Housing Ownership Restrictions

[Catstab]

Here's what Castab inserted that showed him to be an incredibly dishonest person: -> *Show's that Catstab added "[I want your house taken away so I can have it]" to Almagnus's statement regarding why having houses taken away is no big deal*

Well that was a pretty low thing to do. Yikes.

Alright, apparently it's time to explain how brackets work. When a quote you use adds to an earlier statement, or responds to a question, it's common to re-add that content paraphrased within brackets so your audience doesn't have to re-read absolutely everything to understand the quote.

Example:
Interviewer: Do you like waffles?
Subject: I do.
Published quote: "I do [like waffles]" - Subject

Here is the text I paraphrased for context.

SE should auto demolish all houses owned by an account except for the one bought first.

Almagnus says her FC tried very hard to move to 'Kurogane' and deserves a reward for their efforts in the form of a house.
Almagnus also says it's not a big deal if current house owners get their houses deleted, because those houses aren't rewards.

I took the last statement of 'the house isn't a reward anyway' and added the context of 'so you should be ok with SE deleting yours so my FC can have it as their reward' which is paraphrased from her previous two statements.

Therefore, what I did was not dishonest, and it was not low. Thank you for your baseless insults. I hope this lesson in middle school reading comprehension has been enlightening.

Anyway, it still stands, Almagnus, that you have directly contradicted your own argument.

You say your FC worked hard and deserves a reward in the form of a house. You also say it would be easier for the homeless players and FCs to get houses if people who have alt-houses lost the houses they worked for. You explain that this is fair because 'houses aren't rewards.'

Houses cannot simultaneously exist as rewards for your FC's effort, but simple 'items, like a chocobo' for other people. This is the part where every point you've made so far fell apart. Why don't you respond to that logical argument, instead of calling me dishonest. Since, put plainly, that is an incorrect assertion.