Gil stolen through market board

[TurtlesAWD]

Disabled People Do Not Exist For, Nor Are, Arguments To Be Made.

I really don't know what you mean by this, I'm not sure what you believe my argument is that this is being relied on as an excuse.

This is literally a "this is why we can't have nice things" situation. If enough people abuse something it's going to get removed, which is sad because sometimes that thing brought aid and/or joy to others without abusing it.

Yeah that's generally my point is I don't think it should, rather, design that prevents one-input methods, or incentives to use one-input methods for hours on end would ideally be changed instead.

[Kes13a]

Turtles, I am not sure why

but many people have pointed out the difference between using software for CHEATING

and software for accessibility.

the only conclusion to be drawn is that you are unwilling, or unable to see the difference. be that as it may, I have better things to waste my time on, and you dont even make the radar.

[TurtlesAWD]

Turtles, I am not sure why

but many people have pointed out the difference between using software for CHEATING

and software for accessibility.

the only conclusion to be drawn is that you are unwilling, or unable to see the difference. be that as it may, I have better things to waste my time on, and you dont even make the radar.

The rule as written and as quoted here prevents both, at least if we believe this thread's interpretation of that rule. Anyway bye, have a good time!

[MilkieTea]

The rule as written and as quoted here prevents both. Anyway bye, have a good time!

Gee, it's almost as though you have, in bad faith, deigned my response to this as little more than a fly buzzing in your ear.

And yet you wonder why there are people in here who believe you're arguing in bad faith.

You may not create or use any unauthorized cheats, bots, automation software, hacks, mods or any other unauthorized software or hardware designed to modify the Game and gameplay.

An autoclicker used to run a game in the background while you go about your life, would fall under this, as while it does not modify the game, it modifies the gameplay.

An accessibility software utilized by a person(s) with a disability would NOT fall under said category as it does not, nor is it designed to modify the game NOR is it designed to modify the gameplay. It is instead designed to assist a user in accomplishing TYPICAL gameplay which they otherwise would be wholly restricted from doing so.

TYPICAL gameplay does not include setting it to run in the background.

[Penthea]

Yeah that's genereally my point is I don't think it should, rather, design that prevents one-input methods, or incentives to use one-input methods for hours on end would ideally be changed instead.

The fact is disabled people are a minority and not all disabled people face the same challenges. I mentioned before I have mobility issues in my hands so it does affect my experience in the game, but someone else with a totally different disability may experience difficulty with stairs but none when playing games. So disabled people are a minority and those whose disability directly affects their ability to game is an even smaller minority than that.

Devs try to target the majority because that's how you ensure your product is a good experience for as many people as possible. If something only a tiny fraction of players would use for accessibility could be easily abused by able bodied people...then I can see why that something would get banned if it gets widely abused. Even though I'm disabled I understand that the health of the overall game matters more than the experience of an exceptionally tiny group.

But honestly all this does is highlight how exceptionally flawed the housing system is. It's so difficult to get a house that it's common for players to cheat because the process of getting one is lengthy, laborious, demoralising and frustrating...and your chances of success are extremely low. Even when you use an autoclicker your chances are low, they are merely increased. Especially if you're not the only autoclicker around.

This debate shouldn't be about what is or isn't accessibility or anything like that. It should be "why do SE continue to allow a system that heavily encourages cheating to exist?".

[MrMagic]

The rule as written and as quoted here prevents both, at least if we believe this thread's interpretation of that rule. Anyway bye, have a good time!

Say we do allow bots to buy our houses for you and even go so far as to port them over to the console. Now everyone has access to them and it becomes well known that you can use a bot every time you go to sleep or go to work.

Now we have 100-200 campers per plot all vying for a slim chance of obtaining that plot in 12 hours. How is this any different from a lottery system which has been heavily dismissed due to RMT bots? The RMT bots would be undetectable from legitimate players so they would have many more of them. Then everyone will go back to complaining about the 50 million Gil small houses they have to buy from RMTs

SE has a history of not implementing beneficial systems for the player which can be heavily abused by bots. so would any game developer for that matter.

It's clear you only want people with disabilities to use the bots as an accessibility tool. Are you proposing a disability check or just blind hope that the players who aren't disabled don't use them?

I think that you live in a fantasy world that is not FFXIV.

[TurtlesAWD]

Gee, it's almost as though you have, in bad faith, deigned my response to this as little more than a fly buzzing in your ear.

And yet you wonder why there are people in here who believe you're arguing in bad faith.

I feel like I addressed this by giving examples of how a tool that's robust enough to provide accessibility can often be turned towards gameplay modification or automation, while saying that I don't feel like that's a good reason to limit or disallow accessibility software - and I think I'm correct in saying that other people in this thread have been assuming that clause in the ToS applies across the board. Just look at MrMagic's last post as he continues to disappoint. Well, post before last, as he posted while I was writing this apparently.

[Arillyn]

I don't know why you guys are still arguing with this person. Reading all the posts (I've had popcorn while doing it!), it's pretty clear they are arguing in bad faith, are doing mental gymnastics to justify cheating, they are a troll or they just like arguing for the sake of arguing (which I guess could be a form of being a troll?).

[Mavrias]

As it happens, I'd say what I generally want to do is play the game and interact with other people fairly and equitably. I mostly trust myself to do this. I imagine a ToS will generally line up with that and can likewise be mostly trusted to represent a fair set of agreements for people to abide by. But let's not pretend these are commandments handed down from god, or moral absolutes argued from first principles, or that unpredicted cases can't arise - and let's not pretend like this thread's decision on what the ToS says is the correct interpretation as a consequence of this thread being in agreement with itself. If there was a subset of players who required a tool excluded by definition due to a disability, that would be better if it were changed - or ignored because the needs of players in that case outweigh the value in obedience to a rule which would consequently exclude them from normal play.





These things are the same to me - systemic circumvention with the same gameplay impact for the user and for other players. Ideally neither would occur. One isn't more worthy of punishment by virtue of being more persistent - get a wireless mouse and click while you piss, no one is stopping you.



Uh yeah dude that wasn't me and this never happened. Are you okay? Who do you believe made this thread?

have you never heard of the royal you, chief? or do you just assume every comment in this thread is a personal attack on you specifically?

[MilkieTea]

I feel like I addressed this by giving examples of how a tool that's robust enough to provide accessibility can often be turned towards gameplay modification or automation, while saying that I don't feel like that's a good reason to limit or disallow accessibility software - and I think I'm correct in saying that other people in this thread have been assuming that clause in the ToS applies across the board. Just look at MrMagic's last post as he continues to disappoint. Well, post before last, as he posted while I was writing this apparently.

ToS is still clear on this. Crystal clear on this. And even if not, as stated before, the Devs have outright said they will not ban those using tools to facilitate NORMAL gameplay.

Regardless of how you personally feel, this matter is not up for debate AT ALL. And I've no idea why you brought this matter up in a thread about someone who CLEARLY was using automated gameplay mechanics, not assistive gameplay mechanics.

Anyways, I'm going to write you off as, similarly to what Arillyn said, either a troll, arguing in bad faith, or simply trying to reach at length to justify cheating. At this point, it's clear that you really, really don't believe what you're saying.