1 House 1 FC per DC Only

[Nepentha]

I mean considering the fact that I've not changed in position as Jojoya implied, it would be strange to call it gaslighting. I do wonder what it's called, however, when someone fabricates a narrative. I look forward to the examples you have in store for me, I'm sure you just forgot to include them this time.

Dude, don't be disingenuous. We saw the posts you originally made, complete with links and screenshots. And then they were gone, removed. I guess that works in your favor eh?

[PaalHenrik]

Dude, don't be disingenuous. We saw the posts you originally made, complete with links and screenshots. And then they were gone, removed. I guess that works in your favor eh?

Don't forget about the one that was locked by a mod. He thinks it's a victory.

[Themarvin]

Suggested as above, 1 house 1 FC ONLY per account per DC.

EDIT as raised questions:

You can only OWN one FC house per DC and 1 Private house on the DC you are on.

It would not restrict your alts being members of other FC's and even the one you own and run.


Also this would be the best time to add in these restrictions RIGHT now, or in the close close future as new servers is just around the corner, and people from other serves will make alts... funnel coin to them... buy more houses and FC's, so enough said.

You can't disagree with this suggestion either, not due to the lack of housing, as it would make no sense at all.

Ok to point out this is all what is is about and the post was made before, if I remember correct, Ishgaard housing being an option.

No idea why the fuss about everything else and small private wars @.@

[Themarvin]

I mean considering the fact that I've not changed in position as Jojoya implied, it would be strange to call it gaslighting. I do wonder what it's called, however, when someone fabricates a narrative. I look forward to the examples you have in store for me, I'm sure you just forgot to include them this time.

Please make your own thread to troll in or whatever -_-

[ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain]

I mean considering the fact that I've not changed in position as Jojoya implied, it would be strange to call it gaslighting. I do wonder what it's called, however, when someone fabricates a narrative. I look forward to the examples you have in store for me, I'm sure you just forgot to include them this time.

Always a smart mouth, but never a smart reply.

Let's analyze what you did and help add the clarity that gets lost in posts that multi-quote with no actual substance other than to create confusion and attempt to appear sophisticated and confident to passing readers:

What you did:

You took a line from the Additional Plots and Purchasing Guide that states a conditional, not a rule, about a quantity of housing.


(Image from referenced post.)

You then picked and immediately followed up with a line from the actual FFXIV Terms of Service. Your goal here was to present them in a manner that gives it the appearance and feel of being an official rule in the Terms of Service.

With this you presented your argument saying multi-ownership involves circumvention and violates section 2.1 Cheating and Botting.

This was deliberately to mislead, misrepresent, and deceive people into believing the two excerpts to be of equal impact and to validate your stance on tying multi-ownership to circumvention of rules, therefore making it possible to argue that these actions are susceptible to consequence and enforcement detailed under 2.1 Cheating and Botting in the Terms of Service.

This is the very definition of GASLIGHTING.

No gratuitous amount forum styling or toxic posting required.

You are threatened by text styling because it does it's job to show people what kind of fraud you are. It is already a known fact that general users may struggle with reading whether it be the placard, the housing agreement pre-bidding, or even forum posts. You know full well of that fact and intend to take advantage of it to push your misinformation campaign.

Let us point out that up until this point, you have continually failed to produce any justification, connection, or evidence between the nature of how people acquire their plots and how it is justifiably a violation of the Terms of Service or any policy officially stated and detailed as a stance on housing by Square Enix.

[ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain]

Yes. First, it's not an argument it's a statement of fact. Second, and in this context, both must be observed as we are dealing with an exploit, which is, as the TOS puts it "taking advantage game system[s]".

To put it simply, a requirement is laid out in how a game system ought to work; in this case the FC purchase and ownership. Strictly from the Requirements, in plain language it limits 1 Service Account, on 1 World to 1 FC plot. Circumventing this with a temporary stop-gap can and is considered an exploit as it is taking advantage of a loophole for a purpose not intended.

So let us turn our attention to this part now.

Language is important.

But for you, it's clearly only about convenience and hot buzzwords.

From the Additional Plots and Housing Guide first:



This is a conditional statement notifying players what qualifies them to make their first purchase. Notice it does not say or follow up with "You cannot" or "You should not" or "You must not".



This is a follow up statement to the above conditional informing players who exceed this amount before or after 4.2 that no consequences exist. Including "housing above this limit" acknowledes players own more than one. Otherwise a specific quantity of "one" would have been designated in the language. As such, there is clearly no plan to enforce on the quantity.

Lastly and most importantly, these are not noted, referenced to, or connected to the Terms of Service in any way throughout the entire guide.

Now back to language importance. Let's take this section from the Terms of Service you personally seem to love:



This is a statement from the Terms of Service. Notice how it specifically states "You may not" and clearly sets a definition for what is considered a violation. Now, let's also note the important blob of text that precedes it, because again language is important.



There is proper language that specifically states all things listed in Section 2 and within those criteria are enforceable at the disgression
of Square Enix. However, notice that none of the 8 subsections include housing. It can only mean that Square Enix currently does not acknowledge housing and related activities to fall under actionable violations. This only further reinforces that the Additional Plots and Housing Guide serves as an informative source for players and nothing more.

So to recap, a fact you say? Wrong.

You are wishing so hard for a conditional statement to grow up into the law of the land. Sorry Pinocchio, but that's not how logic and language works when you pay attention.

[CatStarwind]

Dude, don't be disingenuous. We saw the posts you originally made, complete with links and screenshots. And then they were gone, removed. I guess that works in your favor eh?

How very convenient for you then. The thread was judged to be in violation to the forum rules and it was removed. While I disagree with the reason, I accept that it was against the rules. It's honestly not that hard to do so, I highly recommend it.

Don't forget about the one that was locked by a mod. He thinks it's a victory.

I mean, did you not read the title of that thread?

[CatStarwind]

You took a line from the Additional Plots and Purchasing Guide that states a conditional, not a rule, about a quantity of housing.

It's a requirement, not a conditional. Broadly speaking requirements can be considered rules.

Your goal here was to present them in a manner that gives it the appearance and feel of being an official rule in the Terms of Service.

The goal was to demonstrate that taking advantages of exploits is against TOS. The connection is that abusing the current loophole is an exploit of the intended requirements.

You are threatened by text styling because it does it's job to show people what kind of fraud you are.

I just think it's gaudy. Like a speaker being loud and bombastic in an attempt to cover a vacuous speech.

Let us point out that up until this point, you have continually failed to produce any justification, connection, or evidence between the nature of how people acquire their plots and how it is justifiably a violation of the Terms of Service or any policy officially stated and detailed as a stance on housing by Square Enix.

I mean, I have and still do. That this discussion persist is evidence of that. What's that about gaslighting again?

This is a conditional statement notifying players what qualifies them to make their first purchase. Notice it does not say or follow up with "You cannot" or "You should not" or "You must not".

Nope, but the heading of that section (which is conveniently omitted) does clearly state "Requirements".

This is a follow up statement to the above conditional informing players who exceed this amount before or after 4.2 that no consequences exist. Including "housing above this limit" acknowledes players own more than one. Otherwise a specific quantity of "one" would have been designated in the language. As such, there is clearly no plan to enforce on the quantity.

That's quite a stretch here.

[CatStarwind]

However, notice that none of the 8 subsections include housing. It can only mean that Square Enix currently does not acknowledge housing and related activities to fall under actionable violations. This only further reinforces that the Additional Plots and Housing Guide serves as an informative source for players and nothing more.

I mean, nothing in the TOS include high-level raiding either but _UNAMED were still dinged for it. It neither includes placing exterior housing items in a malicious way but that's still actionable as well. I am honestly at a loss here as to your infatuation with the TOS both being irrelevant and crucial to the discussion. It's not that complicated, the TOS just shows that abusing exploits such as loopholes is not allowed. If you really were genuine in the discussion you would be arguing on whether or not the loophole constitutes as an exploit, as others have in the past.

I will say however the styling does much to pad out the character count which is a bit of an annoyance.

[Nepentha]

How very convenient for you then. The thread was judged to be in violation to the forum rules and it was removed. While I disagree with the reason, I accept that it was against the rules. It's honestly not that hard to do so, I highly recommend it.

I've never had one thread removed for violating the forum rules, let alone two.