Gil stolen through market board

[TurtlesAWD]

Do you believe the intent of the housing system is to require players to click for upwards of 12 hours in a row in order to be able to buy a house?

[Doozer]

Do you believe the intent of the housing system is to require players to click for upwards of 12 hours in a row in order to be able to buy a house?

Do you think whatever the intent was, people should be allowed to break the ToS because the system may be flawed?

[TurtlesAWD]

Do you think whatever the intent was, people should be allowed to break the ToS because the system may be flawed?

As a separate consideration from housing, if the ToS disallows the use of software which can provide disability accessibility, I am inclined to think that yes, the ToS should in that case be ignored - and the type of software that allows a player to click automatically may be the kind of tool that allows some players, or potential players, the capability to click at all. I'm not sure you could have a tool that is the latter without also being the former. As a consideration for housing, software can be used situationally to bypass some game systems but I'm deeply suspicious that this is different in a relevant, specific capacity than say, taping a button down (itself a form of absentee game automation) or using a wireless mouse from the other side of my house while I watch TV and am not even at the computer. For what reason should a software based method of input be considered under different rules than a hardware based one, if either is used to circumvent a specific system?

I've yet to see a justification for why the use of non-invasive software to circumvent the intended system is different than a physical or manual method of circumventing the intented system - I assume by not answering the question of whether it's intended that players click a house for 12 hours that we are in agreement that it isn't intended, and therefore by doing so a player is circumventing the intended method of house attainment, whatever method they choose to do so.

[MrMagic]

As a consideration for housing, software can be used situationally to bypass some game systems but I'm deeply suspicious that this is different in a relevant, specific capacity than say, taping a button down (itself a form of absentee game automation) or using a wireless mouse from the other side of my house while I watch TV and am not even at the computer. For what reason should a software based method of input be considered under different rules than a hardware based one, if either is used to circumvent a specific system?

Super convenient how none of your examples allow you to just straight up leave the house or go to sleep. Also there are not just the 2 ways to get a house, bot or click for 12 hours. I mean, this keeps being said and you keep glossing over it so I think I’ll leave you to your “difference of opinion”.

[TurtlesAWD]

Super convenient how none of your examples allow you to just straight up leave the house or go to sleep. Also there are not just the 2 ways to get a house, bot or click for 12 hours. I mean, this keeps being said and you keep glossing over it so I think I’ll leave you to your “difference of opinion”.

I could tape a button down and leave the house or go to sleep, and with a wireless mouse I imagine I could leave the house to at least some limited range, which seems pretty obvious with the examples given. And I'm not sure whether I'm inside or outside my house matters for the discussion anyway. How far away from my computer am I allowed to be before a method of automation becomes a cheat?

I'm guessing if I was at my computer staring at my monitor but running an auto clicker for some reason you'd still have a problem with it, so it honestly just kind of seems like you have an attachment to this specific method for some reason that doesn't seem based on any kind of difference or consequence compared to other methods.

[MrMagic]

I'm guessing if I was at my computer staring at my monitor but running an auto clicker for some reason you'd still have a problem with it, so it honestly just kind of seems like you have an attachment to this specific method for some reason that doesn't seem based on any kind of difference or consequence compared to other methods.

Oh yes, because THAT'S how people use these bots including the OP.

I could tape a button down and leave the house or go to sleep, and with a wireless mouse I imagine I could leave the house to at least some limited range, which seems pretty obvious with the examples given. And I'm not sure whether I'm inside or outside my house matters for the discussion anyway. How far away from my computer am I allowed to be before a method of automation becomes a cheat?

You forgot to mention sleep clicking. It's a serious medical problem. I was clearly talking about heading to work etc. but if you want to do gardening with a wireless mouse in one hand, kudos.

[Doozer]

As a separate consideration from housing, if the ToS disallows the use of software which can provide disability accessibility, I am inclined to think that yes, the ToS should in that case be ignored - and the type of software that allows a player to click automatically may be the kind of tool that allows some players, or potential players, the capability to click at all.

Again, stop using people with disabilities as a crutch for your defence of breaking the ToS. It's not what's being discussed, we're referring specifically to people who use third-party tools in order to acquire things in-game without actually playing. Acting like the two are equal is honestly disgusting. Get a different argument.

[TurtlesAWD]

Again, stop using people with disabilities as a crutch for your defence of breaking the ToS. It's not what's being discussed, we're referring specifically to people who use third-party tools in order to acquire things in-game without actually playing. Acting like the two are equal is honestly disgusting. Get a different argument.

If I tape a button down am I actually playing? If I'm clicking a wireless mouse from my living room am I actually playing? What is it about software that removes "play" from the equation in a way that hardware or physical solutions don't?

And no, I won't stop advocating for people with disabilities to be able to play a game even if the ToS excludes it. Such a ruling is probably not even a valid legal defense, many terms of service aren't. This is separate from using it for housing, which I said, but you're consistently bringing it up anyway. People with bodies different than yours and mine should be able to play too. This may require a different, more specialized set of equipment.

That said, it seems like the issue would be using some method to circumvent the system to to have an advantage over other players would be against the spirit of the game, but this can be done with software or hardware. Yet you focus on the software for reasons that are honestly entirely arbitrarily, and rather than elaborate you just point to a set of rules you're already okay with seeing broken as long as the victim is someone else who broke the rules in the first place.

[Doozer]

And no, I won't stop advocating for people with disabilities to be able to play a game even if the ToS excludes it.

Oh that's a clever way to try to turn it around. Claim you're advocating for people instead of using them as a shield or a pawn in your argument. You never advocated for them, you said if someone with disabilities uses a third-party tool to play, then botting or using auto-clickers to buy houses should be allowed.

Again, we are talking about people using software to gain advantaged in-game without playing. A person who has a disability using software or hardware to be able to play at all is not the same thing. Give it up.

People with bodies different than yours and mine should be able to play too.

And you know literally nothing about my body. I'd love to know what system of logic you use to assume I'm able-bodied. Is it because I post on the forums? Because I don't condone cheating? What is it? Don't assume you know what someone's experiences are.

Stop trying to force a narrative where you're some knight in shining armour for the disablied and downtrodden, literally everyone can see what you're actually doing.

[TurtlesAWD]

Oh that's a clever way to try to turn it around. Claim you're advocating for people instead of using them as a shield or a pawn in your argument. You never advocated for them, you said if someone with disabilities uses a third-party tool to play, then botting or using auto-clickers to buy houses should be allowed.

By all means find this quote for me. it's words you claim I said so surely you can observe where I said them. It's clearly a simplication of different semi-related points but don't let that stop you from misrepresenting me.

And you know literally nothing about my body. I'd love to know what system of logic you use to assume I'm able-bodied. Is it because I post on the forums? Because I don't condone cheating? What is it? Don't assume you know what someone's experiences are.

Stop trying to force a narrative where you're some knight in shining armour for the disablied and downtrodden, literally everyone can see what you're actually doing.

There are more than 2 types of bodies so people who are different than you, and also different than me, should be able to play the game. Nothing about you being potentially the same or potentially different than me makes my statement any more or less true.

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry to say it but this is ultimately relevant - it seems many of the posters in this thread hold the position of "rules should be followed because they're the rules and we should all be obedient to authority" and I have to disagree, as I feel that we're not particularly under an obligation to follow bad rules, and you seem to be using some kind of opinion about my statement as a consistent deflection from having to grapple with if it's a bad rule. This isn't a judgement on whether the action taken is bad, or if there should be a rule against it in the abstract, it's a statment about the lack of consistency with which people find themselves willing to apply this rule, and to who, and what the other outcomes of that rule would be.

People point to another player's use of retainers to make some easy gil as a just punishment for a rule the game team describes, yet it seems those that should enforce the game's rules are the game's community team. And yet, it seems that the topic creator's character and account are still active, so... have we considered that the mob interpretation of this rule was incorrect all along? Have we considered that 2 wrongs don't make a right?

It's clear that whether a rule itself is bad or not, there are still ways to make the case that using auto-clickers are circumventing the system, but you seem unwilling to engage with that either, consistently deferring to the first point where you seem to believe I'm not allowed to claim the rule, or this thread's mass interpretation of the rule, is bad based on... I'm not sure what, to be honest.