Two reasons why an eviction system is INEVITABLE.

[Intaki]

Stuff happens, give 1 week to renew, but then I'd agree - too bad so sad.

But what if they have a sad story about their sad wife's sad hand? Don't they deserve consideration too?

On the other hand, couldn't "Too bad, so sad" be turned back around on all the sad wives with sad hands out there?

Frankly, you may try to play nice in your posts, but you're no different than the rest of the housed majority: you already got yours, and if someone else didn't? **** 'em.

But let's get to the financial meat and potatoes at the root of the issue: you argue that house evictions could result in a unsubscribed player not returning. This is a fair point. But how many players are there with a) houses they have abandoned and b) a desire to return to the game at all? Juxtapose that with the following consideration: how many on the fence players can you turn into long term players by making housing available at the expense of unsubscribed players? How many players would keep their subscriptions going through lull periods just to keep their house?

You argue this system would come at financial cost. I argue it would come with financial benefit.