Time to Restart Housing Demolition

[Arohk]

There is always a crisis somewhere on earth, by that logic it can never be turned back on.

[Silverbane]

fairness

noun
1. impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination.
"part of my role is to ensure fairness to all parties"

Gee, your wishes to strip things from people seems to go against that. So what is YOUR version of "Fairness"?

As long as the rules for "stripping" things apply equally to everyone, it's fair.
How hard is that for you to understand?

Fairness is about the process, not the outcome.

SE's deciding to suspend demolition for some bad events, like the Ukraine war, and not for others (e.g, the Uyghur genocide in China, the atrocities being committed in the Sudan, or even California's drugs and homelessness crisis) shows that the suspension of housing reclamation itself is unfair.

That's SE's choice, because they are a for-profit corporation, and unfairness aids their bottom line. But it makes your talk of "fairness" irrelevant.

And need I remind you, this is the Housing Forum. Where most of the threads are either "Punish hoarders for playing by the rules when <insert server here> was almost empty" or "Instanced housing fixes everything". Which leads plenty to believe that, so long as they get a house, they don't really care where it comes from.

Wow, so you're not the only person on the forums who doesn't understand what "fairness" is. Do you expect me to be surprised?

[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.

[Dionysius]

Instanced Housing would fix this

Limiting housing helped with the server population evenly distributed for most. Why take that balance away?

[DatPotato]

Diminishing the actual crisis of a war and saying the game is facing a homelessness crisis.

Hahahahahaha my god

[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.

[Eraden]

Are they? Name three people with FFXIV accounts and an FFXIV house that are currently being prevented from logging on and visiting their house by the war in the Ukraine. I'll wait.

This reminds me of the white "BLM activists" who were trashing Black-owned businesses, assaulting Black police officers, and enacting policies that led to higher crime rates in Black neighborhoods.

We need a term for this use by "activists" of other people's tragedies to advance the activists' personal agenda -- an agenda that the real victims may either not give a damn about or even be opposed to. "Victimhood appropriation" perhaps?

It's not "empathy," it's exploitation, and it should disgust us all.

You completely ignored the second part of my post. The part where I said that houses freed up by turning demolition back on, would be a negligible input compared to the total demand. I would like to repeat once more, just in case you had accidentally missed that second part, the only way to fix this problem and make adequate housing available to all players is to make a LOT more wards or better apartments or instanced houses or some combination of the three. There is no other way of solving this issue so that all players get a house. Pinning hopes on the smattering of houses that would be freed up by turning demolition back on, is a fool's game at best.

[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.

[Silverbane]

You completely ignored the second part of my post. The part where I said that houses freed up by turning demolition back on, would be a negligible input compared to the total demand.

That's because a previous post on that subject, by another poster, which post showed the number of houses reclaimed the last time housing reclamation was turned back on, proves you wrong.

It's a post dominated by a big picture showing the number of houses demolished on each world, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find.