Housing exposes a fundamental flaw in institutionalized ethics.

[JackHatchet]

It was not ethically sound and it wasn't unethical of them. It was pretty neutral. It was simply people playing a video game.

It wasn't entirely neutral. Loop-holes in the game allowed players to own multiple houses, and such loop-holes will continue to exist. However, the question is 'knowing' the intention of the system, and what it was designed for. Square-Enix has made it abundantly obvious now that not only do they want only one house per player, but also they want to prioritize FCs. So knowing this, wouldn't it be unethical to undermine the intention of fair play by taking advantage of loop-holes?

It's one thing to accidentally stumble upon a vacant lot on an alt, but an entirely other concept to exploit loop-holes to use the system for a purpose other than intended.

-----------------

(DISCLAIMER): I enjoy these debates, but once those servers get back up, you probably won't see me on the forums. This isn't a salt post. Keep it fun. Keep it civil!

[Canadane]

It wasn't entirely neutral. Loop-holes in the game allowed players to own multiple houses, and such loop-holes will continue to exist. However, the question is 'knowing' the intention of the system, and what it was designed for. Square-Enix has made it abundantly obvious now that not only do they want only one house per player, but also they want to prioritize FCs. So knowing this, wouldn't it be unethical to undermine the intention of fair play by taking advantage of loop-holes?

You may call it a loop-hole but that's just how the system was built. Yes it was absolutely fair.
Now things have changed.

[JackHatchet]

You may call it a loop-hole but that's just how the system was built. Yes it was absolutely fair.
Now things have changed.

Right, the system was built that way, but you could argue that the original system built was flawed. If you 'knew' it was flawed, does that justify taking advantage of it?

There's been many examples in both video games and in real life where developers and law-writers had accidentally overlooked important details. A good example for America, is that for a long time it wasn't illegal to sleep with a corpse. I mean, really, who's going to actually sit down and write that into a law and go through all the red-tape? But you know, just because you could--doesn't mean you should.

The thought-discussion for this post was to inquire if people think about whether their actions are ethical, or do they just do what they can-regardless, as long as the rules say it's ok.

[Warr_of_Lint]

i can't believe we're down to applying real world ethics to a video game to somehow try to understand why people buy more than one virtual home. this is getting weird.

This is certainly an interesting way to frame things. I suppose when one views this issue from a broader scope, one could argue that it would be unethical to spend money and time on videogames when those excess resources could be spent on those that have urgent and dire needs. Or in other words, it's shortsighted to complain about the inequities within a videogame, which is already a self-indulgent luxury. But my goodness how unbearable life would be if we had to sacrifice every ounce of own joy as long as someone (or something, for you animal lovers) in the world that had a need greater than our own. It is difficult to see the unfairness in things until one is personally affected--those who can should be commended; those who cannot, we shouldn't be too hard on them.

A good example for America, is that for a long time it wasn't illegal to sleep with a corpse.

I just want to make sure someone here doesn't try this; even if it isn't specially written into law that you cannot sleep with a corpse, it is probably still illegal because they made it illegal to sleep with something without its consent. They don't need to pass a new law because it was already well covered by an existing one. Back to the issue about overlooking things: instead of focusing on the specific activities, laws are most effective when they get to the crux of the issue (in this case, consent). I'm sure someone could conceive of a rule that SE could have implemented to get to the crux of the housing issue, but it's good that SE is making an effort now.

[MistakeNot]

You may call it a loop-hole but that's just how the system was built. Yes it was absolutely fair.

No, it wasn't fair at all - it was merely allowed.
Just because something is legal does not automatically make it okay - which is the point of the OP.

[MizArai]

No, it wasn't fair at all - it was merely allowed.
Just because something is legal does not automatically make it okay - which is the point of the OP.

Everyone had the same super poor chance of winning log in savage and getting a house. Or catching a demolition after those were started. Or going on reddit and paying through the nose to someone if you were too lazy or had super bad luck with the other options. Everyone could own a house, and everyone had the same (usually super low) chance of finding one and purchasing it. That last sentence is why it was fair. Since it is no longer allowed (and all the characters on a server still can't share a house), I would argue the current system isn't fair.

The only "fundamental flaw" this housing issue exposes is that the current housing system does not work well in an MMO.

So stop trying to be holier than thou and putting down people with multiple houses and start talking about a fix to the housing situation like maybe instanced housing.

OMG! This times like a million! ♥