration.

---

Explain how I am taking a section of TOS out of context? As a reminder, taking advantage of a loophole in the programming to obtain multiple plots with a single service account, on a single world can be considered an exploit, which is relevant to Section 2.1.

Catstarwind: That raiding group was busted with video evidence of using TPP to gain their win. That's where they broke the cheating rule. Why do you insist on focusing on it "This implied that there was no explicit mention of housing. Likewise, your examples do not explicitly mention raiding nor furniture placement. Again this is your argument here, not mine." this? No raiding isn't mentioned in the ToS but they weren't in trouble for raiding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

This implied that there was no explicit mention of housing. Likewise, your examples do not explicitly mention raiding nor furniture placement. Again this is your argument here, not mine..

---

They did not get into trouble because they were raiding or participating in raid content. They were using 3rd party tools to assist them in raiding content. That's the violation listed in the ToS.

I'm not exactly sure why you think this is some sort of gotcha or somehow supports your argument, thin as it is. It really does look like you either don't understand the ToS or you're deliberately being disingenuous about it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

And I have a delusional infatuation with the rules? Sheesh.

---

It appears your basic comprehension is much lower than I thought. I will try again with an explanation for a lower age level.

https://i.imgur.com/rvaPHcN.png
Please, take a seat.


SCENARIO A: UNNAMED_ World First Incident

WHO:
UNNAMED_ Raid World First Party

WHAT:
A video captures a member of the raid party using third party programs (zoom hack) to alleviate the difficulty of supporting their raid members.

WHAT IS THE VIOLATION:
https://i.imgur.com/KK9j3gg.png

WHY:
Because the user has made use of an unauthorized software/mod/cheat/hack with their intent and use caught on video.

ACTION TAKEN:
Members of the party depending on their involvement and testimony were punished by having progress removed, items removed, or character deleted.


SCENARIO B: Exterior furniture glitching incident

WHO:
Nameless house owner

WHAT:
Owner of this plot has placed exterior furniture that overlaps another nearby plot and restricts physical movement and access to the placard.

WHAT IS THE VIOLATION:
https://i.imgur.com/Wyn3aXv.png

WHY:
Because the player has performed actions which disrupt, obstruct, or interfere with the game experience of another player. Screenshots have been provided to demonstrate.

ACTION TAKEN:
Since there is no way to prove the intent or the method used, GM can only issue a warning or reset the coordinates of the furniture items away. Repeated offenses or warnings may result in a suspension.


SCENARIO C: User reported for possessing multiple plots

WHO:
Nameless user in the housing district.

WHAT:
Another player has reported to a GM that this user is in possession of more plots than the technical limit of one FC and one personal house per character per world.

WHAT IS THE VIOLATION:
None.

WHY:
Because no known violation performed. Possession of multiple houses is not actionable nor disruptive to other players. Users can come into possession of multiple FC houses on other characters via automatic leader change after 35 days of inactivity. Purchasing more than one plot can be achieved without 3rd party tools. User may also purchase additional service accounts to purchase more plots. Multiple service accounts are allowed.

ACTION TAKEN:
None. Unless the player uses the housing system to disrupt another player like SCENARIO B or is caught with proven intent using third party tools such as SCENARIO A, no further action can be taken.


Any questions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

Any questions?

---

Will you marry me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

It was more about abiding by rules as stated. Wasn't specifically referencing you, it was just a general jab at exploiting loopholes.

---

Kinda like you necroing threads after your posts were either deleted or locked?

I come from SWTOR, and our houses are instanced, but you can access them if you want to visit from a board that lists them, and everyone can get the housing. We have 9 or 10 (can't remember offhand) and you can own each one.

And they are horrid for decorating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casi2161

I come from SWTOR, and our houses are instanced, but you can access them if you want to visit from a board that lists them, and everyone can get the housing. We have 9 or 10 (can't remember offhand) and you can own each one.

---

Yeah and I think we could easily do something like that in XIV, only having things work the way they do in the wards houses. Since there’s a bit less customization in SWTOR iirc, we probably wouldn’t be able to have 10. lol but we could easily have an instanced plot (indoor and outdoor with the background scenery) with the same functionality of ward housing, to deal with the lack of ward housing supply. Just needs to be taken seriously enough for them to work on it. If everyone can have their dream house, it doesn’t matter who’s hoarding the ward houses anymore.

I agree you do not have free form decorating, which I have been used to since I played SWG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khryseis_Astra

Yeah and I think we could easily do something like that in XIV, only having things work the way they do in the wards houses. Since there’s a bit less customization in SWTOR iirc, we probably wouldn’t be able to have 10. lol but we could easily have an instanced plot (indoor and outdoor with the background scenery) with the same functionality of ward housing, to deal with the lack of ward housing supply. Just needs to be taken seriously enough for them to work on it. If everyone can have their dream house, it doesn’t matter who’s hoarding the ward houses anymore.

---

Yea, SWTOR decorating has a lot to be desired. I was used to free form decorating (SWG player) and I complained and complained about the way they were wanting to do the decorating (which they did anyways). I have had to get creative, which is not always easy to do with the way it is on SWOR. 10 would probably be a bit much (I have those in SWTOR, but most are still waiting to be decorated because I am picky about my decorating).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casi2161

Yea, SWTOR decorating has a lot to be desired. I was used to free form decorating (SWG player) and I complained and complained about the way they were wanting to do the decorating (which they did anyways). I have had to get creative, which is not always easy to do with the way it is on SWOR. 10 would probably be a bit much (I have those in SWTOR, but most are still waiting to be decorated because I am picky about my decorating).

---

if you came from SWG, then I do not know why you liked the SWTOR way, played the same games here, and honestly instanced... could only invite a select few people in swtor... you could not free form anything... all was locked into sockets to place an item at.

FFXIV has a LITTLE bit of SWG.... and more of SWTOR in it... SWG system was superiour.. especially if you played to the end... you also rotate paintings and anything in any angle in open 3D space, which is impossible in FFXIV and really limits the gameplay in dekadent ways.

You can still play SWG there is alot of SWGEMU's out there today and even some rather well running that does not reset everything once in a few months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaalHenrik

Why do you insist on focusing on it "This implied that there was no explicit mention of housing. Likewise, your examples do not explicitly mention raiding nor furniture placement. Again this is your argument here, not mine." this? No raiding isn't mentioned in the ToS but they weren't in trouble for raiding.

---

Again, that is not my focus at all. Ask ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

They did not get into trouble because they were raiding or participating in raid content. They were using 3rd party tools to assist them in raiding content. That's the violation listed in the ToS.

I'm not exactly sure why you think this is some sort of gotcha or somehow supports your argument, thin as it is. It really does look like you either don't understand the ToS or you're deliberately being disingenuous about it here.

---

I absolutely agree, it's simply a violation listed in the ToS. Just because the ToS doesn't mention cheating in high-end raiding specifically doesn't mean it isn't a violation. I don't think it's either a gotcha or something that supports my arguement. This is something ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain invented for whatever reason. Your questions are better served directed at them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

It appears your basic comprehension is much lower than I thought. I will try again with an explanation for a lower age level.

https://i.imgur.com/rvaPHcN.png
Please, take a seat.

---

Classy.

Anyway, you're retreading your own invented argument here. Again let me remind you that you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

However, notice that none of the 8 subsections include housing.

---

Which, again, none of your scenario uses the relevant verbiage directly from the TOS either. The closest thing to a point you have is this one:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

WHAT:
Another player has reported to a GM that this user is in possession of more plots than the technical limit of one FC and one personal house per character per world.

WHAT IS THE VIOLATION:
None.

WHY:
Because no known violation performed.[/COLOR]

---

The adorable circular logic aside, this is what I mentioned previously in regards to putting forth a genuine argument. Even within these 3 short lines you both acknowledge and dismiss that an exploit occurred. Schrödinger exploit aside, I would rather argue that, using your verbiage, it is a "legal" limit; that being one FC plot per world per service account as noted being a requirement. The technical limitation is absent, due to it causing wider damage to the fragile FC codebase, and was withdrawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

Any questions?

---

Take your pick from the dozens of mine you've ignored thus far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

Kinda like you necroing threads after your posts were either deleted or locked?

---

As far as I am aware it isn't against the rules; on the contrary, it seems relatively common to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khryseis_Astra

Yeah and I think we could easily do something like that in XIV, only having things work the way they do in the wards houses.

---

I've always been a proponent of expanding Apartments. At the very least they could do with a balcony ala PSO2 style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

Again, that is not my focus at all. Ask ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain.



I absolutely agree, it's simply a violation listed in the ToS. Just because the ToS doesn't mention cheating in high-end raiding specifically doesn't mean it isn't a violation. I don't think it's either a gotcha or something that supports my arguement. This is something ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain invented for whatever reason. Your questions are better served directed at them.

---

That's not what they said at all. Everyone else perfectly comprehends their explanations. Except you, who continues to dig heels in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatStarwind

As far as I am aware it isn't against the rules; on the contrary, it seems relatively common to do so.

---

It just shows that you aren't as willing to accept judgement as you claim. 2 threads deleted. 1 locked. So instead of making more, you necro old ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

That's not what they said at all. Everyone else perfectly comprehends their explanations. Except you, who continues to dig heels in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain

However, notice that none of the 8 subsections include housing.

---

This is what they said. Not that "none of the subsections concern exploiting loopholes" or even denial that such loopholes can be considered exploits. Simply that the TOS doesn't literally include "housing".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nepentha

It just shows that you aren't as willing to accept judgement as you claim. 2 threads deleted. 1 locked. So instead of making more, you necro old ones.

---

Two threads deleted? One was certainly locked and another deleted, but what is the mystery third thread that was also deleted? And why would I rehash points that others have made more eloquently than I did? I made the thread I wished to make and it reached its intended conclusion. I was guided to other threads of relevance and found them to be fascinating enough to be worth a second look for others. Given that they received as many posts as they did previously it would seem I was correct in that assessment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetEquity

And they are horrid for decorating.

---

Which is specific to the MMOs that use the hook system for their housing, which FFXIV doesn't.

ESO, RIFT and formerly Wildstar didn't use the hook system but have/had solid instanced housing systems so players didn't have a problem getting a house and they had a lot of customization freedom that we lack here due to their controls and options. ESO and RIFT tend to get marked down solely on art aesthetic. The cash shop monetization was generally only a problem if you were trying to purchase above and beyond the access included in the base game.