Time to Restart Housing Demolition

[Kenky]

If Suspension of Auto-Demolition was turned off for every crisis, then it'd never be turned back on. That alone is unfair as you deny new players the houses, on the basis that the only plots becoming vacant would be willing players relinquishing. You can't have that both ways, y'know. How hard is that to grasp? (I am aware I previously pointed out the next-to-zero chance of getting those vacant plots. But now they've fixed the "Drawing Number Zero" so it always goes to SOMEONE)

But hey, at least it's good to know you're part of the "hoarders should be punished" group. The group that has been told several times by SE that they aren't going to touch grandfathered players because they have done nothing wrong.

"You cannot punish those in the Now, for following the rules of the Past."

And no, to be honest. I don't expect anything from you, as I don't know you. Nor do I really intend for that to change. Take that how you will.

[Silverbane]

But hey, at least it's good to know you're part of the "hoarders should be punished" group.

There is no way any rational person could conclude that from anything I've posted.

Here's a tip: when someone humiliates you in the forum by demonstrating that what you've posted is nonsense, give yourself a few minutes to regain your emotional balance before you respond. You might spare yourself further humiliation by doing so.

[Kenky]

There is no way any rational person could conclude that from anything I've posted.

Here's a tip: when someone humiliates you in the forum by demonstrating that what you've posted is nonsense, give yourself a few minutes to regain your emotional balance before you respond. You might spare yourself further humiliation by doing so.

No rational way? Alright, I'll play.

You want Fairness. In all forms, I imagine. That means Hoarders need to lose what they have in order for there to be an even-playing field. Doesn't matter if they were obtained fair and square (Which they were, but people like you don't seem to acknowledge that.) the mere fact that they have more than 1 of the limited items means the hammer MUST come down.

You either want fairness and thus, the hoarders must be dealt with. Or stand with the Hoarders and prove you're a hypocrite. There's your rationale.

Now do you realize why people vouch for Instanced Housing? It gives everyone what they want, while leaving those that have it already un-punished, because punishing the Hoarders would be a dick move, not to mention increasingly stupid for SE to do, given the hoarders pay multiple fees in order to hold their houses. Means they make more money by leaving them alone. A disappointing realization, yet a realization nonetheless.

Listen to your own tip and stop looking in the mirror. You're just becoming pitiful at this point.

[Silverbane]

No rational way? Alright, I'll play.

You want Fairness. In all forms, I imagine. That means Hoarders need to lose what they have in order for there to be an even-playing field.

No, it doesn't. You still don't understand that fairness is about the process, not the result.

But what's so "fair" about taking away houses from people who acquired them fairly under the previous rules?
When SE made some wards FC-only, and some wards personal-only, would it have been fair to take away the personal houses in the newly-designated FC-only wards, or the FC houses in the newly-designated personal-only wards?

What you fail to understand, and perhaps can't understand, it that "fairness" isn't the issue when it comes to grandfathered "hoarders" or houses in the "wrong" wards.
And it's not a contractual issue, either: the TOS is pretty clear that you own nothing in the game.

SE's reputation is the issue, and if they want the reputational upsides and downsides of grandfathering in all houses acquired under the previous rule sets, that's their decision.

Stop pretending you can predict or even guess what I think about something: you clearly lack the necessary education to do so.

[UkcsAlias]

"You cannot punish those in the Now, for following the rules of the Past."

Yet IRL this happens A LOT! How often do social media messages get removed because the platform suddenly decides to change oppinion? People sometimes even get banned for old content. Content that originaly was no issue.

Hoarding houses without any tax might initialy have been fine, but now you might have to pay monthy to the government for that. Yet at that point you didnt do anything wrong. The government still changed it to make the housing market more fair and promote those hoarders to at least make the rent low enough or otherwise they wont generate profit (too high rent and no one will rent, resulting in a loss). The values of tax can even adjust.

Or lets take a bitcoin as an example. Governments have changed the category of its value several times (cash, banked money, stock value), with greatly diffirent numbers of tax attached to them (cash often having 0%).

Or what about a car. Your perfectly fine 30s car is not legal to drive on roads even if it would be in the same quality as it would have been in the 30s. Many parts had to be added in order to make it road legal. Which costs money to apply.

Punishing is a very viable option to do. IRL this happens already. The problem is the scale of punishing though. Instantly taking away 7 houses when someone owns 8 is quite harsh and not realy a good idea. But adding a tax to maintain the 7 extra houses is something that would be perfectly normal IRL (and this scale can be steep). As this will push those players towards either maintaining income, or let those players decide to expire a few of them.

[Kenky]

Yet IRL this happens A LOT! How often do social media messages get removed because the platform suddenly decides to change oppinion? People sometimes even get banned for old content. Content that originaly was no issue.

Hoarding houses without any tax might initialy have been fine, but now you might have to pay monthy to the government for that. Yet at that point you didnt do anything wrong. The government still changed it to make the housing market more fair and promote those hoarders to at least make the rent low enough or otherwise they wont generate profit (too high rent and no one will rent, resulting in a loss). The values of tax can even adjust.

Or lets take a bitcoin as an example. Governments have changed the category of its value several times (cash, banked money, stock value), with greatly diffirent numbers of tax attached to them (cash often having 0%).

Or what about a car. Your perfectly fine 30s car is not legal to drive on roads even if it would be in the same quality as it would have been in the 30s. Many parts had to be added in order to make it road legal. Which costs money to apply.

Punishing is a very viable option to do. IRL this happens already. The problem is the scale of punishing though. Instantly taking away 7 houses when someone owns 8 is quite harsh and not realy a good idea. But adding a tax to maintain the 7 extra houses is something that would be perfectly normal IRL (and this scale can be steep). As this will push those players towards either maintaining income, or let those players decide to expire a few of them.

Social media: Everythings public domain and often politics and "cancel culture" rules that section. While yes, it certainly happens, it really shouldn't.. The statement I made more-so pertained directly to SE, not a general blanket statement. There'll obviously be exceptions.

The only reason that statement works is because SE has said they aren't going to touch them. To go back on their word would cost a lot more than a few subs, I'll wager.

Car: That issue stems mostly from updated rules and regulations about vehicle safety, not really comparable to the hoarding. I can see where the example works, but only barely.

Comparing IRL with Taxes and such to a Game that is meant to be played for FUN first and foremost is.. A risky venture. Adding a "Tax" to the hoarders wouldn't really do much as they (probably, if not definitely) are sitting on quite a large pile of gil. So they could weather it almost indefinitely. Or piss the hoarders off to such an extent SE loses their guaranteed sub money (which isn't much. But it's SE we're talking about..) Sure, you open up the plots for others to use. But SE has lost guaranteed income.

Remember. The Hoarders pay every month and actively show up to keep their houses. To make them give up one of their plots (and risk pissing them off, causing them to leave) and let someone else have it who may leave in a month or two is.. Well, it's a risk that I don't think many companies would go for.