I understand what the preposition 'from' means, lol. I just don't feel that this situation, regulation of virtual housing, falls into the sliding scale of context mentioned in your definition. Which I suppose boils down to opinion since we don't have an official source to cite on whether it does or not. Would it make you feel better if I phrased it as, "In my opinion, hoarders shouldn't throw around the word 'punishment' when talking about losing their multiples."? I could provide you with the Merriam Webster definition if you like, as it's the definition of punishment that I use and why I take issue with it being used in such a way. In the end, we are simply arguing semantics anyway, which pales considerably next to the topic at hand, and why I only mentioned it in passing at the end of my post.
I can concede that you are correct in most of your post and that I heartily hope that you are right about SE continuing to take the issue seriously until housing is sorted out. But I can't agree with this line quoted here and have to point out that it is objectively wrong. Even if every single hoarder only owned one extra home, the ratio of upset/happy people if they were resold would be, at the very least, 1:1. But there are enough well documented cases to show multiple owners having way more than one extra home to tip the scales well in favor of the people who would be able to buy a house. And, even if that weren't the case, the probability of FCs scoping up those resold houses would tilt the scales even further in favor of the number of people to be made happy by such a change.
In the end, you are probably correct. It would probably be too much work for SE for too small a benefit to the playerbase for them to reclaim hoarders multiples and it is as futile for me to advocate this as it is to advocate instanced housing or dynamic wards. Still, the official word is that they are still taking feedback, so I will continue to give mine, even if it ultimately falls on deaf ears.



Reply With Quote

