Can we have an official response on the RMT sub FC farms?

[PaalHenrik]

Except they are. It's not "following the rules", it's exploiting a loophole put in place to prevent a user from being completely locked out of FC plots.

Remember, under Requirements it says plainly:



It is an exploit because you put yourself in a situation that violates the above. It's malicious compliance.

Someone has a law degree from the University of Clueless.

[Jojoya]

Except they are. It's not "following the rules", it's exploiting a loophole put in place to prevent a user from being completely locked out of FC plots.

Remember, under Requirements it says plainly:



It is an exploit because you put yourself in a situation that violates the above. It's malicious compliance.

It's not a loophole. A loophole is something that is not intended but also not addressed by the system's documentation.

Prior to 6.1, this could have been considered a loophole. It was not addressed by the system's documentation nor were there any specific statements from the developers saying it was intended. The closest we got was GMs saying "if the game let's you do it, then it's okay to do" (unless SE later decides to announce they consider it an exploit, like Ungarmax).

As of 6.1, this is specifically addressed by the system's documentation to the point it tells us that if the purchasing character of the FC house leaves that FC, all characters including the one that left are now free to purchase on behalf of other FCs. It is allowed and intended without question now.

We may not like it, but that's the decision SE has made.

Rather than waste effort blaming other players for doing what they are allowed to do, put that effort into helping us convince SE to fix the system.

[Seraphor]

I dunno guys, this graphic seems to illustrate the spirit of the rules quite clearly.



If there's a way of circumventing this by relinquishing FC control to your own alt characters, in a way that alters this image, allowing you to 'own' multiple FC houses on one world with the same service account. That's definitely a loophole.

You can argue their rules aren't robust enough, but the intention is clear.

If there's something that goes against the spirit of the rules, but is not explicitly denied by the rules themselves, that's the definition of a loophole. It's legal, but it shouldn't be.

[Jojoya]

I dunno guys, this graphic seems to illustrate the spirit of the rules quite clearly.



If there's a way of circumventing this by relinquishing FC control to your own alt characters, in a way that alters this image, allowing you to 'own' multiple FC houses on one world with the same service account. That's definitely a loophole.

You can argue their rules aren't robust enough, but the intention is clear.

If there's something that goes against the spirit of the rules, but is not explicitly denied by the rules themselves, that's the definition of a loophole. It's legal, but it shouldn't be.

When it's specifically allowed by the rules, as stated elsewhere on the page that you're not bothering to show, it is not going against the spirit of the rules. It stops being a loophole.

We can dislike it. We can say that it goes against what we think the spirit of the rules should be.

SE clearly disagrees else they wouldn't have added the additional language about how additional houses can be obtained.

[Seraphor]

When it's specifically allowed by the rules, as stated elsewhere on the page that you're not bothering to show, it is not going against the spirit of the rules. It stops being a loophole.

We can dislike it. We can say that it goes against what we think the spirit of the rules should be.

SE clearly disagrees else they wouldn't have added the additional language about how additional houses can be obtained.

What am I not bothering to show?
Do they have a diagram that says you are allowed to own multiple FC's per service account that I'm not seeing?

I thought I explained it quite clearly.
Something that goes against 'the spirit of the law', but not 'the letter of the law', is known as a loophole.
That's what this is.

If you define 'the spirit of the law' as what is allowed by the letter of the law, you have circular logic.

The fact that leaving an FC that you are the leader of somehow avoids this restriction is likely a workaround to prevent cases where people suddenly find themselves in charge of an FC they didn't mean to be, saddled with a house they didn't want to be responsible for, and yet unable to otherwise manage another existing FC house for which they were already in charge of. This is not a simple system, there's so many pitfalls when you have the ability to make multiple characters on multiple worlds each with their own limitations when it comes to housing.
I don't necessarily think there's anything they can do to fix it at this point, and they can't enforce this loophole without negatively impacting other players in these fringe cases, so it's all academic anyway.

[Stormpeaks]

I dunno guys, this graphic seems to illustrate the spirit of the rules quite clearly.



If there's a way of circumventing this by relinquishing FC control to your own alt characters, in a way that alters this image, allowing you to 'own' multiple FC houses on one world with the same service account. That's definitely a loophole.

You can argue their rules aren't robust enough, but the intention is clear.

If there's something that goes against the spirit of the rules, but is not explicitly denied by the rules themselves, that's the definition of a loophole. It's legal, but it shouldn't be.

* If the character leaves the free company that maintains this plot, characters on the account will be able to purchase a new plot.

Player on account A gives his FC to account B on his alt account, leaves the FC, and is able to purchase another house again.

Maybe dont crop the page to only what you want to see.

And it aint a loophole either, it's literally right there for anyone and everyone to use.

[Seraphor]

* If the character leaves the free company that maintains this plot, characters on the account will be able to purchase a new plot.

Player on account A gives his FC to account B on his alt account, leaves the FC, and is able to purchase another house again.

Maybe dont crop the page to only what you want to see.

And it aint a loophole either, it's literally right there for anyone and everyone to use.

I didn't crop the page, I literally pasted the image from the page as it was presented. The page is literally online for all to see, I'm not concealing information here. I'm just not trying to exhaustively paste an entire web page into my tiny forum post.

That is literally a loophole. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.

The spirit of the law says: You can own one private house, and one FC house, per service account per world. Period.
The details of the law that are there to enforce this include a convoluted system that means relinquishing FC control makes things complicated and ultimately provides a workaround for this restriction.
That's a loophole.

A loophole isn't illegal guys, it's a loophole.

Besides, what you've just tired to describe is trading FC's between accounts. That isn't against the spirit of the law. The graphic I posted specifically states Service Account. Are you saying this only works between different accounts? If so, that's clearly not against the spirit of the law. The player is paying for an additional service account.

So I don't know what it is you're not understanding. Is it what a 'Service Account' means? Is it the concepts of 'spirit of the law' and 'letter of the law'? Help me out here.

[Reinha]

The fact that leaving an FC that you are the leader of somehow avoids this restriction is likely a workaround to prevent cases where people suddenly find themselves in charge of an FC they didn't mean to be, saddled with a house they didn't want to be responsible for, and yet unable to otherwise manage another existing FC house for which they were already in charge of.

If you already own a fc with a house and inherit another one on another character, you don't need a workaround to manage both of them. It's always been allowed to inherit an fc. Square Enix specifically made it possible to use the same account to buy a house for multiple fcs. What non-loophole situation was that intended for?

[Seraphor]

If you already own a fc with a house and inherit another one on another character, you don't need a workaround to manage both of them. It's always been allowed to inherit an fc. Square Enix specifically made it possible to use the same account to buy a house for multiple fcs. What non-loophole situation was that intended for?

Ok.
You have two characters on the same account.
One owns an FC, let's call him Clive
The other is a member of another FC, lets call her Barbara.
This is all above board, and intended by the game systems.

Barbara's FC dwindles until there's just two remaining members, then the owner goes AWOL for 40 days and the system automatically swaps leadership to Barbara.
But Barbara already owns an FC house via Clive...
The system has no choice but to give FC ownership to Barbara, despite the fact that this conflicts with the core rule of "One FC house Per World per Service Account", because if it didn't, well the house would delete itself? The FC would vanish? I have no idea.

Meanwhile the previous 'owner' of Barbara's FC is now free to go and create another one and repeat the process.

This is a unintentional scenario in which the player has no choice but to receive ownership of two FC plots on one service account. This is what the loophole exists for.


This is the spirit of the law:


This is the letter of the law:

* If the character leaves the free company that maintains this plot, characters on the account will be able to purchase a new plot.

They conflict, thus it is a loophole.

You don't have to worry guys, you're not going to get in trouble for doing this. That's what makes it a loophole, and not an exploit.
But you can stop doing mental gymnastics trying to convince yourself that it's an intended function.
When everything on the website says "One FC house Per World per Service Account" and yet this is completely invalidated by a clause that allows a Service Account to accrue multiple FC plot ownerships, then there is no way it is intended by design.
It is not "One FC house Per World per Service Account... except if you do some weird things with FC's that aren't intuitively obvious."

[SweetEquity]

Ok.
You have two characters on the same account.
One owns an FC, let's call him Clive
The other is a member of another FC, lets call her Barbara.
This is all above board, and intended by the game systems.

Barbara's FC dwindles until there's just two remaining members, then the owner goes AWOL for 40 days and the system automatically swaps leadership to Barbara.
But Barbara already owns an FC house via Clive...
The system has no choice but to give FC ownership to Barbara, despite the fact that this conflicts with the core rule of "One FC house Per World per Service Account", because if it didn't, well the house would delete itself? The FC would vanish? I have no idea.

Meanwhile the previous 'owner' of Barbara's FC is now free to go and create another one and repeat the process.

This is a unintentional scenario in which the player has no choice but to receive ownership of two FC plots on one service account. This is what the loophole exists for.


This is the spirit of the law:


This is the letter of the law:


They conflict, thus it is a loophole.

You don't have to worry guys, you're not going to get in trouble for doing this. That's what makes it a loophole, and not an exploit.
But you can stop doing mental gymnastics trying to convince yourself that it's an intended function.
When everything on the website says "One FC house Per World per Service Account" and yet this is completely invalidated by a clause that allows a Service Account to accrue multiple FC plot ownerships, then there is no way it is intended by design.
It is not "One FC house Per World per Service Account... except if you do some weird things with FC's that aren't intuitively obvious."

and yet none of this is really understandable in application because it states at the top: "TEMPORARY CHANGES TO PURCHASING LAND" https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../housing_land/

So that was for a day, a week, a month? only for the intro of patch 6.1????