Housing Ownership System Abuse

[Doozer]

It seems like you guys are really starting to get nasty towards each other -- maybe it's time to dial it back, take a breath, and try again?

[Catstab]

It seems like you guys are really starting to get nasty towards each other -- maybe it's time to dial it back, take a breath, and try again?

It's mostly just a moot discussion. One side thinks that official rules should change, and failing that, that all people should be bound to their personal moral set. The other side recognizes the rules, and explores their limits to have as much fun as possible.

If this was framed from a perspective of "Petition for SE to only allow one FC house per account" it would be pretty easy to keep civil. But once it's pointed out that SE is okay with people owning 9 houses per account, the conversation then turns to "well, the people who would do that are evil!" Heck, this particular thread opened up with a name-and-shame screenshot so we could all see how 'evil' someone was for having 8 accounts.

[Doozer]

It's mostly just a moot discussion. One side thinks that official rules should change, and failing that, that all people should be bound to their personal moral set. The other side recognizes the rules, and explores their limits to have as much fun as possible.

If this was framed from a perspective of "Petition for SE to only allow one FC house per account" it would be pretty easy to keep civil. But once it's pointed out that SE is okay with people owning 9 houses per account, the conversation then turns to "well, the people who would do that are evil!" Heck, this particular thread opened up with a name-and-shame screenshot so we could all see how 'evil' someone was for having 8 accounts.

While it's easy to see one side as overreacting or rude while you think the other side is just because it's the side you're on, it's clear people on both sides of this argument are just resorting to name-calling and personal attacks rather than actual discussion. It went off the rails a while ago and no one from either camp has really made an effort to be civil about it.

Even if one side is being extremely immature or rude, that doesn't have to set the tone. You don't always have to stoop to the level of your opponent.

[ramsesh]

While it's easy to see one side as overreacting or rude while you think the other side is just because it's the side you're on, it's clear people on both sides of this argument are just resorting to name-calling and personal attacks rather than actual discussion. It went off the rails a while ago and no one from either camp has really made an effort to be civil about it.

Even if one side is being extremely immature or rude, that doesn't have to set the tone. You don't always have to stoop to the level of your opponent.

These sorts of "Debates" are dead on arrival anyway. Both sides get too entrenched in their own views, and I say this freely as an active participant.

But let's remember this thread started with a name-and-shame approach. Unsurprising it maintained that vibe throughout.

[Almagnus1]

While it's easy to see one side as overreacting or rude while you think the other side is just because it's the side you're on, it's clear people on both sides of this argument are just resorting to name-calling and personal attacks rather than actual discussion. It went off the rails a while ago and no one from either camp has really made an effort to be civil about it.

Except with these threads, one side has never been (nor do they show any desire to ever be) civil about it. They are always quick to vilify which is why my view of them is rather dim to say the least.

[ramsesh]

Except with these threads, one side has never been (nor do they show any desire to ever be) civil about it. They are always quick to vilify which is why my view of them is rather dim to say the least.

You mean the people literally naming and shaming people in their posts? Because yes, this is true.

[Arielen]

Players: This is against the rules according to FFXIV Terms of Service!
A player investigates by asking a GM for clarification
GM: This is not against the rules
Players: Actually GMs don't know the ToS so their opinion doesn't matter. Even if they did (insert thing they're mad about) is morally wrong!

Or the secret alternative ending: "If you have to ask a GM for a clarification about a rule it means that you're breaking it!"

This thread doesn't just have one Bingo it covers the whole board.

[Catstab]

Except with these threads, one side has never been (nor do they show any desire to ever be) civil about it. They are always quick to vilify which is why my view of them is rather dim to say the least.

I've been exceedingly civil in all of my posts. I've stuck thoroughly to facts. The people with multiple houses are not breaking the rules. That's my whole point, and my only point.

Your moral rule set applies only to you, that's how morals work. Don't want more than one house? Great, don't buy more than one. But don't say that "well, you might not be breaking the rules, but in my head you are!" You say 'one side is quick to vilify' and yet you also say 'people who don't abide by my personal morals are selfish, and being selfish is wrong' So I'm not sure if you're admitting that your entire argument is just an attempt to vilify multiple house owners, or what you are trying to say here.

[Almagnus1]

I've been exceedingly civil in all of my posts. I've stuck thoroughly to facts. The people with multiple houses are not breaking the rules. That's my whole point, and my only point.

Your moral rule set applies only to you, that's how morals work. Don't want more than one house? Great, don't buy more than one. But don't say that "well, you might not be breaking the rules, but in my head you are!" You say 'one side is quick to vilify' and yet you also say 'people who don't abide by my personal morals are selfish, and being selfish is wrong' So I'm not sure if you're admitting that your entire argument is just an attempt to vilify multiple house owners, or what you are trying to say here.

You're not who I was referring to.